Open image in new windowGenerating Application-Orientated Susceptibility Maps for Shallow Landslides Understandable to the General Public

Conference paper

Abstract

Landslide susceptibility maps, ranked either in numeric susceptibility classes or in descriptive hazard classes, are widespread among the scientific community. While landslide susceptibility experts are familiar with these classifications, for laymen or experts from other fields the classes are often less understandable and of less practical use. To overcome this challenge, we present in this article susceptibility maps for specific issues and users as well as the communication of the map content in a practical and understandable way. These application-oriented maps are based on scenarios of change of forest distribution and precipitation amount. The maps were calculated for the well-studied region of Gasen-Haslau in Styria/Austria, where a high-quality process dataset of 413 shallow landslides of a disaster event of August 2005 is available. According to the applied forest scenarios, the maps show e.g. where afforestation should be performed or deforestation should be avoided. According to the applied scenarios for the precipitation amount, the maps show e.g. where always low or high hazard-relevant process-potential can be found, regardless of the precipitation amount within a heavy rainfall event. We consider these maps as good and meaningful tools to communicate hazard assessment to general public and planning authorities in a non-academic and practical way. Hence they could also support experts of other fields better in putting their work into practice than conventional susceptibility maps do.

Keywords

Susceptibility maps Land use Forest Precipitation Scenarios Hazard communication 

References

  1. Bell R, Petschko H, Proske H, Leopold P, Heiss G, Bauer C, Goetz JN, Granica K, Glade T (2013) Methodenentwicklung zur Gefährdungsmodellierung von Massenbewegungen in Niederösterreich - MoNOE – Vorläufiger Endbericht, Universität Wien, Vienna, p 224Google Scholar
  2. Bishop MC (1995) Neural networks for pattern recognition. Oxford University Press, New York 482pGoogle Scholar
  3. Chung CF, Fabbri AG (1999) Probabilistic prediction models for landslide hazard mapping. Photogram Eng Remote Sens 65(12):1389–1399Google Scholar
  4. Gassner C, Promper C, Beguerı S, Glade T (2015) Climate change impact for spatial landslide susceptibility engineering geology for society and territory-volume 1. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 429–433Google Scholar
  5. Klimes J (2013) Landslide temporal analysis and susceptibility assessment as bases for landslide mitigation, Machu Picchu, Peru. Environmental Earth Sciences. V.70, I. 2. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 913–925Google Scholar
  6. Schmaltz E, Steger S, Bell R, Glade T, van Beek LPH, Bogaard T, Wang D, Hollaus M, Pfeifer N (2016) Exploring possibilities of including detailed ALS derived biomass information into physically-based slope stability models at regional scale. In: Aversa et al. (eds) Landslides and engineered slopes. Experience, Theory and Practice, Rome, pp 1807–1815Google Scholar
  7. Melchiorre C, Frattini (2012) Modelling probability of rainfall-induced shallow landslides in a changing climate, Otta, Norway. Clim Change 113:413–436Google Scholar
  8. Reichenbach P, Busca C, Mondini C, Rossi M (2014) The influence of land use change on landslide susceptibility zonation: the Briga catchment test site (Messina, Italy). Environ Manag 54(6):1372–1384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. ÖROK (Österreichische Raumordnungskonferenz) (2015) Risikomanagement für gravitative Naturgefahren in der Raumplanung.- Vienna. (= ÖROK-Schriftenreihe 193)Google Scholar
  10. Tilch N, Hagen K, Proske H. Pistotnik G, Schwarz L, Aust G, Fromm R, Herzberger E, Klebinder K, Perzl F, Bauer C, Kronberger B, Kleb U, Granica K, Haiden T (2011) Modelling of Landslide Susceptibility and affected areas—process-specific validation of databases, methods and results for the communities of Gasen and Haslau, (AdaptSlide–Endreport). BFW Vienna. p 305. http://bfw.ac.at/rz/bfwcms.web?dok=8935. Accessed 30 Aug 2016
  11. Tilch N, Schwarz L, Kociu A, Proske H, Bauer CH, Hagen K, Klebinder K, Lang E, Andrecs P, Schmid F, Ribitsch R, Hermann S, Loizenbauer J, Pistotnik G (2015) Gefahrenprävention—von Katastrophen für die Zukunft lernen und Planungsgrundlagen schaffen. Poster presentation on working conference 2015 of Geological Survey Austria 21–25.09.2015 in Mitterdorf. https://www.geologie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/dokumente/pdf/poster/poster_2015_ata_gba_tilch_etal.pdf. Accessed 30 Aug 2016
  12. U.S. Geological Survey (1982) Goals and tasks of landslide part of a ground-failure hazards reduced program. Geological Survey Circula 880, Alexandrio, p 49Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Engineering GeologyGeological Survey of AustriaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations