Background of the problem

Some inactive landslides had been recently re-activated in a study area.

Open Questions
Of the remaining inactive landslides, which ones are likely be re-activated near future? In answering the question using spatial modeling, should we use the active landslides only or both groups of active and inactive ones? Why?

Answering these questions is the target of this contribution Illustrated by using the Bonn Case Study, Germany and Fuzzy Set Model, a typical spatial prediction model.
1
Chung C.-J.. & Glade T. (2004): Use of Active and Inactive Landslides for Spatial Landslide Hazard Modeling.- Presentation given at the EGU conference in Nice, April 2004

Bonn Case Study, Germany

23 active landslides 1983 pixels 45 inactive landslides 4064 pixels 23 active landslides are reactivated landslides Bedrock geology DEM consisting of Slope angles, Elevations, and Aspects angles 10m x 10m pixels 1,074,440 pixels in study area (107 square km)

Chung C.-J.. & Glade T. (2004): Use of Active and Inactive Landslides for Spatial Landslide Hazard Modeling.- Presentation given at the EGU conference in Nice, April 2004

Landslide distributions
23 active landslides scars, 1983 pixels 45 inactive landslides scars, 4064 pixels Bedrock geology map DEM consisting of Slope angles, Elevations, and Aspects angles 10m x 10m pixels 1328 pixels x 1298 lines 1,074,440 pixels in study area (107 square km) Non-landslide area 1,068,393 pixels

Chung C.-J.. & Glade T. (2004): Use of Active and Inactive Landslides for Spatial Landslide Hazard Modeling.- Presentation given at the EGU conference in Nice, April 2004

Slope angles, a topographical characterization

Empirical distribution functions (histograms) of slope angles:
1. 2. 3. 4. 23 active landslides (1983 pixels) Red curve 45 inactive landslides (4064 pixels) Blue curve All 68 landslides (6047 pixels) Green curve Remaining area (1,068,393 pixels) black curve
Emprical frequency distribution functions of slope angles
0.008

Normalised frequency

0.006

Inactive landslides Active landslides All landslides

0.004

Non-landslide area

0.002

0.000 0 10 20 Slope angle in degree 30 40

Elevation, a topographical characterization

Empirical distribution functions (histograms) of elevation:
1. 2. 3. 4. 23 active landslides (1983 pixels) Red curve 45 inactive landslides (4064 pixels) Blue curve All 68 landslides (6047 pixels) Green curve Remaining area (1,068,393 pixels) black curve
Emprical frequency distribution functions of elevations 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.000 0 50 100 150 Elevation in m 200 250 300

Inactive landslides Active landslides All landslides Non-landslide area

Bedrock Geology, a geological characterization

Empirical distribution functions (histograms) of elevation:
1. 2. 3. 4. 23 active landslides (1983 pixels) Red bars 45 inactive landslides (4064 pixels) Blue bars All 68 landslides (6047 pixels) Green bars Remaining area (1,068,393 pixels) black bars

Normalised frequency

0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33
Bedrock types

Normalized frequency

Active landslides Inactive landslides All landslides Non-landslide area

35

Prediction 23 active

75%

50%

20 - 25% 10 - 15% 2,5 - 5% Top 1%

107,444 km2
Chung C-JF & Glade T (2004) Use of active and inactive landslides for spatial landslide hazard 7modelling.- In: EGU, 26.-30 April 2004, Nizza, France

1,0% 1,07 km2 2,5% 6,80 km2

Prediction 45 inactive
75%

50%

20 - 25% 10 - 15% 2,5 - 5% Top 1%

107,444 km2
1,0% 1,07 km2 2,5% 2,68 km2
8Chung & Glade (2004)

SCENARIO:
Susceptibility map calculated with active landslides and combined with locations of currently inactive landslides

Inactive landslides WITHOUT expected reactivation

30.0-60.0%

A Inactive A landslides with PARTIALLY expected reactivation

9 Chung & Glade (2004)

20.0-25.0% 5.0-10.0% Top 1% area

B B

Resolution of data sets example DHM

1m 5m 10m

20m

50m

100m

10

Concluding remarks
Of 45 inactive landslides, 37 expected to re-activate. Two (in pink circles) expected to partially re-activated, while only six landslides (in black circles) NOT expected to re-activate. Active landslides help identifying which ones will re-activate. Fuzzy sets are valuable tools however experiments with logistic discriminant analysis and likelihood ratio models provide similar results

11

Chung C.-J.. & Glade T. (2004): Use of Active and Inactive Landslides for Spatial Landslide Hazard Modeling.- Presentation given at the EGU conference in Nice, April 2004

Example of the Swabian Alb, Germany - a contrast: the geometrical approach

12

Example of the Swabian Alb, Germany

13

Example of the Swabian Alb, Germany

Preliminary results of the InterRISK project Local and regional landslide risk analysis Aims of the study
Geomorphological and soil mechanical investigation of a single landslide Measurement and modeling of recent kinematics Analysis of climatic thresholds Natural hazard modeling Risk analysis (R = H x E x V) Coupling of local and regional results => upscaling Validation of regional results using statistical methods and historical data Integrative risk management

14

Study areas
Regional: ca. 2000 km Regional 2: ca. 400km Local: Mssingen schingen (1) Lichtenstein Unterhausen (2) Irrenberg (3) (planned)

15

Preliminary results: local scale Mssingen-schingen

rotational and translational slides various ages and magnitudes

16

Preliminary results: local scale Mssingen-schingen

17

Investigation
Plateau schingen linear structures linear arranged small dolines => linear network of fissures?

Oes 3 Oes 2

Oes 1

18

Scenarios of complex landslide evolution

1.5 Mio m

19

Evolution of a complex landslide

5 Mio m

17 Mio. m

20

10

DEM, Source: Kreja, R., Uni Tbingen

21

DOP, Source: Landesvermessungsamt Baden-Wrttemberg (www.lv-bw.de), AZ.: 2851.9-1/11

Common limitation of landslide hazard assessments

No information on potential landslide volume

One solution: Sloping Local Base Level (SLBL)

Assumptions All undercut slopes are unstable on a longterm scale These slopes can be detected from a DTM by the SLBL

22

11

Sloping Local Base Level (SLBL)

Iterative routine Lowers each point of the DTM located above the average altitude of two opposite points among its four direct neighbours until convergence is reached (Jaboyedoff et al. 2004, 2005)

23

Study area schingen

DOP, Source: Landesvermessungsamt Baden-Wrttemberg (www.lv-bw.de), AZ.: 2851.9-1/11 0 24 400m

12

Study area schingen

5m DEM

Source: Kreja, R., Uni 25 Tbingen

Sliding of whole spur

Legend
landslide thickness (m)
>1 - 10 >10 - 20 >20 - 30 >30 - 40 >40 - 50 >50 - 60 >60 - 70

Profile

SLBL profile spur

1000 900

>70 - 80 >80 - 100

Height (m)

800 700 600 500 400 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
DOP, Source: Landesvermessungsamt Baden-Wrttemberg (www.lv-bw.de), AZ.: 2851.9-1/11
P1_slbl P1_orig

Length (m)

26

13

Sliding of spur front

Legend
landslide thickness (m)
>1 - 10 >10 - 20 >20 - 30

Profile

>30 - 40 >40 - 50 >50 - 60 >60 - 70 >70 - 80 >80 - 100

SLBL profile spur front

1000 900
Height (m)

800 700 600 500 400 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
DOP, Source: Landesvermessungsamt Baden-Wrttemberg (www.lv-bw.de), AZ.: 2851.9-1/11
P1_slbl P1_orig

27

Length (m)

Sliding of lowest landslide block

Legend
landslide thickness (m)
>1 - 10 >10 - 20

Profile

>20 - 30 >30 - 40 >40 - 50 >50 - 60 >60 - 70 >70 - 80

SLBL profile lowest landslide block

1000 900

>80 - 100

Height (m)

800 700 600 500 400 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
P2_slbl P2_orig

28

Length (m)

DOP, Source: Landesvermessungsamt Baden-Wrttemberg (www.lv-bw.de), AZ.: 2851.9-1/11

14

Volume estimation
Legend
landslide thickness (m)
>1 - 10 >10 - 20 >20 - 30 >30 - 40 >40 - 50 >50 - 60 >60 - 70 >70 - 80 >80 - 100

whole spur

17 Mio. m

spur front lowest landslide block

DOP, Source: Landesvermessungsamt Baden-Wrttemberg 29 (www.lv-bw.de), AZ.: 2851.9-1/11

5 Mio. m 1.5 Mio. m

Applied Methods for validation

30

15

31

Validation of SLBL results

2D-resistivity

Sass, Bell & Glade (submitted)

32

16

Spatial distribution of landslides trigger????

33

Logistic Regression
Geomorphometry 50m (Height, slope, aspect) Geology Soils Landslide locations (Uni Tbingen)

Classification 1

Classification 2

34

17

SLBL at regional scale

35

36

Land use data provided by Blchl & Braun, InterRISK Assess

18

Spatial distribution of landslides Rainfall????

37

Conclusion
First results of the SLBL are very promissing The shear plane for different landslide scenarios can be modelled in 3D SLBL can reliably estimate potential landslide volume SLBL can be applied at local and regional scale Integration of lanslide volume in local and regional landslide hazard assessment will lead to significant improvements

38

19

Use of landslide risk maps in landuse planning and restrictive zoning

PD Dr. Thomas Glade

thomas.glade@uni-bonn.de

39

Risk assessment & management (1/3)

T rig g e rin g fa c to rs P re p a ra to ry fa c to rs L a n d s lid e in v e n to ry

P ro b a b ility o f la n d s lid in g

R unout b e h a v io r

Land use

H a z a rd assessm ent

E le m e n ts a t ris k

V u ln e ra b ility assessm ent

R is k assessm ent

R is k m anagem ent
40

C o s t-b e n e fit a n a ly s is

Dai et al. (2002)

20

Lecture Overview
Risk management Risk management and spatial planning Risk assessment
protection objects Acceptable and tolerable risk

Risk treatment options

Strategies for risk reduction Efficiency of mitigation measures

41

Contribution of spatial planning to risk management strategies Natural hazards in land use plans Some preliminary findings of ARMONIA on spatial planning & risk

.... Everything a question of management?

Riskperception Riskevaluation Riskmanagement

Cartoon: Sidney Harris

42

Weichselgartner J (2003): Risiken im Naturrisikomanagement: Herausforderungen einer politikrelevanten Naturgefahrenforschung.- 54. Deutscher Geographentag Bern, FS 11 'Katastrophenvorsorge als Thema der Hazard- und Risikoforschung'

21

Definitions of risk management

Application of measures and methods to achieve the targeted security and to adapt security planning to changing circumstances. Risk management comprehends risk control and risk communication.
(BUWAL, 1999)

The process of weighting policy alternatives in the light of the results of risk assessment and, if required, selecting and implementing appropriate control options, including regulatory measures.
(FAO, 1997)

43

Risk management development

Risks used to be treated technically (Greiving, 2002)
Focusing on defence of risks
E.g. disaster management originated during the cold war (planning for nuclear war/bomb shelters) (Pearce, 2003)

Influence on probability of events influence on damage potential

Sustainable Development => greater focus on prevention

Shift of paradigm towards risk and disaster management
Spatial planning as an important actor

Partly due to technical and economical limitations of defence of risks (Greiving, 2002)

44

22

Shift in management strategies

Salter, 1998 in Pierce, 2002

45

Risk management & spatial planning

46

23

Risk management & spatial planning

Natural disasters are typical examples of people living in conflict with the environment The vulnerability of populated areas to natural disaster is partly a consequence of decades of spatial planning policies that have failed to take account of hazards and risks in land use zoning and development decisions Spatial planning as one important actor plays an important role for the prevention of natural hazards by:
Selecting the areas most suitable for further urban development Restricting future development in areas at risk
(Greiving, 2005)
47

Risk management & spatial planning

There is a need to develop a more effective methodology to incorporate:
Natural hazard assessment and disaster reduction into spatial planning Knowledge, technology and actors in the field of risk assessment and land use zoning
(Greiving, 2005)

48

24

What is safe?
Before risk is managed, risk needs to be assessed
Definition of protection objects Definition of acceptable and tolerable risk
acceptable risk of a single individual acceptable risk of the whole population acceptable risk of objects

Residual Risk!!!!!

49

Giovanni Crosta

Protection objectives & planning

Utilisation

Hazard

Correction of goal of protection/ utilisation

Protection objectives

No

Lack of protection

Sufficient protection

Protection of actual state

Action planning

Actions technically, economically & ecologically proportional ?

Adapted from KAWA, TBA & AGR, 1999

Yes

Implementation of action & emergency plans

50

25

Acceptable and tolerable risk

Who defines acceptable risk level?
Differs from country to country, region to region, Formation of opinion in socio-political discourse

51

Acceptable and tolerable risk

52

26

Risk treatment options

Accept the risk Avoid the risk Reduce the likelihood Reduce the consequences Monitoring and warning systems Transfer the risk Postpone the decision

53

Strategies for risk reduction

1. Increasing of social acceptable threshold risk 2. Mitigation of risk through structural action to hazard reduction 3. Mitigation of risk through non structural action to potential damage reduction The total risk evaluation, (in terms expected annual cost of damage), permits to choose through different mitigations strategies with cost-benefit analysis. By every single cost of each action, a benefit in terms of risk reduction should be associated, expressed by the reduction of annual cost of landslide damage.
54

ARMONIA Project report, 2005

27

Increasing of social acceptable threshold risk (1/2)

It is very seldom that local governments attempt to educate the public to the hazards that threaten them
(Aguirre, 1994)

But: (Drabek, 1986)

Surveys indicate that the public would welcome such efforts Relationship between the degree to which communities accept disaster management planning and to the degree to which they experience disasters

55

Increasing of social acceptable threshold risk (2/2)

Instruments for awareness campaigns: use of mass media communication diffusion of informative brochures that describe the kind of risk and the behavior to assume in case of alarm and emergency assemblies and meetings with administrations and stakeholders installation of hazard signage stipulation of insurance for damage coverage
ARMONIA Project report, 2005

56

28

Mitigation of risk through structural action to hazard reduction

Reduction of the triggering factors
Land use reclamations and hydrological and geological environmental restoration work rationalisation of land use and agricultural activities

Direct intervention on active landslides in order to prevent remobilisation and control the evolution
Stabilisation works designed to reduce the mobilisation forces (slope re-profiling, detachment of unstable blocks) or increase resistant forces (i.e. drainage, chemical and physical treatment, concrete injection, walls, nails, anchors, bolts, piling)

=> Usually of high costs

57

ARMONIA Project report, 2005

Mitigation of risk through non structural action to potential damage reduction

Reduction of the potential damage
Acting on elements at risk and vulnerability
Delocalisation of EE Limitation of urban expansion Land use definition of unstable areas Implementation of technical measures or restrains

More flexible than structural measures ARMONIA Project report, 2005 => Usually lower costs

58

29

Efficiency of mitigation measures (1/2)

Usually done in cost-benefit analysis Efficiency = benefit Evaluation of protection objects and acceptable risk Definition of maximal costs for risk reduction (depending on the element at risk)
(Hollenstein, Merz, Bhler, 2004)

cos t

59

Efficiency of mitigation measures (2/2)

Example (Adapted from BUWAL, 1999): If a landslide hits a road it will cause 0.05 deaths/year Through geotechnical measures the risk will be reduced to 0.01 deaths/year
Cost for the measures: 5 million US$ Expected durability: 50 years

=> yearly cost of measures: 100.000 US$ (w/o discounting) => Risk reduction costs = Costs for measures/risk reduction
risk reduction cos t = 100.000 = 2.500.000 per saved life (0.050.01)*saved life

Proportional or not ?
60

30

Non-landslide specific contribution of spatial planning to risk management

61

Possibilities to present natural hazards in land use plans

EPSON Hazards project report, 2006

62

31

Landslides
Damages following the event on 2-6 November 1994 in the Piemonte Region, Northwest Italy

Photographs: Regione Piemonte, 1998

Photographs: Casale & Margottini eds., 1996

63

Some preliminary findings of ARMONIA on spatial planning & risk

Spatial planning is not responsible for undertaking risk assessment, but makes use of the results provided by sectoral planning. However, the relevance of risk assessment for spatial planning has to be readjusted again: Spatial planning normally needs only hazard information; risk and vulnerability are only important in a few extreme situations (e.g. where relocation of existing development is being considered).

Greiving, 2005
64

32

Some preliminary findings of ARMONIA on spatial planning & risk

For risk management (non-structural mitigation activities), only the vulnerability of the different objects to be protected is, in general, of relevance (e. g. the different type of land-uses or the different types of buildings). In contrast, structural mitigation and emergency planning need information about the existing vulnerability. This information has to be seen as a basis for the analysis of costs and benefits of given alternatives or evacuation plans.
Greiving, 2005
65

Some preliminary findings of ARMONIA on spatial planning & risk

In consequence, the further scientific work should concentrate on the optimisation and harmonisation of hazard assessment, which is principally needed for the daily, routine practice of spatial planning. For extreme situations of high hazard and likelihood where the relation of existing population and development is being considered; further work should make use of an existing multi-risk approach which can be adopted for spatial planning. Here, the need to agree on a common definition of vulnerability has to be seen as crucial.
Greiving, 2005
66

33

Some preliminary findings of ARMONIA on spatial planning & risk

Spatial scales: Hazard information is needed on two different scales: a regional and a local one. In consequence, there is only a need for two harmonised legends. Multi-risk approach: There is no real need to create multi-risk indicators or indices from a spatial planning point of view. It is more important that all relevant hazards are really considered in spatial planning practice. Multi-hazard approach: Most of the examples have shown that relative hazard scales are a possibility to create integrated multi-hazard information.
67

Greiving, 2005

Some preliminary findings of ARMONIA on spatial planning & risk

Information management: It is highly important that existing information is accessible and that information flows are managed. Indicators: the most important indicator for spatial planning is the extent of the hazard; further, the occurrence is important; for some planning designations, indicators about hazard intensities (water depth, water speed etc.) are important

Greiving, 2005
68

34

Some preliminary findings of ARMONIA on spatial planning & risk

Addressees: Sectoral planning has to be seen as the direct addressee of the forthcoming Directive whereas spatial planning can be characterised as one of several end-users which have to take into account the provided hazard information.

Greiving, 2005
69

Current European situation

70

35

References
Aguirre B. 1994: Planning, Warning, Evacuation, and search and rescue: A review of the social science research literature. Texas A & M University, 46 pp. ARMONIA Project report 2005: Collection and evaluation of current methodologies for risk map production - Task 2.3: Collection and evaluation of current methodologies for landslides. 88pp. Bundesamt fr Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft 1999: Risikoanalyse bei gravitativen Naturgefahren - Fallbeispiele und Daten. In: UmweltMaterialien Nr. 107/II Naturgefahren. Bern, 129 pp. Dai, F.C., Lee, C.F. and Ngai, Y.Y. 2002: Landslide risk assessment and management: an overview. Engineering Geology 64, 65-87. Drabek, T. E. 1986: Human system responses to disaster: An inventory of sociological findings. New York. 509 pp. EPSON Hazards project report 2006: The Spatial Effects and Management of Natural and Technological Hazards in Europe. 198 pp. FAO 1997: Risk management and food safety. Report of a joint FAO/WHO Consultation. Rome, 32 pp.
71

References
Greiving, S. 2002: Planung und Katastrophenvorsorge Verknpfung ber Verfahren und organisatorische Regelungen. In: Deutsches Komitee fr Katastrophenvorsorge e.V. (DKKV): Zweites Forum Katastrophenvorsorge Extreme Naturereignisse Folgen, Vorsorge, Werkzeuge, 120-127. Hollenstein K., Merz, H. & Bhler, B. 2004: Methoden des risikobasierten Planens und Handelns bei der Naturgefahrenabwehr. ETH Zrich. 47 pp. Pearce, L. 2003: Disaster management and community planning, and public participation: How to achieve sustainable hazard mitigation. Natural Hazards 28, 211-228. Volkswirtschaftsdirektion Amt fr Wald, Bau-, Verkehrs- und Energiedirektion Tiefbauamt, Justiz-, Gemeinde- und Kirchendirektion Amt fr Gemeinden und Raumordnung 1999: Achtung, Naturgefahr! Verantwortung des Kantons und der Gemeinden im Umgang mit Naturgefahren. Bern, 29 pp.

72

36