KEMBAR78
Assessment of socioeconomic vulnerability to landslides using an indicator-based approach: methodology and case studies | Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment Skip to main content

Assessment of socioeconomic vulnerability to landslides using an indicator-based approach: methodology and case studies

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The severity of the impact of a natural hazard on a society depends on, among other factors, the intensity of the hazard and the exposure and resistance ability of the elements at risk (e.g., persons, buildings and infrastructures). Social conditions strongly influence the vulnerability factors for both direct and indirect impact and therefore control the possibility to transform the occurrence of a natural hazard into a natural disaster. This article presents a model to assess the relative socioeconomic vulnerability to landslides at the local to regional scale. The model applies an indicator-based approach. The indicators represent the underlying factors that influence a community’s ability to prepare for, deal with, and recover from the damage and loss associated with landslides. The proposed model includes indicators that characterize the demographic, social and economic setting as well as indicators representing the degree of preparedness, effectiveness of the response and capacity to recover. Although this model focuses primarily on the indirect losses, it could easily be extended to include physical indicators accounting for the direct losses. Each indicator is individually ranked from 1 (lowest vulnerability) to 5 (highest vulnerability) and weighted, based on its overall degree of influence. The final vulnerability estimate is formulated as a weighted average of the individual indicator scores. The proposed model is applied for six case studies in Europe. The case studies demonstrate that the method gives a reasonable ranking of the vulnerability. The practical experience achieved through the case studies shows that the model is straightforward for users with knowledge on landslide locations and with access to local census data.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+
from $39.99 /Month
  • Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
  • Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
  • Cancel anytime
View plans

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Birkmann J (2006) Indicators and criteria for measuring vulnerability: theoretical bases and requirements. In: Birkmann J (ed) Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards: towards disaster resilient societies, United Nations University Press, Tokyo, Japan

  • Cardona OD (2003) Indicators for risk management: methodological fundamentals, information and indicators program for disaster risk management, IADB/ECLAC/IDEA

  • Carreňo ML, Cardona OD, Barbat A (2007a) A disaster risk management performance index. Nat Hazards 41:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carreňo ML, Cardona OD, Barbat A (2007b) Urban seismic risk evaluation: a holistic approach. Nat Hazards 40:137–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CIMNE (2009) Methods and indicator systems for assessing vulnerability and risk: detailed literature review. Deliverable to WT 1.2, MOVE (methods for the improvement of vulnerability assessment in Europe)

  • Committee on Assessing the Costs of Natural Disasters (1999) The impacts of natural disasters: a framework for loss estimation, committee on assessing the costs of natural disasters, National Research Council, Washington, United States of America. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/6425.html

  • Corominas J, Copons R, Moya J, Vilaplana J, Maltimir J, Amigó J (2005) Quantitative assessment of the residual risk in a rock fall protected area. Landslides 2:343–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corominas J, van Westen C, Frattini P, Cascini L, Malet JP, Fotopoulou S, Catani F, van den Eeckhaut M, Mavrouli O-C, Agliardi F, Pitilakis K, Winter MG, Pastor M, Ferlisi SS, Tofani V, Hervás J, Smith J (2013) Recommendations for the quantitative assessment of landslide risk. Bull Eng Geol Environ. doi:10.1007/s10064-013-0538-8

  • Cutter SL, Boruff BJ, Shirley LW (2003) Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc Sci Q 84(2):242–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer A, Zoppou C, Nielsen O, Day S, Roberts S (2004) Quantifying social vulnerability: a methodology for identifying those at risk to natural hazards, Australian Government, Geoscience Australia

  • European Commission Eurostat (2008) Tables, graphs and maps interface: hospital beds. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&language=en&pcode=tps00046&plugin=0&tableSelection=1&footnotes=yes&labeling=labels

  • Heinimann HR (1999) Risikoanalyse bei gravitativen Naturgefahren—Fallbeispiele und Daten, Umwelt-Materialen 107/I, Bern, 1999

  • Kappos AJ, Panagopoulos G, Sextos AG, Papanikolaou VK, Stylianidis KC (2010) Development of comprehensive earthquake loss scenarios for a Greek and a Turkish city—structural aspects. Earthq Struct 1(2):197–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King D, MacGregor C (2000) Using social indicators to measure community vulnerability to natural hazards. Aust J Emerg Manag 15(3):52–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Lahidji R (2008) Measuring the capacity to cope with natural disasters. Contribution to the UN OCHA project “risk assessment and mitigation measures for natural and conflict-related hazards in Asia Pacific” Appendix G in http://www.preventionweb.net/files/10455_OCHANGINaturalconflictrelatedhazard.pdf

  • Li Z, Nadim F, Huang H, Uzielli M, Lacasse S (2010) Quantitative vulnerability estimation for scenario-based landslide hazards. Landslides 7(2):125–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malet J-P, Laigle D, Remaître A, Maquaire O (2005) Triggering conditions and mobility of debris-flows associated to complex earthflows. Geomorphology 66(1–4):215–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nadim F, Kjekstad O, Peduzzi P, Herold C, Jaedicke C (2006) Global landslide and avalanche hotspots. Landslides 3(2):159–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papathoma-Köhle M, Neuhäuser B, Ratzinger K, Wenzel H, Dominey-Howes D (2007) Elements at risk as a framework for assessing the vulnerability of communities to landslides. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 7:765–779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papathoma-Köhle M, Kappes MS, Keiler M, Glade T (2011) Physical vulnerability assessment for alpine hazards: state of the art and future needs future needs. Nat Hazards 58(2):645–680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peduzzi P, Dao H, Herold C, Mouton F (2009) Assessing global exposure and vulnerability towards natural hazards: the Disaster Risk Index. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9:1149–1159. www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/9/1149/2009/

  • Pitilakis K, Anastasiadis A, Kakderi K, Manakou M, Manou D, Alexoudi M, Fotopoulou S, Argyroudis S, Senetakis K (2011) Development of comprehensive earthquake loss scenarios for a Greek and a Turkish city: seismic hazard, geotechnical and lifeline aspects. Earthq Struct 2(3):207–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puissant A, Van Den Eeckhaut M, Malet JP, Maquaire O (2013) Landslide consequence analysis: a region-scale indicator-based methodology. Landslides J Int Consort on Landslides (in press). doi:10.1007/s10346-013-0429-x

  • Steinführer A, De Marchi B, Kuhlicke C, Scolobig A, Tapsell S, Tunstall S (2009) Vulnerability, resilience and social constructions of flood risk in exposed communities. FLOODsite report T11-07-12. http://www.floodsite.net

  • Tapsell S, Tunstall S, Green C, Fernandez A (2005) Social indicator set. FLOODsite report T11-07-01. http://www.floodsite.net/html/publications2asp?ALLdocs=on&Submit=View, Enfield: Flood Hazard Research Centre

  • Taubenböck H, Post J, Roth A, Zosseder K, Strunz G, Dech S (2008) A conceptual vulnerability and risk framework as outline to identify capabilities of remote sensing. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 8:409–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uzielli M, Nadim F, Lacasse S, Kaynia AM (2008) A conceptual framework for quantitative estimation of physical vulnerability to landslides. Eng Geol 102:251–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The work described in this article was performed as a part of the EC FP7 project SafeLand and also partly supported by the Research Council of Norway through the International Centre for Geohazards (IGC). The support is gratefully acknowledged. Partial support was also given by the Marie Curie European Reintegration Grant (ERG) “RISK-LESS: Quantitative vulnerability assessment for the evaluation of landslide risk in inhabited areas” (FP7, contract no. 268180). The authors also wish to thank the two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on an earlier version of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to U. M. K. Eidsvig.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Eidsvig, U.M.K., McLean, A., Vangelsten, B.V. et al. Assessment of socioeconomic vulnerability to landslides using an indicator-based approach: methodology and case studies. Bull Eng Geol Environ 73, 307–324 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-014-0571-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-014-0571-2

Keywords