19 research outputs found
Exploring community-level landslide risk reduction strategies in the Global South
Get PDFThe aim of this report is to provide insight into community-based methods, approaches, and actions for reducing risk to landslides. More specifically, it presents a broad overview of recent studies on landslide risk reduction at community level, exploring the various landslide risk reduction measures recommended and/or implemented, and discusses the challenges and opportunities for the implementation of these measures.
The report draws on a wide range of applications investigating distinct case studies in different areas around the Globe, as well as more general studies on equitable resilience (how communities are really engaged) and landslide risk management within the context of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) in the Global South's vulnerable communities. The documented strategies are analysed from the perspectives of scale of intervention, their timing and sustainability, and the resources required for their implementation.
The review suggests that there is no one-size fits all solution for community-based landslide risk reduction. The integration of local knowledge into landslide risk reduction practices is context-specific and varies both in relation to the time of implementation (ex-ante or ex-post disaster) and historically, due to the dynamic nature of communities’ structure and functioning. Its contribution to resilience (including coping and adaptation capacity) depends on the interaction with other types of knowledge (e.g., science based) and the general institutional setting (legal and governmental framework). Moreover, the scale of organisation and action, from individual to household and community level, influences the impact and long-term sustainability of mitigation measures. Nevertheless, overcoming barriers of knowledge, trusts, resources, and power at local level could enhance co-development and collaboration between communities and governmental and non-governmental organisation, communities
Landslide risk reduction cannot be addressed in isolation. Whilst our research focused on a single hazard approach, some DRR measures are shared across hazards, suggesting there is scope for cross-fertilisation and learning between communities affected by different hazards (e.g., volcanic, flooding, mass-movements, etc.). Indeed, this would prompt all actors involved to change their perspective and management of risk towards a systemic, integrated, holistic approach, as they work together to build greater resilience to likely future disasters
An updated landslide susceptibility model and a log-Gaussian Cox process extension for Scotland
Get PDFMitigating Landslides Impact in Scotland - MLIS. Summary Report
Get PDFThis text is a report of the activities conducted under the Mitigating Landslides Impact in Scotland
(MLIS) project. The project was led by the British Geological Survey (BGS) and included the
University of Glasgow and the University of Twente (Netherlands). MLIS allowed to update the BGS
landslides database and produce a new and novel landslide susceptibility map for Scotland
Geological and geomorphological influences on a recent debris flow event in the Ice-scoured Mountain Quaternary domain, western Scotland
Get PDFDebris flows in settings that have experienced net glacial erosion within the UK's Ice-scoured Quaternary domain are the result of a complex interaction of a range of geological and geomorphological factors. On the 11th of August 2016 a rainfall-triggered debris flow deposited 100 t of sediment onto local road and rail infrastructure blocking transport between town of Fort William and port of Mallaig in north-west Scotland. The debris flow occurred in an ice-scoured setting, where current 1:50,000-scale geological maps suggest that little or no sediment is expected on the valley slopes. In this study, we show how weathering and mass-wasting processes have interacted with bedrock structures to fill localised depressions with sediment on the upper parts of the slope. The intense rainfall event of August 2016 caused the destabilisation of this localised sediment, with eventual failure along bedrock joint surfaces resulting in two debris flows. This study demonstrates the combination of processes that can result in thick accumulations of sediment on slopes that are otherwise generally lacking in superficial sediment cover. These sediment accumulations have the potential to pose a significant landslide hazard in areas that might previously have been thought of as lower susceptibility. The research illustrates a need to improve understanding and representation of sediment thickness and distribution on hill slopes – particularly those that show an absence of superficial deposits at the scale of currently available geological maps
An updated landslide susceptibility model and a log-Gaussian Cox process extension for Scotland
Get PDFAt the time of its development, GeoSure was created using expert knowledge based on a thorough understanding of the engineering geology of the rocks and soils of Great Britain. The ability to use a data-driven methodology to develop a national-scale landslide susceptibility was not possible due to the relatively small size of the landslide inventory at the time. In the intervening 20 years, the National Landslide Database has grown from around 6000 points to over 18,000 records today and continues to be added to. With the availability of this additional inventory, new data-driven solutions could be utilised. Here, we tested a Bernoulli likelihood model to estimate the probability of debris flow occurrence and a log-Gaussian Cox process model to estimate the rate of debris flow occurrence per slope unit. Scotland was selected as the test site for a preliminary experiment, which could potentially be extended to the whole British landscape in the future. Inference techniques for both of these models are applied within a Bayesian framework. The Bayesian framework can work with the two models as additive structures, which allows for the incorporation of spatial and covariate information in a flexible way. The framework also provides uncertainty estimates with model outcomes. We also explored consideration on how to communicate uncertainty estimates together with model predictions in a way that would ensure an integrated framework for master planners to use with ease, even if administrators do not have a specific statistical background. Interestingly, the spatial predictive patterns obtained do not stray away from those of the previous GeoSure methodology, but rigorous numerical modelling now offers objectivity and a much richer predictive description
Identification of landslide hazard and risk ‘hotspots’ in Europe
Get PDFLandslides are a serious problem for humans and infrastructure in many parts of Europe. Experts know to a certain degree which parts of the continent are most exposed to landslide hazard. Nevertheless, neither the geographical location of previous landslide events nor knowledge of locations with high landslide hazard necessarily point out the areas with highest landslide risk. In addition, landslides often occur unexpectedly and the decisions on where investments should be made to manage and mitigate future events are based on the need to demonstrate action and political will. The goal of this study was to undertake a uniform and objective analysis of landslide hazard and risk for Europe. Two independent models, an expert-based or heuristic and a statistical model (logistic regression), were developed to assess the landslide hazard. Both models are based on applying an appropriate combination of the parameters representing susceptibility factors (slope, lithology, soil moisture, vegetation cover and other- factors if available) and triggering factors (extreme precipitation and seismicity). The weights of different susceptibility and triggering factors are calibrated to the information available in landslide inventories and physical processes. The analysis is based on uniform gridded data for Europe with a pixel resolution of roughly 30 m 9 30 m. A validation of the two hazard models by organizations in Scotland, Italy, and Romania showed good agreement for shallow landslides and rockfalls, but the hazard models fail to cover areas with slow moving landslides. In general, the results from the two models agree well pointing out the same countries with the highest total and relative area exposed to landslides. Landslide risk was quantified by counting the number of exposed people and exposed kilometers of roads and railways in each country. This process was repeated for both models. The results show the highest relative exposure to landslides in small alpine countries such as Lichtenstein. In terms of total values on a national level, Italy scores highest in both the extent of exposed area and the number for exposed population. Again, results agree between the two models, but differences between the models are higher for the risk than for the hazard results. The analysis gives a good overview of the landslide hazard and risk hotspots in Europe and allows a simple ranking of areas where mitigation measures might be most effective.JRC.H.5-Land Resources Managemen
Challenges in assessing and managing multi-hazard risks: a European stakeholders perspective
Get PDFThe latest evidence suggests that multi-hazards and their interrelationships (e.g., triggering, compound, and consecutive hazards) are becoming more frequent across Europe, underlying a need for resilience building by moving from single-hazard-focused to multi-hazard risk assessment and management. Although significant advancements were made in our understanding of these events, mainstream practice is still focused on risks due to single hazards (e.g., flooding, earthquakes, droughts), with a limited understanding of the stakeholder needs on the ground. To overcome this limitation, this paper sets out to understand the challenges for moving towards multi-hazard risk management through the perspective of European stakeholders. Based on five workshops across different European pilots (Danube Region, Veneto Region, Scandinavia, North Sea, and Canary Islands) and an expert workshop, we identify five prime challenges: i) governance, ii) knowledge of multi-hazards and multi-risks, iii) existing approaches to disaster risk management, iv) translation of science to policy and practice, and v) lack of data. These challenges are inherently linked and cannot be tackled in isolation with path dependency posing a significant hurdle in transitioning from single- to multi-hazard risk management. Going forward, we identify promising approaches for overcoming some of the challenges, including emerging approaches for multi-hazard characterisation, a common understanding of terminology, and a comprehensive framework for guiding multi-hazard risk assessment and management. We argue for a need to think beyond natural hazards and include other threats in creating a comprehensive overview of multi-hazard risks, as well as promoting thinking of multi-hazard risk reduction in the context of larger development goals
Invited perspectives: A research agenda towards disaster risk management pathways in multi-(hazard-)risk assessment
Get PDFWhilst the last decades have seen a clear shift in emphasis from managing natural hazards to managing risk, the majority of natural-hazard risk research still focuses on single hazards. Internationally, there are calls for more attention for multi-hazards and multi-risks. Within the European Union (EU), the concepts of multi-hazard and multi-risk assessment and management have taken centre stage in recent years. In this perspective paper, we outline several key developments in multi-(hazard-)risk research in the last decade, with a particular focus on the EU. We present challenges for multi-(hazard-)risk management as outlined in several research projects and papers. We then present a research agenda for addressing these challenges. We argue for an approach that addresses multi-(hazard-)risk management through the lens of sustainability challenges that cut across sectors, regions, and hazards. In this approach, the starting point is a specific sustainability challenge, rather than an individual hazard or sector, and trade-offs and synergies are examined across sectors, regions, and hazards. We argue for in-depth case studies in which various approaches for multi-(hazard-)risk management are co-developed and tested in practice. Finally, we present a new pan-European research project in which our proposed research agenda will be implemented, with the goal of enabling stakeholders to develop forward-looking disaster risk management pathways that assess trade-offs and synergies of various strategies across sectors, hazards, and spatial scales
D1.2 Handbook of multi-hazard, multi-risk definitions and concepts
Get PDFThis report is the first output of Work Package 1: Diagnosis of the MYRIAD-EU project: Handbook of Multi-hazard, Multi-Risk Definitions and Concepts. The aim of the task was to (i) acknowledge the differences and promote consistency in understanding across subsequent work packages in the MYRIAD-EU project, (ii) improve the accessibility of our work to a broad array of stakeholders and (iii) strengthen consensus across the hazard and risk community through a common understanding of multi-hazard, multi-risk terminology and concepts. The work encompassed a mixed-methods approach, including internal consultations and data-generating exercises; literature reviews; external stakeholder engagement; adopting and building on a rich existing body of established glossaries. 140 terms are included in the glossary, 102 related to multi-hazard, multi-risk, disaster risk management and an additional 38 due to their relevance to the project, acknowledging the need for a common understanding amongst an interdisciplinary project consortium. We also include extended definitions related to concepts particularly of relevance to this project deliverable, including ‘multi-hazard’, ‘hazard interrelationships’, ‘multi-risk’ and ‘direct and indirect loss and risk’. Underpinned by a literature review and internal consultation, we include a specific section on indicators, how these might be applied within a multi-hazard and multi-risk context, and how existing indicators could be adapted to consider multi-risk management. We emphasise that there are a number of established glossaries that the project (and risk community) should make use of to strengthen the impact of the work we do, noting in our literature review a tendency in papers and reports to define words afresh. We conclude the report with a selection of key observations, including terminology matters – for all aspects of disaster risk management, for example communication, data collection, measuring progress and reporting against Sendai Framework targets. At the same time, we discuss when is it helpful to include ‘multi-‘ as a prefix, questioning whether part of the paradigm shift needed to successfully address complex challenges facing an interconnected world is through inherently seeing vulnerability, exposure and disaster risk through the lens of multiple, interrelated hazards. We emphasise that there is likely to be an evolution of the terminology throughout the project lifetime as terms are emerge or shift as the project evolves. Finally, we propose a roadmap for developing and testing draft multi-risk indicators in MYRIAD-EU.
The WP1 team would like to acknowledge all the contributions of the consortium on this task and the feedback from the External Advisory Board, in particular the chair of the board Virginia Murray, Head of Global Disaster Risk Reduction at the UK Health Security Agency, and the contribution of Jenty Kirsch-Wood, Head of Global Risk Management and Reporting at UNDRR, for her reflections on the findings of this work
