The document discusses the definition of landslides and the increasing landslide hazard. It begins by explaining that while "landslide" is commonly used to describe various types of slope failures, it technically refers to rapid mass movements involving sliding along a failure plane. The landslide hazard has increased as more people settle in hazardous areas and human activities disrupt slope stability. Major triggers of landslides are water, from heavy rain or rising groundwater, and seismic activity during earthquakes. A case study examines the catastrophic 1963 Vaiont Reservoir landslide in Italy that was triggered by reservoir impoundment and rainfall, killing over 2,000 people.
The document discusses the definition of landslides and the increasing landslide hazard. It begins by explaining that while "landslide" is commonly used to describe various types of slope failures, it technically refers to rapid mass movements involving sliding along a failure plane. The landslide hazard has increased as more people settle in hazardous areas and human activities disrupt slope stability. Major triggers of landslides are water, from heavy rain or rising groundwater, and seismic activity during earthquakes. A case study examines the catastrophic 1963 Vaiont Reservoir landslide in Italy that was triggered by reservoir impoundment and rainfall, killing over 2,000 people.
The document discusses the definition of landslides and the increasing landslide hazard. It begins by explaining that while "landslide" is commonly used to describe various types of slope failures, it technically refers to rapid mass movements involving sliding along a failure plane. The landslide hazard has increased as more people settle in hazardous areas and human activities disrupt slope stability. Major triggers of landslides are water, from heavy rain or rising groundwater, and seismic activity during earthquakes. A case study examines the catastrophic 1963 Vaiont Reservoir landslide in Italy that was triggered by reservoir impoundment and rainfall, killing over 2,000 people.
The document discusses the definition of landslides and the increasing landslide hazard. It begins by explaining that while "landslide" is commonly used to describe various types of slope failures, it technically refers to rapid mass movements involving sliding along a failure plane. The landslide hazard has increased as more people settle in hazardous areas and human activities disrupt slope stability. Major triggers of landslides are water, from heavy rain or rising groundwater, and seismic activity during earthquakes. A case study examines the catastrophic 1963 Vaiont Reservoir landslide in Italy that was triggered by reservoir impoundment and rainfall, killing over 2,000 people.
Some of the key takeaways are that landslides can range in scale from small cliff collapses to massive mountainside movements, and that human development on marginal lands has increased landslide hazards. The text also discusses different types of rapid mass movements and how landslides are often a combination of mechanisms.
The precise definition of a landslide given is that it involves a 'slide' mechanism along a line of weakness, is usually very fast, involves relatively dry material, and transfers a coherent 'slab' of material downhill that may break up upon reaching the bottom.
Major contributory factors discussed include geology (fault lines, dipping rock layers), hydrology (rising groundwater levels), and human activity (deforestation, construction).
The definition dilemma
Lanslide is a common term used by many people to describe a sudden
slope failure or collapse, involving the downhill transfer of material, both consolidated and unconsolidated, by one or more of three main mechanisms: fall, slide and flow. Whilst this umbrella-type of definition is perfectly acceptable when considering the hazards associated with slope failure, it is important to appreciate that the term landslide does have a very precise mechanical definition in that it is only one of several specific types of rapid mass movement (Fig. 1), its main features being: It involves a slide mechanism, often along a line of weakness such as a fault or a bedding plane It is usually a very fast form of movement It involves material that is more or less dry It usually involves the downhill transfer of a largely coherent slab of material, which may then break up as it comes to rest Fig. 1 Common types of sudden mass movement In reality, few of the specific types of slope failure illustrated in Fig. 1 occur in isolation. Usually an individual event will involve a combination of two or more types of movement, for example a slide will frequently have a flow component, particularly near its toe. For this reason it is inappropriate in the study of slope hazards, where the concern is about the impact of slope failure on people, to stick rigorously to the tight mechanical definition. In this Factsheet we shall adopt the broader definition of the term landslide, so all the types of movement shown in Fig. 1 can be included. What is the landslide hazard? In its broad sense, therefore, a landslide can be thought of as a sudden and unexpected downhill movement of part of a hillside. It can be a very small scale and largely inconsequential event, such a cliff collapse at the coast, or it can involve the catastrophic movement of a huge chunk of mountainside, completely altering the landscape of an area. Whilst most landslides big and small occur in remote and uninhabited areas where they present little or no hazard to people, the increasing utilisation of marginal land for settlement, farming and communications has led to an increase in the landslide hazard. G F September 2001 Number 115 eo actsheet 1 THE LANDSLIDE HAZARD Case Study 1: Vaiont Reservoir Slide, Italy, 1963 On 9 th October 1963 a huge slab of rock, some 200m wide, slid down a valley side into the Vaiont Reservoir (Fig. 2). It created a huge wave 100m high that overtopped the dam (amazingly not breaking it!) and surged into the valley below, inundating villages and killing 2043 people. Fig. 2 Vaiont Reservoir slide, Italy 1963. What were the contributory causes? The rocks were dipping down towards the bottom of the valley creating natural slip planes. There were also fault lines creating slip planes. The valley had been the scene of a previous landslide and much of the rock was unstable The reservoir had led to an increase in groundwater pore pressure as the water table rose in the rocks The site should never have been chosen for a reservoir; it was a major engineering error. What were the trigger factors? The impoundment of the reservoir, increasing pore water pressure to a dangerous level and reactivating an old slide A period of heavy rainfall What were the consequences? The Vaiont Reservoir slide was one of the most serious civil engineering errors of modern times. The reservoir should never have been constructed at the site. It was very much a man-made rather than a naturaldisaster. Classic planar landslide Rock fall Rock topple Single rotational slump Block slide Mud flow Slide plane Curved plane Casso Fault Fault Vaiont Dam 500m Flood zone Longarone 1960 slide Slide debris 1963 slide Monte Toc Reservoir R i v e r P i a v e N 1200m 1000m 800m 600m Reservoir South North 1960 slide Old slide mass Casso Vaiont Gorge Old slide mass Thin bedded limestones Original water table 1963 water table Massive limestone In the past, the landslide hazard has been somewhat neglected and underestimated in that it has been linked solely with the high magnitude, low frequency events that have caused massive loss of life, such as the 1963 Vaiont Dam disaster in Italy, when over 2000 people perished (Case Study 1) or the 1970 Huascaran rock avalanche in the Peruvian Andes, which wiped out two villages and killed 25,000 people. Many people, particularly in the media, have failed to pay appropriate attention to the landslides that occur as a consequence of earthquakes, volcanoes, or hurricanes. Much of the destruction and loss of life that occurs during these events is often directly related to slope failure rather than to ground shaking or heavy rain and strong winds. All too often, the effects of the landslides, in terms of loss of life and financial costs, are for recording purposes, subsumed within the main event itself and therefore receive little acknowledgement as a hazard in their own right. The result is that landslides often go largely unrecognised as serious and frequent natural hazards. Such misrepresentation is dangerous in hazard studies, for it results in a lack of focus on the real issues. For example, in an earthquake prone area, we should not only build houses that will withstand shaking but we should build them in areas away from the dangers of slope failure. If slope failure goes unrecognised as a potential hazard, then the risk of disaster is increased largely through ignorance. Has the landslide hazard increased? There are several reasons why the landslide hazard has increased in recent years: Large parts of the world have been opened-up for resource exploitation, power generation and infrastructure developments. Areas that were once considered to be remote have become developed, putting more people at risk. Urbanisation, particularly in LEDCs, has led to the sprawl of urban areas onto hillsides previously considered too dangerous for habitation, e.g. in Lima, Peru and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and in Hong Kong. Coastal areas have been increasingly developed for industry and tourism, and cliffed coasts are particularly vulnerable to collapse. Human activity has interfered with slope profiles and processes. Slopes have been modified, e.g. for road building and drainage, and these modifications and alterations to the natural slope system have themselves increased the frequency of landslides. To summarise, more people are now at risk from a greater number of landslides. What causes landslides? It is possible to distinguish between two sets of factors, firstly those contributing to the likelihood of a landslide, and secondly, those responsible for triggering the landslide itself: 1. Contributory factors. Aslope is a constantly evolving landscape unit. It is a response to a natural set of factors and conditions, such as rock type, vegetation cover and climate, and most slopes will eventually achieve a state of balance or equilibrium. However it is a dynamic equilibrium as it is only when conditions change, either naturally, such as a forest fire or earthquake, or as a result of human activity, that the slope becomes unstable and responds by altering its profile in order to achieve a new state of balance (see Fig. 3). 2. Trigger mechanisms Each landslide event can be linked to a process that has triggered the slope failure. Whilst several processes can act as triggers, such as a period of intense frost shattering, slope undercutting by the sea or vibrations caused by traffic, by far the most common triggers relate to water and seismic activity. Water. An increase in groundwater pressure is considered by slope engineers to be the most common cause of landslides. The additional water can come from leaking drainage pipes or, most often, from heavy rainfall. Environments subjected to periods of intense rainfall, for example cyclones or monsoons, are particularly vulnerable to landslides. These landslides were a major problem as a result of Hurricane Mitch. Seismic activity. The vibrations resulting from earthquakes and volcanic activity frequently trigger landslides. In an earthquake event, it will often be the associated landslides that will cause greatest loss of life and damage to property. This is particularly the case where silts and clays become liquefied (jelly-like) in response to shaking, as was the case in the 1964 Alaskan and the 1985 Mexico City earthquakes. Fig. 3 Factors contributing to slope instability. 2 The landslide hazard Geo Factsheet Steep gradient. The steeper a slope, the greater will be the effectiveness of the downward pull of gravity, making collapse more likely to occur. It is, however, wrong to assume that landslides are only associated with steep slopes. Rock type. Rocks differ in their ability to hold a slope; granite and limestone, for example, will hold a vertical slope without collapsing whereas sands and clays are only stable if the slope is at a low angle. Rocks that are loose and unconsolidated are much more prone to collapse. Rock juxtaposition is important too, as weaker rocks on top of stronger rocks may be prone to sliding over the underlying strata. Geological structure. The dip of rocks, or the presence of inclined faults, will influence the likelihood of sliding. Heavily fractured or jointed rocks will be more prone to weathering processes such as frost shattering, making them vulnerable to collapse. Water content and permeability. Water content, or more precisely water pore pressure, is recognised as being one of the most important factors in affecting slope vulnerability. Water serves to reduce the friction between particles and it lubricates the slope promoting collapse. The majority of landslides can be linked to the presence of water in a slope. Removal of vegetation. Vegetation, particularly in the form of trees, reduces the likelihood of slope collapse because it intercepts rainfall, uses water to grow and helps to bind soil and rock particles together. If vegetation is removed, for example, for timber or for the development of a ski slope, the slope immediately becomes more vulnerable to collapse. Slope undercutting. If a slope is undercut, either by natural processes such as fluvial or marine erosion, or by human actions, such as road building, it becomes unstable, increasing the likelihood of collapse. Human actions. As the development of slopes has increased in recent years for settlement, resource exploitation and infrastructure development, slopes have become increasingly modified, often making them more vulnerable to collapse. Housing development, for example, has increased the weight on slopes and interfered with the natural drainage system. The dumping of colliery waste on upper slopes is another way human actions can put increased pressure on a slope, as at Aberfan. In altering slope profiles and processes, any state of balance that might have existed is immediately compromised. Landslides are increasing being linked to human activity, for example leaking pipes, the removal of vegetation, and the undercutting of slopes. All too often planners are neglecting to take account of the possible effects of development on increasing the landslide hazard. Prolonged rainfall This will saturate the soil and encourage movement Buildings Increases weight on slope and adds to downward pull of gravity Bedrock Solid bedrock below weak material: the junction forms the likely slide plane Rock type Weak, saturated material or shattered rock is more likely to move then solid bedrock. Excavation Undercutting of slope increases instability. Removal of vegetation Roots bind the soil together. Vegetation uses up some of the soil moisture Permeability Water flowing on surface of impermeable layer B e d d in g p l a n e S t e e p s l o p e How can the landslide hazard be reduced? Reducing the slope hazard can take the form of behavioural responses, which involve reducing peoples vulnerability to landslides, and structural or engineering responses, which are designed to reduce the likelihood of a landslide event occurring. Landslides in remote and unpopulated areas do not represent a hazard as such and can be largely ignored. 1. Behavioural responses (avoidance) One of the most important first steps in hazard mitigation is the production of a landslide hazard map. These maps are constructed following extensive engineering surveys of current slope characteristics, together with evidence of past landslide activity. The finished maps indicate those areas at greatest risk from landslides and, if used properly in the planning process, should serve to reduce the landslide hazard by keeping people away from the most vulnerable slopes. Landslide hazard mapping is well developed in many parts of the world - however such surveys are expensive and require considerable technical expertise. They also require planners to respond appropriately to their findings, which is not always the case when pressure for development is high. Urban sprawl onto marginal hillsides in cities such as Caracas (Case Study 3) occurs because the short-term demands for housing and land outweigh the possible problems associated with a landslide, which, of course, might never happen. Nevertheless, at its very basic level, planners do have a duty to offer advice to people and to help them recognise the most blatantly dangerous slopes, which should be avoided for habitation. Scientific monitoring can be effective in predicting landslides. Instruments can be used to monitor ground deformation, groundwater pressure and the expansion of cracks and fissures. However, the landslide events themselves are often so sudden as to give no warning. Therefore, monitoring can only suggest the likelihood of collapse - it cannot provide a reliable timescale. 2. Structural engineering responses (prevention) Structural responses, involving some form of engineering, are the most common and widespread responses to the landslide hazard. The use of steel pins, wire cages and netting (see Fig. 5) are common techniques aimed at stabilising a slope or reducing the effects of small-scale collapse, such as rockfalls. Improving slope drainage (Fig. 6) is a further common and effective response. Fig. 5 Methods of slope stabilisation. Fig. 6 Improving slope drainage. In common with all forms of hazard management, a cost-benefit analysis needs to be conducted before engineering works are undertaken. Ultimately, only those slopes posing the greatest risk to people and highest financial losses will be protected with the most extensive and sophisticated structures. Furthermore, as with flood defences, no scheme will ever protect an area from a low frequency but high magnitude event. The only absolute form of protection is behavioural. Case Study 2 shows you how prevention can be both worthwhile and effective for a low magnitude, but potentially frequent type of event. 3 The landslide hazard Geo Factsheet Case Study 2: Hoar Edge slope stabilisation, Northern England During the construction of the Trans Pennine motorway, shallow landslides occurred one of the newly cut slopes. A combination of structural measures was subsequently employed to stabilise the slope (Fig. 4). Fig. 4 Hoar Edge slope stabilisation, Northern England. The angle of the profile was lowered to reduce the likelihood of further slips taking place A rock buttress was constructed to act as a wall at the base or toe of the slope The top of the wall was held in place by 41 cable anchors that were attached to a layer of stable sandstone below the ground surface. There has been no movement since these measures were employed. 50 metres Ditch Regraded profile Rock trap N a tu ra l p ro file O r i g i n a l c u t t i n g S and ston e M u d sto n e M u d sto n e Ground anchors Rockfill buttress Slip surfaces Shale Sandstone Reinforced earth Gabion wall Rock trap Pattern bolting Reinforced concrete Anchored wall Dental masonry Suspended netting Diversion ditch Surface drain in trough Pumped relief well Surface stone drain Free-draining borehole or adit Slip surface Interception tunnel parallel to face Relief drain into lower aquifer 4 The landslide hazard Geo Factsheet Case Study 3: Venezuela Debris Flows, 1999 What happened? On 15-16 th December 1999, landslides and mudflows devastated parts of northern Venezuela (Fig. 7). Up to 30,000 people lost their lives, and more than 400,000 were made homeless as 90,000 homes were destroyed, washed away or buried by several metres of mud. The worst hit areas were the shanty towns on the edge of Caracas and the settlements in the small state of Vargas, to the north of the capital. Plantations, roads and highways were destroyed and airports were closed for several days. Billions of dollars worth of damage was caused and, in the days immediately following the floods and landslides, food, shelter and medical help were in short supply. Fig. 7 Location map of Caracas, Venezuela What were the contributory causes? In the first two weeks in December 1999, northern Venezuela experienced the heaviest rains to have occurred in 100 years. This led to soils becoming saturated and water forming ponds on the surface. In recent decades, large tracts of land had been cleared of forest to make way for urban development, in particular shanty towns. The absence of trees to intercept rainfall and hold together soil undoubtedly contributed to the scale of the disaster. The coastal strip of north Venezuela is mountainous and there are many steep slopes. The Avila Mountain Range, the northern-most part of the Andes, rises to over 2,500m just inland of the coast. Caracas is bounded on most sides by very steep hillslopes, land that is described as being marginal for habitation. Over the years, shanty towns have been developed on these steep slopes, usually with little or no planning and a subsequent lack of facilities such as drainage. President Chavez blamed corrupt previous governments for allowing illegal shanty towns to develop on land considered to be too dangerous for habitation. A CNN report published on 19 th December 1999 stated that millions of poor people had built homes (flimsy, precariously perched shacks) on the mountainside because they couldnt afford to live anywhere else, and for decades, government officials did little to stop them. What was the trigger factor? Heavy rainfall throughout December 1999, particularly the extreme rainfall events that occurred on 15 and 16 December during which up to 900mm fell. These storms led to flash flooding and triggered the numerous debris flows. What were the consequences? This disaster has illustrated the need to plan urban developments more carefully in the future, for whilst there were many natural factors contributing towards the disaster, people should not have been allowed to occupy such potentially dangerous hillslopes. Case Study 4: Cherry Hills Landslide, Antipolo City, Philippines, 1999 What happened? On 3 rd August 1999 a disastrous landslide occurred in the Cherry Hills district of Antipolo City (Fig. 8), just 10km to the east of Manila. Many houses were destroyed and some 58 people lost their lives. What were the contributory factors? The Cherry Hills development comprised low-cost housing units constructed on steep slopes (up to 25 degrees) on the edges of the city. The rocks comprised heavily fractured sedimentary rocks (siltstones, sandstones and clays), with varying degrees of permeability and shear strength. There had been numerous landslides in the past. As early as 1998, buildings had begun to show cracks and displacement of walls, particularly after heavy rain. These signs of slope instability should have alerted the authorities to the impending danger of a major landslide. There was evidence of previous landslides in the area and the land was clearly unsuitable for human habitation. What was the trigger factor? Heavy rainfall between 31 st July and 2 nd August, associated with Tropical Cyclone Ising, which intensified the normal monsoon rainfall. Some 565mm of rain was recorded in these three days. Fig. 8 The Cherry Hills landslide. What were the consequences? This disaster was very much the result of poor planning. Much of the Cherry Hills development should never have been constructed. In the absence of affordable alternative housing, many people have returned to the area. V E N E Z U E L A C O L O M B I A B R A Z I L Caracas 0 metres 100 N Landslide scarp Disturbed landslide material Zone of sub-surface landslide disruption leading to surface heave Part of housing district destroyed by the landslide C H E R R Y H I L L S
D I S T R I C T Road to Antipolo City 0 100 200km 0 miles 200 C a r i b b e a n S e a G U Y. Guiana Highlands Andes Llanos Trinidad & Tobago N 5 The landslide hazard Geo Factsheet Conclusion The landslide hazard has in the past been somewhat underestimated, often being subsumed within the context of other natural events, such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Taken in isolation, however, landslides are one of the most serious of all natural hazards, posing significant threats to people and property worldwide. Landslides take many forms and, whilst many occur in remote areas posing little threat to people, an increasing number now occur in populated areas. Whilst landslides are perfectly natural responses to slope instability, an increasing number of them have a distinctive human element in their cause, particularly where unsuitable land has been over-developed. If the landslide hazard is not to increase further, greater research needs to be undertaken to study slope processes and to produce hazard maps. Planners then need to respond accordingly, either by restricting development on dangerous slopes, or by ensuring that actions are taken to stabilise the slopes. References and further research Most AS and A2 level textbooks have chapters devoted to slope processes, and there are several books dealing with Natural Hazards that have whole chapters devoted to landslides. The following references are perhaps less well known. Waltham, A.C. Foundations of Engineering Geology (Blackie Academic and Professional, 1994) McCall, G.J.H. (Ed.) Geohazards (Chapman and Hall, 1992) Landslide News (Japan Landslide Society) based at Kyoto University, Uji, Kyoto, 611-0011, Japan (website http://L-news.dpri.kyoto-u.ac.jp) is an outstanding publication packed full of recent landslide case studies. Internet sites There are far too many to list here; any search will reveal literally hundreds of sites. Global and local news agencies (www.bbc.co.uk/news is always a good starting point) will provide you with addition information on the recent case studies featured in this article and on ones that post-date it. For excellent information on the Venezuelan landslides, visit Colorado State Universitys Flash Flood Laboratory at www.cira.colostate.edu/fflab/venezuela for a full report and the USGSs Water Resources for the Caribbean site at http://pr.water.usgs.gov/public/venezuelafor magnificent maps and photographs. Exam Questions A. What is the landslide hazard? (5 marks) B. What factors are responsible for landslides? (8 marks) C. Examine, with reference to examples you have studied, the role of people and human activity in increasing the landslide hazard. (12 marks) AS Answer hints A. This is a fairly straightforward question requiring definitions and clear links between the natural event and the threat posed to people. Remember that a hazard only exists when people or human activity are at risk. B. Here you need to be clear about the difference between the contributory factors and the trigger factors. Illustrate the factors with reference to examples. C. This is a more challenging question, which requires you to evaluate the role of people or human actions in either generating landslides or turning them from natural events into man-made disasters. The case studies in the article give you plenty to refer to, but make sure you focus on the question. Acknowledgements; This Factsheet was researched by Simon Ross, Head of Geography, at Queens College, Taunton, and a well-known author. Geo Press. Unit 305B, The Big Peg, 120 Vyse Street, Birmingham B18 6NF Geopress Factsheets may be copied free of charge by teaching staff or students, provided that their school is a registered subscriber. No part of these Factsheets may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any other form or by any other means, without the prior permission of the publisher. ISSN 1351-5136 Case Study 5: Los Colinas mudslide, El Salvador, 2001 What happened? On 13 th January 2001 an earthquake hit the Central American state of El Salvador, causing widespread devastation and triggering several landslides. At Los Colinas, near the capital San Salvador (Fig. 9), a massive mudflow surged down a hillside to engulf the settlement. Many hundreds of people lost their lives and several thousand were injured. What were the contributory factors? The residential district lies at the foot of a very steep hillslope, part of which simply collapsed onto the housing below. Whilst the housing had not been constructed on the hillslope itself, it was clearly vulnerable to slope failure. For several years environmental groups and local residents had been protesting against the deforestation and over-development of the sides of the Cordillera El Balsamo, the ridgeline that overlooks Las Colinas. A lawsuit was even lodged against the construction companies, which brought a ruling halting development. However, that was overturned in 1999, and developers continued to strip away trees and cut into the base of the hillslope. Heavy rains during the winter had made the soils heavy and saturated. What was the trigger factor? The trigger for the mudslide was a massive 7.6 earthquake that occurred in the Pacific Ocean to the south of San Salvador. What were the consequences? The pressure to develop new areas for housing is considerable and despite the disaster, it seems likely that much of the land will be developed once again, although possibly not with the middle class housing that was there before the mudslide. Fig. 9 Location map of El Salvador. Exam Hint: Case Studies 3, 4 and 5 are ideal for supporting your own exam answers as they are recent, clearly set out and full of precise factual detail. Read through them and then consider whether you think the causes were physical, or were human factors the key. HONDURAS San Salvador GUATEMALA P a c i f i c Oc e a n Los Colinas EL S ALVADOR 0 miles 100 Epicentre N