RUPOK: An Online Landslide Risk Tool for Road Networks Open image in new window

Conference paper


The landslide risk for the entire Czech road network is presented here. The risk was computed using data on landslide hazard and data on potential impacts of road blockage. Data from the official landslide database were used for landslide hazard computation combined with data from historical records on roads interrupted by landsliding. Vulnerability was computed as direct costs which are related to road construction costs and indirect costs. The latter express additional economic losses from the blocked roads. This concept was applied at II/432 road link as a case study where a landslide interrupted traffic in May 2010. Indirect losses were estimated as being 2.5 times higher than costs related to mitigation works. All data can be viewed at website.


Landslide Road Damage Database Web-map application Vulnerability GIS 



This work was financed by the Transport R&D Centre (OP R&D for Innovation No. CZ.1.05/2.1.00/03.0064) and project LO1610. We further thank David Livingstone for English proofreading.


  1. Bíl M, Müller I (2008) The origin of shallow landslides in Moravia (Czech Republic) in the spring of 2006. Geomorphology 99:246–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bíl M, Kubeček J, Andrášik R (2014) An epidemiological approach to determining the risk of road damage due to landslides. Nat Hazards 73(4):1323–1335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bíl M, Vodák R, Kubeček J, Bílová M, Sedoník J (2015) Evaluating road network damage caused by natural disasters in the Czech Republic between 1997 and 2010. Transp Res Part A: Policy Pract 80:90–103Google Scholar
  4. Birkmann J (2007) Risk and vulnerability indicators at different scales: applicability, usefulness and policy implications. Environ Hazards 7:20–31CrossRefGoogle 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. Chang SE, Nojima N (2001) Measuring post-disaster transportation system performance: the 1995 Kobe earthquake in comparative perspective. Transport Res Part A 35:475–494Google Scholar
  7. Hilker N, Badoux A, Hegg C (2009) The Swiss flood and landslide damage database 1972–2007. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9:913–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (2004) Applied logistic regression (2nd edn). Wiley series in probability and statistics. Wiley, New York, 383p. ISBN 978047135632Google Scholar
  9. Klose M, Highland L, Damm B, Terhorst B (2014) Estimation of direct landslide costs in industrialized countries: challenges, concepts, and case study. In Landslide Science for a Safer Geoenvironment, pp 661–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Klose M, Damm B, Terhorst B (2015) Landslide cost modeling for transportation infrastructures: a methodological approach. Landslides 12(2):321–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Klose M, Maurischat P, Damm B (2016) Landslide impacts in Germany: a historical and socioeconomic perspective. Landslides. 13(1):183–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 rainfalls in 1997: a case study. Phys Chem Earth 27:1567–1576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. MacKay DJC (2003) Information theory, inference, and learning algorithms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 628p. ISBN 9780521642989Google Scholar
  14. MacLeod A, Hofmeister RJ, Wang Y, Burns S (2005) Landslide indirect losses: methods and case studies from Oregon. State of Oregon, Department of geology and mineral industriesGoogle 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. Postance B, Hillier J, Dixon N, Dijkstra T (2015) Quantification of Road network vulnerability and traffic impacts to regional landslide hazards. EGU Gen Assembly Conf Abstr 17:3677Google Scholar
  17. Postance B, Hillier J, Dijkstra T, Dixon N (2016) Indirect economic impact of landslide hazards by disruption to national road transportation networks; Scotland, United Kingdom. EGU Gen Assembly Conf Abstr 18:4439Google Scholar
  18. RMD (Road and Motorway Directorate of the Czech Republic) (2012) Implementation guidelines for the assessment of economic efficiency of projects of road and motorway constructions, Appendix CGoogle Scholar
  19. RSZK (Zlín Region Road Directorate) (2010) URL: Last accessed: 25th Aug 2016
  20. Taylor FE, Malamud BD, Santangelo M, Marchesini I, Guzzetti F (2015) Statistical patterns of triggered landslide events and their application to road networks. EGU Gen Assembly Conf Abstr 17:9992Google Scholar
  21. Van Den Eeckhaut M, Hervás J (2012) Landslide inventories in Europe and policy recommendations for their interoperability and harmonization. A JRC contribution to the EU-FP7 SafeLand project. Report EUR 25666 EN. 203pGoogle Scholar
  22. Winter MG, Harrison M, Macgregor F, Shackman L (2013) Landslide hazard and risk assessment on the Scottish road network. Proc Inst Civ Eng-Geotech Eng 166(6):522–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Winter MG, Smith JT, Fotopoulou S, Pitilakis K, Mavrouli O, Corominas J, Argyroudis S (2014) An expert judgement approach to determining the physical vulnerability of roads to debris flow. Bull Eng Geol Environ 73(2):291–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Winter MG, Shearer B, Palmer D, Peeling D, Harmer C, Share J (2016) The economic impact of landslides and floods on the road network. advances in transportation geotechnics 3. The 3rd international conference on transportation geotechnics, vol 143, pp 1425–1434Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CDV—Transport Research CentreBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations