Time capsule for landslide risk assessment

Figures & data

Figure 1. Milestones for international community engagement in disaster risk reduction.

Table 1. Concept model of risk assessment.

Concept model	Reference
Risk = Hazard + Vulnerability	Maskrey (1989)
Risk = Probability × Consequences	Einstein (1988)
Risk = Hazard × Vulnerability	UNDHA (1991); Wisner et al. (1994); UNDP (2004)
Risk = Hazard × Exposure × Vulnerability	Crichton (1999); Peduzzi, Dao, and Herold (2002); Granger (2003)
Risk = (∑ elements at risk) × Hazard × Vulnerability	Alexander (2000)
Risk = Hazard × Vulnerability × Deficiencies in Preparedness	Villagrán (2001)
Risk = Hazard + Exposure + Vulnerability – Coping Capacity	Hahn (2003)

Figure 2. Hazard assessment of Qinping Town (Modified from Cui et al. 2015).

Table 2. Review of existing methods for the assessment of physical vulnerability (modified from Fuchs et al. 2019).

Method	Advantages	Shortcomings
Vulnerability matrices	A qualitative method, no need for ex-ante data or detailed information	Results may not be translated into monetary loss. Assessment of damage under specific intensities or process characteristics is objective. No consideration on the property element at risk.
Vulnerability curves	The method is quantitative and may “translate” an event into the monetary cost	Important characteristics of the natural process (e.g. velocity, duration, direction, etc.) and the element at risk (number of floors, construction material) are ignored. Highly demanding in ex-post information. No consideration on the failure mechanism of element at risk.
Vulnerability indicators	Characteristics of the element at risk are taken into consideration	The intensity of the process is not considered, demanding in data (detail, amount quality). No consideration on the failure mechanism of element at risk.
Vulnerability calculation	Interaction of hazard process and failure mechanisms of element at risk are considered.	Highly demanding data on the physical property of element at risk (e.g. material strength, dimensions, reinforcement, etc.). Research gaps exist at the calculation of failure process of the vulnerably elements

Figure 3. Evolution history of quantitative risk assessment for soil slopes.

Maskrey, A. 1989. Disaster Mitigation: A Community Based Approach. Oxford: Oxfam International.

 Google Scholar

Einstein, H. H. 1988. Landslide Risk Assessment Procedure. Keynote Lecture. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Landslides, July 10–15, Vol. 2, edited by C. Bonnard, 1075–1090. Lausanne: Balkema.

 Google Scholar

UNDHA. 1991. Mitigating Natural Disasters: Phenomena, Effects and Options: A Manual for Policy Makers and Planners. New York: United Nations Publications. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/126700

 Google Scholar

Wisner, B., P. Blaikie, T. Cannon, and I. Davis. 1994. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters. New York: Psychology Press.

 Google Scholar

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery. 2004. Reduced Disaster Risk: A Challenge for Development. A Global Report.

 Google Scholar

Crichton, D. 1999. “The Risk Triangle.” In Natural Disaster Management, edited by Jon Ingleton, 102–103. London: Tudor Rose.

 Google Scholar

Peduzzi, P., H. Dao, and C. Herold. 2002. Global Risk and Vulnerability Index Trends per Year (GRAVITY). Phase II: Development, analysis and results, scientific report UNDP/BCPR. Geneva.

 Google Scholar

Granger, K. 2003. “Quantifying Storm Tide Risk in Cairn.” Natural Hazards 30 (2): 165–185. doi:10.1023/A:1026166300914.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Alexander, D. 2000. Confronting Catastrophe: New Perspectives on Natural Disasters. Harpenden: Terra.

 Google Scholar

Villagrán, J. C. 2001. La Naturaleza de los Riesgos, un Enfoque Conceptual. Serie: Aportes para el Desarrollo, Sostenible, CIMDEN, Guatemala.

 Google Scholar

Hahn, H. 2003. Indicators and Other instruments for Local Risk Management for Communities and Local Governments. https://publications.iadb.org/en/comprehensive-risk-management-communities-and-local-governments-component-iii-indicators-and-other.

 Google Scholar

Fuchs, S., M. Keiler, R. Ortlepp, R. Schinke, and M. Papathoma-Kohle. 2019. “Recent Advances in Vulnerability Assessment for the Built Environment Exposed to Torrential Hazards: Challenges and the way Forward.” Journal of Hydrology 575: 587–595. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.05.067.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar