International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 3 (2013) 44–61

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdrr

Landslide risk management—A brief overview and example

from Sweden of current situation and climate change
Yvonne Andersson-Sköld a,n, Ramona Bergman a, Magnus Johansson b,
Erik Persson b, Lars Nyberg b
a
Swedish Geotechnical Institute, Gothenburg, Sweden
b
Centre for Climate and Safety, Karlstad University, Sweden

a r t i c l e in f o abstract

Article history: Landslide risk is a function of the probability of the event and its consequences. Previous
Received 20 February 2012 research has shown that preventive measures to reduce the risk are preferred over
Received in revised form reactive measures but, especially in developing countries, rarely undertaken. A con-
20 November 2012
tributing factor is the lack of evidence that preventive measures pay. This study includes
Accepted 23 November 2012
Available online 13 December 2012
a brief overview of landslide risk management in general and an investigation of the
present risk management situation in Sweden based on interviews in 11 municipalities
Keywords: complemented with interviews in Norway. The result shows that climate change has
Risk management become part of the general awareness and started to be taken into account in the
Landslides
municipal spatial planning. Landslide susceptibility maps and databases are useful tools
Swedish municipalities
in the complex spatial planning. The results indicate that the application of landslide
Current situation
Climate change susceptibility and risk maps as previously applied for preventive measures and spatial
planning in the landslide prone area Göta älv river valley have been cost effective.
Improved documentation and more active communication among different stakeholders
would, however, contribute to more effective landslide management.
& 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction scale consequences of less frequent accidents, e.g. chemi-

Preventive actions and measures can, and are fre-
quently taken to reduce accidents and their conse-
quences. They can be based on systematic and thorough
analyses or made as an acute reaction to a specific event.
Some actions are specific for a selected type of accident
and can be both physical and non-physical. Some mea-
sures are generic, and these are most often non-physical
such as legislation and education. National and interna-
tional policies, directives, legislations, frameworks and
initiatives are examples of non-physical measures that
have been taken to reduce either the cause or the large-
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: yvonne.andersson-skold@swedgeo.se,
yvan@cowi.se (Y. Andersson-Sköld).
cal accidents and natural disasters. International direc-
tives and agreements, such as the EU Flood Directive,
Inspire Directive, Seveso Directive, UN/ISDR (2004) and
the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015, exert an
influence on the development of national strategies and
legislation.
Recently, statistical analyses have been performed on
prevention cost effectiveness and the cause relation of
accidents. Statistical analyses work very well for frequent
accidents, including a wide range of accidents such as
traffic mortality or slipping (e.g. [1–3]). For less frequent
accidents, for instance those caused by natural events
such as storms, flooding and landslides, the statistical
records are not as extensive. Such events are not accidents
or disasters per se, but the consequences of the event may
be severe and even disastrous [4–11]. The consequences
may be directly caused by the event, for example loss of

2212-4209/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2012.11.002
 Y. Andersson-Sköld et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 3 (2013) 44–61
life or construction damages caused by a landslide, or
indirectly, such as loss of life or material damage due to
flooding or tidal waves caused by landslides or delays due
to road or railroad damages (e.g. [7,8,12–14]).
1.1. Risk–probability of event and consequence
Kaplan and Garrick [15] defined risk as uncertainty
plus damage, or the ratio between the hazard (source of
danger, or possibility of loss or injury due to, for example,
a landslide) and the degree of probability of such loss.
This definition has since been used for technical, natural
science and medical risk assessments, and is nowadays
often referred to as a function of consequence and the
probability of any event that may cause negative con-
sequences (e.g. [5,16–19]).
The consequence is a function of the amount of
element at risk and the vulnerability of the affected
element or system at risk [20]. Vulnerability is the degree
to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with
the situation. It can be defined as a function of the
character, magnitude and rate of the event to which a
system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capa-
city [14,21], or in other words the exposure to the event
(perturbation and stresses) combined with the sensitivity
and resilience of the system [7,22,23]. Sensitivity is the
degree to which a system is affected either adversely or
beneficially, in case of an event (e.g. [18,19]). Adaptive
capacity is the ability of a system to adjust to the new
situation by for example taking advantage of opportu-
nities or to cope with the new situation [14]. The risk,
consequently, can be reduced either by reducing the
probability, the potential consequences of the event
or both.
1.2. Risk prevention effectiveness
Previous research shows that preventive risk reduction
is preferable not only from humanitarian but also from
economic perspectives (e.g. [6,8,24,25]). As pointed out by
Holcombe et al. [25], however, despite the recognition of
the need for mitigation approaches to landslide risk,
especially in developing countries, measures are rarely
undertaken. According to Holcombe et al. [25] a contri-
buting factor is the lack of evidence that landslide
mitigation pays. As discussed by Anderson et al. [26]
there can be serious methodological problems in seeking
evidence-based assessment for the risk prevention effec-
tiveness regarding accidents caused by natural events,
such as landslides, basically due to lack of knowledge of
what would have happened in the absence of interven-
tion. Consequently, only a limited number of studies
investigating the cause-cost-prevention effectiveness
exist as pointed out by Bonnard and Corominas [27].
Further, mitigation strategies are often costly and pose
numerous challenges to decision-makers in both devel-
oping and developed countries [28]. The legislation is
often complex and the budgets restricted [28–30].
The aim of this study is to increase the knowledge base
needed for cause-cost-prevention effectiveness analysis
including institutional conditions. The result is an overview
45
of the major factors affecting the current risk manage-
ment of natural events focussing on landslides. The
hypothesis is that landslide risk management in a country
like Sweden is rather effective due to well working risk
assessments and mapping, but that the effectiveness can
be increased by improving the institutional preconditions.
The aim is to further investigate if one can make cost
benefit analysis (CBA) or if other methods are more
appropriate.
The study includes a brief overview of landslide risk
management in general and an investigation of the pre-
sent risk management situation in Sweden.
2. Landslide risk management—A brief overview
Fig. 1 shows a framework, or conceptual model,
describing the risk management including context depen-
ding risk factors as proposed by Roberts et al. [17].
Both vulnerability, i.e. exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive
capacity, and landslide probability are context dependent
(e.g. [5,17]).
The causes of landslides can be both primary, i.e.
caused by factors that are long lasting and inherent in
the constituent rock and the soil, and triggers, i.e. caused
by factors that are varying or very short lived [7]. Triggers
may be both natural, such as seismicity, intensity of
precipitation or natural erosion, and anthropogenic, such
as land use activities and constructions operations (e.g.
[7]).
Due to the wide range of landslide processes the
annual probability and the extension of a potential land-
slide is difficult to assess and the environmental and
societal context is crucial for determining the specific
effects on the vulnerability as pointed in [31] and by
Roberts et al. [17]. The risk management of landslides is,
consequently, complex [23,32–34].
Climate change is not only expected to result in
increased temperature but is also expected to profoundly
influence the hydrology (e.g. [35]). In Norway, Sweden
and northern Europe the annual precipitation is expected
to increase by up to more than 30% during the period
2071–2100 compared to 1961–1990 [36–38]. The river
runoff is in general expected to be higher in winter,
followed by a less pronounced snowmelt peak and lower
summer flows [38]. The summers will be dryer but,
despite season, the predictions indicate an increase of
intensive rainfall and extreme flows [37–39]. The changes
will lead to increased erosion and other impacts that will
affect the slope stability, such as water level changes and
changes in vegetation (e.g. [21,35]). The increased erosion
will increase the landslide probability while other climate
change impacts on landslide probability are difficult to
predict and demonstrate due to the complexity of the
processes (e.g. [13,40–44]). The uncertainty in the already
complex system thereby increases.
The advantage of a systematic risk assessment and risk
management approach has been recognised in research
(e.g. [25]) as well as in legislation, for example the
Swedish Civil Protection Act [45], federal laws in Switzer-
land and the Norme per il riassetto organizzativo in Italy
46 Y. Andersson-Sköld et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 3 (2013) 44–61
Fig. 1. A framework describing the risk management context based on the conceptual vulnerability model proposed by Roberts et al. [17].
[46,47]. A systematic risk management approach contains
the following analytical steps (e.g. [5,17,48,49]):
 risk identification (knowledge on triggering factors
and vulnerability);
 risk inventory (landslide susceptibility and consequences);
 risk assessment and risk mitigation requirement;
 defining risk management strategy (identification and
selection of strategy); and
 implementation, follow-up, control and monitoring.
The risk mitigation requirement is determined by the
relation between the risk assessment result and the
accepted level of risk, and constitutes the base for the
subsequent risk management strategy (identification and
selection of measure, implementation, follow-up, control
and monitoring) (e.g. [5,17,48,49]).
In the risk identification process, historical landslide
inventories constitute the first step, providing important
basic knowledge of frequency, extent and demand for
geotechnical solutions [47,50]. Modern GIS-technique made
it possible to combine data in thematic maps, e.g. geographic
and geological information about documented landslides,
type of landslides and information about existing land-use
[47,50]. This information is a key, not only for the risk
identification and risk inventory, but also for the subsequent
stages of the risk management process [7,13,46,47,51–54].
2.1. Databases to integrate previous experience
Datasets of past disaster losses constitute the basis for
risk (hazard susceptibility and consequence) mapping and
risk assessments, supporting evidence-based disaster pre-
vention policies and actions. Overall, lessons learning in
the aftermath of landslides and other natural disasters is
regarded a key activity for risk reduction by most coun-
tries [55]. The learning, if based upon established sys-
tematic evaluation methods within and between
organisations, range from prevention and preparedness
in the before phase, via response measures during an
event, to recovery and rebuilding in the aftermath. At
local level, the learning process can be used for feedback
to all phases of the management, including the geo-
scientific prerequisites and to draw conclusions from
successful or non-successful measures taken. At national
level, the data can be used for education, training and to
raise awareness among existing or future potential actors
in other regions.
Data can be collected from different sources. In Italy a
flood and landslide inventory data base has been set up
based on information from newspapers, technical and
scientific reports, aerial photographs, regional topo-
graphic maps and experts and eyewitness interviews
[56,57]. Information from newspapers are often on-the-
spot account and in need of later validation and correc-
tion. Some databases, like the Swedish Natural Hazards
 Y. Andersson-Sköld et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 3 (2013) 44–61
Information System [58], use the media input only for
event surveillance. Other databases, like the Norwegian
Skrednett [59], treat media content less strict, with the
primary goal of a dataset with as many events as possible.
Clearly, many different approaches, aims and applications
exist at national levels to support disaster risk reduction
in their specific local context [60,61].
Natural disaster databases also exist at global (e.g. EM-
DAT and databases run by the reinsurance companies
MunichRe and SwissRe) and national level. In Europe 28
countries already have landslide databases and others are
currently creating national and/or regional databases [62].
It has previously been argued that the national landslide
databases have various content, scale, language, format,
structure and accessibility and, worldwide, that different
data compilation initiatives lack recognized common
definitions which lead to inconsistent reliability and poor
interoperability of data [62–65]. The objective in a recent
study by Van Den Eeckhaut and Hervás [62] was to review
the content of existing European landslide databases. The
results showed that the map scale and symbolics varied.
The expected high variability could, however, not be
proven among investigated European databases [62].
A database/catalogue for flooding events typically
include location information (such as town, province,
co-ordinates), time, landslide history, trigger, type of
event (e.g. landslide or debris flow), relative size of the
event, as well as impact information such as fatalities and
economic damage [57]. The study by Van Den Eeckhaut
and Hervás [62] showed that the European landslide
databases generally contained information on the land-
slide type, landslide morphological characteristics and
geo-environmental factors, but rarely information on
landslide history, triggering factors and consequences.
The Swedish national landslide database, initiated in
2001 [66] and made publically available in 2011 [67],
includes information on type, location, extension (length
and width) and time of the event of 567 registered
landslides (March 2012) of which 549 are dated from
1900 and onwards [66]. The locations of the registered
landslides are presented on the map shown in Fig. 2. The
database is regarded to be 50–75% completed [62]. The
number of landslides is regarded very low compared to
countries such as Austria with 25,000 (database 25–50%
completed), Italy with 485,000 (database475% com-
pleted) and Norway with 31,500 ( o25%) landslides
reported, but in the same magnitude as Switzerland with
317 reported landslides (databaseo25% completed) [62].
For some of the larger Swedish landslide events (15 in
total) more information exist [62] which is found in the
MSB database [58]. The MSB database also compiles
natural hazards event on national level from 1950 to
present [58]. The target group for the database people
working with safety, local and national planning, private
activities, awareness raising and education [61]. The
database offers cross-disciplinary data on response, cause
of event, preparedness measures, impact description and
lessons observed or learned. Data and documents are
gathered from municipalities, county boards, national
agencies and research institutes. Considering landslides,
the most primary consequences are usually mentioned
47
(e.g. how many households and people were injured). The
gathered documents may also provide information on
prevention measures, sequence of the event, effects and
consequences, and lessons learned, but the information
varies in terms of extent and quality.
2.2. Mapping risk and landslide susceptibility
Modern GIS-technique allows landslide risk maps and
landslide susceptibility maps to be based on integrated
information such as historical information, photographic
information, field measurements and other information,
such as factors indicating where landslides may occur and
their potential consequences (e.g. [68]). Landslide suscept-
ibility maps are used as standard in landslide prone devel-
oped countries such as Switzerland, Italy, Norway, Canada
and Spain, etc. (e.g. [46,47,69]) but are also currently being
developed in countries as Nicaruagua and Korea [13,54].
In Sweden the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency
(MSB) assists municipalities and county administrative
boards with landslide susceptibility mapping, by perform-
ing overview ground stability maps [58]. The mapping,
which is based on geological and geotechnical informa-
tion, was started in 1986 and pertains to developed areas
where conditions exist for soil movement. The mapping
was initiated after one of the most severe slides in
Sweden (Tuve landslide in 1978). Today, 157 of the 290
Swedish municipalities have been mapped. The suscept-
ibility maps can be used as a basis for more detailed
studies, subsequent risk assessment and as the basis in
risk maps. The risk maps, in contrast to susceptibility
maps, include both the susceptibility and the conse-
quences (e.g. [7,13,17,26,51–53,70,71]).
A regional landslide risk mapping has recently been
done for the Göta älv river valley, one of Sweden’s most
landslide prone areas [42,72]. The landslide probability
was estimated from stability analyses based on borehole
data from sections perpendicular to the river [42,72]. The
consequence analysis included an inventory of elements
at risk, an assessment of the exposure and vulnerability
and a socio-economic evaluation. The socio-economic
evaluation included loss of life and property damages,
production losses, reconstruction costs for road, railroad,
communication, heating, water and sewage systems, and
expected increased costs due to traffic delays and extra
security due to contaminated land or environmental
hazardous activities [72–75]. The result of the assessment
was presented as a risk class map, divided in three risk
classes based on a risk matrix constructed from five
consequence classes and five probability classes [72]. An
example of the risk map and the risk matrix is presented
in Fig. 3. The risk assessment and the resulting map also
included expected information on quick clay deposits and
expected increase in landslide probability due to climate
change [42,72]. The estimated change will be due to
increased erosion in the river [42].
2.3. Assessing mitigation requirements
To define an appropriate mitigation strategy not only
the current risk needs to be assessed, but also to define
48 Y. Andersson-Sköld et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 3 (2013) 44–61

Fig. 2. Map showing landslide events registered in the Swedish national landslide database [67] (left) and the location of the Swedish municipalities
included in the interviews performed within this study (right).

Fig. 3. Example of risk map and risk matrix resulting from the Göta river commission (from Tremblay et al. [72]).

the protection requirements [5,47]. The protection
requirements can be defined based on risk acceptance,
e.g. accepted number of fatalities in case of an event. It
can also be based on CBA including the costs of the
mitigation activity in relation to the damage preferably
taking into account environmental and social aspects as
well (e.g. [17,20,26,71,76]).
There are recent cost assessments of landslide
cause—effects (e.g. [6,10,13,26,77,78]) and CBA on risk
reduction due to, for example, landslide susceptibility
mapping (e.g. [79]), warning systems and physical mea-
sures (e.g. [50]), the effectiveness of incorporating risk
mitigation in local comprehensive plans (e.g. [6]) and on
risk reduction programs [26]. When assessing landslide
consequences ex-ante methods for monetary evaluation
are most often applied (e.g. [8,10,20,25,51,70,71,80–82]).
The cost for decreasing the landslide probability, by
20% through physical measures in areas with the stability
 Y. Andersson-Sköld et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 3 (2013) 44–61
classes 4 and 5 (Fig. 3) along the river, has been estimated
to 550–700 million Euros (5–6 BSEK) in the recent Göta
älv river landslide investigation [83]. The running costs
would be around 1 million Euros (900 million SEK) per
year taking into account climate change. The value for the
entire area included in the investigation (excluding rocky
ground) is estimated to around 17 billion Euros (150
BSEK). The corresponding value within high risk (red in
Fig. 3) class areas is 900 million Euros (8 BSEK) [42,72,75]
indicating that preventive measures are beneficial. One of
the major reasons for the deviation between the calcu-
lated value of the investigated area and the high risk areas
is previous landslide prevention measures taken by EKA
Nobel in 1994 for 8 million Euros (70 MSEK) were
undertaken [83]. This means protecting an area corre-
sponding to a value of ca. 230 million Euros (2 BSEK)
according to the recent risk assessment of the area
[72,75]. The other major measure that has been used in
the area, and recommended from the investigation, is
land use planning to reduce the vulnerability [83].
A study of socio-economic impacts and mitigation
strategies in urban landslide prone areas in the United
States showed that both codes and professional practice
have reduced the monetary losses from landslides with
over 90% [50]. Non-structural measures, like restriction
against new developments and installation of warning
systems, as well as structural measures, like excavation,
construction codes, grading and other physical mitigation
measures for existing buildings, have been implemented.
The possibility of insurance for individual property own-
ers has also reduced the risk associated with landslides
according to Schuster and Highland [50].
CBA is regarded as a useful tool in risk mitigation and
land use planning processes, but many factors like social
unrest, psychological hardness etc. are difficult to evalu-
ate [84]. In several countries multi-criteria models, or
multi-criteria analysis (MCA), are being developed includ-
ing social, economic and other aspects also stressing the
integrative role of stakeholders (e.g. [73,85,86]). Most of
those models are presently being tested and evaluated
before discussing their usefulness. The existing results
from applying such models are that the risk is interpreted
differently by stakeholders with differing experiences,
needs, views and interests [85]. However, a recent study
by Gamper and Turcanu [28] shows that public participa-
tion in the MCA process can improve the mitigation and
decision making process by increasing the common
understanding. A structured MCA participatory three step
process has been suggested by Renn et al. [87] and
summarised by Gamper and Turcanu [28]; evaluation
criteria are constructed by involvement of all relevant
stakeholders, identification and impact assessment for the
decisions options are mainly carried out by experts,
whereas weighting should be done by citizen’s panels.
Such a participatory process may, according to Gamper
and Turcanu [28], serve as conflict resolution creating a
win–win solution and act as a complementing instrument
in land use planning and risk management situations
where uncertainty in decisions is coupled with a high
degree of conflict among different stakeholder groups [28].
As indicated by Gamper and Turcanu [28] participatory
49
MCA may become a regulated methodology, but for long
term sustainable decisions and risk management some
evidence is still lacking. Future research needs to provide
more deep and detailed understanding of the quality of
the participation and its impact on the decision making
[28].
2.4. Potential risk mitigation measures
Despite risk prevention being preferable (e.g.
[6,8,24,25]), focus has historically been on warning and
evacuation at the expense of prevention and long term
planning [84,88–90]. Some preventive measures encom-
pass large-scale, complex, costly investments and require
a long term perspective and a solid knowledge basis, since
such investments also may increase the risk of maladap-
tation [50,91,92].
As illustrated in Fig. 1, risk mitigation may include
activities such as ground stabilization or other land
management activities to reduce the probability or extent
of the event, physical actions that reduce the exposure
vulnerability (e.g. spatial planning aiming to reduce the
exposure in case of an event and warning systems), non-
physical actions that reduce the vulnerability (such as
information, education, continuous training to manage
the situation in case of an event) and risk management
programme plans (e.g. [4,6,7]). Recent research on risk
and climate vulnerability has shown that building a
proper base for the risk management requires assessment
of a growing body of knowledge about expected exposure
and impacts as well as socio-economic and institutional
preconditions [25,49,50,93,94]. Institutions refer to offi-
cial administrative and political regulation, formal and
informal, that guide actor’s behaviour and thus, for
example, institutional measures refer to changes in guide-
lines, rules, organisational set-up, or processes for mana-
ging the risk [49].
Several studies indicate that non-physical measures,
e.g. raised awareness, education and land use planning,
have achieved less attention compared to physical mea-
sures which are more commonly used [95]. Previous
research call for better understanding of social dimen-
sions of risks in addition to a need of improving the
integration of research findings into the planning process
and daily work, promote evidence-based community
planning and dedicated and systematic training and
capacity building for land-use planners [26,84,88,95]. As
pointed out by King [48] ‘‘technology does not reduce
disaster impacts unless institutions, communities and indi-
viduals know how to interpret hazard knowledge into
actions.’’
Climate-related risks bring new prerequisites, but may
need to be handled today, although some measures will
not be seen as effective until climate change becomes
more visible [84,95]. Glavovic et al. [88] suggest develop-
ment of national policy statements on climate change
adaptation, research on comparative case studies and
updating of existing guidance and monitoring by local
authorities of how effective they use existing guidance
about climate change. To better manage the uncertainties
related to climate change and long term decisions it has
50 Y. Andersson-Sköld et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 3 (2013) 44–61

been suggested to establish local Climate Task Groups in
which risk managers, climatologists, stakeholders and
policy makers should be included [96]. This is also in
agreement with risk management participation MCA dis-
cussed in [28]. As there will always be uncertainties in
climate predictions, and subsequently on the effect of
long term decisions and measures, it is recommended to
identify no-regret or win–win options [96–99].
2.5. Organisation and responsibility
Because in a society complex coordination is needed
between multiple organisations with different responsibil-
ities and different geographical locations [48], a challenge is
the co-operation across organisational boundaries [95]. There
is a great need to integrate more actors as well as more
sectors in the process of assessing vulnerability and devising
adaptation measures [95]. Previous research has shown that
the distribution of responsibility is unclear in natural risk
prevention [50,100]. Another obstacle is short-term thinking.
Economic growth is often prioritized over community safety
and together with problems of accessing research results
assumptions are made in the planning process [88,89,95].
As argued by Hood and Heald [101] transparency can
conflict with other ‘good governance’ values and measures to
promote transparency often lead to a tighter control of
information. On the other hand, the importance of transpar-
ency in form of documentation, structure and the ability to
understand the bases for previous decisions, have been
pointed out in previous research and investigations (e.g.
[95,102,103]).
The results from previous studies indicate that there
are different capacities in small and large municipalities
due to differences in resources and expertise [100,104].
For example Gothenburg (the second largest city in
Sweden) has been able to develop a large stakeholder
group on climate change adaptation, while smaller muni-
cipalities have mentioned lack of funding, staff and
political leadership as resource issues [49]. Simpson and
Human [104] identified barriers in completing vulner-
ability analyses and risk mitigation plans performed at
state level in USA. The barriers included lack of models
and guidance, no standard of doing that type of analysis,
incomplete data (e.g. property value), difficulties to gen-
erate bottom-up data due to lack of staff experience,
resources or technological advancement, and that the
and to what extent climate change and its potential
impacts are included. The aspects taken into considera-
tion were if available information and methods were
being used and for what purpose, the perceived function-
ing of organization and responsibilities, and the use of
decision support tools. As local governments play a key
role in risk and vulnerability management, both as prin-
cipal managers of socio-technical infrastructure and
through their responsibility for long-term physical plan-
ning [49,107,108], the local level is in focus of the
investigation.
The study is based on interviews with key stakeholders
involved in the landslide risk management process includ-
ing rescue service managers, municipal managers on
physical planning and/or technical departments, and local
politicians in Swedish municipalities. The politicians were
either the political head of the municipality, or, if avail-
able, head of the physical planning in the municipality.
The municipalities were selected in co-operation with
national key stakeholders and to include societies with
known landslide problems according to available land-
slide susceptibility maps [58]. Interviews were performed
in 11 Swedish municipalities: Ale, Bollnäs, Kungsbacka,
Lerum, Lidköping, Lilla Edet in the Göta älv river valley,
Sollefteå, Sotenäs, Sundsvall, Umeå and Åre. In Table 1 the
year the last general landslide susceptibility mapping,
done by MSB, is shown together with the number of
inhabitants and the land area in the municipalities. The
number of inhabitants vary from less than 10,000
(Sotenäs, 8998) to just above 100,000 (Umeå, 116,569)
and the municipal land area varies from 138 km2 in
Sotenäs municipality in the south to 7199 km2 in Åre in
the north. Kungsbacka, Sotenäs and Sundsvall are located
by the sea and Lidköping by the lake Vänern. The loca-
tions of the municipalities are presented in the map
shown in Fig. 2.
In total 30 Swedish municipal level representatives, 22
civil servants and eight politicians were interviewed. The
majority of the interviews were done in the actual
municipal governmental house, while interviews in
Table 1
The Swedish municipalities included in the investigation including the
year when the last general landslide susceptibility mapping was done by
MSB and the number of inhabitants and land area in the municipality
[109].

technical capacity at local level may be insufficient. Municipality Year of susceptibility Number of Land area in
Simpson and Human [104] also mention the complexity mapping by MSB inhabitants km2 (12-01-
and size of some guiding documents as a barrier. Cross (2012-03-31) 01)
[105] argues that larger cities are less vulnerable since the
Ale 2001 27,618 317
coping capacity is enhanced to meet up with the geogra-
Bollnäs 2008 26,146 1814
phical aggregation of people and values. Pelling [106] is Kungsbacka 1993 76,046 607
less generalizing and notes that only a few studies exist Lerum 1998 38,787 259
on urbanization and development of risks, and all were Lidköping 2008 38,193 696
performed in cities with 45 million inhabitants. Lilla Edet 2002a 12,523 316
Sollefteå 2007 (pre study) 19,876 5398
Sotenäs 2007 8998 138
3. Methodology: Interviews investigating current risk Sundsvall 2007 96,241 3190
management in Sweden Umeå 1996 116,569 2317
Åre 1996 10,258 7199
The aim of our study is to investigate the current
a
landslide risk management situation in Sweden in general Complemented with risk mapping (e.g. [72]).
 Y. Andersson-Sköld et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 3 (2013) 44–61
Kungsbacka, Sollefteå, Sundsvall, Umeå and Åre were
done by telephone interviews. The interviews were on
average approximately 2 h long.
The interviews followed the guidelines of semi-
structured interviews according to Patel and Davidson
[110]. The interview guide was a comprehensive set of
questions, available in Appendix A. The questions had the
following main topics:
 awareness of the Swedish Natural Hazards Information
System;
 experience of available landslide database;
 awareness and use of the MSB overview of ground
stability maps;
 competence and co-operation;
 climate change and risk management;
 transparency, documentation and communication;
 municipal organisation and responsibility; and
 suggestion on how to increase the landslide risk
management effectiveness.
The results from each of these topics are presented
with exception of the experience of available Swedish
landslide database. At the time of the study the national
landslide database was not publicly available, and only 15
landslides are registered in the MSB database [58]. The
study was therefore expanded to also include user experi-
ences of a landslide database (Skrednett [68]) in the
neighbouring country Norway.
Skrednett gathers data on all different types of land-
slides. At present, there are 31,500 registered events
mainly from historic times [68]. Landslide susceptibility
maps within inhabited areas with quick clay, avalanches,
rock fall etc., can be downloaded using WMS services for
external use in GIS-systems. From a probability perspec-
tive, a dozen events in Norway may cause 20–200 deaths
during a period of 100 years. The database has around
25,000 unique visitors each year and 100–200 each day
with extreme peaks of 1500–2000 visitors per day in the
immediate aftermath of landslide disasters, e.g. the land-
slide in Namsos 2009 [111].
Although the results are not directly translatable to a
Swedish or other national context and databases differ
among countries the results provide an example of user
experience of yet generic interest.
We conducted structured telephone interviews with
11 recurrent users of the Norwegian database Skrednett
[68]. The aim was to investigate the purpose of using
Skreddnett, what data is most applicable, if the database
is of advantage to society and if there were any sugges-
tions for further development. (The interview questions
are available in Appendix B). The users were selected from
six categories and identified with support from the
Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate,
who are the system owners since 2010, and the Geological
Survey of Norway, who started to build the system in
2001. The respondents were actively working with land-
slide related tasks at municipalities (2), administrative
county boards (2), the Norwegian Public Roads Adminis-
tration (2), the Norwegian National Rail Administration
51
(2), consulting agency (1) and university (2). An initial
selection was made from a longer list of potential respon-
dents to ensure a distribution of different types of end
users. The selected respondents work with physical plan-
ning, supervision of safety regulations and goals, or
research projects. The interviewees were not randomly
selected and can therefore not be regarded as representa-
tive for the average users.
4. Results
4.1. Awareness of the Swedish Natural Hazards Information
System
The awareness about the Swedish Natural Hazards
Information System database was low and few respon-
dents had used it in their daily work. The majority of the
interviewed personnel from rescue services had knowl-
edge about its existence (10 of 11), but no other respon-
dents knew about the existence. Reasons given for using
the system was ‘‘to get an idea of what could happen’’ and
as an input in their own risk and vulnerability analyses.
Besides unawareness, other explanations were given to
why the database was not used, such as using other
channels of information like newsletters and reports from
the MSB and other Swedish rescue channels, e.g. the
public emergency organisation SOS Alarm Webcollabora-
tion (/www.sosalarm.seS). Informal contact with other
municipalities to share experiences and learning from
management of recent landslide events or other natural
hazard events was another type of active search for
valuable knowledge. Respondents also mentioned the
municipality’s own compilation of relevant information.
Despite not being used very much, the database was in
principle regarded useful.
At present the information within the database mainly
covers the actual event and the immediate responses
thereafter. In order to increase its application within the
planning process, several stakeholders suggested that
lessons learned from the long term measures taken after
the event should be further and more structurally
described. This would require following the event since
measures are often not in place until many years after it
happened due to time requirements for the decisions,
financing and construction processes.
4.2. Experience of the landslide database Skrednett
(Norway)
The reasons for using Skrednett varied as well as how
often it was used (Table 2). The respondents were mainly
using the system to create an overview of landslide risks
within a certain geographical area. It is seldom used on a
regular basis, but intensively visited now and then in
connexion to different projects. Data is commonly down-
loaded to the users own map solutions, which contain
parameters not stored in Skrednett. The data is used as
input and to update own databases and maps. Societal
planning processes and risk mapping are the most com-
mon purposes, but one respondent from a county admin-
istrative board underlined the usage in acute response
52 Y. Andersson-Sköld et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 3 (2013) 44–61

Table 2
Opinions and attitudes from interviewees (n¼11) about the applicability of the database and integrated landslide system found at /www.skrednett.noS.

Purpose of using the database?
How often do you use Skrednett
What type of data is most applicable?
Is it a user friendly system?
Is the system of advantage to society?
Suggestions on further development?
Society planning Contingency planning Other landslide related investigations
(4 of 11) (6 of 11) (2 of 11)
Once a week (2 of 11) Once a month (3 of 11) Recurrent in during projects (6 of 11)
Risk maps, WMS service (5 of 11) Definitions (3 of 11) Historic events (6 of 11)
High degree (9 of 11) Low degree (2 of 11)
High (11 of 11)
 Faster updates
 Telephone support in emergency situations
 Higher map resolution
 Coordination with ‘‘Norge Digital’’
 Compatibility with local early warning system for landslides
 Data in rural recreation areas
 Increased qualitative information connected to events
 More data filtering possibilities, e.g. time intervals, quality of data
 Coordination with other map systems to add more parameters

situations. Several people in his organisation would then
visit Skrednett 20–30 times during one day: ‘‘When an
emergency situation arises and we are in urgent need of
reliable data, we use, in addition to our own systems,
Skrednett to cross-check risk areas’’.
Most respondents used the WMS-service to download
data into their own GIS-systems for further processing
and analyses. Those active in projects for societal planning
were mostly interested in landslide susceptibility maps
for quick clay areas, while contingency planners searched
for both qualitative historic data and susceptibility maps.
Several respondents appreciate and use the portal of the
system to find definitions and clarifications about risk
classes or landslide terminology. One respondent under-
lined that ‘‘It is impossible to communicate without a
common understanding of definitions’’.
The benefits of Skrednett varied a lot between the
respondents, not least due to their divergent needs and
fields of application. There is a consensus that it provides
increased focus and understanding of complex landslide
problems, and is of general advantage to society. It is of
great use for overall planning, but is of more limited
usefulness at detailed level. It has high accuracy within
the built environment and infrastructure, but proportio-
nately few registered landslides can be found in rural
recreation areas. One respondent put forward the impor-
tance of Skrednett as a historical library and memory:
‘‘There are strong forces within municipalities to expand and
exploit new land. The historical perspective of 2–3 genera-
tions is seldom enough to fully perceive the risks for mass
(soil) movements. A service like Skrednett can provide a
1000-year perspective, which helps officials and decision-
makers to remember, understand and act more sensible and
cautious.’’
Ten of 11 respondents put forward ideas on improve-
ments or suggestions of new types of data that should be
added into the system to broaden its applicability. Some
recommendations were complementary and within the
present scope of Skrednett, while others were proposals of
how it could be evolved to something additional. A
recurrent opinion was that Skrednett’s map applications
need to become more compatible with other external
map tools, especially the national map service ‘‘Norge
Digital’’ (Norway Digital). From a contingency planning
perspective, a data support function via telephone was
suggested as a precautionary step if an emergency or
preparedness situation coincides with occasional system
failure. Three respondents emphasized the importance of
faster update routines. A public protocol for reporting
new events was suggested, but not discussed in terms of
validation.
The answers and many suggestions for further devel-
opment demonstrated a joint esteem among end users for
integrated systems—they even asked for increased inte-
gration of society and contingency planning tools. From a
management perspective all respondents expressed their
wish to find all necessary basic data at one place, or at
least to have compatible system tools for faster processing
and analyses.
4.3. Awareness and use of the MSB overview ground
stability maps
The knowledge regarding the existence of the over-
view ground stability (landslide susceptibility) maps by
MSB varied among the 30 Swedish respondents. All civil
servants were aware of the maps, while 50% of the
politicians were not aware of their existence. Despite this,
the maps were perceived as having potential to becoming
a useful for municipal planning.
The map-usage varies and in some municipalities (4)
the maps were not used actively. The reasons given were
that no events had occurred or preference using own
experience and knowledge. Only one municipality did not
use the map information at all, while others only used it
to confirm their own knowledge.
In municipalities where the maps were in use, only
three municipalities applied the maps for already built
areas. The intention of the maps is to identify areas where
risk mitigation measures, or further investigations, are
needed under current conditions [58]. The results from
the interviews indicate, however, that the majority of the
municipalities use the maps also for non-developed areas
as planning support. The maps are used by respondents
both for own purposes and to communicate with the
landowners.
One of the respondents highlighted an important
change since mid-1990. In today’s risk management field
 Y. Andersson-Sköld et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 3 (2013) 44–61 53

visits are no longer required. Hence, much of the visual persons in different networks. Another problem was that
control has been lost. Because of that, many of the non- the number of networks contributing to each network’s
mandatory permitted facilities, that could be a trigger of meetings was rare and not based on real cases.
landslides, are never inspected and not even known. All the municipalities expressed that they would gain
from advice and support from external experts in all
4.4. Competence and co-operation stages of the risk management process, i.e. from how to
interpret the general landslide susceptibility maps to the
More than half, i.e. 17 of 30, of the respondents planning and risk management process. Since 2010 all
expressed a lack of competence within the organisation Swedish municipalities can receive geotechnical expert
to assess landslide risk. However, the majority of the reviews on both general and detailed spatial plans for free
officials (14), and especially in municipalities where land- [112]. The impact on landslide management in the muni-
slides recently have occurred, such as Ale, Lilla Edet and cipalities due to this expert support was not considered at
Lerum, consider themselves to have the competence to the time of the interviews since it was too new.
decide when to call for external expert assistant and There were concerns, not only about the geotechnical
support. The same municipalities work preventive and and physical aspects, but also regarding the complexity of
have also applied for national grants supporting landslide legislation. It was mentioned among the respondents that
mitigation measures. it would be beneficial with external, or other, help
All civil servants respondents mentioned the impor- interpreting legislations and other legal aspects.
tance of crisis management groups that can take fast and
relevant decisions during the phase of the accident.
Almost all decision makers (politicians) considered offi-
4.5. Climate change and risk management
cials as competent and able to reach the common goals.
Among officials there were no restrains mentioned
In 2006 climate change adaptation did not have high
towards the decision-makers apart from the funding
priority in Swedish municipal decision and planning
situation and the adherent restrains and ability of effec-
processes [39]. Based on results from the interviews there
tive management of landslide and other natural hazards
has been some progress and climate change aspects are to
risks, such as flood risks.
some extent considered in all municipalities.
Most respondents (22) regarded the external coopera-
One municipality had an on-going applied research
tion well-functioning. Others (8) indicated that the com-
and development (R&D) project ‘‘Climate proof Sunds-
munication with, and the responsibility by, the county
vall’’. The project included a risk and vulnerability analy-
administration board should be more clear.
sis of climate related risks including natural events such
It was generally considered to be a well-functioning
as landslides. The project involved both experts from the
system for acute events within all municipalities (only
municipality and external experts. The aim was to
two persons indicated that the system for acute events
develop a strategy where adaptation also may give
was not functioning). In the work process for landslide
positive side effects. Another municipality was also co-
risk prevention and spatial planning, however, some
operating in R&D projects on climate change adaption (i.e.
respondents criticised the communication and lack of
the Interreg project SAWA1 ).
ratified connexion between the departments within the
Two of the 11 municipalities had set recommendations
municipality. For example, one respondent mentioned
on lowest building level and two had discussions on the
that the municipality (until recently) had personnel with
costs and benefits of climate change adaptation measures
geotechnical competence, but the awareness within the
in relation to the life time of buildings and other con-
municipality about the availability of such competence
structions. Six municipalities considered the potential
was scarce. Therefore, it took several years before the
influence of climate change on potential water and flood-
rescue service could take advantage of the competence. It
ing levels in their spatial planning and one municipality
is not only the exchange of information that is lacking, but
considered the potential impacts of climate change on
also to the knowledge about the responsibilities among
landslide risks. Even in the less active municipalities,
the departments on different questions. One respondent
climate change impacts were being discussed in the
mentioned that ‘‘When residents call the municipality, they
spatial planning process.
can receive different answers depending on which depart-
Despite the increased awareness in general climate
ment they contact’’.
change was not part of the daily activities and not yet
Several municipalities also mentioned the lack of net-
incorporated in the daily work and strategic planning in
works for property owners to participate, as property
the municipalities. One municipality pointed out that the
owners usually have much knowledge, experience and
consultants do not usually include climate change in their
opinions about the specific location. Respondents from
assessments as they are not sure of how to handle it.
one municipality located in a very landslide prone area
Respondents from all interviewed municipalities pointed
expressed, however, that there are too many networks.
out that the probabilities and uncertainties connected to
Each network covers different issues related to landslide
modelled climate scenarios and subsequent impacts were
risks which lead to the work being unclear and difficult to
difficult to manage, and they wanted clearer messages
communicate. Here, a problem was that one organisation
was represented by the same person in several networks,
and some organisations were represented by different 1
/http://www.sawa-project.eu/S.
54 Y. Andersson-Sköld et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 3 (2013) 44–61
and guidelines from authorities on when to act and
what to do.
The majority of the respondents (in almost all munici-
palities) expressed that external support was queried for
today’s landslide risk management. External support is
also queried for including potential climate change
impacts into the current risk management. The respon-
dents saw a need of checklists, guides, guidelines and
external expert advises. It was pointed out that when no
clear guidelines are available, municipalities usually await
knowledge from higher levels or other municipalities to
act first. ‘‘This is a strategic move, since adaptation measures
are costly, could make an area less attractive and on top of
that it is uncertain if it is needed. When one municipality
prioritize adaption, the neighbouring municipality could at
the same time prioritize new developments in a beautiful
costal area. From a political, relatively short-term view the
later alternative is more tempting’’.
4.6. Transparency, documentation and communication
All of the civil servants mentioned that the documen-
tation of the preventive work process seldom works well,
or not at all. On the contrary, when legal aspects were
involved the documentation and follow-up were signifi-
cantly better as mentioned by two of the respondents.
All of the interviewed found reasons why documenta-
tion, and active communication, would contribute to a
more effective risk management strategy than today.
Examples given included problems arising during genera-
tion shifts and that much knowledge and commitment
was linked to specific individuals. The risk management
and land use planning processes in general were not
documented and thereby a lot of knowledge was not
available to others.
There is a general shift from documentation made and
stored in paper to digital GIS, which makes the informa-
tion more easily available. The documentation on paper
had limited search options (for example the case number)
while GIS offers broader search opportunities and
increases the possibility of find the information from a
common server instead of one archive room. The archiving
in storage room and limited search options, and the lack of
documentation had led to gaps not only in the exchange of
information, but was also mentioned to have impaired the
effectiveness of the work in some municipalities.
Almost all respondents could see the advantages of a
good documentation, but at the same time pointed out
that it was important that it was not too time consuming:
‘‘it must not involve additional work’’.
It was often not clear among the respondents if, and
how, information and new knowledge should be spread.
Almost all responding civil servants raised questions
during the interview regarding to what extent the muni-
cipality are responsible of informing property owners
when new or updated knowledge about landslides and
climate-related risks arise. The questions regarded how to
do it and the potential impacts of not communicating
versus communicating with the property owners. The
discussions included ethical and moral aspects of the
problems that can arise for the land owners and the
municipality, including impacts on the price of the land
and its surroundings. In most respondent’s view, it was
beneficial to raise the information level towards the
public concerning landslide risks and responsibilities.
There were two reasons given: (i) according to current
legislation [113] the responsibility for the land is with the
landowners, and (ii) in spite of this, in case of an event,
the municipality may have to take all the costs related to
the event if the municipality has not provided the land-
owner known facts and information. For most of the
municipalities, the landslide risks were not considered
high enough among the respondents to finance such
dissemination of information.
4.7. Municipal organisation and responsibility
According to all civil servant respondents, responsibil-
ities between different sectors in the municipality were
often not completely clear. The responsibility awareness
varied depending on the history of events and the type of
management. In the case of a crisis, the majority of the
respondents indicated that the crisis management
worked well. The respondents also thought that active
crisis management groups, well known structures, higher
confidence and clear responsibilities promoted the man-
agement of the acute phases.
The preventive work in the municipalities was not,
however, considered to be as well functioning as the crisis
management. The officials had not experienced any
restrains from the decision makers apart from the funding
situation, which on the other hand was mentioned as a
restrain by civil servants in all municipalities. ‘‘The decision
makers (politicians) need an example to show and describe the
risks and impacts, but to provide an example one need time
and some funding, it is a Catch 22’’ a civil servant stated.
Apart from the funding, the main obstacle mentioned
regarding the effectiveness of the preventive work was
the communication and co-operation among different
units, especially between societal and physical planners
and the rescue service. A rather common reason (eight
respondents) for this was that more acute, or other daily
questions, are highest on the agenda of the daily work.
Therefore inter-sectoral and interdisciplinary aspects,
such as incorporating risk management for landslides or
other natural hazards, in the spatial planning were not
prioritized. In general, however, the daily questions varied
depending on the history and frequency of events. In
municipalities that had experienced landslides or other
natural hazard events, preventive aspects were more
common both in the daily work and on the political
agenda. For example, in one of the municipalities with
severe flooding events and other crises during the last
decade, the need for improved co-operation among dif-
ferent units became apparent in the subsequent follow-
ups and evaluations and the organisation had been
reorganised to become more interdisciplinary the year
before.
Several of the respondents discussed the size of the
municipality. The arguments were that smaller municipali-
ties with relatively few responsible actors and often well-
functioning informal networks offer the potential of fast and
 Y. Andersson-Sköld et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 3 (2013) 44–61
effective information channels and thereby a potential for
well working co-operation. In large municipalities there can
be a lack of knowledge transfer and collaboration between
departments due to more people, more complex organisa-
tional structures and absence of communication routines and
strategies. It was mentioned, however, that the co-operation
and dialogue to a very high degree depended on the
individuals and not the size of the municipality.
The financial aspects were frequently discussed as part
of the responsibility. In one area with high risk according
to landslide susceptibility and risk maps, common ques-
tions were: ‘‘Who should pay for the preventive measures
and what if one does not want to undertake preventive
measures?’’ According to the national legislation [113] the
land owner is fully responsible. Among the civil servants
this legislation was known, but how to handle this in
practice is still an important question. There were both
ethical and moral aspects discussed as well as more
economical aspects from the perspective of the munici-
pality: ‘‘If a private house owner has followed the regula-
tions and demands and he/she can prove it, the municipality
will take responsibility for the damage on private land. But
if documents about this is lacking there can be disputes on
who has the responsibility’’.
Concerning the financial responsibility many officials
in the municipalities feel that the funding from the
Swedish government s for preventive measures (today
in total ca 4 million Euros/year) should be increased.
There were also concerns on why small municipalities
are expected to be capable of financing the consequences
of a severe landslide when the calculated risk is extremely
low, as compared with other risks in need of action.
4.8. Suggestions on how to increase the landslide risk
management effectiveness
Several of the respondents suggested a development of
more user-friendly checklists or guides on landslide (and
flooding) management in general and on how to manage
uncertainties in a long-term perspective. Also a guide on
how to handle responsibilities and legislation practise
was queried. Much information and guidelines are avail-
able from responsible central agencies, like MSB, but there
is too low awareness of their existence or where to find
them, combined with the material being too technical or
complex to be effectively applied.
Suggested organisational improvements can be rather
simple, but yet very important, such as to establish
contact persons and persons responsible for collaboration
between departments to render increased possibility to
integrate disaster risk reduction in several planning pro-
cesses and addressing it on the daily agenda. Inter- and
intra-organisational networks were regarded as very
important. It was pointed out that successful networks
must work continuously and active, and engaged with
real situations and practises. Networks in this sense need
to include multi-disciplinary and multi-sectorial compe-
tences such as managers, architects, engineers, planners
and the rescue service. It was also suggested that property
owners should be included in the networks as they usually
55
have much knowledge and opinions about the local
conditions.
Funding and responsibility aspects were regarded as
barriers. To counteract this, legal and geotechnical com-
petences were suggested to be shared between munici-
palities. National and regional investigations such as
presented in SOU 2007:60 [39] and Lind et al. [83], were
appreciated, as they can give the municipalities useful
and free knowledge and information in their planning
process. Compiled examples from elsewhere, e.g. regard-
ing a successful climate change adaptation strategy and
experiences of disaster events were also mentioned as
useful tools to improve the landslide management
process.
5. Discussion and conclusions
The overview of risk management shows that several
aspects need consideration for a successful landslide risk
management as both the vulnerability, i.e. the exposure,
sensitivity, adaptive capacity and the landslide probabil-
ity are context dependent. The advantages of systematic
risk assessment and risk management approaches have
not only been observed in previous research but also
recognised in current national legislations and interna-
tional directives. The risk management system is, how-
ever, complex and needs to include several aspects such
as compiled technical and historical information, to be
utilised by experts and urban planners.
The study is based on interviews on municipal level
and a complementary study on the user experience of the
landslide database Skrednett [68] in Norway. The munici-
palities and the interviewees were not randomly selected.
The results can therefore not be regarded as representa-
tive as an average. The selections of interviewees focussed
on the municipality level, the key level for land use
planning and related risk management, and the officials
responsible in the risk management and land use plan-
ning process. The study was based on 11 municipalities
with known landslide problems according to available
landslide susceptibility maps, and 11 known Skrednett
users. The results therefore, despite not being generic, can
be regarded as indicators of the current management
situation in countries that can be exemplified by Sweden
and the expert views on an extensive data base in Europe.
5.1. Databases and experience of Skrednett (Norway)
One of the more important contributions to raised
knowledge of societal vulnerabilities and suitable future
precautions is compiled information and learning from
past events in datasets. Natural disaster databases exist at
global level and national/regional levels. In Europe 28
countries already have landslide databases and others are
currently creating, national and/or regional databases.
Previous argumentation about deviation among the Eur-
opean landslide databases has not been possible to prove.
The majority of the European databases rarely contain
information on landslide history, triggering factors and
consequences. This is also the case for the Swedish land-
slide database which contains information on type, location,
56 Y. Andersson-Sköld et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 3 (2013) 44–61
extension (length and width) and time of the event. For
some (15) of the larger Swedish landslide events more
extensive information is compiled in the MSB database
(Swedish Natural Hazards Information System). The
implementation of EU Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) and
the EU Inspire directive (2007/2/EG) will strengthen the
international comparability and contribute to complete
the information in the databases, at least between the EU
Member States, thereby providing support for evidence
based decision making and disaster management. The
creation of integrated systems aims at increased effec-
tiveness in societal contingency planning processes at
regional and local level. Potentially, it may highlight
interdependencies within safety management and, for
users, give raised awareness of risks characterized by
complexity, uncertainty and multiple social perspectives.
Whether these goals are achieved in society or if the
system is cost-effective is more or less impossible to
measure due to system owner’s lack of control of how
their data is used. Roughly estimated measures can be
achieved from interviews with end users, where their
applications of the system and opinions of its function-
ality in relation to their own needs, are compiled. The
potential positive effects featured by the Skrednett users
are that the database provides increased focus and under-
standing of complex landslide problems and is of great
use for overall planning. The answers and many sugges-
tions for further development, demonstrate a joint esteem
among Skrednett end users for integrated systems—they
even ask for increased integration of society and contin-
gency planning tools.
5.2. Susceptibility and risk maps
All civil servants in the 11 municipalities were aware
of the overview ground stability (landslide susceptibility)
maps by MSB. The result is quite expected since these
municipalities all have had recent problems with land-
slides or other natural hazard events such as flooding. The
maps are mentioned as a relevant base in the spatial
planning and used in many stages of the process by the
respondents. The aim of the Swedish maps is to describe
the landslide susceptibility in already built up areas. If
land use is changed, the hazard probability/susceptibility
may change, and the maps should therefore not be used
for land use change assessments. According to many of
the respondents, the maps are, however, also used in the
general spatial planning, revealing a demand and discre-
pancy between municipality need and the available
knowledge support.
5.3. Competence
The results from the interviews show that there is a
need for checklists, guides, guidelines and external expert
advises. This is in agreement with a recent national
questionnaire to all Swedish municipalities showing a
lack of basic information and decision support tools [114].
There were for example requests for high resolution
topographic data ( 440%), landslide hazard/risk maps
( 460%), flood risk maps ( 450%), local climate scenarios
( 470%) and tools for CBA in the physical planning
process ( 490%) [114]. This is in agreement with findings
by Simpson and Human [104] who identified lack of
models, guidance and standards as barriers in completing
vulnerability analyses and risk mitigation plans at state
level in USA. There are several tools for CBA, and even
multi-criteria tools, available for such uses and often
much information and guidelines are available from
central agencies responsible for the issue. The obstacles
may therefore be that the tools are not yet implemented
or that the tools and the material may be too technical or
complex to be effectively applied, as also suggested by
Simpson and Human [104]. In addition, the awareness of
their existence may be limited. For example, in a New
Zealand study [88] several tools in municipal land-use
planning had been compiled and their use among spatial
planners was investigated. The result showed that there is
little awareness of the tools and that they are not used to
their full potential. The tools in use were national guide-
lines, regional policy statements, district plans and phy-
sical measures. Warning and evacuation planning was
sometimes used, while national policy, specific hazard
plans and financial incentives were absent according to
the study by Glavovic et al. [88]. This has also been shown
to be common in Sweden. For example, Glaas et al. [95]
pointed out that there is a need for better understanding
of social dimensions of risks in addition to a need to
improve the integration of research findings into the
planning process and daily work, promote evidence-
based community planning and dedicated and systematic
training and capacity building for land-use planners.
5.4. Climate change and risk management
There was an awareness of climate change among all
respondents and it is also part of the on-going work in all
municipalities. This was also found in the parallel national
questionnaire investigation [114], in contrary to the ear-
lier national investigation in 2007 which showed that
among half of the responding municipalities adaptation to
climate change was not on the agenda in the physical
planning [39]. In the resent follow-up [114] as many as
nine out 10 municipalities mention that they include
climate adaptation in their physical planning. This shows
that over a few years, adaptation to climate change has
become part of the general awareness and accepted as
something that needs consideration in the municipal
spatial planning. To what extent climate change is part
of the daily work, however, varies. In some municipalities
it is only part of discussions, while in others it is an active
part of the work. Climate related aspects are included
more concrete in the daily work in municipalities with
landslide, or other climate/weather related, problems
occurring today. Some of the smaller municipalities are
waiting for relevant examples or clearer advises and
information. Good examples, and documentation of pre-
vious experience, are of great relevance for smaller
municipalities as the investments can be costly and
maladapted and are aimed for long time perspectives.
 Y. Andersson-Sköld et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 3 (2013) 44–61
5.5. Transparency and documentation
All interviewees found that improved documentation
and active communication would contribute to more effec-
tive risk management strategies than today. This change
was also one of the intentions of the Swedish Civil Protec-
tion Act [45], where municipalities are required to perform
follow-ups and evaluations after major accidents such as
natural hazards. Lessons learning is regarded important,
both as implemented through preventive measures, but
also as basic input in Municipality Action Programmes. The
demand for better documentation reflects defective rou-
tines and awareness of liabilities. Still, the impact of this
law seems to be restricted in some sense.
5.6. Municipal organisation and responsibility
The preventive work in the municipalities is not
regarded as well-functioning as the crisis management.
A rather common reason given for this is that other
questions are higher on the agenda. In general, however,
the daily questions vary depending on the history and
frequency of events. In municipalities with previous land-
slides, preventive aspects are more common both in the
daily work and on the political agenda.
Apart from funding restrains, the main obstacle among
all the municipalities was said to be the communication
and co-operation among different units. This was valid
especially between societal and physical planners and the
rescue service. Another barrier can be fast staff-circulation
combined with poor documentation and unclear responsi-
bilities. In previous studies different capacities in smaller
and bigger municipalities, due to differences in resources
and expertise, have been highlighted [100,104,105]. In this
study, the number of inhabitants in the municipalities only
varied from ca. 10,000 to 100,000 and consequently no such
conclusions can be drawn. However, several of the respon-
dents discussed size of the municipality and the effects on
the organisation effectiveness. The arguments were that
smaller municipalities with relatively few responsible
actors and often well-functioning informal networks, offer
the potential of fast and effective information channels and
thereby a potential for well working co-operation. In large
municipalities there can be a lack of knowledge transfer
and collaboration between departments due to larger staffs,
more complex organisational structures and absence of
communication routines and strategies. This is not in
agreement with the findings by Cross [105] who argues
that larger cities are less vulnerable since the coping
capacity is enhanced to meet up with the geographical
aggregation of people and values. As this study is limited
we find that there is a need to expand the number of
studies on urbanization and development of risks to include
also smaller cities in addition to the previously performed
studies of cities with in general 45 million inhabitants as
noted by Simpson and Human [104].
5.7. Risk management effectiveness in Sweden
The number of landslides registered in the National
landslide data base is 567 (549 are dated from 1900 and
57
onwards) and only 15 of the ones dated 1950 and
onwards are large and/or severe enough to be registered
also in the more comprehensive MSB database [58]. The
number of events is low compared to other countries such
as Austria, Italy and Norway but of the same magnitude as
Switzerland. There are several possible explanations such
as that the susceptibility may be lower and that the
reporting and registration activity differ. In addition the
previous preventive work may have been rather effective
in Sweden.
The national landslide susceptibility mapping in Swe-
den was initiated in 1978. Today, 157 of 290 Swedish
municipalities have been mapped and in the most slide-
prone areas such as the Göta river valley risk mapping has
been done [42]. The risk mapping of the Göta river valley
indicate that the cost for physical preventive actions in
the high-risk areas is of the same magnitude as the values
being protected (including expected losses of life, material
damages and delays in production and transportation).
The low deviation among the preventive costs compared
to the costs in case of an event are due to previous
preventive measure such as the cost effective stabilisation
done in 1994 at the large enterprise EKA Nobel. There has
also been some active land use planning in the area. The
awareness of the landslide susceptibility and the potential
consequences in the municipalities Ale and Lilla Edet
(both located in the Göta river valley) is very high among
politicians and civil servants participating in this study.
The results from this study thus indicate that the land-
slide risk management in landslide prone areas in Sweden
is rather effective. The results agree with previous studies
that it is possible, and relevant, to make CBA in monetary
terms on physical preventive measures and spatial plan-
ning strategies (e.g. [20,23,42,75]). For assessments of
non-physical actions, such as increasing awareness, how-
ever, we regard a qualitative and semi-quantitative
assessments by experts and stakeholders more relevant.
Such an assessment shall preferably be done through a
structured stakeholder participant MCA process as pre-
viously suggested [28,87].
There are several aspects that could be improved by
providing checklists, guides, guidelines and external
expert advises, by improving the existing databases, by
providing common structures for documentation and
inter- and intra-municipal co-operation and for including
land owners and other relevant stakeholders in the
municipal risk management and planning process. Evi-
dential research on the benefits of such improvements is
lacking and only very few exist from developing countries
such as in the Eastern Caribbean (e.g. [8,26]).
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the Swedish Civil Con-
tingencies (MSB). Thanks are due to the project reference
group of the ESS programme project focusing on natural
events such as flooding and landslides and special thanks
are due to Anders Solheim, Ullacarin Lundgren, Carina
Hultén and Margareta Nisser-Larsson. Thanks also to
Linda Lundgren and Elin Sjöstedt for valuable help on
58 Y. Andersson-Sköld et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 3 (2013) 44–61
the figures. The comments of two anonymous referees are
gratefully acknowledged for improving the paper.
Appendix A. Interview guide for municipalities on
stability mapping and stability investigations, databases
and measures
Date:
Name:
Position:
Organization:
Department:
Attending researcher/s:
Transcribing (date):
Need for stability mapping and investigations
 Have general stability mapping been done in your
municipality/ies (geographical) area of responsibility?
 Is general stability mapping useful for you?
 Are results from general stability mapping used in your
planning?
 If yes: in which/what stages?
 If no: why not?
 Are other mappings/stability investigations used in
your planning?
Have you made any detailed investigations in areas
with an identified need for further investigations
 (areas under exploitation/already built/other areas)?
What data have been used as base (general stability
mapping?)?
 Is stability mapping or stability investigation requested by
actors within or outside the municipality/organization?
Measures and prioritization
 Have you identified areas that need measures and
prioritization of these (risk of landslide, rockslide,
erosion, flood)?
 Is the process prioritization well-functioning, or are
there any problems?
 What aspects are most important to consider when
prioritizing areas for measures and types of measures?
Do you have material/methodologies/tools for
assessing these?
Climate change
 Do you include consideration to climate change in
your planning or when mapping, investigating or
prioritizing?
Learning from past events
 Do you know of the MSB natural accident database or
any other accident database (if so: which)?
If yes:
 (How) do you use the information?
 What are the benefits of database?
 What improvements would you suggest or like to
request?
If no:
 Would you find a natural accident database useful?
 What information should be included in such a
database?
 Would you, and now, would you use such as
database?
Do you to supply information to the database (what/
how)?
  If yes: what is the benefit/cost for you to do you so?
Costs and benefits
 To how much do the perceived costs associated with
the development of mapping and stability investiga-
tion (besides MSB)?
 What department is responsible for the cost)?
What are the costs associated with not developing/not
having adequate mapping and stability investigations
 or not having access to the databases?
 Who is/has been in charge for the cost of taking
measures?
 Has the municipality applied for grants from MSB
for preventive measure (if so: for what?)?
 Did you get the grants? (why/why not?)
Quality
 What do you think about the quality of data in terms of
reliability, accuracy, resolution, user-friendliness, etc.
(MSB/other)?
 Is there a need for improvement of the general
mapping and/or detailed and thorough investi-
gations?*
Would you need more information/knowledge or sup-
port for the interpretation or to integrate the results
 from mapping and stability investigations in your
organization?
 What do you think about other data used when
prioritizing areas or taking measures?
Availability and experience feedback
 How and where are stability investigation, mapping,
and experiences from analyzing measures available?
 (Are they easily accesses and user-friendly? Are
updates sufficient? Do you have suggestions for
improvement?)
How does the documentation work in regards to the
processes and decisions taken about priorities and
 measures?
 (Is there a need for improvements? Do you have
any suggestions regarding the documentation?)
Administration (communication, documentation, respon-
sibilities, competence)
 How is the organization and interaction formed
regarding measures and prioritizing of these and other
management of natural disasters in you municipality/
 Y. Andersson-Sköld et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 3 (2013) 44–61
organization (during event, prevention, consequen-
ces)?
 What is your role in working with natural disasters?
 What do you think about the cooperation between
different departments and agencies?
 Do not you think there is sufficient experience and
knowledge within the organization working on these
issues?
 With expertise on the management of priorities and
actions?
 Do you get the information and help that you need?
Barriers
 What facilitates and hinders the management of nat-
ural disasters (both during the event and preparation)?
(organization, management, economic aspects, laws/
regulations, etc.)
Appendix B. Questions for users of skrednett.no
(1) How did you come into contact with skrednett.no?
(2) For what reason do you use the database?
(3) How often do you use the database?
(4) What parts of the database are you using?
(a) How do you use these parts?
Do you only use the maps or do you use other
(5) information on the portal?
(6) What do you think about the user-friendliness of the
database?
(7) How long did it take you to be able to use the
database in a good way?
(8) How does the database benefit you in your work?
(9) How does the database benefit the public?
(10) How do you value the contents of the database
(1¼low, 5 ¼high):
(a) Your own work (1–5)
(b) How you think others value it (1–5)
(c) The benefit to society in general (1–5)
Is there information/features of the database that is
(11) missing or could be further developed?
(12) Do you have any other comments or thoughts about
the database?
References
[1] Carlsson F, Daruvala D, Jaldell H. Value of statistical life and cause
of accident: a choice experiment. Risk Analysis 2010;30:975–86.
[2] Svensson M, Vredin Johansson M. Willingness to pay for private
and public road safety in stated preference studies: why the
difference? Accident Analysis and Prevention 2010;42:1205–12.
[3] Sund B, Svensson L, Rosenqvist M, Hollenberg J. Favourable cost-
benefit in an early defibrillation programme using dual dispatch of
ambulance and fire services in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The
European Journal of Health Economics 2011:1–8.
[4] Berke PR. Reducing natural hazard risks through state growth
management. Journal of the American Planning Association
1998;64:76–87.
[5] Dai FC, Lee CF, Ngai YY. Landslide risk assessment and manage-
ment: an overview. Engineering Geology 2002;64:65–87.
[6] Srivastava R, Laurian L. Natural hazard mitigation in local com-
prehensive plans: the case of flood, wildfire and drought planning
59
in Arizona. Disaster Prevention and Management 2006;15:
461–83.
[7] Singh AK. Bioengineering techniques of slope stabilization and
landslide mitigation. Disaster Prevention and Management
2010;19:384–97.
[8] Holcombe E, Anderson M. Tackling landslide risk: helping land use
policy to reflect unplanned housing realities in the Eastern
Caribbean. Land Use Policy 2010;27:798–800.
[9] Andersson-Sköld Y, Torrance JK, Lind B, Odén K, Stevens RL,
Rankka K. Quick clay—a case study of chemical perspective in
Southwest Sweden. Engineering Geology 2005;82:107–18.
[10] Sterlacchini S, Frigerio S, Giacomelli P, Brambilla M. Landslide risk
analysis: a multi-disciplinary methodological approach. Natural
Hazards and Earth System Sciences 2007;7:657–75.
[11] Friele P, Jakob M, Clague J. Hazard and risk from large landslides
from Mount Meager volcano, British Columbia, Canada. Georisk
2008;2:48–64.
[12] Eder S, Poscher G, Prager C. Risk analyses and risk management. Slope
instabilities in Alpine environments. ECI geohazards—technical, eco-
nomical and social risk evaluation; 2006.
[13] Suh J, Choi Y, Roh TD, Lee HJ, Park HD. National-scale assessment
of landslide susceptibility to rank the vulnerability to failure of
rock-cut slopes along expressways in Korea. Environmental Earth
Sciences 2011;63:619–32.
[14] Rekacewicz P. Vital climate change graphics. UNEP/GRID-arendal
maps and graphics library. Available from: /http:maps.grida.no/
go/graphic/sensitivity-adaptability-and-vulnerabilityS. Please
give the cartographer/designer/author credit; 2005.
[15] Kaplan S, Garrick B. The quantitative definition of risk. Risk
Analysis 1981;1:17.
[16] Sarewitz D, Pielke Jr. R, Keykhah M. Vulnerability and risk: some
thoughts from a political and policy perspective. Risk Analysis
2003;23:805–10.
[17] Roberts NJ, Nadim F, Kalsnes B. Quantification of vulnerability to
natural hazards. Georisk 2009;3:164–73.
[18] Brooks N. Vulnerability, risk and adaptation: a conceptual frame-
work. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. University of
East Anglia: UK; 2003.
[19] Füssel HM, Klein RJT. Climate change vulnerability assessments:
an evolution of conceptual thinking. Climatic Change 2006;75:
301–29.
[20] Uzielli M, Lacasse S. Scenario-based probabilistic estimation of
direct loss for geohazards. Georisk 2007;1:142–54.
[21] McCarthy JJ. Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation, vulner-
ability. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2001.
[22] Turner BL, Kasperson RE, Matson PA, McCarthy JJ, Corell RW,
Christensen L. A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustain-
able science. National Emergency Training Cente: USA; 2003.
[23] Li Z, Nadim F, Huang H, Uzielli M, Lacasse S. Quantitative
vulnerability estimation for scenario-based landslide hazards.
Landslides 2010;7:125–34.
[24] Blaikie P. At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability, disasters.
London: Routledge; 1994.
[25] Holcombe E, Smith S, Wright E, Anderson MG. An integrated
approach for evaluating the effectiveness of landslide risk reduc-
tion in unplanned communities in the Caribbean. Nature Hazards
2012;61:351–85.
[26] Anderson MG, Holcombe E, Esquivel M, Toro J, Ghesquiere F. The
efficacy of a programme of landslide risk reduction in areas of
unplanned housing in the Eastern Caribbean. Environmental
Management 2010;45:807–21.
[27] Bonnard C, Corominas J. Landslide hazard management practices
in the world. Landslides 2005;2:245–6.
[28] Gamper CD, Turcanu C. Can public participation help managing
risks from natural hazards? Safety Science 2009;47:522–8.
[29] Schwab JC. A Landscape of hazards, Planning. American Planning
Association, december 2008: pp. 40–45.
[30] Holub M, Fuchs S. Mitigating mountain hazards in Austria—
legislation, risk transfer, awareness building. Natural Hazards and
Earth System Sciences 2009;9:523–37.
[31] Anderson-Berry L, King D. Mitigation of the impact of tropical
cyclones in Northern Australia through community capacity
enhancement. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global
Change 2005;10:367–92.
[32] Eisenhauer BW, Nicholson B. Using stakeholders’ views: a social
science methodology for the inclusive design of environmental
communications. Applied Environmental Education and Commu-
nication 2005;4:19–30.
60 Y. Andersson-Sköld et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 3 (2013) 44–61
[33] Lemos MC, Morehouse BJ. The co-production of science and policy
in integrated climate assessments. Global Environmental Change
2005;15:57–68.
[34] Kloprogge P, Sluijs JPVD. The inclusion of stakeholder knowledge
and perspectives in integrated assessment of climate change.
Climatic Change 2006;75:359–89.
[35] Parry ML. Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulner-
ability. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
[36] Andréasson J, Bergström S, Carlsson B, Graham LP, Lindström G.
Hydrological change—climate change impact simulations for
Sweden. AMBIO 2004;33:228–34.
[37] Lawrence D, Graham LP, den Besten J, Andréasson J, Bergström S,
Engen-Skaugen T, et al. Climate change impacts and uncertainties
in flood risk management: examples from the North Sea Region. A
report of working group 1. Report no. 05–2012. SAWA Interreg IVB
Project; 2012.
[38] Olsson J, Yang W, Graham LP, Rosberg J, Andréasson J. Using an
ensemble of climate projections for simulating recent and near-
future hydrological change to Lake Vänern in Sweden. Tellus A
2011;63:126–37.
[39] SOU 2007:60. Sweden facing climate change: threats and oppor-
tunities. Final report. Fritze: Stockholm.
[40] Allen SK, Cox SC, Owens IF. Rock avalanches and other landslides
in the central Southern Alps of New Zealand: a regional study
considering possible climate change impacts. Landslides 2011;8:
33–48.
[41] Korup O, Görüm T, Hayakawa Y. Without power? Landslide
inventories in the face of climate change Earth Surface Processes
and Landforms 2012;37:92–9.
[42] Swedish Geotechnical Institute. Skredrisker i Göta älvdalen i ett
förändrat klimat, Slutrapport, Del 2 – Kartläggning. Göta
älvutredningen 2009–2011; 2012.
[43] Ren D, Fu R, Leslie LM, Dickinson RE. Predicting storm-triggered
landslides. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
2011;92:129–39.
[44] Melchiorre C, Frattini P. Modelling probability of rainfall-induced
shallow landslides in a changing climate, Otta, Central Norway.
Climatic Change 2012;113:413–36.
[45] LSO 2003:778. Lagen om skydd mot olyckor (Swedish law on
protection against accidents).
[46] Colombo A, Lanteri L, Ramasco M, Troisi C. Systematic GIS-based
landslide inventory as the first step for effective landslide-hazard
management. Landslides 2005;2:291–301.
[47] Lateltin O, Haemmig C, Raetzo H, Bonnard C. Landslide risk
management in Switzerland. Landslides 2005;2:313–20.
[48] King D. Reducing hazard vulnerability through local government
engagement and action. Nature Hazards 2008;47:497–508.
[49] Jonsson AC, Hjerpe M, Andersson-Sköld Y, Glaas E, André K,
Simonsson L. Cities’ capacity to manage climate vulnerability:
experiences from participatory vulnerability assessments in the
lower Göta Älv Catchment, Sweden. Local Environment 2012;17:
735–50.
[50] Schuster RL, Highland LM. The third hans cloos lecture. Urban
landslides: socioeconomic impacts and overview of mitigative
strategies. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment
2007;66:1–27.
[51] Remondo J, Bonachea J, Cendrero A. A statistical approach to
landslide risk modelling at basin scale: from landslide suscept-
ibility to quantitative risk assessment. Landslides 2005;2:321–8.
[52] Chacón J, Irigaray C, Fernández T, El Hamdouni R. Engineering
geology maps: landslides and geographical information systems.
Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 2006;65:
341–411.
[53] Fleischhauer M, Greiving S, Wanczura S. Natural hazards and
spatial planning in Europe. Dortmunder Vertrieb für Bau- und
Planungsliteratur; 2006.
[54] Devoli G, Strauch W, Chávez G, Høeg K. A landslide database for
Nicaragua: a tool for landslide-hazard management. Landslides
2007;4:163–76.
[55] UN/ISDR, Hyogo Framework for action 2005–2015. Building the
resilience of nations and communities to disasters. Extract from
the final report of the world conference on disaster reduction;
2005.
[56] Guzzetti F, Cardinali M, Reichenbach P. The AVI project—a
bibliographical and archive inventory of landslides and floods in
Italy. Environmental Management 1994;18:623.
[57] Kirschbaum DB, Adler R, Hong Y, Hill S, Lerner-Lam A. A global
landslide catalog for hazard applications: method, results, limita-
tions. Nature Hazards 2010;52:561–75.
[58] Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency. National database of natural
hazards. Available from: /http:/ndb.msb.seS; 2012.
[59] Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Skreddnet. Available from:
/http:www.skrednett.noS; 2012.
[60] Johansson M. Erfarenheter från naturolyckor—en kuns-
kapsöversikt (Experience from natural disasters—a review).
Räddningsverket: Karlstad; 2005. NCO 2005:5.
[61] Svensson T, Persson H. Förstudie av en svensk naturolycksdatabas
(Initial study of a Natural Hazards Database). Swedish Civil
Contingencies Agency; 2005.
[62] Van Den Eeckhaut M, Hervás J. Living with landslide risk in
Europe: assessment, effects of global change, risk management
strategies. Overview of European landslide database and recom-
mendations for interpretability and harmonization of landslide
databases. Deliverable 2.3 EU project grant agreement no. 226479.
[63] Below R, Vos F, Guha-Sapir D. Moving towards harmonization of
disaster data: a study of six Asian databases. SuperAdminCRED;
2010.
[64] European Environment Agency. Mapping the impacts of natural
hazards and technological accidents in Europe—an overview of
the last decade. Technical report no 13/2010; 2010.
[65] European Environment Agency. EEA expert meeting on hazard and
disaster data 19–20 May 2010. EEA, Copenhagen—summary,
conclusions and recommendations; 2010.
[66] Viberg L, Hågeryd AC, Jonsson H. Skreddatabas ett förslag, Rapport
över utvecklingsarbete. Swedish Geotechnical Institute: Varia;
2001. p. 512.
[67] Swedish Geotechnical Institute. Skreddatabas—skred, ras och
övriga jordrörelser i Sverige. Available from: /http://gis.swed
geo.se/skred/S; 2012.
[68] Norwegian Geotechnical Institute. Program for økt sikkerhet mot
leirskred Metode for kartlegging og klassifisering av faresoner,
kvikkleire (Program for increased landslide safety in clay soils,
methodology for mapping and classification of hazard zones).
Report 20001008-2; 2008.
[69] Lessloss, risk mitigation for earthquakes and landslides integrated
project. Report on deliverable 10—vulnerability assessment for
landslides; 2006.
[70] Cassidy MJ, Uzielli M, Lacasse S. Probability risk assessment of
landslides: a case study at Finneidfjord. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal 2008;45:1250–67.
[71] Zeng J, Zhu ZY, Zhang JL, Ouyang TP, Qiu SF, Zou Y, et al. Social
vulnerability assessment of natural hazards on county-scale using
high spatial resolution satellite imagery: a case study in the
Luogang district of Guangzhou, South China. Environmental Earth
Sciences 2012;65:173–82.
[72] Tremblay M, Öberg M, Andersson L, Andersson-Sköld Y, Johansson
Å, Lundström K, et al. Skredrisker i Göta älvdalen i ett förändrat
klimat, Slutrapport, Del 3 – Kartor, Göta älvutredningen 2009–
2011. Swedish Geotechnical Institute; 2012.
[73] Andersson-Sköld Y, Helgesson H, Enell A, Suer P, Bergman R,
Frogner-Kockum P. Matrix decision support tool for evaluation of
environmental, social and economic aspects of land use. Swedish
Geotechnical Institute: Varia; 2011.
[74] Andersson-Sköld Y. Götaälvsutredningen, delrapport 12: Metodik
för inventering och värdering av konsekvenser till följd av skred i
Göta älvdalen; 2011.
[75] Andersson-Sköld Y. Götaälvsutredningen, delrapport 13: Metodik
konsekvensbedömning—Känslighetsanalys, klassindelning och
applicering av metodik i hela utredningsområdet; 2011.
[76] Singh AK. Landslide management: concept and philosophy. Dis-
aster Prevention and Management 2010;19:119–34.
[77] Burke TJ, Sattler DN, Terich T. The socioeconomic effects of a
landslide in Western Washington. Environmental Hazards 2002;4:
129–36.
[78] Remondo J, Bonachea J, Cendrero A. Quantitative landslide risk
assessment and mapping on the basis of recent occurrences.
Geomorphology 2008;94:496–507.
[79] Remondo J, González A, Dı́az de Terán JR, Cendrero A, Fabbri A,
Chung CJF. Validation of landslide susceptibility maps; examples
and applications from a case study in northern Spain. Nature
Hazards 2003;30:437–49.
[80] Plate EJ. Flood risk management for setting priorities in decision
making. In: Vasiliev OF, van Gelder PHAJM, Plate EJ, Bolgov MV,
editors. Extreme hydrological events: new concepts for security; 2007.
[81] Hinkel J, Nicholls RJ, Vafeidis AT, Tol RSJ, Avagianou T. Assessing
risk of and adaptation to sea-level rise in the European Union: an
application of DIVA. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for
Global Change 2010;15:703–19.
 Y. Andersson-Sköld et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 3 (2013) 44–61
[82] Crovelli RA, Coe JA. Probabilistic estimation of numbers and costs
of future landslides in the San Francisco Bay region. Georisk
2009;3(2009):206–23.
[83] LB, RY, TM. Skredrisker I Göta älvdalen I ett förändrat klimat.
Slutrapport. Del 1—Samhällskonsekvenser. Göta älvutredningen
2009–2011. Swedish Geotechnical Institute. /www.swedgeoS
.se2012.
[84] Ismail-Zadeh A, Takeuchi K. Preventive disaster management of
extreme natural events. Natural Hazards 2007;42:459–67.
[85] Renn O. Risk governance: towards an integrative approach. Inter-
national Risk Governance Council. Geneva; 2005.
[86] van Oostrom N, Andersson-Sköld Y, Bormann H, de Lange G, van der
Linden L. Adaption toolkit for the North Sea Region in changing
climate. Climate proof areas work package 4 report. Available from:
/http://www.climateproofareas.com/output/toolkitS; 2011.
[87] Renn O, Webler T, Rakel H, Dienel P, Johnson B. Public participa-
tion in decision making: a three-step procedure. Policy Sciences
1993;26:189–214.
[88] Glavovic BC, Saunders WSA, Becker JS. Land-use planning for
natural hazards in New Zealand: the setting, barriers, ‘burning
issues’ and priority actions. Nature Hazards 2010;54:679–706.
[89] Storbjörk S. Governing climate adaptation in the local arena:
challenges of risk management and planning in Sweden. Local
Environment 2007;12:457–69.
[90] Uggla Y, Lidskog R. Att planera för en osäker framtid: kommuners
arbete inför hotet om ett förändrat klimat. (To plan for an
uncertain future: the municipalities work towards the threat of
a changed climate). Centrum för Urban och Regionala Studiers
skriftserie. Örebro University. Report no. 60; 2006.
[91] Birkmann J. Measuring vulnerability to promote disaster-resilient
societies: conceptual frameworks and definitions. In: Birkmann J,
editor. Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards towards dis-
aster resilient societies. New Dehli: United Nations University;
2006.
[92] Barnett J, O’Neill S. Maladaptation. Global Environmental Change
2010;20:211–3.
[93] O’Brien G, O’Keefe P, Rose J, Wisner B. Climate change and disaster
management. Disasters 2006;30:64–80.
[94] Adger WN, Arnell NW, Tompkins EL. Successful adaptation to
climate change across scales. Global Environmental Change
2005;15:77–86.
[95] Glaas E, Jonsson A, Hjerpe M, Andersson-Sköld Y. Managing
climate change vulnerabilities: formal institutions and knowledge
use as determinants of adaptive capacity at the local level in
Sweden. Local Environment 2010;15:525–39.
[96] Prabhakar SVRK, Srinivasan A, Shaw R. Climate change and local
level disaster risk reduction planning: need, opportunities and
challenges. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global
Change 2009;14:7–33.
[97] Smith JB, Ragland SE, Pitts GJ. A process for evaluating anticipatory
adaptation measures for climate change. Water Air and Soil
Pollution 1996;92:229–38.
61
[98] Klein RJT, Maciver DC. Adaptation to climate variability and
change: methodological issues. Mitigation and Adaptation Strate-
gies for Global Change 1999;4:189–98.
[99] Wheaton EE, Maciver DC. A framework and key questions for
adapting to climate variability and change. Mitigation and Adap-
tation Strategies for Global Change 1999;4:215–25.
[100] Keskitalo ECH. Adapting to climate change in Sweden: national
policy development and adaptation measures in Västra Götaland.
In: Keskitalo ECH, editor. Developing adaptation policy and
practice in Europe: multi-level governance of climate change.
Berlin: Springer; 2010.
[101] Hood C, Heald D. Transparency: the key to better governance?
Proceedings of the British Academy 2006;135.
[102] Barlow S, Chesson A, Collins J, Fernandes T, Flynn A, Hardy T, et al.
Transparency in risk assessment carried out by EFS: guidance
document on procedural aspects. EFSA Journal 2006;353:1–16.
[103] Schreider J, Barrow C, Birchfield N, Dearfield K, Devlin D, Henry S, et al.
Enhancing the credibility of decisions based on scientific conclusions:
transparency is imperative. Toxicological Sciences 2010;116:5–7.
[104] Simpson DM, Human JR. Large-scale vulnerability assessments for
natural hazards. Nature Hazards 2008;47:143–55.
[105] Cross JA. Megacities and small towns: different perspectives on
hazard vulnerability. Environment 2001;3:63–80.
[106] Pelling M. Urbanisation and disaster risk. Panel contribution to
the population–environment research network cyberseminar on
population and natural hazards; 2007.
[107] Lundqvist LJ, von Borgstede C. Whose responsibility? Swedish
local decision makers and the scale of climate change abatement
Urban Affairs Review 2008;43:299–324.
[108] Bulkeley H, Kern K. Local government and the governing of
climate change in Germany and the UK. Urban Studies 2006;43:
2237–59.
[109] Statistics Sweden. Folkmängd i riket, län och kommuner (Popula-
tion in Sweden); 2012.
[110] Patel R, Davidson B. Forskningsmetodikens grunder: att planera,
genomföra och rapportera en undersökning (Basis for research
methodology—to plan, conduct and report an investigation).
Studentlitteratur: Lund; 2003.
[111] Persson E, Johansson M. Den upplevda nyttan av den norska
skreddatabasen Skrednett—intervjuer med brukare (The per-
ceived benefits of the Norwegian landslide database Skrednett—
interviews with users). CCS report series. Centre for Climate and
Safety: Karlstad University; 2012.
[112] SFS 2009:945. Förordning med instruktion för Statens geotekniska
institut (Constitution with instructions for the Swedish Geotech-
nical Institute). Svensk författningssamling (Swedish body of law).
[113] SFS 2010:900. Plan- och bygglag (Planning and Building Act).
Svensk författningssamling (Swedish body of law).
[114] Dunberg H, Gullberg E. Kommunernas arbete med klimatanpassn-
ing: SKL granskar. Sveriges kommuner och landsting (SKL). Stock-
holm; 2011.