Natural Hazards

, Volume 72, Issue 2, pp 1029–1050 | Cite as

Assessment of physical vulnerability and potential losses of buildings due to shallow slides

Original Paper

Abstract

Physical vulnerability (PV) of buildings and associated potential losses (PLs) due to the occurrence of shallow slides are semi-quantitatively assessed at the regional scale in a municipality located in the North of Portugal. This work has four main purposes: (1) to identify and characterize the built environment exposed to shallow slides in the study area; (2) to assess the PV of each building type taking into account the building resistance (BR) and the landslide magnitude (LM); (3) to evaluate the economic value (EV) of each single exposed building using cadastral and market values; and (4) to estimate PLs on buildings due to landslide activity. The analysis is made for each single building of the study area, and this is an innovative contribution of this work. The semi-quantitative methodology to assess PV of buildings exposed to shallow translational slides combines the LM and the BR, which is empirically obtained weighting a set of parameters related to building characteristics. The quantification of the EV of buildings was carried out using an adaptation of the calculation formula used by the Portuguese Tax Services to determine the taxable value of buildings in Portugal. PLs result from the product between PV of the exposed buildings and their EV in euros. The overlapping of PLs of buildings with an available landslide susceptibility map, although does not provides any quantified risk analysis, provides valuable information to be used by spatial planning and civil protection stakeholders.

Keywords

Shallow slides Building resistance Physical vulnerability Potential loss 

References

  1. Alexander D (1986) Landslide damage to buildings. Environ Geol Water Sci 8(3):147–151Google Scholar
  2. Alexander D (2000) Confronting catastrophe: new perspectives on natural disaster. Terra Publishing, UKGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexander D (2005) Vulnerability to landslides. In: Glade T, Anderson M, Crozier M (eds) Landslide hazard and risk. Wiley, Chichester, pp 175–198Google Scholar
  4. Australian Geomechanics Society Sub-committee on Landslide Risk Assessment (2000) Landslide risk management concepts and guidelines. J News AGS 35(1):49–92Google Scholar
  5. Bell R, Glade T (2004) Quantitative risk analysis for landslides—examples from Bildudalur, NW-Iceland. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 4:117–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Birkmann J, Wisner B (2006) Measuring the un-measurable. The challenge of vulnerability. Studies of the University: Research, Counsel, Education—Publication Series of UNU-EHS, No. 5/2006Google Scholar
  7. Bonachea J, Remondo J, Diáz de Terán JR, González-Díez A, Cendrero A (2009) Landslide risk models for decision making. Risk Anal 29(11):1629–1643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buckle P, Mars G, Smale S (2000) New approaches to assessing vulnerability and resilience. Aust J Emerg Manag Winter 2000:8–14Google Scholar
  9. Cardinali M, Reichenbach P, Guzzetti F, Ardizzone F, Antonini G, Galli M, Cacciano M, Castellani M, Salvati P (2002) A geomorphological approach to the estimation of landslide hazards and risks in Umbria, Central Italy. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 2:57–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cruden DM, Varnes DJ (1996) Landslide types and processes. In: Turner AK, Schuster RL (eds) Landslides, investigation and mitigation, special report, vol 247., Transportation Research BoardWashington, DC, pp 36–75Google Scholar
  11. Cutter S (1996) Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Progr Human Geogr 20:529–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cutter S, Boruff B, Shirley W (2003) Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc Sci Q 84(2):242–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DRM (1990) Les études préliminaires à la cartographie réglementaire des risques naturels majeurs, Délégation aux Risques Majeurs, Secrétariat d’Etat auprès du Premier Ministre chargé de l’Environment et de la Prévention des Risques technologiques et naturels majeurs, La Documentation Française (in French)Google Scholar
  14. ENSURE (2009) Enhancing resilience of communities and territories facing natural and Natech hazards. Del. 1.1.1: methodologies to assess vulnerability of structural systems. 7th framework programme. Contract Number: 212045, Version 3Google Scholar
  15. Fell R (1994) Landslide risk assessment and acceptable risk. Can Geotech J 31:261–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fell R, Hartford D (1997) Landslide risk management. In: Cruden C, Fell R (eds) Landslide risk assessment. Proceedings of the international workshop on landslide risk assessment, Honolulu. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 51–109Google Scholar
  17. Ferreira AB (1991) Neotectonics in Northern Portugal: a geomorphological approach. Z Geomorphol NF 82:73–85Google Scholar
  18. Fuchs S, Heiss K, Hübl J (2007) Towards an empirical vulnerability function for use in debris flow risk assessment. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 7:495–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Galli M, Guzzetti F (2007) Landslide vulnerability criteria: a case study from Umbria, Central Italy. Environ Manage 40:649–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. INE (2013) XV Recenseamento Geral da População. Instituto Nacional de EstatísticaGoogle Scholar
  21. Léone F (1996) Concept de vulnérabilité appliqué à l’évaluation des Risques générés par les phénomènes de mouvement de terrain. Thèse de Doctorat de l’Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble I Sciences, Techniques et Médecine. Editions BRGM, Orléans, p 286Google Scholar
  22. Léone F, Aste JP, Leroi E (1996) Vulnerability assessment of elements exposed to mass-movement: working toward a better risk perception. In: Senneset K (ed) Landslides. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 263–270Google Scholar
  23. LESSLOSS Deliverable 93 (2007) Vulnerability assessment for landslides—phase II, FP7 LESSLOSS European project, sub-project 2: landslide zonation, hazard and vulnerability assessmentGoogle Scholar
  24. Michael-Leiba BaynesF, Scott G, Granger K (2003) Regional landslide risk to the cairns community. Nat Hazards 30:233–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Papathoma-Köhle M, Kappes M, Keiler M, Glade T (2011) Physical vulnerability assessment for alpine hazards: state of the art and future needs. Nat Hazards 58(2):645–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Papathoma-Köhle M, Keiler M, Totschnig R, Glade T (2012) Improvement of vulnerability curves using data from extreme events: debris flow event in South Tyrol. Nat Hazards 64(3):2083–2105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pereira S, Zêzere JL, Bateira C (2012) Technical note: assessing predictive capacity and conditional independence of landslide predisposing factors for shallow landslides susceptibility models. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 12:979–988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pitilakis K, Argyroudis S, Kakderi K, Crowley H, Taucer F (2013) SYNER-G synthetic document—systemic seismic vulnerability and risk analysis for buildings, lifeline networks and infrastructures safety gain. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. EUR—scientific and technical research series. ISSN 1831-9424, ISBN 978-92-79-33135-0. doi:10.2788/23242
  30. Ragozin AL, Tikhvinsky O (2000) Landslide hazard, vulnerability and risk assessment. In: Bromhead, Dixon E, Ibsen M L (eds) Landslides in research, theory and practice, proceedings of the 8th international symposium on landslides, Cardiff. Thomas Telford, London, pp 1257–1262Google Scholar
  31. Remondo J, Bonachea J, Cendrero A (2008) Quantitative landslide risk assessment and mapping on the basis of recent occurrences. Geomorphology 94:496–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. SAFELAND (2011) Living with landslide risk in Europe: assessment, effects of global change, and risk management strategies. Deliverable D5.1 compendium of tested and innovative structural, non-structural and risk-transfer mitigation measures for different landslide types. 7th framework programme, Grant Agreement No.: 226479, SGI/ICG revision: 1—finalGoogle Scholar
  33. Silva M (2011) Avaliação da vulnerabilidade estrutural de edifícios e rede Viária a deslizamentos translacionais superficiais no concelho de Santa Marta de Penaguião. MsC Thesis in Geographic information systems and spatial planning. Faculty of Arts, University of Porto, p 339 (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  34. Sterlacchini S, Frigerio S, Giacomelli P, Brambilla M (2007) Landslide risk analysis: a multi-disciplinary methodological approach. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 7:657–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. UNISDR (2009) Terminology on disaster risk reduction. UN, p 30Google Scholar
  36. Uzielli M, Nadim F, Lacasse S, Kaynia AM (2008) A conceptual framework for quantitative estimation of physical vulnerability to landslides. Eng Geol 102:251–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Varnes DJ (1984) Landslide hazard zonation: a review of principles and practice. Natural Hazards 3, UNESCO, Paris, p 63Google Scholar
  38. Yin KL, Yan TZ (1988) Statistical prediction models for slope instability of metamorphosed rocks. In: Bonnard C (Ed) Landslides, proceedings of the fifth international symposium on landslides, Balkema, Rotterdam, vol 2, pp 1269–1272Google Scholar
  39. Zêzere JL, Garcia RAC, Oliveira SC, Reis E (2008) 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 Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CEGOTUniversity of OportoOportoPortugal
  2. 2.RISKam, Centre for Geographical Studies, IGOTUniversity of LisbonLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations