Natural Hazards

, Volume 73, Issue 3, pp 1323–1335 | Cite as

An epidemiological approach to determining the risk of road damage due to landslides

Original Paper

Abstract

Disruption of segments of roads can have a significant impact on the vulnerability of the entire network. Natural disasters are frequent causes of disruptions of this kind. This article focuses on determining the risk of road disruptions due to landslides. Our approach is based on methodology widely used in the field of epidemiology. We had available data on the location of the landslides, the road network and a list of the disrupted road segments. With the use of a 2 × 2 table, we determined the relationship between landslide data and road segment disruptions and derived the risk coefficient based on the number of landslides in the vicinity of the road and its length. The result is a disruption risk map with risk coefficients ranging from 0 to 47.94. In order to distinguish the most risky segments, we calculated a threshold of 12.40 with the use of a risk breakdown in a group of segments without damage. Nineteen percentage (402 km) of the road network in the Zlín region (Czech Republic), where the methodology was applied, is located beyond this threshold. The benefits of this approach stem from its speed and potential to define the most risky areas on which a detailed geomorphologic analysis can be focused.

Keywords

Risk Landslides Road network Epidemiology 

References

  1. Anděl J (1985) Matematická statistika (Mathematical statistics, In Czech). SNTL, Prague, Czech RepublicGoogle Scholar
  2. Ardizzone F, Cardinali M, Carrara A, Guzzetti F, Reichenbach P (2002) Impact of mapping errors on the reliability of landslide hazard maps. Nat Hazards Earth Sys Sci 2:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bíl M, Müller I (2008) The origin of shallow landslides in Moravia (Czech Republic) in the spring of 2006. Geomorphology 99:246–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bolboaca SD, Jäntschi L, Sestras AF, Sestras RE, Pamfil DC (2011) Pearson-Fisher Chi square statistic revisited. Information 2:528–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bono F, Gutiérrez E (2011) A network-based analysis of the impact of structural damage on urban accessibility following a disaster: the case of the seismically damaged Port Au Prince and Carrefour urban road networks. J Transp Geogr 19:1443–1455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Budetta P (2002) Risk assessment from debris flows in pyroclastic deposits along a motorway, Italy. Bull Eng Geol Environ 61:293–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caine N (1980) The rainfall intensity–duration control of shallow landslides and debris flows. Geografiska annaler. Series A. Phys Geogr 62A:23–27Google Scholar
  8. Cardinali M, Reichenbach P, Guzzetti F, Ardizzone F, Antonini G, Galli M, Cacciano M, Castellani M, Salvati P (2002) A geomorphological approach to estimate landslide hazard and risk in urban and rural areas in Umbria, central Italy. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 2:57–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guzzetti F (2000) Landslide fatalities and the evaluation of landslide risk in Italy. Eng Geol 58:89–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guzzetti F, Carrara A, Cardinali M, Reichenbach P (1999) Landslide hazard evaluation: an aid to a sustainable development. Geomorphology 31:181–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jaiswal P, Van Westen CJ, Jetten V (2011) Quantitative assessment of landslide hazard along transportation lines using historical records. Landslides 8:279–291. doi:10.1007/s10346-011-0252-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Klimeš J, Blahůt J (2012) Landslide risk analysis and its application in regional planning: an example from the highlands of the Outer Western Carpathians, Czech Republic. Nat Hazards 64:1779–1803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Krejčí O, Baroň I, Bíl M, Hubatka F, Jurová Z, Kirchner K (2002) Slope movements in the Flysch Carpathians of Eastern Czech Rep. Triggered by Extreme Rainfals in 1997: a case study. Phys Chem Earth 27(36):1567–1576Google Scholar
  14. Lydersen S, Fagerland MW, Laake P (2009) Recommended tests for association in 2 × 2 tables. Stat Med 28:1159–1175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pánek T, Brázdil R, Klimeš J, Smolková V, Hradecký J, Zahradníček P (2011) Rainfall-induced landslide event of May 2010 in the eastern part of the Czech Republic. Landslides 8(4):507–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pánek T, Smolková V, Hradecký J, Baroň I, Šilhán K (2013) Holocene reactivations of catastrophic complex flow-like landslides in the Flysch Carpathians (Czech Republic/Slovakia). Quatern Res 80(1):33–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schuster RL (1996) Socioeconomic significance of landslides. In: Turner AK, Schuster RL (eds) Landslides. Investigation and mitigation. Transp. Res. Board, Spec. Rep. 247,Washington, DC, pp 12–35Google Scholar
  18. Scott DM, Novak DC, Aultman-Hall L, Guo F (2006) Network robustness index: a new method for identifying critical links and evaluating the performance of transportation networks. J Transp Geogr 14:215–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sohn J (2006) Evaluating the significance of highway network links under the flood damage: an accessibility approach. Transp Res Part A 40:491–506Google Scholar
  20. Sullivan JL, Novak DC, Aultman-Hall L, Scott DM (2010) Identifying critical road segments and measuring system-wide robustness in transportation networks with isolating links: a link-based capacity-reduction approach. Transp Res Part A 44:323–336Google Scholar
  21. Van Den Eeckhaut M, Hervás J (2012) State of the art of national land slide databases in Europe and their potential for assessing landslide susceptibility, hazard and risk. Geomorphology 139–140:545–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Van Westen CJ, Asch TWJ, Soeters R (2006) Landslide hazard and risk zonation—why is it still so difficult? Bull Eng Geol Environ 65:67–184Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Vanaut J, Leroueil S (2002) Analysis of post-failure slope movements within the framework of hazard and risk analysis. Nat Hazards 26:83–109Google Scholar
  25. Varnes DJ and International Association of Engineering Geology Commission on Landslides and Other Mass Movements on Slopes (1984) Landslide hazard zonation: a review of principles and practice. UNESCO, ParisGoogle Scholar
  26. Zêzere JL, Trigo R, Trigo I (2005) Shallow and deep landslides induced by rainfall in the Lisbon Region (Portugal): assessment of relationships with the North Atlantic oscillation. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci EGU 5:331–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zêzere JL, Oliveira SC, Garcia RAC, Reis E (2007) Landslide risk analysis in the area North of Lisbon (Portugal): evaluation of direct and indirect costs resulting from a motorway disruption by slope movements. Landslides 4:123–136. doi:10.1007/s10346-006-0070-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Transport Research CentreBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations