Landslide hazard
assessment: summary
review and new
perspectives
P. Aleotti 7 R. Chowdhury
Abstract This paper deals with several aspects of
the assessment of hazard and risk of landsliding. In
recent years the interest in this topic has increased
greatly and there are many technical papers dealing
with this subject in the literature. This article pres-
ents a summary review and a classification of the
main approaches that have been developed world-
wide. The first step is the subdivision between quali-
tative and quantitative methods. The first group is
mainly based on the site-specific experience of
experts with the susceptibility/hazard determined
directly in the field or by combining different index
maps. The approaches of the second group are
formally more rigorous. It is possible to distinguish
between statistical analyses (bivariate or multivar-
iate) and deterministic methods that involve the
analysis of specific sites or slopes based on geo-engi-
neering models. Such analyses can be deterministic
or probabilistic. Among the quantitative methods
discussed is the Neural Networks approach which
has only recently been applied to engineering
geology problems. Finally several considerations
concerning the concept of acceptable risk and risk
management are presented.
Résumé Cet article traite de plusieurs aspects de
l’évaluation de l’aléa et du risque de glissement de
terrain. Ces dernières années, l’intérêt pour ce sujet a
grandement augmenté et de nombreux articles tech-
niques s’y référant ont été publiés. Cet article
Received: 30 November 1998 7 Accepted: 2 April 1999
P. Aleotti (Y)
Via Tolstoj 86, 20098 San Giuliano Milanese (MI) – Italy
e-mail: pietro.aleotti@snamprogetti.eni.it
Fax: c39 02 52052586
R. Chowdhury
University of Wollongong, Department of Civil Mining and
Environmental Engineering, Northfield Avenue, Wollongong,
New South Wales, 2522, Australia
présente un bilan résumé et une classification des
principales approches qui ont été développées de par
le monde. La première étape consiste à distinguer les
méthodes qualitatives et quantitatives. Le premier
groupe est basé principalement sur l’expérience
régionale d’experts, avec une notion de prédisposi-
tion aux glissements déterminée directement sur le
terrain ou par combinaison de différentes cartes
d’indices. Les approches du second groupe sont
théoriquement plus rigoureuses. Il est possible de
différencier des analyses statistiques (bivariées ou
multivariées) et des méthodes déterministes qui font
intervenir l’étude de pentes ou de sites particuliers,
basée sur des modèles géomécaniques. De telles
analyses peuvent être déterministes ou probabilistes.
Parmi les méthodes quantitatives présentées, on
trouve l’approche par les réseaux neuronaux qui n’a
été que récemment appliquée à des problèmes de
géologie de l’ingénieur. Enfin, plusieurs considéra-
tions relatives au concept de risque acceptable et de
gestion du risque sont présentées.
Keywords Landslides 7 Hazard 7 Risk Assessment 7
Neural Networks 7 G.I.S
Mots clés glissement de terrain 7 aléa 7 évaluation
du risque 7 réseaux neuronaux 7 S.I.G.
Landslides – significance and
impact
In recent years the assessment of landslide hazard and risk
has become a topic of major interest for both geoscientists
and engineering professionals as well as for the community
and the local administrations in many parts of the world.
The main elements of a risk assessment system are shown
in Fig. 1. The majority of available literature is based on
the technical terminology introduced at the beginning of
Bull Eng Geol Env (1999) 58 : 21–44 7 Q Springer-Verlag 21
 P. Aleotti 7 R. Chowdhury

the socio-economic significance of landslides and secondly,

Landslide risk assessment
the increased pressure of development and urbanisation
on the environment. As development increases on sloping
Currently stable slopes Currently unstable slopes
urban areas, a higher incidence of slope instability and
landsliding is reported. A database of reported events of
slope instability extending back many decades has been
developed for the Greater Woolagong urban area in
History of No history of
Australia (Fig. 2). From this the effect of increasing devel-
landsliding landsliding
opment and urbanisation has been inferred by Flentje and
Chowdhury (1999). The increase of landslide risk is often
Quantifying extent of due to the increase in both the hazards and the elements at
Effect of development movement
risk (Fig. 3).
In 1981 Varnes estimated that from 1971 to 1974 nearly 600
Is risk people were killed every year world-wide as a consequence
low, moderate or high? of slope failures. Approximately 90% of these deaths
Effect of development
with and without occurred within the Circum Pacific Region. In 1979 the
Quantifying risk controls International Association of Engineering Geology Commis-
sion on Landslides estimated that some 14% of the lives
lost in natural catastrophes could be attributed to land-
slides. Alexander (1994), considering all natural
Cost of assessment phenomena in the period 1967–1991, reduced this to 1.2%.
He estimated, however, if the only causes considered are
volcanic eruptions, tsunami, earthquakes and landslides,
Cost of controls 5% of the total would be attributable to landslides.
In Italy, owing to its particular geological and geomorpho-
Fig. 1 logic setting (Fig. 4) landslides account for nearly 37%
Main elements of a landslide risk assessment for a given sloping (Catenacci 1992) of lives lost due to all natural phenomena.
site (after Chowdhury 1998c) Of this percentage value, 63% is accounted for by two
episodes, the 1992 Val di Stava landslide with a death toll
of 285 and the 1964 Vajont landslide with almost 2000
the 80’s (Varnes and IAEG 1984) and on minor variations victims. The latter is the most disastrous landslide which
proposed by other authors (Einstein 1988; Fell 1994). The has occurred in Europe in this century. A recent analysis of
reader is assumed to be familiar with such terms as suscep- this dramatic event, extending beyond a technical consid-
tibility, hazard, vulnerability and risk and their use with eration, is given by Paolini and Vacis (1997). Other signifi-
respect to slope instability and landsliding hence their defi- cant events took place in Tresenda in July 1983 (Polloni
nitions are not repeated here. For a discussion on mecha- and Aleotti 1998) and in Val Pola in July 1987, with 17 and
nisms and uncertainties with regard to landslides as 38 victims respectively (Alexander 1988; Cambiaghi and
natural hazards, see for example Chowdhury (1980). Schuster 1989). More recently, a major flood in the Pied-
The reasons for the increasing international interest in mont Region (November 1994) resulted in 70 deaths, of
landslides are twofold: firstly an increasing awareness of which 20 can be attributed to landslides (Aleotti et al,

50
Fig. 2
The increase with time of 45 Media references
instability in a sloping urban Data base references
40
Number of landslides recorded

area, the Greater Wollongong

Area of New South Wales,
35
Australia. The effect of
increased development of 30
sloping areas with time can
be inferred from such studies 25
(after Flentje and Chowdhury
20
1999)
15

10
5

0
1870

1880

1890

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

Year

22 Bull Eng Geol Env (1999) 58 : 21–44 7 Q Springer-Verlag

 Landslide hazard assessment

Risk = (Hazard) (Vulnerability) (Elements at risk) 2%/year. This implies that the economy should grow by at
least 6%/year to sustain economic development compared
with the 2–3% achieved recently.
Continued deforestation in landslide-prone areas
While landslides have a significant impact, their impor-
Increased regional and local precipitation tance is often under-estimated as the landslide damage is
Increased seismic activity
considered simply as a result of the triggering processes
Increased urbanization and development
and thus is included in reports of other phenomena such
as earthquakes, flood etc (Schuster 1996).
Fig. 3 Landslide costs in United States, Japan, the Alpine nations
The main reasons of the increase of landslide risk associated with (Austria, France, Italy and Switzerland) and India are quite
development similar in magnitude ($1–$5 billions per year) although, it
is likely that actual costs are highest in Japan. In Italy
natural disasters have resulted in damages of more than
1998a) while in May 1998, the disaster which that struck
$1.8 billion per year over the last 45 years and even when
Southern Italy (Campania Region) and took 161 lives was
costs resulting from loss of wealth are not included
caused by more than 100 soil slip-debris flows (Guadagno,
amounted to more than $4 billions/year during the decen-
del Prete and Hawkins 1998). This again brought landslides
nium 1980–1989 (Catenacci 1992). Data on the social and
and their catastrophic effects dramatically to the attention
economic effects of landslides are now becoming available
of not only the Italian public, but also to local and national
from other countries. In Australia for example, this
Governments and indeed to people throughout the world
problem is taking on increasing importance (Fell 1992;
(Onorati 1998). An interesting review of some historical
Chowdhury 1993; Chowdhury and Flentje 1996, 1997,
mountain landslides that affected Italy and, in general, the
1998b; Leiba 1998) and landslides are one of the primary
European Alps, has been presented by Skermer and
hazards being mapped by the Australian Geological Survey
VanDine (1992).
Organisation as part of its Cities Project (Granger 1998).
As regards the economic damage in many developing
countries, natural catastrophes account for 1–2% of the
gross national product (Hutchinson 1995). In many cases
these effects contribute to economic stagnation and lack of Basic concepts of hazard
development. A well-known example is that of Costa Rica
(Mora 1995) where population growth is 2.6%/year and the assessment including mapping or
decline in GNP caused by natural disasters is estimated at zonation
As a basis for landslide hazard/risk assessment and zona-
tion researchers generally make four fundamental assump-
tions (Varnes and IAEG 1984; Hutchinson 1995):
a) landslides will always occur in the same geological,
geomorphological, hydrogeological and climatic condi-
tions as in the past
b) the main conditions that cause landsliding are
controlled by identifiable physical factors
c) the degree of hazard can be evaluated
d) all types of slope failures can be identified and clas-
sified.
For an evaluation of landslide susceptibility it is necessary
to answer the following basic questions:
a) where will the landslides occur?
b) what type of failures will occur?
c) how will the landslides occur?
Only by answering these questions can one define the land-
slide-susceptibility in the study area. For a complete
hazard assessment, however, the questions of both when
the landslides will occur and the frequency with which they
will occur over time must be addressed.
There are a number of obstacles to be overcome
including:
a) the discontinuous nature (in space and time) of slope
Fig. 4 failures
Percentage of lives lost due to different natural phenomena (data b) the difficulty of identifying the causes, the triggering
by Alexander 1994; Catenacci 1992; Varnes and IAEG 1984) factors and the cause-effect relationships, and

Bull Eng Geol Env (1999) 58 : 21–44 7 Q Springer-Verlag 23

 P. Aleotti 7 R. Chowdhury
c) the lack of complete historical data concerning the
frequency of these geomorphologic processes.
This last aspect distinguishes landslides from other
phenomena such as floods and earthquakes, for which
detailed information is often available both on the inten-
sity of the past events and their frequency. It is only for
certain types of slope failures such as soil slips and debris
flows that the difficulties mentioned in (b) and (c) can be
resolved to some extent.
The cause-effect relationship is easily identifiable when, as
in rainfall-induced landslides, the statistical analysis of
rainfall data may enable both the definition of the trig-
gering threshold (usually in terms of intensity and dura-
tion of rainfall) and calculation of the recurrence interval
of critical rainfall, even as a function of local characteristics
(thickness of surficial layers, soil permeability, etc.)
(Aleotti et al. 1996b; Caine 1980; Cancelli and Nova 1985;
Crosta 1998; Moser and Hohenssin 1983; Polloni et al.
1996; Wilson and Weiczorek 1995); see Fig. 5.
According to current trends, an ideal map of slope insta-
bility hazard should provide information on the spatial
distribution, type, volume, velocity, travel distance and
retrogression limit of the mass movements predicted in a
certain area in a given period of time (Hartlen and Viberg
1988). However, owing to the difficulties stated above,
examples of this type of map are extremely rare in the
literature and a complete risk assessment procedure such
as the 5 steps proposed by Einstein (1988) has limited
practical application.
The probabilistic component in hazard assessment
requires understanding and assessment of many uncertain-
ties. This is often a difficult task. Moreover, there is the
problem of quantitatively determining the vulnerability of
the elements at risk. These complexities make it hard to
achieve an accurate risk assessment. As a consequence,
rather than hazard, it is frequently susceptibility which is
assessed, i.e. the possibility that a landslide will occur in a
100
Soil depth (cm)
−3
1·10 Permeability (cm/s)
Rainfall (R.T.= 10, 25,
Intensity (mm/h)
50, 100, 250, 1000 years)
−4
1·10
10
−5
5·10 1000
−5 40 80
1·10
10
1
1 10 100
Duration (h)
Fig. 5
Rainfall intensity vs rainfall duration plot for different return
time intervals (10, 25, 50, 100, 250, 1000 years) for the Langhe
Area, Piedmont Region (NW Italy). Four different permeability
thresholds, with five soil thickness curves (40, 50, 60, 70, 80 cm),
are traced on the plot. This kind of analysis may be useful in the Specific facts and generalised information are required for
preliminary phases of hazard assessment of areas prone to surfi- many components of hazard assessment and risk manage-
cial landslides (soil slips) (after Aleotti et al. 1996b) ment of slopes and landslides. These include:
24 Bull Eng Geol Env (1999) 58 : 21–44 7 Q Springer-Verlag
particular area on the basis of the local environmental
conditions.
The highest hazard is generally, if not always, associated
with known landslide areas, i.e. sloping areas which have
suffered instability in the past. However, neither qualita-
tive nor quantitative methods of analysis have, until quite
recently, addressed the question of differentiating the
hazard in existing landslide areas. It has been shown by
Chowdhury and Flentje (1998a) that the hazard may be
significantly different from one existing landslide area to
another. They ranked the hazards associated with existing
landslides in a specific study area in Australia and found
this was validated on the basis of the recorded impact of
landsliding in that study area. These findings are impor-
tant for further development of reliable methods of land-
slide hazard assessment.
Another aspect that should be mentioned here is the work-
scale to be adopted for mapping, investigation and assess-
ment of hazard. It has been proposed that the work-scale
be chosen on the basis of three factors (Aleotti et al.
1996a):
1. The purpose of the assessment
In land use, for example, planning on a regional scale
could be adopted (1 : 100.000–1 : 500.000), whereas for more
specific problems such as the implementation of large
engineering structures or the definition of a plan of
priority measures, the scale should be more detailed
(medium scale: 1 : 25.000–1 : 50.000). Frequently, these
analyses are preliminary to more specific studies to be
conducted on perhaps a single slope or small areas where
an even larger scale would be appropriate.
2. The extent of the studied area
3. Data availability
This aspect is often directly related to the extent of the
examined area, and therefore, to the possibility of
collecting useful data for the assessment through an appro-
priate cost/benefit analysis. For large areas, hazard assess-
ment may be based on the analysis and interpretation of
available data, while for smaller areas the assessment of
stability and hazard could be facilitated by specific
geotechnical investigations including observational proce-
dures requiring subsurface monitoring devices such as
inclinometers and piezometers.
The choice of the work-scale affects the selection of the
approach: thus, a statistical approach may not be suitable
for studies concerning individual slopes or small areas
while a geotechnical engineering approach based on the
calculations of safety factor and/or associated failure prob-
ability, would not be suitable at the regional scale.
1000
Essential information and input
data

a) the assessment of performance over time
b) the consequences of failure including environmental
impacts and
c) economic aspects.
It is important therefore to have a clear idea of the aims of
the hazard assessment. Factors to be considered include
whether it should be a qualitative or a quantitative assess-
ment, whether the basis of assessment should be determin-
istic or probabilistic, the extent to which reliance should be
placed on historical records of instability, whether obser-
vational approaches should be part of continuing assess-
ment and to what extent the vulnerability of elements at
risk and the impact of landsliding should be taken into
account.
There are essential pre-requisites to the development or
application of any method of hazard assessment. These
include an understanding of geology, hydrogeology and
geomorphology from available maps, reports and field
surveys, preliminary geological and geotechnical investiga-
tion, access to historical information on landsliding, rain-
fall records and historical seismicity. Information on the
extent of success or failure of any hazard assessment and
management strategies previously undertaken will also
prove to be useful in most cases.
In developing a method of landslide hazard assessment it
is of fundamental importance to identify the causes of
potential instability and landslides. Indeed, by determining
the factors that have caused landslides in the past it may be
possible to forecast where and when future events could
occur. In other words, whatever methodology that is
adopted, the input data for a hazard assessment must only
be selected after carefully considering the causes of past
instability and the likely causes of potential future insta-
bility. Analysis of cause-effect relationships is not always
easy however as a landslide is seldom linked to a single
cause. It is often difficult to identify all the factors involved
and in many cases it is hard to define the relationships
between different causes. As will be detailed in later
sections of this paper, a bivariate analysis, for example,
could lead to inaccuracies as two or more factors consid-
ered separately could lead to a different assessment than
when they are examined together while the same factor
could have different consequences depending on the type
of process/mechanism that is considered relevant.
From the well-known limit equilibrium model used for
geotechnical analysis, the factors likely to generate slope
instability can be divided into two groups: those which
increase the shear stresses or disturbing forces and those
which reduce the shear strength or the stabilising forces. It
is also helpful to distinguish between pre-disposing factors
and triggering factors (an analysis of the latter was recently
proposed by Wieczoreck 1996). Some authors distinguish
these factors from the so-called revealing factors (Vaunat
et al. 1992). Siddle et al. (1991) proposed a bipartition
between extrinsic and intrinsic factors. Extrinsic factors
may change over a historical time scale and are likely to be
associated with the reactivation of old landslide areas. The
intrinsic factors are usually related to features of the land-
scape and may be expected to change only within a
Landslide hazard assessment
geomorphological time scale. Factors to be considered
have often been listed in the literature (Amanti et al. 1992;
Brabb 1984; Carrara and Merenda 1976; Cotecchia 1978;
Cruden and Varnes 1996; Hansen 1984; Hutchinson 1995;
Popescu 1998; Terzaghi 1950; Varnes et al. 1984) but the
effective use of such lists requires firstly effective data
storage and secondly, appropriate selection of information
useful for the particular analysis. This will depend on the
type of problem under consideration (type of landslides
present), the extent of the study area, the work-scale and
the approach that will be adopted as well as the reliability
and accuracy of the data.
Data management: collection, storage and
selection
The first step in every assessment consists of collecting all
available information and data on the study area. The
importance of accurate collection and storage of informa-
tion in the database is widely acknowledged (Amanti et al.
1996; Carrara 1982; Cruden and Brown 1992; Chowdhury
and Flentje 1998a; Wieczorek 1984) but this is undoubtedly
one of the most burdensome operations in the task of
hazard assessment, regardless of the particular approach
that is being adopted and the extent of the study area.
Some researchers estimate that the cost of data collection
and management accounts for 70–80% of the total cost,
including review and updating (Leroi 1996).
The achievement of the objective has been greatly
enhanced by the introduction of Geographical Information
Systems (GIS).
Two fundamental rules must be observed when creating a
database (Leroi 1996):
a) the information must be homogeneous, i.e. it must
have the same work-scale and the same geographic
projection system
b) the database must be organised into basic mono-
thematic layers, each of which contains homogeneous
data.
In addition, a database should include at least the
following basic information (Chowdhury and Flentje
1998a):
a) a census of existing landslides including their nature,
size, location and history
b) a reliable site reference code
c) any available information from previous site investiga-
tions (aerial photo interpretation, laboratory testing,
field analyses including back analyses of failures)
d) any remedial or preventive measures installed and their
effectiveness
e) data from any installed instrumentation (inclinometers,
piezometers).
The selection of data that could or should be utilised for
the assessment of a given area depends essentially on:
a) the size of the study area
b) the work-scale
c) the technique adopted and
d) the type of landslide.
An important part of this process is the selection of reli-
able data from what may be available. This is facilitated by
Bull Eng Geol Env (1999) 58 : 21–44 7 Q Springer-Verlag 25
 P. Aleotti 7 R. Chowdhury

examining the source of the data, the purpose of the Outline of various methods
original investigation and data collection and the form in
which data are available. In preparing GIS-based maps of of approaches to landslide
geology, Flentje (1998) obtained access to a number of susceptibility and hazard
borehole records from mining companies concerned with
coal exploration and production in the study area, public assessment
authorities concerned with development of transportation
links such as roads and railways and geotechnical Broadly speaking, methods of landslide hazard assessment
consulting firms. The quality of data was very variable, as may be qualitative or quantitative. The detailed classifica-
was the level of quantification and detail. Consequently, tion of assessment methodologies is somewhat subjective
careful judgement, supported by discussion with other and depends upon the choice of the aspect/s to be empha-
professionals, was required to identify data which were sised. A number of methods have now been developed as
unreliable. A great deal of the remaining information was summarised in Fig. 6.
found to be reliable and some information which was The different approaches can be classified on the basis of
initially considered to be less accurate was subsequently how the assessment area units are defined. It is possible to
included when other supporting information was found. differentiate between:
The whole of the data could then be further reviewed in the a) the adoption of regular grids of identical size and shape
light of validation processes which included reference to (square, rectangular, hexagonal and so on) (Carrara
existing maps and careful field checking. 1983, Anbalagan and Singh 1996)
b) the adoption of individual hillslopes or other landform
elements (morphological units) (Carrara et al. 1992;
Kienholz 1978) or
Data accuracy and reliability c) a consideration of units automatically derived from
overlays of each parameter map (Ives and Bovis 1978).
As stated above, the reliability and accuracy of data during Another classification is based on distinguishing between
collection and storage is very important. Nevertheless, its the different categories of hazard. Hartlen and Viberg
reliability and accuracy should subsequently be reviewed (1988) identify:
from time to time. Hazard assessment should be an on- a) relative hazard, where different slopes are compared
going process which can be updated as frequently as without expressing a precise value or quantification
required. Additional information often becomes available b) absolute hazard calculated either deterministically
with the discovery of new historical sources or as a result (safety factor) or on the basis of statistical analysis
of additional investigations. For example, data on
frequency and spatial distribution of past landsliding must
Field
always remain open to revision and expansion. The occur- geomorphological
rence of new instabilities or the reactivation of old land- analysis
slides may provide detailed information on the failure
Qualitative
mechanisms or further details of the relationship between methods
Combination or
rainfall and landsliding may become available. Similarly, overlay of index
maps
additional information will become available on the Use of index or
seismic response of slopes and escarpments and the devel- parameter maps Logical
opment of earthquake-induced landsliding. Every effort analytical M.
Assessment
methods

should be made to continually increase the accuracy and

Hazard

reliability of the data, checking the validity of assumed

mechanisms of failure and further refining the relation- Bivariate A.
ships between causative and influencing factors and on the Statistical
analysis
landsliding phenomena themselves. It will therefore be Multivariate A.
necessary to develop procedures and methods for updating
of data concerning both currently stable areas and areas Deterministic A.
which have already been subject to landsliding. Accurate (safety factor
Quantitative Geotechnical
information on geological details, geotechnical parameters engineering calculation)
methods
and pore water pressures is of paramount importance for approaches
detailed studies concerning individual sites. The target or Probabilistic
approaches
desirable level of detail and reliability concerning all this
information will be determined not only by the purpose
and importance of the project but also by the availability of Neural network
analysis
the financial and other resources to carry out the relevant (black box)
tasks.
Fig. 6
Proposed classification of landslide hazard assessment methods

26 Bull Eng Geol Env (1999) 58 : 21–44 7 Q Springer-Verlag


c) empirical hazard based on the development of curves
which relate several parameters such as slope height
and angle
d) monitored hazard where deformation and/or rainfall
data are compared with predetermined critical or
threshold magnitudes considered to trigger land-
sliding.
However, the most common classification is based on the
method by which landslide susceptibility and hazard are
assessed. Carrara (1982) distinguished between a geomor-
phological and a quantitative/index approach. In the
former, a geomorphological map, supplemented by addi-
tional data, provides all the information needed to define
the conditions of stability or the degree of instability in a
given area. In the quantitative/index approach, base maps
(also called parameter maps or index maps) are overlain
and suitably weighted and the area is divided into homoge-
neous zones. Subsequently Carrara (1988) introduced a
third group of methods, the so-called statistical approach
in which statistical techniques are used to evaluate the
influence of each contributory factor in producing insta-
bility.
From the beginning of the 80’s, the enormous potential of
computer-based tools (Personal Computer and Geogra-
phical Information System) enabled storage and proc-
essing of a huge amounts of data through the use of
complex techniques (multivariate statistics). The classifica-
tion put forward by Hutchinson (1995) can be compared to
that proposed by previous authors, in which the statistical
approach was defined as a direct comparison technique
based on the relationship between various fundamental
maps (usually lithology and slope inclination) with land-
slide distribution maps.
Some conceptual differences can be recognised in the clas-
sification suggested by Crozier (1992). He proposed the
distinction between inductive, deductive and geotechnical
approaches, although the difference between inductive and
deductive methods is not always clear. In essence, it
appears that with the deductive approach the selection of
parameters and the choice of their relative weighting is
determined empirically (post-event), whilst in the deduc-
tive approaches such determinations are made on the basis
of experience and intuition (pre-event).
In this paper a new classification is proposed (Fig. 6),
based on those of Carrara (1982), Hansen (1984), Leroi
(1996), Soeters and Van Western (1996). The main varia-
tions consist in
a) the introduction of the so-called logical-analytical
models, where susceptibility is expressed by an equa-
tion in which the independent variables are tied
together by various weights, depending upon the
influence they exert on the dependent variable (slope
deformation) (Bughi et al. 1996) and
b) the introduction of new techniques that utilise neural
networks (Aleotti et al. 1996c 1998b; Mayoraz et al.
1996). These techniques (neural networks) do not fall
entirely under any traditional assessment technique.
The distinctive feature of such methods is that they do
not depend upon the physical aspects of the problem
Landslide hazard assessment
and hence do not require a basic conceptual knowledge
of these.
Qualitative methodologies
In general qualitative approaches are based entirely on the
judgement of the person or persons carrying out the
susceptibility or hazard assessment. The input data are
usually derived from assessment during field visits,
possibly supported by aerial photo interpretation. These
methodologies, also defined as Expert Evaluation
Approaches (Leroi 1996), can be divided into two types:
field geomorphological analysis and the combination or
overlaying of index maps with or without weighting.
Field geomorphological analysis
This group is probably the simplest of the qualitative
methods. The assessment and/or zonation is carried out
directly in the field by the earth scientist, based on his/her
experience in other similar situations, with no clear indica-
tion of any “rules” which have led to the assessment and/or
zonation. In this case the stability maps are directly
evolved from detailed geomorphological maps (Panizza
1975). The main disadvantages of such approaches are
(Leroi 1996):
a) the subjectivity in the selection of both the data and the
rules that govern the stability of slopes or the hazard of
instability. This fact makes it difficult to compare land-
slide hazard maps produced by different investigators
or experts
b) use of implicit rather than explicit rules hinders the
critical analysis of results and makes it difficult to
update the assessment as new data become available
c) lengthy field surveys are required.
Nevertheless, they allow a rapid assessment of stability in a
given area, taking into consideration a very large number
of factors. They can be used successfully at any scale, and if
necessary, adapted to specific local requirements. The field
geomorphological analysis does not require the use of a
Geographical Information System which, in this case, is
simply a drawing tool.
Examples of studies using these methods are very frequent
in literature of the 70s and 80s (Bosi et al. 1982; Carrara
and Merenda 1976; Fenti et al. 1979; Guerricchio and Meli-
doro 1979; Kienholz 1978; Ives and Messerli 1981; Rupke et
al. 1988). Brugner and Valdinucci (1972) propose a stability
map at a scale of 1 : 50.000 in which landslide susceptibility
is divided into five classes. At the two ends of the spectrum
of classes or categories are the stable areas and active land-
slides, between which are three categories of varying
susceptibility coloured in different tones of yellow. The
legend indicates the factors that have influenced the alloca-
tion of an area within a given category: the inclination of
slope; the soil stratification-slope angle; the extent of frac-
turing in lithotypes and the morphological regularity.
Perhaps one of the most comprehensive projects reported
in the literature is the French ZERMOS procedure (Antoine
Bull Eng Geol Env (1999) 58 : 21–44 7 Q Springer-Verlag 27
 P. Aleotti 7 R. Chowdhury
1977; Humbert 1977; Meneroud and Calvino 1976) which
involves two main phases: analysis and extrapolation. In
the first phase, all the factors which may influence the
stability are examined, both permanent (topography,
geology, hydrogeology, hydrology, etc.) and temporary
(climate, land use and other man-made factors). Active
and/or inactive landslides may be analysed. In the next
phase all the factors are extrapolated by the author to areas
with similar physical conditions, thus enabling zonation of
the area into three sections with varying degrees of hazard
(“risque”):
a) null or low hazard, areas in which no instability should
occur
b) potential or uncertain hazard, areas with potential
instability of uncertain nature and extent
c) ascertained hazard, areas with declared instability and
certain threat of failure.
The hazard calculated is of a relative nature and the
authors acknowledge that the various hazard categories
cannot be compared from one area to another.
Hearn (1995) has recently proposed mapping at a scale of
1 : 10.000 based on a hazard classification sheet compiled
directly in the field for every geomorphological unit (Gus)
identified previously. An interesting example of a suscepti-
bility map based on field analysis is reported by Carmassi
et al. (1992) who used this method to identify the most
favourable zones for the construction of power plants.
Synthesis based on overlay or combination of
index maps or parameter maps with weights
In this approach, the expert selects and maps the factors
that affect slope stability and, based on personal experi-
ence, assigns to each a weighted value that is proportionate
to its expected relative contribution in generating failure.
The following operations should be carried out (Soeters
and Van Westen 1996):
a) subdivision of each parameter into a number of rele-
vant classes
b) attribution of a weighted value to each class
c) attribution of weighted values to each of the parame-
ters
d) overlay mapping of the weighted maps and
e) development of the final map showing hazard classes.
The advantages of such a methodological approach are
that it considerably reduces the problem of the hidden
rules and enables total automation of the operations listed
above through appropriate use of Geographical Informa-
tion Systems. Furthermore, it enables the standardisation Slope map
of data management techniques, from acquisition through
to final analysis. This technique can be applied at any
scale. The major disadvantage is the lengthy operations
involved, especially where large areas are concerned. The
problem of subjectivity in attributing weighted values to
each parameter and to the different factors also remains, as
well as the difficulty of extrapolating a model developed in
a particular area to other sites or zones (Carrara 1983).
An early and well-known example of this methodology is
that reported by Stevenson (1977) who developed a similar Schematic representation of the method proposed by Amadesi
approach for hazard zonation for an area in Tasmania. and Vianello (1978)
28 Bull Eng Geol Env (1999) 58 : 21–44 7 Q Springer-Verlag
Amadesi and Vianello (1978) proposed a scheme involving
several steps in which the initial susceptibility map,
obtained by overlaying the lithological maps with the slope
maps and the structural maps, is progressively refined by
considering first the land use map and then the geomor-
phological map (Fig. 7). The most interesting aspect lies in
the last phase when the second stability map is compared
with the geomorphological map. No numerical weighted
value is assigned to the geomorphological data and the
operator must quantify its influence on stability based on
his/her personal experience. This step introduces a similar
element of subjectivity as is found with the direct geomor-
phological approach.
To some extent these limitations have been overcome by
recent techniques such as that proposed by Anbalagan
(1992), Abu-zeid et al (1994) Anbalagan and Singh (1996)
Gupta and Anbalagan (1997) Visintainer and Turrini
(1995), at scales in the range 1 : 25.000–1 : 50.000. The
hazard (TEHD) is calculated by breaking down the study
area into facets delimited by ridges, spurs, gullies and
rivers, followed by the overlay of index maps. However,
with the scales adopted and for large areas, it appears diffi-
cult to apply the correction factor for the weathering of the
lithotypes and to accurately determine the structural
discontinuity-slope angle. Moreover, the criterion used to
divide the area determines the presence of various-sized
cells that could contain inhomogeneous parameters. This
could be overcome by attributing to each parameter in a
given cell, a value corresponding to the weighted mean of
the partial contributions, or more conservatively, the
highest value among those present (Abu-zeid et al. 1994).
In the same line of research, there are the so-called logical
analytical models which have the same conceptual back-
ground but a different scale of application. Figure 8 shows
the basis of a logical analytical model. The first stage
consists of a tentatively proposed relationship which links
some experience-based weighted factors. Using the
proposed relationship it is possible to predict the slope
displacements of some landslides and, by comparing the
results with the monitoring data, to define the degree of
Operations
Lithological (1) overlay and sum
map (2) overlay and sum or subtraction
(3) expert qualitative analysis
(1) First
stability
map
Second
(2)
stability
map
Structural (3) Final
Land use map hazard
map
map
Geomorphic
map
Fig. 7
 Landslide hazard assessment

Physical by gas pipelines (Bughi et al. 1996). The field surveys

knowledge enabled the recognition of a number of factors, including
Monitoring the different types of landslides; translational slides and
Relationship and
rotational slides being the most frequent) and the litho-
weights selection types involved – usually clay and silt. The subsurface
instrumented data refer mainly to inclinometric and
piezometric measurements. From Fig. 9 it may be noted
Calibration

Slope
displacements
poor Degree
of agreement
Fig. 8
Example of a logical analytical model
agreement. At this stage the established relationship can be
calibrated by varying the weights of the elements. Once the
degree of agreement is good, the relationship can be used
to classify all the failures, even those for which subsurface
instrumented data are not available.
A logical analytical model has been used to predict the
slope displacement in geologically unstable areas crossed
Fig. 9
General characteristics of instability or movements related to
pipe-slope interaction in some geologically unstable areas within
Italy (modified after Scarpelli et al. 1995)
that the depth of the slip surface ranges between 1 and
16 m and that the rate of movement is extremely slow or
very slow.
General
good
application and
hazard
classification Quantitative methodologies
Statistical analyses
The attribution of weighted values on a subjective basis to
the numerous factors that govern slope stability represents
the main limitation in all the methods described above.
The solution to this problem could be to adopt a statistical
approach that compares the spatial distribution of land-
slides with the parameters that are being considered. The
results could then be applied to areas currently free of
landslides but where conditions may exist for susceptibility
to future instability. The major difficulty consists in estab-
lishing the slope failure processes and in systematically
identifying and assessing the different factors related to
landsliding (Carrara 1988). One of the principal advantages
is that the investigator can validate the importance of each
factor and decide on the final input maps in an interactive
manner. The use of G.I.S. makes these operations much

40 60
FA Fall SA Sandstone
CM Complex CO Conglomerate
30 FW Flow MA Marls
LI Limestone
Percentage (%)

Percentage (%)

TS Translational slide 40
RS Rotational slide GR Gravel
TO Topple SD Sand
20 ST Silt
CL Clay
20
10

0 0
FA CM FW TS RS TO SA CO MA LI GR SD ST CL
Landslide type Lithology

60 60
Percentage (%)
Percentage (%)

40 40

20 20

0 0
0.05 0.05 - 0.10 0.10 - 0.20 > 0.20 <3 3-6 6-9 9 - 12 12 - 15 > 15
Rate of movements (mm/day) Depth of slip surface (m)

Bull Eng Geol Env (1999) 58 : 21–44 7 Q Springer-Verlag 29

 P. Aleotti 7 R. Chowdhury
easier and to a large extent explains the increasing “popu-
larity” of the statistical approach which closely parallels the
ever-increasing application of G.I.S. techniques.
Statistical analyses can be either bivariate or multivariate.
Bivariate statistical analyses
In bivariate statistical analyses each individual factor is
compared to the landslide map. The weighted value of the
classes used to categorise every parameter is determined
on the basis of landslide density in each individual class.
The following operations are required:
a) selection and mapping of significant parameters and
their categorisation into a number of relevant classes
b) landslide mapping
c) overlay mapping of the landslide map with each param-
eter map
d) determination of density of landslides in each param-
eter class and definition of weighted values
e) assignment of weighting values to the various param-
eter maps
f) final overlay mapping and calculation of the final
hazard or susceptibility value of each identified land
unit.
Although the bivariate statistical analysis is considered to
be a quantitative approach to landslide hazard assessment,
a certain degree of subjectivity exists, particularly in step 5.
In addition, it must be appreciated that in many situations,
the analysed factors are not independent and may show
either high or low correlation (Leroi 1996).
The most simple models include the determination of a
threshold value of slope angle or inclination, above which
the site or area is considered unstable in relation to the
presence of a given lithotype (Brabb et al. 1972; Nielsen et
al. 1979; Pomeroy 1979). The models are based on a series
of empirical curves (Hartlen and Viberg 1988) that relate
the two or more significant parameters such as slope
height and slope angle for failed slopes (Viberg 1984). As
an example, Lucini (1979) records that in research
conducted in Southern Italy, in the area where the “Argille
Varicolori” clays outcrop, it was noted that all the land-
slides occur in zones with slope inclinations higher than
15%. As a consequence, it was considered appropriate to
distinguish only two hazard classes for this study area.
The bivariate statistical approach is widely employed by
the earth scientists and numerous parameters may be
taken into consideration: lithology, slope angle, slope
height, land use (Bortolami et al. 1994), distance from
major structures, drainage density (Meherotra et al. 1994),
relief morphology (Sorriso Valvo et al. 1996), closeness of
the facet to a river (Choubey et al. 1992), attitude of litho-
types (Guida et al. 1979). Kingsbury et al. (1992) based
their hazard classification and mapping entirely on slope
inclination as they found that additional factors (soil type,
land-use, slope aspect, proximity to water courses) did not
improve the final result. Such a conclusion can only be
applicable to a particular area or region and should not be
extended to another area or region without a thorough
analysis which is region- or area-specific.
30 Bull Eng Geol Env (1999) 58 : 21–44 7 Q Springer-Verlag
The bivariate statistical approach has been successfully
employed by researchers mapping hazard of surficial fail-
ures. In some cases, the principal pre-disposing factor was
again found to be slope steepness. This parameter was
analysed by several authors together with the sharpness of
ridge crest (Ellen et al. 1982), soil type and vegetation
covers (Hastie 1990) and slope aspect (Aleotti et al. 1996b).
Aleotti et al. (1996b 1998a) applied such an approach for
the evaluation of landslide hazard in a region in Northwest
Italy. In 1994, an unprecedented rainstorm triggered many
surficial landslides, mainly soil slips and soil slip-debris
flows, causing 20 fatalities (Polloni et al. 1996). From a
statistical analysis it was possible to determine the critical
geometric conditions for these landslides in terms of
morphological context, slope angle and other factors.
Aleotti et al then calculated the critical depth of failure as a
function of both the slope angle and the internal friction
angle. The values obtained were in good agreement with
the field observations. Following this, they used the Green
and Ampt model (Green and Ampt 1911, Pradel and Raad
1993), to estimate the minimum intensity/duration rainfall
values capable of saturating soil at different depths. Having
completed the examination of the boundary conditions, a
susceptibility map was prepared by overlaying the pre-
disposing factor maps. An analysis of the historical rainfall
data should then be added. In fact it is possible to obtain
the permeability threshold values as a function of precipi-
tation with different return times. This corresponds to a
probabilistic assessment of the triggering cause. Hence, in
addition to susceptibility, a hazard assessment is also
possible (Fig. 10).
Multivariate statistical analyses
Although the multivariate statistical approach had already
been successfully applied in several areas of applied
geology, such as petroleum exploration, the application of
this technique to landslide hazard evaluation began at a
later date (Neuland 1976; Carrara et al. 1978). Indeed, it
was not until the 80s that detailed analyses on this basis
began, following the work accomplished by Carrara
(1983).
The procedure involves several preliminary steps which are
undertaken in a test area. Once the results achieved have
been verified (see step 6 below), they are extended to the
entire area under examination. The following steps are
required:
1. Classification of the study area into land units.
In the first applications (Carrara et al. 1978; Carrara 1983
1988) the land units were square with sides of varying
dimensions (usually 100 or 200 m), depending upon the
extent of knowledge of the area. Subsequently they have
been defined on a morphometric basis (Carrara et al. 1991
1992);
2. Identification of significant factors and creation of input
maps
The input variables include information concerning the
landslides (type, degree of activity, etc.) and geo-refer-
encing. Several attributes are automatically derived from
statistical operations performed on the basic parameters
 Landslide hazard assessment

Analysis of the In general, the decision to carry out the analysis on two
Statistical analysis
of the landslides Stabilty analysis historical groups only (unstable and stable land units) simplifies the
(bivariate) meteorologic data problem from a statistical viewpoint but hinders the iden-
set
tification of various combinations of factors related to
different hazard types;
Calculation of the
5. Combination of the parameter maps with the land unit
Determination of the Definition of map and creation of an absence/presence matrix of a given
permeability
geometrical critical meteorologic critical
conditions
thresholds and of
thresholds class of a given parameter within each land unit;
the critical depth
6. Multivariate statistical analysis:
Given the large amount of data, this analysis should be
carried out using specific software. Fortunately these pack-
ages are now included as part of the G.I.S. software
Knowledge of the
programs. The statistical analyses most frequently used are
Knowledge of the
factors of triggering cause
discriminant analysis (Baeza and Corominas 1996; Carrara
predisposition 1983; Carrara et al. 1990) or regressive multiple analysis
(Bernknopf et al. 1988; Jade and Sarkar 1993; Wieczorek et
al. 1996) which are often employed in parallel within the
same project (Baldi et al. 1990; Carrara 1983). It is prefer-
Susceptibility map able to apply discriminant analysis (stepwise or canonical
Soil slip hazard discriminant analysis) with continuous variables, while the
assessment
regressive analysis can be used even with nominal varia-
bles (Clerici and Dall’Olio 1995);
Fig. 10 7. Reclassification of land units based on the results
Flow chart for surficial failures susceptibility map (after Aleotti et achieved in the previous phase and their classification into
al. 1996b and 1998a) susceptibility classes.
In the discriminant analysis for example, the inspection of
the standardised discriminant coefficient allows the contri-
bution of various parameters in causing slope instability to
(mean, standard deviation, maximum or minimum be quantified and, as a result, enables objective reclassifi-
values). An important aspect is the conversion of various cation of the study area. By transforming the classification
parameters from nominal to numeric, eg, rock composi- function scores into probabilities, the susceptibility map
tion or vegetation cover. This can be done through the can then be converted into a hazard map (Carrara 1983);
creation of dummy variables or by coding and ranking the
classes based on the relative percentage of the area affected
by landsliding. The two methods are similar but the latter
is to be preferred for two reasons. It avoids the creation of Geotechnical models –
an excessively high number of dummy variables and allows
consideration of the so-called “previous knowledge” of deterministic and probabilistic
landslide susceptibility (Carrara 1983);
3. Construction of a landslide map Deterministic framework
In this phase the collection (on special sheets) and/or This type of approach involves analysing specific sites or
storage of all information concerning landslides (Carrara slopes in engineering terms. The main physical properties
1982) into specific databases is very useful. In fact, if syste- are quantified and applied to specific mathematical models
matic, complete and homogeneous databases are and the safety factor is calculated. These models (mono-.
constructed at world-wide level, they could be applied to bi- and tri-dimensional) are commonly used in soil engi-
other regions having similar characteristics. Unfortunately, neering for slope-specific stability studies. The approach is
to date such nation-wide databases are rare (Leroi 1996; widely employed in civil engineering and engineering
Cruden and Brown 1992); geology and has been applied to landslide hazard assess-
4. Identification of the percentage of landslide-affected ment and mapping, especially after the introduction of
areas in every land unit and their classification into un- G.I.S. Accuracy and reliability is improved as detailed
stable and stable units. knowledge of the area of application increases. A deter-
The threshold value of this classification is fixed every time ministic approach was traditionally considered to be suffi-
on the basis of two requirements: cient for both homogenous and non-homogenous slopes.
(a) in areas with high landslide density, the threshold The index of stability is the well known safety factor, based
should be based on relatively high percentages in order on the appropriate geotechnical model. The calculation of
to achieve two statistically representative groups the safety factor, F, requires geometrical data, data on
(b) however, even a relatively low landslide density must shear strength parameters (cohesion and angle of internal
be taken into consideration as it could represent a risk friction) and information on pore water pressures. More-
for human activities (Carrara 1983). over, decisions must be made on whether to use peak shear

Bull Eng Geol Env (1999) 58 : 21–44 7 Q Springer-Verlag 31

 P. Aleotti 7 R. Chowdhury
strength values or residual shear strength values (or values
in between) for specific parts of the slip surface (Chowd-
hury 1976; Chowdhury and Bertoldi 1977). For these
reasons such methods are normally applied only in small
areas and at detailed scales. Calculations of the safety
factor must be made for each individual slope or area
before a hazard map can be prepared.
The use of G.I.S. facilitates the simulation of multiple scen-
arios based on variable factor hypotheses (usually the trig-
gering factors), as well as the construction of reliable
hazard maps.
A summary of deterministic approaches for susceptibility
and hazard assessment is provided in Fig. 11 which shows
the procedures of type (A), (B) and (C) discussed below.
Safety factor as a basis for susceptibility and hazard
assessment
In the simplest model (A), the results obtained from the
stability analyses for various combinations of parameters
are qualitatively re-converted into various degrees of
susceptibility and spatialized using a standard G.I.S.
overlay mapping procedure to achieve a final assessment
map (Fig. 11). An example of this kind has been recently
proposed by Gokceoglu and Aksoy (1996). In general this
approach can be defined as semi-quantitative.
Baldelli et al (1996) applied this type of technique during
the Environmental Impact Assessment of the Messina
Straits Crossing Project. This consists of three submerged
floating tunnels anchored to the sea floor running at a
depth of 50 m below sea level. The base maps are the
Digital Terrain Model (DTM), the geological map and the
geomorphological map. The DTM provided the slope map,
Fig. 11 A B
Summary of deterministic
methods for susceptibility and
hazard assessment Fixed input (*)
Profile
selection
Stability analysis
Spatialization
Susceptibility
map
(*) precautionary
(conservative) values
32 Bull Eng Geol Env (1999) 58 : 21–44 7 Q Springer-Verlag
the aspect map and the elevation map. Based on the anal-
ysis of the physical characteristics of the geological units, a
geotechnical map was produced. Finally, the geomorpho-
logical map provided the location of both active and
dormant landslides. For each lithological unit the critical
geometrical conditions were determined by means of pseu-
dostatic stability analyses (input matrix). The final suscep-
tibility map (at a scale of 1 : 10,000) was derived by overlap-
ping the geotechnical map, the landslide map, the slope
map and the relief map (Fig. 12).
The studied area can be divided in six classes of suscepti-
bility, but without rigid distinctions. Flat areas, obviously,
will not have stability problems. In areas with rock
outcrops, stability must be verified by taking into account
the rock characteristics (fracturing, stratification and
weathering). In stable slopes it is necessary to verify the
impact produced by earth removal or overloading, while in
moderately stable slopes the work must be designed on the
basis of geotechnical investigations and slope stabilisation
measures will sometimes be necessary. In potentially unst-
able slopes these measures are essential. Finally for
existing landslides, one should have planning solutions
which will not adversely affect these areas. Moreover, it
should be noted that the feasibility of any preventive or
remedial measures depends upon the geometry and kine-
matics of movements.
By adding some variable data (for example the depth of the
piezometric line or an earthquake of given magnitude) the
previous susceptibility map can be modified to reflect
different scenarios (B-type models in Fig. 11). Finally, by
introducing a probabilistic analysis of the input data a
hazard map can be produced (C-type models). In the more
C
Varying Varying
Fixed input Fixed input
input (*1) input (*2)
Profile Profile Probab.
selection selection analysis
Stability analysis Stability analysis
Spatialization Spatialization
Susceptibility map
Hazard
for different
map
scenarios
(*1) triggering factors (*2) triggering and predisposing
(groundwater level, earthquake, etc.) factors
 Landslide hazard assessment

R1 – the testing equipment and methods are not perfect.

R2 In addition to real parameter variability and systematic
R3 errors, there are often significant uncertainties associated
Rn with geotechnical models. Finally uncertainties are also
associated with the mechanisms of failure, occurrence of
γ β α failure and its impact.
unit 1, 2, ... n The recognition of uncertainties has led to the develop-
Stability ment of methods of analysis within a probabilistic frame-
analysis work while maintaining the basic geotechnical models. The
Input matrix Unit n probability of failure is defined as the probability that the
Unit 2 performance function has a value below the threshold
Unit 1 value. Considering the factor of safety (F) as the perform-
Landslides map Relative relief (R) ance function, the threshold value is 1 and probability of
Lithological map SF SF SF SF
failure (pf) may, therefore, be defined as:
inclination
Slope

SF SF SF SF
D.T.M. pfpP[F~1]
SF SF SF SF
• Slope map
SF SF SF SF
• Relative relief map The probability of success or the reliability (ps) is therefore
the complement of pf. Hence:
Overmapping
Susceptibility map psp1Ppf
In order to calculate the probability of failure, the proba-
Fig. 12
Synthetic representation of the semi-quantitative approach
bility density function of the performance function is
proposed by Baldelli et al. 1996 during the Environmental Impact required. Thus it is recognised that the factor of safety (F)
Assessment for the Messina Straits Crossing Project is not a single-valued function. Its probability distribution
may be characterised by means of at least two statistical
parameters, the mean or central value F and the standard
deviation sF.
complex models the safety factor becomes a random vari- It is often useful to define a reliability index b which
able, a function of the probabilistic distribution of parame- combines the mean and standard deviation of the perform-
ters which, in the mathematical model adopted, contribute ance function. Thus, if F is the performance function:
to defining this factor (Berggren et al. 1992, Chowdhury
1984, Genevois and Tecca 1987, Hammond et al. 1992, FP1
bp
Mulder and Van Asch 1988, Ward et al. 1982, Christian et sF
al. 1992, Tang et al. 1976, Wu and Kraft 1970, Wu and
Abdel Latif 1994). The change from A-type to C-type The numerator gives the extent to which the average value
models corresponds to the transition from deterministic is above the threshold value and the denominator reflects
methodologies to probabilistic approaches. the dispersion from this average value.

Probabilistic approaches Calculation Methods

For decades, geotechnical modelling and analysis within a
deterministic framework has facilitated the quantification
of safety or reliability. However, performance indicators
such as the factor of safety, F, do not take into considera-
tion the variability of geotechnical material parameters
such as cohesion (c), angle of internal friction (f) and the
undrained shear strength (su) some of which may also vary
in magnitude with time. The spatial and temporal varia-
bility of pore water pressures is again very important but is
not reflected in the calculated values of the conventional
factor of safety.
There is now an increasing recognition of the importance
of uncertainties in geotechnical engineering. Parameter
variability is only one example; there are also systematic
uncertainties which arise from the fact that:
– a soil mass can only be investigated at a finite number of
points
– the number of field and laboratory tests conducted to
determine soil parameters is limited by financial and
time constraints
Three commonly used methods of probability calculation
are:
(i) First Order Second Moment Method (FOSM)
(ii) Point Estimate Method
(iii) Monte Carlo Simulation Method
Brief descriptions of these methods and their application
to slope stability may be found in Chowdhury (1984) and
Nguyen and Chowdhury (1984, 1985).
System reliability, updating, progressive failure
The probabilistic framework for reliability analysis can
offer much more than the replacement of the conventional
safety factor (F) by the probability failure (pf) or the relia-
bility index (b).
A number of approaches have been developed in recent
years which do not have a direct counterpart within a
deterministic framework. These include methods for the
assessment of the reliability of a geotechnical system
consisting of a number of elements or a number of
possible modes of failure or both. For example, the relia-

Bull Eng Geol Env (1999) 58 : 21–44 7 Q Springer-Verlag 33

 P. Aleotti 7 R. Chowdhury
bility assessment of embankment or natural slope stability
is enhanced by including multiple slip surfaces rather than
by relying only on the conventional critical slip surface
(Chowdhury and Xu 1994a, 1995). Often reliability is over-
estimated in complex systems if only a single mode of
failure is taken into consideration even though that mode
may be the critical mode in conventional terms.
It is widely recognised that the initial assessment of
geotechnical properties and parameters may not be accu-
rate. In particular, systematic uncertainties influence the
results of reliability calculation. Therefore, updating of
reliability with the availability of additional information is
very important (Zhang 1990, Chowdhury 1998c). A proba-
bilistic framework facilitates this. The Bayesian approach
has been used by Chowdhury and Zhang (1989) to update
the reliability of a deep excavation considering perform-
ance during the process of construction/excavation.
Expert judgements can also be incorporated in the
updating of reliability assessments within a Bayesian prob-
abilistic framework.
Modelling of progressive failure within a soil mass or a
geotechnical system is very important given that the distri-
bution of stress and strain is often non-uniform and that
soils are often strain-softening. Innovative approaches
developed for simulation of failure progression within a
probabilistic framework have no counterpart in determin-
istic soil mechanics (Chowdhury and Grivas 1985, Chowd-
hury and Tang 1987, Chowdhury et al. 1987). By combining
probabilistic and observational approaches, powerful
methods can be developed for updating reliability and for
decision-making (Chowdhury 1992, Chowdhury and Zhang
1993, Chowdhury 1994).
In order to make decisions based not only on performance
indicators but on the consequences of failure or of inade-
quate performance, it is again necessary to work within a
probabilistic framework. Amongst the techniques available
are those which use event trees for consequence-based risk
analysis. Event trees are often used for consequence-based
risk analysis of dams, a recent example being BC Hydro
(1993). Extension to landslide hazard and risk studies
could be useful.
Application to landslide hazard analysis
The availability of geographical information systems
(G.I.S.) can facilitate the use of a deterministic or a proba-
bilistic geotechnical approach as part of a methodology of
landslide hazard assessment. For example, after subdivi-
sion of an area or region into elements or small areas, the
factor of safety of individual sloping areas may be
computed and then mapped. Alternatively, using a proba-
bilistic framework, the probability of failure of individual
sloping areas could be computed and then mapped.
Depending on the adopted hazard assessment approach,
this information could be used on its own or combined
with other factors or factor maps to produce susceptibility
maps and/or hazard maps.
The calculation of values of the safety factor (F) or the
probability of failure (pf) may be regarded as part of the
process of quantitative susceptibility assessment. When
34 Bull Eng Geol Env (1999) 58 : 21–44 7 Q Springer-Verlag
combined with other factors, including the stated or
implied frequencies of occurrence of the time-dependent
parameters, such approaches can facilitate hazard assess-
ment on a quantitative or semi-quantitative basis. Calcu-
lated probabilities of failure based on a geotechnical model
may be regarded as conditional probabilities as these
calculations are valid for the chosen values of geotechnical
material parameters (cb, fb, g) and for a chosen distribu-
tions of pore water pressures along the relevant potential
slip surfaces. The frequency of occurrence of the assumed
conditions should be estimated using other appropriate
methods. For example, selected pore water pressures
would relate to specified seepage conditions or ground
water levels which may correspond to rainstorms of a
particular return period or frequency. Unless analyses
concerning intensity, duration and frequencies of rainfalls
have been carried out, the temporal aspect of rainfall-
induced landslide hazard will not be clear even if a fully
quantitative geotechnical analysis has been performed
within either a deterministic or a probabilistic frame-
work.
The application of a geotechnical model for quantitative
analysis requires that reliable values of the material param-
eters be available. The purpose of a quantitative approach
may be defeated if such data are not available. This aspect
is even more important from the perspective of probabil-
istic analyses. For such analyses, the data must be more
detailed or numerous than those for deterministic
analyses. Each parameter must be represented by a proba-
bility distribution or at least by two statistical parameters,
the mean and the standard deviation. In the absence of
detailed information, when resources are not available to
obtain the required data or when there are time
constraints, a subjective probability assessment may be
made or it may be necessary to rely on expert judgements
as to the probability values to be used for assessment of
landslide susceptibility, hazard or risk.
Importance of correct mechanism or model
Assuming that sufficient information on geotechnical
parameters is available it is important that appropriate
failure mechanisms relevant to the study area are iden-
tified and that geotechnical models are selected which
correspond as closely as possible to these mechanisms.
Unfortunately there has been an increasing tendency to
adopt an ‘infinite slope’ model which is well known as the
‘one-dimensional model’ representing potential failure of
long natural slopes along slip surfaces parallel to the
ground surface. Such a model may be justified for shallow
slope failures and also for some parts of a study area
involving deep-seated failures. However, it is not advisable
to use such a model for areas with a variety of failure
mechanisms. The use of a G.I.S.-based approach for accu-
rate mapping cannot compensate for grossly inaccurate
estimates of failure probability due to the selection of
geotechnical models corresponding to inappropriate
failure mechanisms. Recent studies of slope displacements
under seismic conditions (Crespellani et al. 1998) have
provided solid support for using, as far as possible, only

the realistic failure mechanism as a basis for mathematical
and numerical analyses. This important point has also
been highlighted by Chowdhury (1998b).
The performance function in terms of
deformations
It is also important to consider the selection of the
performance function itself. In many instances, probabili-
ties of failure or non-performance may have to be based on
different criteria. For example, there are many applica-
tions, such as high speed railways through hilly areas, in
which deformations must be kept low. Satisfactory
performance in such cases should be specified in terms of
lateral and vertical slope deformations below a tolerable
limit, which would be the basis of the pf. In such circum-
stances, although a complete or catastrophic slope failure
is unlikely, a sloping area may nevertheless have a high
hazard because of deformation levels which constitute
non-performance or failure in terms of that particular
application. For a road or highway embankment, the same
deformation levels may not constitute a high or even a
moderate hazard.
For earthquake induced landsliding, the use of appropriate
deformation analyses is always preferable to pseudo-static
analyses. Thus a sliding block model (such as that
proposed by Newmark 1965) may be used as the basis for a
deterministic approach (Chowdhury and Xu 1994b, Cres-
pellani et al. 1998, Chowdhury 1997, Chowdhury 1998a,
Sarma 1975, Sarma and Jennings 1980). Categories of
hazard would correspond to different categories of esti-
mated deformation. The same type of model may be used
for a probabilistic approach. The performance function
would be formulated in terms of the permanent deforma-
tion of a sliding block subjected to a particular ground
motion or a particular design earthquake. Based on that
performance function, values of the probability of failure
(pf) would then be calculated. The use of sophisticated
numerical methods for the siesmic response of escarp-
ments has also been explored by a number of research
workers as discussed by, for example Chowdhury and
Tabesh (1998).
Use of neural networks
Carrara (1983) in his classification of box models distin-
guished between:
– white box models – based on physical analyses
– grey box models – only partly based on physical
analyses
– black box models – not based on physical analyses
Neural networks analysis must be considered as a black
box model. Lees (1996) describes it as follows:
“Neural network is a processing device, implemented as
an algorithm or in hardware, whose design was moti- Neural network geometry; the network used by Aleotti et al.
vated by the design and function of mammalian brains; 1996c 1998b consists of three layers (input, hidden and output
they react to training data input in such a way as to layers)
Landslide hazard assessment
alter their initial state, something no conventional algo-
rithm does: they can learn” (Lees 1996).
The most common configuration of the neural network is
composed of three layers. In the feed-forward network, the
layers are completely connected to one another. Figure 13
is a schematical representation of an “element of calculus”
that receives the weighted input from its connections. The
procedure consists, firstly, of attributing the weights to the
connections in a casual manner and of choosing the input
parameters (Fig. 14). The calculated output is compared to
that expected and the error is determined. The procedure
progresses in an iterative manner until convergence of the
calculated and expected output is reached. This is the
learning phase, in which the function of the neural
network is created.
Aleotti et al. (1996c, 1998b) have applied this kind of tech-
nology to divide some low-speed landslides in Northern
Italy according to their degree of hazard. The aim was to
establish the priority for the management of landslides or
potential landslides.
The procedure consists of five stages:
1. Field analysis
A special field survey report is drawn up for each landslide
describing the characteristics of every examined failure
(geometry, kinematics, activity) and the general physical
setting (geology, geomorphology, hydrology, hydrogeo-
logy, soil, etc.). In addition to providing low-cost detailed
information, these reports allow the coding and standar-
disation of available data;
2. Laboratory preparatory phase
The number of parameters to be considered is reduced and
a numeric index assigned to each parameter. For the non-
numeric variables an index is defined to express the rela-
x0
wj0
x1 wj1
Sum fTRASF Output
x2
wj2
wjn
xn
Output layer
Hidden layer
Input layer
Data
Fig. 13
Bull Eng Geol Env (1999) 58 : 21–44 7 Q Springer-Verlag 35
 P. Aleotti 7 R. Chowdhury
Fig. 14
The neural network procedure consists of 5 stages. This proce-
dure progresses until convergence of the calculated and expected
output
tive physical phenomena (Table 1). For example for the
factor “landslide visibility” which is how a landslide is
recognisable in the field, an index equal to 0.25 may be
assigned for the class “poor” and an index equal to 1 for
the class “excellent”.
3. Preliminary assessment
For every landslide, three experts with extensive knowl-
edge of the examined area provide a separate hazard
assessment based on a numerical scale. In addition, the
same experts provide a “blindfold” assessment based on
the values derived from the seven examined parameters
(hydrological features, landslide typology, landslide visi-
bility, length, breadth, depth, speed) without disclosing the
name of the site which they refer to. Then a mean value is
calculated from the 6 assessments provided for each area.
4. Application of neural network to the learning set
The landslides are divided randomly into two groups, the
first is called the “learning set”, the second group is called
the “test set”. The neural evaluator is obtained by training
the neural network on the sites of the learning set: the
function obtained in this learning phase is very close to the
assessments provided by the experts on landslides of the
learning set.
5. Application of neural evaluator to the test set
The effectiveness of the neural evaluator obtained in this
training phase can be verified only by applying it to the
landslides that compose the test set; in fact, since the sites
Table 1
Non-numeric parameters indices
Numeric index
Parameter 0.25
Hydrologic features* none (i)
Landslide typology falls/topples
Landslide visibility poor
* hydrologic features: (i) water table (ii) springs (iii) stagnant waters (iv) runoff
36 Bull Eng Geol Env (1999) 58 : 21–44 7 Q Springer-Verlag
of the test set have not been entered directly into the
training procedure of the neural network, they represent a
test area that closely resembles the actual conditions in
which the evaluator will be used.
Even considering the sites of the test set it is possible to
observe that the neural output closely approaches the
assessments provided by the experts (Fig. 15). This denotes
that the neural network was capable of apprehending,
based on the examples of the learning set, an assessment
function that proved to be highly effective in the sites of
the test set.
In conclusion, it may be observed that neural networks
could represent an effective approach when dealing with
landslide hazard assessments that would be difficult to
achieve by means of standard mathematical models.
Acceptable risk of landsliding
Importance of location and consequences of
failure
Landslide hazard is the most important component of risk
associated with landsliding and, therefore, it is most
important to consider concepts and criteria concerning
acceptable risk. The traditional view was that no level of
risk, however small, should be tolerated for major projects
such as large dams, nuclear power plants, major buildings
and bridges and that even for relatively small projects, a
level of risk resulting in loss of life would be regarded as
unacceptable. However, it is now widely recognised that
some degree of hazard and, therefore, risk, however small,
is unavoidable in any project. Risk can often but not
always, be reduced to a very low or extremely low levels
but can never be eliminated.
The main principle which applies to slopes and land-
sliding, and indeed to other structures or projects, is that
the level of risk which is tolerated or accepted should be
inversely proportional to the consequences of failure
(Whitman 1984).
A probability of failure of 10 –4 is often considered reason-
able for dams and the US Department of Energy considers
10 –5 as the target mean annual probability of exceedance
for civilian nuclear power plants.
It is useful to quote here from Peck (1980) on the accept-
able risk for dams.
0.5 0.75 0.8 1
(ii) (iii) – (iv)
– slides flows complex
fair good – excellent

Fig. 15
Comparison between neural
and expert (mean value)
outputs (after Aleotti et al.
1998b)
Susceptibility index
“From a probabilistic point of view it is logical to
assume a base level of probability of failure of 10 –4 per
dam year. There is no reason, however, why engineers
should be satisfied to consider such a failure rate as the
norm. Dams should be designed and constructed not to
fail, even if a probability of failure is incorporated into a
cost-benefit analysis. Since we know where the greatest
weaknesses lie, we should be able to devise the means
for applying judgement to avoid these weaknesses. If we
succeed we should be able to justify a base level of
failure no more than 10 –5 per dam year. Such an
improvement is now within the state-of-the-art. Its
achievement does not depend on the acquisition of new
knowledge....”
There are several important points which must be made
about this challenging statement from an acknowledged
leader of the engineering profession. Firstly, natural slopes
are quite different from man-made structures like dams.
Therefore, our knowledge of the state of their nature is
usually far from perfect even after extensive investigations
– which are rarely available except on major projects. It is
unlikely that all the possible mechanisms of failure will be
appreciated or that where all the weaknesses lie will be
known. Judgement may be helpful but it is questionable
whether very low failure probabilities should generally be
assumed.
The second point, however, concerns those sloping areas
for which it is critically important to maintain stability
because the consequences of failure are considered enor-
mous. For such sloping or landslide areas, it is necessary to
install effective preventive or remedial measures with a
view to reducing failure probability to very low levels. The
extent to which such a goal can be achieved would depend
on the extent of resources and the time available for the
project. On this basis it is possible to work towards low to
very low target risk levels.
Landslide hazard assessment
1.00
Experts (mean value) LEARNING SET TEST SET
Calculated index with NN
0.75
0.50
0.25
3 4 5 6 7 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 2 8 1 1 2 2 2 3 3
1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 0 1 3 5 7 8 9 0 1 8 0 5 2 4 6 2 6
Studied landslides ( identification number)
The third point concerns sloping areas which are part of a
major project such as a dam. The reservoir-rim stability
for a dam-reservoir system can be a critical factor in deter-
mining the overall risk. The destruction and loss of life
which resulted from the 1964 Vajont slide in Italy is a well-
known and stark example. The fact that the Vajont dam
itself remained totally stable during the catastrophic failure
proved that the risk of failure of one element of the system
was extremely low whereas for the system as a whole the
risk was extremely high. From observations and investiga-
tions over several years prior to the slide, it was known
that continuing slope instability and potential for a large
landslide was the predominant factor in the high overall
risk even though the speed with which the slide occurred
and the enormous consequences could not be foreseen.
It is clear from the above that:
a) In large and complex systems, the acceptable risk of
landsliding should be comparable with the risk asso-
ciated with other elements of the system considering all
the failure modes. For example, in a dam reservoir
system the risk of landsliding along the reservoir rim
should be as low, or at least of the same order of
magnitude, as the risk associated with the failure of the
dam itself, which may be due to a number of causes
such as structural or foundation inadequacy, overtop-
ping during floods and subsurface soil erosion.
b) The concept of acceptable risk is closely related to the
location of a slope or landslide area, its proximity to
constructed facilities, the functions of those facilities
and their operational life.
c) The consequences of failure of the slope itself and facil-
ities that its failure will impact are extremely important
for adopting or specifying levels of acceptable risk. The
possible impact on human life, other life, property,
infrastructure, economy and the environment must be
considered hence location with respect to human settle-
ments and transportation routes is also critically
important.
Bull Eng Geol Env (1999) 58 : 21–44 7 Q Springer-Verlag 37
 P. Aleotti 7 R. Chowdhury
Observed frequencies and triggering agents
Calculated failure probabilities for individual slopes must
be distinguished from the observed frequencies of the
occurrence of landslides. These frequencies are often
dominated by the triggering agent. For example, rainfall-
induced landslides affect many countries and vast regions
in some countries. The damage associated with such land-
slides is often enormous. The intensity, duration and
frequency of rainstorms which cause landsliding must be
studied to learn about the correspondence between rainfall
magnitudes/intensities and risk levels. In many areas, rain-
fall may lead only to shallow landslides and there may be a
predominance of debris flows in some of these areas. Deep
seated landslides also occur in many areas as a conse-
quence of rainfall. However, such landslides often correlate
with cumulative rainfall for significant antecedent periods
(e.g. 15 days, one month, two months or more) rather than
to rainfall intensity over short periods (e.g. several
hours).
Observed frequencies are thus extremely important in
understanding hazard and risk and in setting target or
acceptable levels of risk for many areas. The frequencies of
the triggering agent (eg, rainfall) must therefore be care-
fully evaluated.
Landsliding is often triggered by earthquakes. Such land-
slides may have different mechanisms and characteristics
and may occur at different locations from those where
rainfall-induced landslides occur. The return period of
earthquakes of different magnitudes must be estimated in
order to understand the level of hazard and to specify
target or acceptable levels of risk.
Based on the above the following important points can be
made:
a) Different levels of acceptable risk should apply to
different types of landslides e.g. shallow slides and
deep-seated slides.
b) Landslide movements can range from very slow to very
rapid. Different levels of acceptable risk should apply
depending on the speed of movement. The impact of a
landslide increases significantly with the speed and the
travel distance or run-out distance. As a consequence,
it would be anticipated that levels of acceptable risk
would be lower for potential landslides which are likely
to be of higher velocity and which would travel farther
compared with those for landslides which would be
relatively less rapid and have a smaller travel distance.
c) In setting the target or acceptable levels of risk, careful
attention should be given to the triggering agents (e.g.
rainstorms, earthquakes), their frequencies, and their
relationship to historical landsliding.
d) Different levels of acceptable risk may also be appro-
priate depending on the triggering agent. For example,
it may be appropriate to distinguish between target
levels of risk associated with seismically induced land-
sliding and target levels of risk associated with rainfall-
induced landsliding.
38 Bull Eng Geol Env (1999) 58 : 21–44 7 Q Springer-Verlag
Extent of slope deformations
In the past, attention has often been concentrated on slope
failures which result in catastrophic landslides. Such land-
slides are obviously of enormous significance. Modelling
these movements in terms of well known performance
functions such as the factor of safety is often quite
adequate. However, there are also slopes and landslides
which move slowly and sometimes imperceptibly and
sensitive subsurface instruments, such as inclinometers,
are required to monitor these. In many situations, these
slow moving instabilities do not cause notable disturbance.
However, over a significant period of time, or after several
rainstorms, the cumulative deformation may be enough to
cause considerable damage. Sometimes such cumulative
deformations can result in destruction of houses in urban
areas as well as disruption of roads, highways, railways and
pipelines. On some occasions, complete collapse of a slope
or full reactivation of landslide may take place after a
period of time. but even if catastrophic failure does not
occur, the socio-economic impact may nevertheless be
unacceptable.
Even relatively small movements can be significant for the
railways operating at normal speeds, let alone the high-
speed systems. In such cases, acceptable levels of risk
related to slope instability should be based on target levels
of lateral and vertical deformations rather than on the
probability of complete or catastrophic failure. Geotech-
nical modelling should include deformation in addition to
stability represented by the factor of safety F while proba-
bilistic modelling should consider deformation as the
performance function in addition to the factor of safety F.
Summary and conclusions
This paper considers several aspects of landslide hazard/
risk assessment, the main ones being:
– why is landslide hazard/risk assessment important?
– which methods can be used?
– how can an acceptable risk threshold be defined?
Reference has been made to the human fatalities as well as
the enormous economic consequences of landslides every
year. Although landslide-related damage appears to be
more extensive in industrialised countries (United States,
Japan, Italy, France, etc.), in view of the increasing pres-
sure on the environment, in developing countries it could
even lead to economic recession and stagnation. Experts
and planners all over the world are therefore becoming
increasingly aware of the importance of predicting where,
how and why landslides will occur in a given area and
numerous approaches to landslide hazard/risk assessment
have been developed in recent years.
The benefit of using hazard maps is clear: the logical,
timely and appropriate use of such maps can considerably
reduce the damage costs and other consequences of land-
sliding. However, less than 25% of the general hazard maps
of large areas have been fully utilised from a practical point
of view(Brabb 1996) largely because many decision-makers

and politicians are concerned regarding their possible
implications for business and wealth creation as they may
well indicate, for example, land-use restrictions. In addi-
tion, members of a community may have difficulty in
properly understanding landslide hazard maps.
Engineers and earth scientists have two important ways to
overcome these problems:
a) they must first make certain that the language on maps
is simple, direct and easily understood
b) they must take positive steps to ensure planners and
politicians appreciate the enormous benefits of using
these maps for planning, conservation and the encour-
agement of sustainable development.
On the basis of a critical analysis of available literature and
experience obtained in several projects at various scales,
Table 2
Advantages and disadvantages of different methods of landslide hazard assessment, relationship between type of approach and scale
of work; role of GIS PAGINA 43, PAGINA 37
Methods Advantage
field geomorphologic allow a rapid assessment taking
analyses into account a large number of
factors
combination of index they solve the problem of the
maps hidden rules
total automation of the steps
standardisation of data manage-
ment
logical analytical allow the comparison of
models different slopes
mathematically rigorous and
perfectible
statistical analyses objective in methodology
(bivariate and multi- total automation of the steps
variate) standardisation of data manage-
ment
safety factor – deter- objective in scope and method-
ministic approaches ology
quantitative in scope
encourages investigation and
measurement of geotechnical
parameters in detail
probabilistic allows consideration of different
approaches uncertainties
quantitative in scope
objective in scope and method-
ology
provides new insight which is
not possible in deterministic
methods
neural networks objective in methodology
do not require theoretic knowl-
edge on physical aspects of the
problem
R: restricted use; Y: yes
Landslide hazard assessment
the authors have proposed a classification of landslide
hazard assessment methodologies starting from a prelimi-
nary bi-partition between qualitative and quantitative
approaches according to a scheme similar to those
proposed by such authors as Carrara (1982 1988),
Hutchinson (1995), Leroi (1996) and Soeters and van
Westen (1996).
No single approach is recommended as the most suitable:
indeed only a few papers have reported comparative
studies of different approaches (Carrara et al. 1990;
Jennings et al. 1991). In addition, selection of the approach
to be adopted for a given project is very often based as
much on economic concerns (cost/benefit analysis, polit-
ical convenience, etc.) as on the technical nature of the
problem.
Scale
Disadvantage S M L Role of GIS
totally subjective methodology R Y Y only as a drawing
use of implicit rules that hinder tool
the critical analysis of the
results
subjectivity in attributing R Y Y overlay of different
weighted values to the single maps
classes of each parameter
require monitoring data prefer- R R Y –
ably from installed instruments
applicable mainly to slow-speed
landslides
systematic collection and anal- Y Y R analyses
ysis of data concerning the
different factors is quite cumber-
some
the need for detailed knowledge R R Y analyses
of the area
use of appropriate geotechnical
model requires a lot of experi-
ence
does not take into account
various uncertainties
requires comprehensive data Y R R –
otherwise subjective probabili-
ties required
probability distributions difficult
especially for low level of hazard
and risk
difficulty in the verification of R Y Y –
the results when instrumental
data are not available
Bull Eng Geol Env (1999) 58 : 21–44 7 Q Springer-Verlag 39
 P. Aleotti 7 R. Chowdhury
Fig. 16
Landslide risk management (after Aleotti and Polloni 1998c)
The paper points out that all the available techniques
present both advantages and disadvantages. Table 2,
although neither complete nor exhaustive, gives a
summary of these techniques and their effectiveness. The
table also presents some considerations regarding the scale
of applicability of the various approaches, as well as the
role of G.I.S. in development of the procedures. G.I.S is
applied extensively in hazard mapping and has enabled the
development of statistical or multi-scenario deterministic
techniques which would not otherwise have been success-
fully implemented (Carrara and Guzzetti 1995). The use of
neural networks (Mazzetti 1991) is less common. These
mathematical models attempt to simulate the functionality
of the human brain in a simplified manner and in recent
years have been found to be effective in civil engineering
problems (Pande and Pietruszczak 1995; Raha and Dhar-
mappa 1998) and slope stability (Mayoraz et al. 1996;
Aleotti et al. 1998b). Recent studies have confirmed that
neural networks represent a very powerful, versatile and
promising computer-based tool.
It is now widely recognised that a certain level of risk must
be contemplated in any activity or project (Whitman
1984). In the case of landslides, the definition of acceptable
risk must take into consideration the following:
a) Different levels of risk must be assigned according to
the velocity of slides (slow or fast) and their dimensions
(shallow failures or deep-seated slides). If possible,
these two parameters should be analysed simulta-
neously. For example, soil slips, despite their small
dimensions, are highly destructive and travel at a very
fast speed. On the other hand slow, large-sized failures
can cause cumulative deformations that result in severe
damage to houses, roads, pipelines, etc. (a recent paper
on this type of landslide in clayey soils was published
by Baldelli et al. 1998).
40 Bull Eng Geol Env (1999) 58 : 21–44 7 Q Springer-Verlag
b) Great attention must be given to triggering factors.
Whenever possible, these must be analysed statistically
in order to: (i) define the critical thresholds above
which landslides are triggered; (ii) define the frequency
with which these thresholds are exceeded. It is also
important to distinguish between levels of risk asso-
ciated with seismically-induced landslides and rainfall-
induced landslides.
Many recent papers deal with risk management problems
and with principles of hazard reduction (Canuti and
Casagli 1994; Fell 1994; Fell and Hartford 1997; Finlay and
Fell 1997; Keaton 1994; Morgenstern; 1995; Wu et al. 1996).
Broadly speaking, risk management can follow two distinct
guidelines which may not be mutually exclusive (Aleotti
and Polloni 1998c; Canuti and Casagli 1996) (Fig. 16). It is
possible to increase the acceptable risk threshold by means
of an information campaign for the population threatened
by a given hazard. This facilities the passage from involun-
tary to voluntary risk, for which a higher threshold is
usually accepted. Alternatively it may be possible to vary
the components of the risk, eg by reducing hazard (Kock-
elman 1986; Schuster and Kockelman 1996), vulnerability
and/or the number of risk elements.
References
Abu-zeid N, Mazzini E, Semenza P, Turrini MC (1994) Appli-
cazione di un metodo cartografico-numerico al bacino
dell’Alpago (BL) per la zonazione della pericolosità potenziale
da frana. Geologia Tecnica e Ambientale, 3 : 45–55
Aleotti P, Baldelli P, Polloni G, De Marchi D (1996a) La
valutazione della pericolosità da frana: esempi metodologici a
varia scala. In: Proc Conf “La stabilità del suolo in Italia: zona-
zione della sismicità – frane”. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei,
Roma, 30–31/05/1996 pp 19–23
Aleotti P, Baldelli P, Polloni G (1996b) Landsliding and
flooding event triggered by heavy rains in the Tanaro basin.
(Italy). Proc Int Congr Interpraevent 1996, 1 : 435–446,
Garmisch-PartenKirchen, 24–28/06/96
Aleotti P, Baldelli P, De Marchi D (1996c) Le reti neurali
nella valutazione della suscettibilità da frana. Geologia Tecnica
& ambientale, 4 : 37–48
Aleotti P, Baldelli P, Polloni G (1998a) Soil slips, rock-block
slides and stream hydraulic processes caused by heavy rains:
their interaction and relevant hazard. Proc. of the Second Conf
Environ Management ICEM2, Wollongong, 10–13 Feb 1998,
1 : 553–564
Aleotti P, Baldelli P, Polloni G, Puma F (1998b) Keynote
paper: Different approaches to landslide hazard assessment.
Proc. of the Second Conf Environ Management (ICEM-2),
Wollongong (Australia) 10–13 Feb. 1998, 1 : 3–10
Aleotti P, Polloni G (1998c) Risk scenario in mountain alluvial
fans: some examples in Italian Central Alps. Proc of the 8th
Congr Int Assoc Engin Geol, Vancouver – Canada, 21–25
September 1998
Aleotti P, Baldelli P, Govi M, Polloni G, Puma F, Villani
B (1999) Hazard and risk assessment in the Po River Basin
(North Italy). (in press)
Alexander D (1988) Valtellina landslide and flood emergency,
Northern Italy. Disaster, 12 : 212–222

Alexander D (1994) Geomorphology and hazards of landslides.
Proc. Conf held in Aquater. June, 28 1994, San Lorenzo in
Campo (PS), Italy
Amadesi E, Vianello G (1978) Nuova guida alla realizzazione di
una carta di stabilità dei versanti. Mem Soc Geol It 19 : 53–60
Amanti M, Carrara A, Castaldo G, Colosimo P, Gisotti G,
Govi M, Marchionna G, Nardi R, Panizza M, Pecci M,
Vianello G (1992) Linee guida per la realizzazione di una
cartografia della pericolosità geologica connessa ai fenomeni di
instabilità dei versanti alla scala 1 : 50.000 (versione prelimi-
nare). Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri. Servizio
Geologico, Progetto CARG, 53 pp
Amanti M, Casagli N, Catani F, D’Orefice M, Motteran G
(1996) Guida al censimento dei fenomeni franosi e alla loro
archiviazione. Miscell Serv Geol d’It, 7, 109 pp
Anbalagan R (1992) Terrain evaluation and landslide hazard
zonation for environmental regeneration and land use plan-
ning in mountainous terrain. Proc. VI Int Symp on Landslides,
Christchurch, New Zealand, 2 : 861–868
Anbalagan R, Singh B (1996) Landslide hazard and risk assess-
ment mapping of mountainous terrains – a case study from
Kumaun Hymalaya, India. Eng Geol, 43 : 237–246
Antoine P (1977) Rèflexions sur la cartographie ZERMOS et
bilan des expériences en cours. BRGM Bull, Sect III, 1–2 : 9–20
Baeza C, Corominas J (1996) Assessment of shallow landslide
susceptibility by means of statistical techniques. Proc VII Int
Symp on Landslides, Trondheim, June 1996, 1 : 147–152
Baldelli P, Aleotti P, Polloni G (1996) Landsliding-suscepti-
bility numerical mapping at the Messina Strait crossing site,
Italy. In: Proc VII Int Symp on Landslides, Trondheim, June
1996, 1 : 153–158
Baldelli P, Aleotti P, Polloni G, Tosti CA, Andrei G,
Milani G (1998) Fenomeni franosi lenti in terreni argillosi: un
contributo alla classificazione e al monitoraggio. In: Proc of the
Congress “Il rischio idrogeologico e la difesa del suolo”, Accad-
emia Nazionale dei Lincei, Roma 1–2 ottobre 1998
Baldi G, Beilin P, Carrara A, Cardinali M, Cavallin A,
Chiesa S, Crosta G, Detti R, Dovzak C, Floris B, Fras-
soni A, Guzzetti F, Marchetti M, Nozza G, Pasqui V,
Reichenbach P (1990) Geograph Inform System Appl (GIS):
landslide hazard maps. Mem Soc Geol It, 45 : 253–258
Hydro BC (1993) Guidelines for consequence-based dam safety
evaluations and Improvements. Report of August 1993,
Hydroelectric Division
Berggren B, Fallsvik J, Viberg L (1992) Mapping and evalua-
tion of landslide risk in Sweden. In: Proc Sixth Int Symp Land-
slides, Christchurch, New Zealand, 2 : 873–878
Bernknopf RL, Campbell RH, Brookshire DS, Shapiro CD
(1988) A probabilistic approach to landslide hazard mapping in
Cincinnati, Ohio, with application for economical evaluation.
Bull of the Assoc Engin Geologists, 25 : 39–56
Bortolami GC, De Luca DA, Masciocco L (1994) Studio sulla
realizzazione di carte della franosità a scala regionale. In: Proc
of IV Geoeng Int Congr “Soil and Groundwater Protection”,
Torino
Bosi C, Dramis F, Gentili B (1982) Carte geomorfologiche di
dettaglio e carte di stabilità: esempi nel territorio marchigiano.
Geol Appl ed Idrogeol, 20 : 53–62
Brabb EE, Pampeyan EH, Bonilla MG (1972) Landslide
susceptibility in San Mateo County, California. Misc Field
Studies Map MF360. US Geological Survey, Reston, Va
Brabb EE (1984) Innovative Approaches to Landslide Hazard
and Risk Mapping, In: Proc 4th Int Symp Landslides, Toronto,
1 : 307–323
Brabb EE, Harrod BL (1989) Landslides: Extent and Economic
Significance AA Balkema, Rotterdam/Brookfield
Landslide hazard assessment
Brabb EE (1996) Hazard maps are not enough. In: Proc of the
6th Spanish Congress and Int Conf Environ Geol Land-Use
Planning, Granada 22–25/4/1996, 1 : 331–336
Brand EW (1988) Landslide Risk Assessment in Hong Kong. In:
Proc of 5th Int Symp Landslides, Laussanne, 2 : 1059–1074
Brugner W, Valdinucci A (1972) Schema di cartografia tema-
tica relativa alla stabilità dei terreni ed esempio della sua appli-
cazione nel territorio di Alpago (Prov di Belluno). Boll Serv
Geol d’It, 93 : 189–194
Bughi S, Aleotti P, Bruschi R, Andrei G, Milani G, Scar-
pelli G (1996) Slow movements of slopes interferring with
pipelines: modelling vs monitoring. In: Proc 15th Int Conf
OMAE, Firenze, June 1996
Caine N (1980) The rainfall intensity duration control of shallow
landslides and debris flows. Geogr Annaler, 62 : 23–27
Cambiaghi A, Schuster RL (1989) Landslide damming and
environmental protection: a case history from Northern Italy.
In: Proc of Second Int Symp on Env Geotechnology, Shangai,
May 15–19, 1989
Cancelli A, Nova R (1985) Landslides in soil debris cover trig-
gered by rainstorm in Valtellina (Central Alps, Italy). In: Proc
4th Int Conf on Landslides, Tokyo, 1 : 267–272
Canuti P, Casagli N (1994) Considerazioni sulla valutazione del
rischio di frana. In: Atti del Convegno “Fenomeni franosi e
centri abitati”, Bologna 27 maggio 1994, Regione Emilia
Romagna CNR-GNDCI, pp 29–130
Canuti P, Casagli N (1996) Previsione e prevenzione del rischio
di frana. In: Proc Conf “La stabilità del suolo in Italia: zona-
zione della sismicità – frane”. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei,
Roma, 30–31/05/1996, pp 47–58
Carmassi F, Liberati G, Ricciardi C, Sciotti M (1992)
Stability evaluation for unified power plant siting in
geothermal areas. In: Proc VI Int Symp on Landslides, Christ-
church, 1 : 893–898
Carrara A, Merenda L (1976) Landslide inventory in northern
Calabria, southern Italy. Geol Soc Am Bull, 87 : 1153–1162
Carrara A, Catalano E, Sorriso-Valvo M, Reali C, Ossi I
(1978) Digital Terrain Analysis for land evaluation. Geologia
Applicata e Idrogeologia, 13 : 69–127
Carrara A (1982) Cartografia tematica, stoccaggio ed elabora-
zione dati. In: atti del Convegno Conclusivo P.F. Conser. Suolo,
Sottopr. Fenomeni Franosi, Relazione Generale, 9–10 giugno
1982, Roma, pp 265–281
Carrara A (1983) Multivariate methods for landslide hazard
evaluation. Mathematical Geol, 15 : 403–426
Carrara A (1988) Landslide hazard mapping by statistical
methods:a black box model approach. In: Proc of the Work-
shop on Natural Disaster in European Mediterranean Coun-
tries. Perugia, Italy. Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche
Carrara A, Cardinali M, Detti R, Guzzetti F, Pasqui V,
Reichenbach P (1990) Geographical Information System and
multivariate models in landslide hazard evaluation In: Proc of
the 6th Int Conf Field Workshop on Landslides, Switzerland-
Austria-Italy. Aug 31st–Sept 12th 1990, 1 : 17–28
Carrara, A Cardinali M, Detti R, Guzzetti F, Pasqui V,
Reichenbach P (1991) GIS techniques and statistical models
in evaluating landslide hazard. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms, 16 : 427–445
Carrara A, Cardinali M, Guzzetti F (1992) Uncertainty in
assessing landslide hazard and risk. ITC Journal, 2 : 172–183
Carrara A, Guzzetti F (1995) Geographical Information
Systems in assessing natural hazard. Selected Contribution
from the International Workshop held in Perugia on Sept
20–22 1993, Kluver Academic Publisher, Dordrecht/Boston/
London, pp 354 (Advances in Natural Technological Hazard
Research Series, Volume 5)
Bull Eng Geol Env (1999) 58 : 21–44 7 Q Springer-Verlag 41
 P. Aleotti 7 R. Chowdhury
Catenacci V (1992) Geological and geoenvironmental failure
from the post-war to 1990, Italy. Servizio Geologico Nazionale
– Memorie Descrittive della Carta Geologica d’Italia, pp 301
Choubey VD, Chaudhari S, Litoria PK (1992) Landslide
hazard zonation in Uttarkashi and Tehri districts, UP
Himalaya, India. In: Proc of the Sixth Int Symp Landslides,
Christchurch, New Zealand, 2 : 911–917
Chowdhury RN (1976) The Mechanism of Natural Slope Fail-
ures in the Greater Wollongong Area of New South Wales.
Search, Sydney, 7, No.9 : 396–97
Chowdhury RN, Bertoldi C (1977) Residual Shear Strength of
Soil from Two Natural Slopes. Australian Geomechanics
Journal, G7 : 1–10
Chowdhury RN (1980) Landslides as Natural Hazards – Mecha-
nisms and Uncertainties. Geotechnical Engineering,
11 : 135–180
Chowdhury RN (1984) Recent developments in landslide
studies: probabilistic methods – state-of-art-report. In: Proc of
the IV Int Symp on Landslides, Toronto, 1 : 209–228
Chowdhury RN, Grivas DA (1985) Probabilistic Model of
Progressive Failure of Slopes, J Geotechn Eng Div, ASCE, 108,
No GT 6 : 803–820
Chowdhury RN, Tang WH (1987) Comparison of Risk Models
for Slopes. In: Proc Fifth Int Conf on Applications of Statistics
and Probability in Soil and Structural Engineering, Vancouver,
Canada, pp 863–897
Chowdhury RN, Tang WH, Sidi I (1987) Reliability Model of
Progressive Slope Failure, Geotechnique, 37 : 467–481
Chowdhury RN, Zhang S (1989) Bayesian Updating for Open
Pit Slopes. In: Proc of the Second Large Open Pit Conf,
Aus.I.M.M., Latrobe Valley, Victoria Australia, April, 9–13
Chowdhury RN (1992) Modelling the Risk of Progressive Slope
Failure. Can Geotechn J, 29, 1 : 94–102
Chowdhury RN (1993) Field Guide for Technical Tour on
Urban Slope Stability. In: Proc Int Conf on Environ Manage-
ment, Geo-Water and Engineering Aspects, 58 pp
Chowdhury RN, Zhang S (1993) Modelling the Risk of Progres-
sive Slope Failure: A New Approach. Reliability Engineering
and System Safety, 40 : 17–30
Chowdhury RN (1994) Evaluating Geotechnical Risk. Ground
Engineering. 27 : 35–40
Chowdhury RN, Xu DW (1994a) Slope System Reliability with
General Slip Surfaces. Soils & Foundations, 34 : 99–105
Chowdhury RN, Xu D (1994b) Simulation of embankment
response to earthquakes. In: Proc Fifth US Nat Conf on Earth-
quake Eng, Chicago, Illinois, July, 3 : 507–516
Chowdhury RN, Xu DW (1995) Geotechnical System Reliability
of Slopes, Reliability Engineering & System Safety,
47 : 141–151
Chowdhury RN, Flentje PN (1996) Geology and land insta-
bility mapping using a GIS package as a building block for the
development of a risk assessment procedure. In: Proc VII Int
Symp on Landslides, Trondheim, June 1996, 1 : 177–182
Chowdhury RN (1997) Comparison of approaches for seismic
performance evaluation of earth structures. Keynote paper. In:
Proc Third Int Geotech Conf, Cairo, Egypt, pp 171–191
Chowdhury RN, Flentje PN (1997) Relevance of mapping for
slope stability in the Greater Wollongong area, New South
Wales, Australia. In: Proc Int Symp Engineering Geol Environ,
Athens (Greece), 23–27 June 1997, 1 : 569–574
Chowdhury RN, (1998a) Sliding block approach for seismic
stability analysis of earth dams. In: Proc Second Int Conf
Environ Management (ICEM2), Elsevier (Oxford),
2 : 1029–1036
42 Bull Eng Geol Env (1999) 58 : 21–44 7 Q Springer-Verlag
Chowdhury RN (1998b) Discussion on the paper “Earthquake
destructiveness potential factor and slope stability” by Crespel-
lani et al., Geotechnique, 40, discussion submitted to Geotech-
nique (in print)
Chowdhury RN (1998c) Evolving geotechnical reliability assess-
ment strategies towards? Invited expert paper, Special Volume
on year 20th Geotechincs, AIT, Bangkok, Dec 1998
Chowdhury RN (1998d) Hazard and risk assessment with parti-
cular reference to landslide. In: Workshop on Landslide Hazard
Assessment – Progressing from Qualitative to Quantitative
Approaches, Wollongong February 8–9, 1998
Chowdhury RN, Flentje P (1998a) A landslide database for
landslide hazard assessment. In: Workshop on Landslide
Hazard Assessment – Progressing from Qualitative to Quanti-
tative Approaches, Wollongong February 8–9, 1998
Chowdhury RN, Flentje PN (1998b) The Thredbo landslide of
30 July 1997, New South Wales, Australia – an overview based
on media reports. Landslide News, 11 : 26–27
Chowdhury RN, Tabesh A (1998) Seismic response of coastal
escarpments. In: Proc (CDROM) Sixth US Nat Conf on Earth-
quake Engineering, Seattle, Washington, USA, May 31 – June 4,
pp 1–8
Christian JT, Ladd CC, Baecher GB (1992) Reliability and
Probability in Stability Analysis. In: Raymond B Seed, Ross W
Boulanger (eds) Proc ASCE Speciality Conf Stability and
Performance of Slopes and Embankments-II, A 25 Year
Perspective, 2 : 1071–1111
Clerici A, Dall’Olio N (1995) La realizzazione di una carta
della stabilità potenziale dei versanti mediante tecniche di
analisi statistica multivariata e un Sistema d’Informazione
Geografica. Geologia Tecnica & Ambientale, 4 : 49–57
Cotecchia V (1978) Systematic reconnaissance mapping and
registration of slope movements. Bull of Int Ass Eng Geol,
17 : 5–37
Crespellani T, Madiai C, Vannucchi G (1998) Earthquake
destructiveness potential factor and slope stability. Geotec-
nique, 40 : 411–420
Crosta G (1998) Regionalization of rainfall thresholds: an aid to
landslide hazard evaluation. Environ Geology (in print)
Crozier MJ (1992) Landslide hazard assessment: theme report.
In: Proc of 6th Int Symp on Landslides, Christchurch,
3 : 1843–1848
Cruden DM, Brown WM (1992) Progress towards the World
Landslide Inventory. In: Proc of 6th Int Symp on Landslides,
Christchurch, 1 : 59–64
Cruden DM, Varnes DJ (1996) Landslide Types and Processes.
Chapter 3 in Landslides-Investigation and Mitigation, Ed AK
Turner and RL Schuster, Transportation Research Board
Special Report 247, National Research Council, USA, pp 36–75
Cruden D, Fell R (1997) Landslide Risk Assessment. IUSG
Working Group on Landslides, Committee on Risk Assessment
– Workshop, Honolulu 19–21 February 1997, Balkema, 371 pp
Einstein HH (1988) Special lecture: Landslide risk assessment
procedure. In: Proc V Int Symp on Landslides, Lausanne,
2 : 1075–1090
Ellen S, Peterson DM, Reid GO (1982) Map showing areas
susceptible to different hazards from shallow landsliding,
Marin County and adjacent parts of Sonoma County, Cali-
fornia. US Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map
MF-1406
Fell R (1992) Landslides in Australia. In: Proceedings Sixth Int
Symp Landslides, Christchurch, New Zealand, Balkema,
3 : 2059–2100
Fell R (1994) Landslide risk assessment and acceptable risk. Can
Geotechn J 31 : 261–272

Fell R, Hartford D (1997) Landslide risk management. In:
IUSG Working Group on Landslides, Committee on Risk
Assessment – Workshop, Honolulu 19–21 February 1997
Fenti V, Silvano S, Spagna V (1979) Methodological proposal
for an engineering geomorphological map. Forecasting rock-
falls in the Alps. Bull of the Int Assoc Eng Geol 19 : 134–138
Finlay PJ, Fell R (1997) Landslide: risk perception and accept-
ance. Can Geotech J, 34 : 169–188
Flentje PN (1998) PhD thesis, University of Wollongong,
Australia
Flentje PN, Chowdhury RN (1999) Quantitative landslide
hazard assessment in an urban area. In: Proc of 8th Australia –
New Zealand Conf Geomechanics, Hobart, Tasmania,
Australia, February 1999
Genevois R, Tecca PR (1987) Analisi probabilistica della stabil-
ità dei versanti: applicazione per la realizzazione di una carta di
pericolosità nella media Valle del Fiume Tammaro (Benev-
ento). Mem Soc Geol It, 37 : 157–170
Gokceoglu C, Aksoy H (1996) Landslide susceptibility mapping
of the slopes in the residual soils of the Mengen Region
(Turkey) by deterministic stability analyses and image proc-
essing technique. Engineering Geology, 44 : 147–161
Granger K (1998) Managing the risks to urban communities
posed by environmental hazards. Proc Second Conf Environ
Management (ICEM-2), Wollongong (Australia) 10–13 Feb
1998, 1 : 11–20
Green WH, Ampt GA (1911) Studies on soil physics 1. The flow
of air and water through soils. J Agric Sci, 4 : 1–24
Guerricchio A, Melidoro G (1979) Fenomeni franosi e neotet-
tonici nelle argille grigio-azzurre calabriane di Pisticci
(Lucania). Geol Appl e Idrogeol, 14 : 105–138
Guida D, Guida M, Iaccarino G, Lambiase S, Metacalf G,
Salzano G, Vallario A, Vecchio V, Zicari G (1979)
Proposta per l’elaborazione di cartografia tematica inerente alla
dinamica dei versanti. Mem Soc Geol It 19 : 170–198
Gupta P, Anbalagan R (1997) Slope stability of Theri Dam
Reservoir Area, India, using landslide hazard zonation (LHZ)
mapping. Quarterly Journal of Eng Geology, 30 : 27–36
Hammond C, Prellwitz R, Miller S (1992) Landslide hazard
assessment using Monte Carlo simulation. In: Proc Sixth Int
Symp Landslides, Christchurch, New Zealand, 2 : 959–964
Hansen A (1984) Landslide hazard analysis. In: Brundsen D, and
Prior DB (eds) ”Slope Instability“, Wiley, New York,
pp 523–602
Hartlen J, Viberg L (1988) General Report: Evaluation of land-
slide hazard. In: Proc V Int Symp on Landslides, Lausanna,
2 : 1037–1057
Hastie WJ (1990) Landslip hazard modelling, Wellington
Region, New Zealand. In: Proc of the Inaugural Colloquium of
the Spatial Information Research Centre, University of Otago,
Dunedin, pp 96–105
Hearn GJ (1995) Landslide and erosion hazard mapping at Ok
Tedi copper mine, Papua New Guinea. Quarterly Journal of
Engineering Geology, 28 : 47–60
Humbert M (1977) Risk mapping of areas exposed to move-
ments of soil and sub-soil: French ”Zermos“ maps Bull of Int
Assoc of Eng Geol, 16 : 80–82
Hutchinson JN (1995) Landslide hazard assessment. In: Proc VI
Int Symp on Landslides, Christchurch, 1 : 1805–1842
Ives JD, Bovis MJ (1978) Natural hazard maps for land-use plan-
ning, San Juan Mountains, Colorado, USA. Artic and Alpine
Research, 10 : 185–212
Ives JD, Messerli B (1981) Mountain Hazard Mapping in Nepal:
Introduction to an Applied Mountain Research Project. Moun-
tain Research And Development, 1 : 223–230
Jade S, Sarkar S (1993) Statistical models for slope stability
classification. Engineering Geology, 36 : 91–98
Landslide hazard assessment
Jennings PJ, Siddle HJ, Bentley SP (1991) A comparative
study of indirect methods of landslip potential assessment. In:
Proceedings Conf “Slope stability engineering developments
and applications”, 15–18 April 1991, Isle of Wight, pp 127–132
Keaton JR (1994) Risk-based probabilistic approach to site
selection. Bull of the Assoc Eng Geol, 31 : 217–229
Kienholz H (1978) Maps of Geomorphology and Natural Hazard
of Griendelwald, Switzerland, scale 1 : 10.000. Artic and Alpine
Research, 10 : 169–184
Kingsbury PA, Hastie WJ, Harrington AJ (1992) Regional
landslip hazard assessment using a Geographical Information
System. In: Proc Sixth Int Symp Landslides, Christchurch, New
Zealand, 2 : 995–999
Kockelman WJ (1986) Some techniques for reducing landslide
hazards. Bull of the Assoc Eng Geol, 23 : 29–52
Lees BG (1996) Neural networks applications in the geosciences:
an introduction. Computer and Geosciences,22 : 955–957
Leiba MM (1998) Human and financial impact of landslides in
Australia. In: Proc Second Conf Environmental Management
(ICEM-2), Wollongong (Australia) 10–13 Feb 1998
Leroi E (1996) Landslide hazard – Risk maps at different scales:
objectives, tools and developments. In: Proc VII Int Symp
Landslides, Trondheim, June 1996, 1 : 35–52
Lucini (1979) Un metodo grafico per la valutazione della frano-
sità. Mem. Note Istituto Geol Appl Napoli, 11
Mayoraz F, Cornu T, Vulliet L (1996) Using neural networks
to predict slope movements. Proc VII Int Symp Landslides,
Trondheim, June 1996, 1 : 295–300
Mazzetti A (1991) Reti Neurali Artificiali: introduzione ai prin-
cipali modelli e simulazione su Personal Computer. Apogeo –
Editrice Informatica, Milano, 108 pp
Meherota GS, Dharmaraju R, Kanungo DP (1994) Landslide
hazard zonation – a tool for environmental development and
protection of hilly terrain. In: “Man and Mountain 94”: primo
convegno internazionale per la protezione e lo sviluppo
dell’ambiente montano, pp 101–113
Meneroud JP, Calvino A (1976) Carte ZERMOS, Zones Expo-
sées à des Risques liés aux Mouvements du Sol et du Sous-Sol à
1 : 25.000, Region de la Moyenne Vesubie (Alpes Maritimes).
Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières, Orléans,
France
Mora S (1995) The impact of natural hazard on socio-economic
development in Costa Rica. Environmental & Engineering
Geoscience, 1 : 291–298
Morgenstern NR (1995) Managing risk in geotechnical engi-
neering. In: 10th Panamerican Regional Conf on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Guadalajara, Mexico
Moser M, Hohensinn F (1983) Geotechnical aspects of soil slips
in Alpine regions. Eng Geol 19 : 185–211
Mulder HFHM, Van Asch TWJ (1988) A stochastical approach
to landslide hazard determination in a forested area. In: Proc V
Int Symp Landslides, Lausanne, 2 : 1207–1210
Neuland H (1976) A prediction model of landslips. Catena,
3 : 215–230
Newmark NM (1965) Effect of earthquakes on dams and
embankments. Geotechnique, 15 : 139–159
Nguyen VV, Chowdhury RN (1984) Probabilistic analysis of
mining special piles – Two techniques compared. Int J Rock
Mechanics and Min Science, 21 : 303–312
Nguyen VV, Chowdhury RN (1985) Risk analysis with corre-
lated variables. Geotechnique, 35 : 47–59
Nielsen TH, Wrigth RH, Vlasic TC, Spangle WE (1979) Rela-
tive slope stability and land-use planning in the San Franicisco
Bay region, California. US Geological Survey Professional Paper
944
Bull Eng Geol Env (1999) 58 : 21–44 7 Q Springer-Verlag 43
 P. Aleotti 7 R. Chowdhury
Onorati G (1998) Relazione tra gli eventi franosi del maggio
1998 e la piovosità dell’area di Sarno. In: Atti del Convegno ”Il
rischio idrogeologico e la difesa del suolo“, Accademia
Nazionale dei Lincei, Roma, 1–2 ottobre 1998 (in press)
Pande GN, Pietruszczak S (1995) Numerical models in geome-
chanics. In: Proc of the 5th Int Symp Numerical Models in
Geomechanics, Davos, Switzerland, 6–8 sept 1995
Panizza M (1975) Ricerche di geomorfologia applicata alla pian-
ificazione territoriale. Mem Soc Geol It, 14 : 109–112
Paolini M, Vacis G (1997) Il racconto del Vajont Garzanti
Editore
Peck RB (1980) Where has all the judgement gone? Laurits
Bjerrum Mineforedrag No 5, Norges Geotekniske Institutt,
Oslo, 5 pp, also Can Geotechn J 1980, 17 : 585–590 and Norwe-
gian Geotechnical Institute Publn, 134 : 1–5
Polloni G, Aleotti P, Baldelli P, Nosetto A, Casavecchia
K (1996) Heavy rain triggered landslides in the Alba area
during November 1994 flooding event in the Piemonte Region
(Italy). In: Proc VII Int Symp Landslides, Trondheim, June
1996, 3 : 1955–1960
Polloni G, Aleotti P (1998) Terraced slopes in mountain areas:
sliding risk and protective measures in Valtellina (Italy). Proc
of the 8th Congr Int Assoc Engineering Geol, Vancouver –
Canada, 21/25 September 1998
Pomeroy JS (1979) Map showing landslides and areas susceptible
to sliding in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. US Geological
Survey Miscellaneous Investigation Map I-1160
Popescu ME (1998) An integrated approach to geohazard in
Romania on a regional scale. In: Proc Second Conf Environ-
mental Management (ICEM-2), Wollongong (Australia) 10–13
Feb 1998, 2, pp 1269–1278
Pradel D, Raad G (1993) Effect of permeability on surficial
stability of homogeneous slopes. J Geotech Eng, ASCE, 119
Raha D, Dharmappa HB (1998) Use of artificial neural
networks (ANN) for predicting the performance of activated
sludge process. In: Proc Second Conf Environmental Manage-
ment (ICEM-2), Wollongong (Australia) 10–13 Feb 1998
Rupke J, Cammeraat E, Seijmonsbergen AC, van Westen CJ
(1988) Engineering geomorphology of Widentobel Catchment,
Appenzell and Sankt Gallen, Switzerland: a geomorphological
inventory system applied to geotechnical appraisal of slope
stability. Engineering Geology, 26 : 33–68
Sarma SK (1975) Seismic stability of earth dams and embank-
ments. Geotechnique, 25 : 743–761
Sarma SK, Jennings DN (1980) A dynamic pore water pressure
parameter. Proc Conf on Dams and Earthquakes, Institution of
Civil Engineers, October 1981, London, Thomas Telford,
pp 155–160
Scarpelli G, Aleotti P, Baldelli P, Milani G, Brambati E
(1995) Field experience of pipeline in geologically unstable
areas. Proc of the 14th Int Conf Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering (OMAE 95), Copenhagen, June 1995, 5 : 87–96
Schuster RL (1996) Socio-economic significance of landslides.
In: Turner, Shuster (eds) “Landslides: investigation and mitiga-
tion”. Transportation Research Board – National Research
Council, Special Report 247, pp 12–35
Schuster RL, Kockelman WJ (1996) Principles of landslide
hazard reduction. In: Turner AK, Shuster RL (eds) “Landslides:
investigation and mitigation”. Transportation Research Board
– National Research Council, Special Report 247, pp 91–105
Siddle HJ, Jones DB, Payne HR (1991) Development of a meth-
odology for landslip potential mapping in the Rhondda Valley.
In: Proceedings of the Conf “Slope stability engineering devel-
opments and applications”, 15–18 April 1991, Isle of Wight,
pp 121–126
44 Bull Eng Geol Env (1999) 58 : 21–44 7 Q Springer-Verlag
Skermer NA, VanDine DG (1992) Catastrophic impact of some
historical mountain landslides. In: Proc of First Can Symp
Geotechnique Natural Hazards (Geohazard ’92), Vancouver,
May 6–9 1992, pp 91–98
Soeters R, Van Westen CJ (1996) Slope stability: recognition,
analysis and zonation. In: Turner AK, Shuster RL (eds) “Land-
slides: investigation and mitigation”. Transportation Research
Board – National Research Council, Special Report 247,
pp 129–177
Sorriso-Valvo M, Tansi C, Antronico L (1996) Relazione tra
frane, forme del rilievo e strutture tettoniche nella media valle
del Fiume Crati (Calabria). Geogr Fis Dinam Quat 19 : 107–117
Stevenson PC (1977) An empirical method for the evaluation of
relative landslide risk. Bull Int Ass Eng Geol, 16 : 69–72
Tang WH, Yucemen MS, Ang AH-S (1976) Probability-based
short term design of soil slopes. Can Geotechn J, 13 : 201–215
Terzaghi K (1950) Mechanism of landslides. In: Paige S (ed)
”Application of geology to engineering practice“. Geol Soc Am,
Vol: 83–123
Turner AK, Schuster RL, (1996) Landslides-Investigation and
Mitigationb, Special Report 247, Transportation Research
Board, National Research Council, USA, 675 pp
Varnes DJ, IAEG Commission on Landslides (1984) Landslide
hazard zonation – a review of principles and practice.
UNESCO, Paris, 63 pp
Vaunat J, Leroueil S, Tavenas F (1992) Hazard and risk anal-
ysis of slope instability. In: Proc First Canadian Symposium on
Geotechnique and Natural Hazards (Geohazard ’92),
Vancouver, May 6–9 1992, pp 397–404
Viberg L (1984) Landslide risk mapping in soft clay in Scandi-
navia and Canada. In: Proc IV Int Symp Landslides, Toronto,
1 : 325–348
Visintainer P, Turrini MC (1995) Carta della pericolosità di
eventi naturali della Val Duron (Trentino Alto Adige). Geologia
Tecnica e Ambientale, 2 : 17–33
Ward TJ, Ruh-Ming L, Simons DB (1982) Mapping landslide
hazard in forest watershed. J Geotechn Eng Div, ASCE, 108
(GT2):319–324
Whitman RV (1984) Evaluating Calculated Risk in Geotechnical
Engineering. J Geotechn Eng, ASCE, 110 : 145–188
Wieczorek GF (1984) Preparing a detailed landslide-inventory
map for hazard evaluation and reduction. Bull of the Assoc Eng
Geol, 21 : 337–342
Wieczorek GF (1996) Landslide triggering mechanisms. In:
Turner AK, Shuster RL (eds) “Landslides: investigation and
mitigation”. Transportation Research Board – National
Research Council, Special Report 247, pp 76–90
Wieczorek GF, Gori PL, Jager S, Kappel WM, Negussey D
(1996) Assessment and management of landslide hazards near
Tully Valley landslide, Syracuse, New York, USA. Proc VII Int
Symp Landslides, Trondheim, June 1996, 1 : 411–416
Wilson RC, Wieczorek GF (1995): Rainfall thresholds for the
initiation of debris flow at La Honda, California. Environ-
mental & Engineering Geoscience, 1 : 11–27
Wu TH, Kraft LM (1970) Safety Analysis of Slopes. J of Soil
Mech and Foundation Eng Div ASCE, 96 : 609–630
Wu TH, Abdel-Latif MA (1994) Prediction, Mapping and
Updating of Landslide Hazard, Proc Conf on Deep Foundation
Ground Improvement, AIT Bangkok, Balkema
Wu TH, Tang WH, Einstein HH (1996) Landslide Hazard and
Risk Assessment. In: Turner AK, Shuster RL (eds) “Landslides:
investigation and mitigation”. Transportation Research Board
– National Research Council, Special Report 247, pp 106–118
Zhang S (1990) Evaluation and Updating of Slope Reliability,
Ph.D thesis, University of Wollongong