Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 61, Issue 2, pp 351–385 | Cite as

An integrated approach for evaluating the effectiveness of landslide risk reduction in unplanned communities in the Caribbean

  • Elizabeth Holcombe
  • Sarah Smith
  • Edmund Wright
  • Malcolm G. Anderson
Original Paper

Abstract

Despite the recognition of the need for mitigation approaches to landslide risk in developing countries, the delivery of ‘on-the-ground’ measures is rarely undertaken. With respect to other ‘natural’ hazards, it is widely reported that mitigation can pay. However, the lack of such an evidence base in relation to landslides in developing countries hinders advocacy amongst decision makers for expenditure on ex-ante measures. This research addresses these limitations directly by developing and applying an integrated risk assessment and cost–benefit analysis of physical landslide mitigation measures implemented in an unplanned community in the Eastern Caribbean. In order to quantify the level of landslide risk reduction achieved, landslide hazard and vulnerability were modelled (before and after the intervention), and project costs, direct and indirect benefits were monetised. It is shown that the probability of landslide occurrence has been substantially reduced by implementing surface-water drainage measures and that the benefits of the project outweigh the costs by a ratio of 2.7–1. This paper adds to the evidence base that ‘mitigation pays’ with respect to landslide risk in the most vulnerable communities—thus strengthening the argument for ex-ante measures. This integrated project evaluation methodology should be suitable for adoption as part of the community-based landslide mitigation project cycle, and it is hoped that this resource, and the results of this study, will stimulate further such programmes.

Keywords

Landslide modelling Risk assessment Cost–benefit analysis Developing countries Community 

References

  1. AGS (2000) Landslide risk management concepts and guidelines. Aust Geomech Soc 35:49–92Google Scholar
  2. Anderson MG (1990) A feasibility study on mathematical modelling of slope hydrology and stability. Final report on agreement CE 23/90. Geotechnical Control Office, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson MG, Richards KS (1987) Modelling slope stability: the complementary nature of geotechnical and geomorphological approaches. In: Anderson MG, Richards KS (eds) Slope stability: geotechnical engineering and geomorpholology. Wiley, New York, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  4. Anderson MG, Collison AJC, Hartshorne J, Lloyd DM, Park A (1996) Developments in slope hydrology-stability modelling for tropical slopes. In: Anderson MG, Brooks SM (eds) Advances in hill slope processes. Wiley, Chichester, pp 799–821Google Scholar
  5. Anderson MG, Holcombe EA, Flory R, Renaud JP (2008) Implementing low-cost landslide risk reduction: a pilot study in unplanned housing areas of the Caribbean. Nat Hazards 47:297–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anderson MG, Holcombe E, Esquivel M, Toro J, Ghesquiere F (2010) The efficacy of a programme of landslide risk reduction in areas of unplanned housing in the Eastern Caribbean. Environ Manage 45(4):807–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Annan KA (1999) Facing the humanitarian challenge: towards a culture of prevention. United Nations Department of Public Information, New York. DPI/2070Google Scholar
  8. Anthony KD (2001) Strengthening, modernising and repositioning the economy. Budget speech by the Honourable Dr Kenny D. Anthony, Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, Economic Affairs and Information, Government of Saint LuciaGoogle Scholar
  9. Belli P, Anderson J, Barnum H, Dixon J, Tan J-P (1998) Handbook on economic analysis of investment operations. World BankGoogle Scholar
  10. Benson C, Twigg J (2004) ‘Measuring Mitigation’ Methodologies for assessing natural hazard risks and the net benefits of mitigation–a scoping study. ProVention ConsortiumGoogle Scholar
  11. Benson C, Twigg J, Rossetto T (2007) Tools for mainstreaming disaster risk reduction: guidance notes for development organisations. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies/the ProVention ConsortiumGoogle Scholar
  12. Bishop AW (1955) The use of the slip circle in the stability analysis of slopes. Geotechnique 5(1):7–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I, Wisner B (1994) At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability, and disaster. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Blöchl A, Braun B (2005) Economic assessment of landslide risks in the Swabian Alb, Germany–research framework and first results of homeowner and expert surveys. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 5:389–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Board on Natural Disasters (1999) Mitigation emerges as major strategy for reducing losses caused by natural disaster. Science 284:1943–1947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Boardman A, Greenberg D, Vining A, Weimer A (2010) Cost-benefit analysis–concepts and practice. PearsonGoogle Scholar
  17. Bonnin GM, Martin D, Lin B, Parzybok T, Yekta M, Riley D (2006) NOAA Atlas 14: precipitation-frequency atlas of the United States. Volume 3 Version 4.0: Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service. Silver Spring, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  18. Bründl M, Romang HE, Bischof N, Rheinberger CM (2009) The risk concept and its application in natural hazard risk management in Switzerland. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9:801–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bull-Kamanga L, Diagne K, Lavell A, Leon E, Lerise F, MacGregor H, Maskrey A, Meshack M, Pelling M, Reid H, Satterthwaite D, Songsore J, Westgate K, Yitambe A (2003) From everyday hazards to disasters: the accumulation of risk in urban areas. Environ Urban 15(1):193–203Google Scholar
  20. Caribbean Development Bank (2004) Sourcebook on the integration of natural hazards into the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process. NIHA-EIA sourcebook, pp 217Google Scholar
  21. Charveriat C (2000) Natural disasters in latin America and the caribbean: an overview of risk. Inter-American Development Bank. Working Paper #434Google Scholar
  22. Corominas J (1996) The angle of reach as a mobility index for small and large landslides. Can Geotech J 33(2):260–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cundall PA (2001) A discontinuous future for numerical modelling in geomechanics? Proc Inst Civil Eng Geotech Eng 149(1):41–47Google Scholar
  24. Dai FC, Lee CF, Ngai YY (2002) Landslide risk assessment and management, an overview. Eng Geol 64(1):65–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. ECLAC (2003) Handbook for estimating the socio-economic and environmental effects of disasters. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, LC/MEX/G.5, LC/L.1874Google Scholar
  26. ECMC (2007) National report on housing and resettlement in St Lucia, prepared by Engineering Construction and Management Consulting Ltd for the Ministry of Physical Development Environment and Housing, Government of Saint Lucia. http://www.stlucia.gov.lc/docs/NationalReportOnHousingInStLucia.pdf
  27. Finlay PJ, Mostyn GR, Fell R (1999) Landslide risk assessment: prediction of travel distance. Can Geotech J 36(3):556–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Glade T, Crozier MJ (2005) A review of scale dependency in landslide hazard and risk analysis. In: Glade T, Anderson MG, Crozier M (eds) landslide hazard and risk. Wiley, Chichester, pp 75–138Google Scholar
  29. GoSL (2003) Average wage rates and labour force indicators, Department of Statistics, Government of Saint Lucia. http://www.stats.gov.lc/wagavg.htm http://www.stats.gov.lc/main3.htm
  30. GoSL (2004) Core welfare indicators questionnaire survey. A pilot study in Saint Lucia, Main Report. Department of Statistics, Government of Saint LuciaGoogle Scholar
  31. GoSL (2008) Saint Lucia National Housing Policy. Ministry of Housing, Urban Renewal and Local Government, Government of Saint Lucia. http://www.stlucia.gov.lc/docs/NHRPolicy.pdf
  32. Gwilliam K (2000) Transportation project appraisal at the World Bank. ECMT-OECD Seminar on Evaluation Methodologies for Infrastructure Investments and Urban Sprawl., Organised in collaboration with the French Ministere de l’Equipment, des Transports et du Logement, and the Direction Regionale de l’Equipment d’Ile de France (DREIF). ParisGoogle Scholar
  33. Holcombe EA, Anderson MG (2009) Implementation of community-based landslide hazard mitigation measures: sustainable project scale-up. Sustainable Development, doi: 10.1002/sd.409
  34. Holcombe EA, Anderson MG (2010) Tackling landslide risk: helping land use policy to reflect unplanned housing realities in the Eastern Caribbean. Land Use Policy 27:798–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. IFRC (2002) World Disasters Report 2002. Geneva: international federation of red cross and red crescent societiesGoogle Scholar
  36. ITASCA (2000) FLAC, Fast Lagrangian analysis of continua, user’s guide. Itasca Consulting Group, Inc., Minneapolis, MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  37. Karnawati D, Ibriam I, Anderson MG, Holcombe EA, Mummery GT, Wang Y, Renaud J-P (2005) Identifying slope stability controls in southern Java to provide community-based landslide warning information. In: Glade T, Anderson MG, Crozier M (eds) Landslide hazard and risk. Wiley, Chichester, pp 733–763Google Scholar
  38. Klohn-Crippen (1995) Tropical storm Debbie. Final report on hydrology, for Roseau Dam & Ancillary Works. WASCO, St. Lucia, West IndiesGoogle Scholar
  39. Kong WK (2002) Risk assessment of slopes. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 35:213–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Li Z, Nadim F, Huang H, Uzielli M, Lacasse S (2010) Quantitative vulnerability estimation for scenario-based landslide hazards. Landslides (available online 29 January 2010), doi: 10.1007/s10346-009-0190-3
  41. Lumb P (1975) Slope failures in Hong Kong. Q J Eng Geol 8:31–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mechler R (2005) Cost-benefit analysis of natural disaster risk management in developing countries: Manual. Bonn: Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbHGoogle Scholar
  43. Mechler R (2008) From risk to resilience. The cost-benefit analysis methodology. From risk to resilience Working paper no. 1. In: Moench M, Caspari E, Pokhrel A (eds) ISET, ISET-Nepal and ProVention, Kathmandu, Nepal, Provention Consortium, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  44. Moench M, Mechler R, Stapleton S (2007) Guidance note on the costs and benefits of disaster risk reduction. Prepared for ISDR Global Platform on Disaster Risk Reduction High level dialogue, June 4–7, 2007Google Scholar
  45. National Research Council (2004) Partnerships for reducing landslide risk: assessment of the National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy. Committee on the Review of the National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy, National Research Council. The National Academies Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  46. Opadeyi S, Ali S, Chin F (2005) Status of hazard maps, vulnerability assessments and digital maps in the Caribbean. Caribbean Disaster Emergency Response Agency (CDERA), Final report, 58 ppGoogle Scholar
  47. 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 7:765–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Penning-Rowsell E, Johnson C, Tunstall S, Tapsell S, Morris J, Chatterton J, Green C (2005) The benefits of flood and coastal risk management: a manual of assessment techniques. Flood Hazard Research Centre. Middlesex University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. Rasmussen TN (2004) Macroeconomic implications of Natural Disasters in the Caribbean. International Monetary Fund Working Paper WP/04/224Google Scholar
  50. Rubio E, Hall JW, Anderson MG (2004) Uncertainty analysis in a slope hydrology and stability model using statistical and imprecise information. Comput Geotech 31(7):529–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. UN (2006) Landslides. Asia has the most; Americas, the deadliest; Europe the costliest; Experts seek ways to mitigatie landslide losses; Danger said growing due to climate change, other causes. United Nations University, news release January 18 2006, MR/E01/06/rev1Google Scholar
  52. UNDP (2004) A global report. Reducing disaster risk: a challenge for development. Bureau for Crisis prevention and relief, United Nations Development ProgramGoogle Scholar
  53. USGS (2003) National landside hazards mitigation strategy–a framework for loss reduction. US Geological Survey and US Department of the InteriorGoogle Scholar
  54. van Westen CJ, van Asch TWJ, Soeters R (2006) Landslide hazard and risk zonation–why is it still so difficult? Bull Eng Geol Environ 65:167–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. van Westen CJ, Castellanos E, Kuriakose SL (2008) Spatial data for landslide susceptibility, hazard and vulnerability assessment: An overview. Eng Geol 102:112–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vaunat J, Leroueil S (2002) Analysis of post-failure slope movements within the framework of hazard and risk analysis. Nat Hazards 26(1):83–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wamsler C (2006) Mainstreaming risk reduction in urban planning and housing: a challenge for international aid organizations. Disaster 30:151–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wilkinson PL, Brooks SM, Anderson MG (1998) Investigating the effects of moisture extraction by vegetation upon slope stability: further developments of a combined hydrology and stability model (CHASM). In: Proceedings of the British hydrological society international symposium on hydrology in a changing environment. Theme 4: Hydrology of Environmental Hazards, pp 165–178Google Scholar
  59. Wilkinson PL, Brooks SM, Anderson MG (2000) Design and application of an automated non-circular slip surface search within a Combined Hydrology and Stability Model (CHASM). Hydrol Process 14:2003–2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wong HN, Ho KKS (1996) Travel distance of landslide debris. Proceedings of the seventh international symposium on landslides, Trondheim. AA Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 417–422Google Scholar
  61. Wong HN, Ho KKS, Chan YC (1997) Assessment of consequences of landslides. In: Cruden D, Fell R (eds) Landslide risk assessment. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 111–149Google Scholar
  62. Zaitchik BF, van Es HM, Sullivan PA (2003) Variability and scale in the application of a physical slope stability model for landslide evaluation in Honduras. Soil Sci Soc Am J 67:268–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zêzere JL, Garcia RAC, Oliveira SC, Reis E (2007) Probabilistic landslide risk analysis considering direct costs in the area north of Lisbon (Portugal). Geomorphology 94:467–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth Holcombe
    • 1
  • Sarah Smith
    • 2
    • 3
  • Edmund Wright
    • 2
  • Malcolm G. Anderson
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Geographical SciencesUniversity of BristolBristolUK
  2. 2.Centre for Market and Public OrganisationUniversity of BristolBristolUK
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsUniversity of BristolBristolUK
  4. 4.School of Geography and the EnvironmentUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations