Abstract
This paper illustrates approaches to landslide risk acceptance in various parts of the world in the context of the willingness to accept that risk, the willingness to pay to reduce the risk, and the willingness to alter the environment in the process. These factors are interlinked using the ternary ‘willingness diagram’ which is also used to demonstrate how such willingness may change over time and to compare a range of generic approaches to landslide remediation as well as different conceptual approaches to landslide risk management. The willingness construct is intended to provide a readily understood framework for infrastructure owners and operators, amongst others, to understand how their approach to risk management compares with those in other regions, countries and contexts. Issues relevant to the response of society and groups of individuals to landslide risk, its acceptance and management include cultural factors, regulation and planning, budgetary constraints, vehicular vulnerability, and the often limited size of the event footprint compared to the vulnerability shadow that is cast are also discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anon (2005) When hillsides collapse: a century of landslides in Hong Kong. Civil Engineering and Development Department, Hong Kong SAR (in English and Chinese)
Anon (2007) Thirty years of slope safety practice in Hong Kong. Civil Engineering and Development Department, Hong Kong SAR (in English and Cantonese)
Anon (2008) The operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. UNESCO, Paris
Anon (2009) Circular on the protection of World Heritage Sites. Communities and Local Government Circular 07/2009. Department for Local Government and Communities, London
Bromhead EN (1997) The treatment of landslides. Proc Inst Civ Eng (Geotech Eng) 125(2):85–96
Bunce CM, Cruden DM, Morgenstern NR (1997) Assessment of the hazard from rock fall on a highway. Can Geotech J 34:344–356
Department of the Environment (DOE) (1990) Development on unstable land. Planning Policy Guidance, PPG14. HMSO, London (with annex 1, 1996 and annex 2, 2002)
Fell R, Hartford D (1997) Landslide risk management. In: Cruden D, Fell R (eds) Proceedings of the international workshop on landslide risk assessment, Honolulu, Hawaii. Balkema, Rotterdam
Finlay PJ, Fell R (1997) Landslides: risk perception and acceptance. Can Geotech J 34:169–188
Hong Y, Hiura H, Shino K, Sassa K, Fukuoka H (2005) Quantitative assessment on the influence of heavy rainfall on the crystalline schist landslide by monitoring system—case study on Zentoku landslide, Japan. Landslides 2(1):31–41
Lee EM, Jones DKC (2004) Landslide risk assessment. Thomas Telford, London
Margottini C (2004) Instability and geotechnical problems of the Buddha niches and surrounding cliff in Bamiyan Valley, Central Afghanistan. Landslides 1(1):41–51
McInnes RG (2000) Managing ground instability in urban areas—a guide to best practice. Centre for the Coastal Environment, Isle of Wight
McInnes RG, Jakeways J (2000) The development of guidance and best practice for urban instability management in coastal and mountainous areas of the European Union. In: Bromhead E, Dixon N, Ibsen M-L (eds) Landslides in research, theory and practice. Thomas Telford, London, pp 1047–1052
McInnes RG, Jakeways J, Fairbank H (2006) EU LIFE ‘response’ project. Final report for European Commission. Centre for the Coastal Environment, Isle of Wight
Petley D (2010) Dave’s landslide blog. http://daveslandslideblog.blogspot.com. Accessed 12 Aug 2010
Real CR (2005) California’s seismic mapping act: a statewide approach to landslide hazard mitigation. In: Schwab JC, Gori PL, Sanjay J (eds) Landslide hazard and planning. Planning advisory service report number 533/534. American Planning Association, Washington, DC, pp 143–153
Schwab JC, Gori PL, Sanjay J (eds) (2005) Landslide hazard and planning. Planning advisory service report number 533/534. American Planning Association, Washington, DC
Scullin CM (1990) Excavation and grading code administration, inspection and enforcement. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliff
Tapsell S, McCarthy S, Faulkner H, Alexander M (2010). Social vulnerability to natural hazards. CapHaz-Net: social capacity building for natural hazards—towards more resilient societies. Report number WP4. http://caphaz-net.org/outcomes-results. Accessed Feb 2011
Versace P (ed) (2007) La mitigazione del rischio da collate di fango: a Sarno e negli altri comuni colpiti dagle eventi del Maggio 1998. Commissariato do Governa per l’Emergenze Idrogeologica in Campania, Napoli (in Italian)
Wachinger G, Renn O (2010) Risk perception and natural hazards. CapHaz-Net: social capacity building for natural hazards—towards more resilient societies. Report number WP3. http://caphaz-net.org/outcomes-results. Accessed Feb 2011
White JL, Dessenberger NC, Ellis WL, Higgins J, Gaffney S (2007) The DeBeque Canyon landslide at Interstate 70, Mesa County, West Central Colorado. In: Proceedings, first North American landslides conference: field trips. AEG SP 22. OMNI Press, Wisconsin, USA, pp 104–122
Winter MG, Macgregor F, Shackman L (eds) (2005) Scottish road network landslides study. The Scottish Executive, Edinburgh
Winter MG, Heald A, Parsons J, Shackman L, Macgregor F (2006) Scottish debris flow events of August 2004. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 39(1):73–78
Winter MG, Macgregor F, Shackman L (eds) (2008) Scottish road network landslides study: implementation. Transport Scotland, Edinburgh
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Winter, M.G., Bromhead, E.N. Landslide risk: some issues that determine societal acceptance. Nat Hazards 62, 169–187 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-9987-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-9987-1