The definition dilemma

Lanslide is a common term used by many people to describe a sudden

slope failure or collapse, involving the downhill transfer of material, both
consolidated and unconsolidated, by one or more of three main
mechanisms: fall, slide and flow.
Whilst this umbrella-type of definition is perfectly acceptable when
considering the hazards associated with slope failure, it is important to
appreciate that the term landslide does have a very precise mechanical
definition in that it is only one of several specific types of rapid mass
movement (Fig. 1), its main features being:
It involves a slide mechanism, often along a line of weakness such
as a fault or a bedding plane
It is usually a very fast form of movement
It involves material that is more or less dry
It usually involves the downhill transfer of a largely coherent slab
of material, which may then break up as it comes to rest
Fig. 1 Common types of sudden mass movement
In reality, few of the specific types of slope failure illustrated in Fig. 1 occur in
isolation. Usually an individual event will involve a combination of two or
more types of movement, for example a slide will frequently have a flow
component, particularly near its toe. For this reason it is inappropriate in the
study of slope hazards, where the concern is about the impact of slope failure
on people, to stick rigorously to the tight mechanical definition. In this
Factsheet we shall adopt the broader definition of the term landslide, so all
the types of movement shown in Fig. 1 can be included.
What is the landslide hazard?
In its broad sense, therefore, a landslide can be thought of as a sudden and
unexpected downhill movement of part of a hillside. It can be a very small
scale and largely inconsequential event, such a cliff collapse at the coast, or
it can involve the catastrophic movement of a huge chunk of mountainside,
completely altering the landscape of an area. Whilst most landslides big and
small occur in remote and uninhabited areas where they present little or no
hazard to people, the increasing utilisation of marginal land for settlement,
farming and communications has led to an increase in the landslide hazard.
G F
September 2001 Number 115
eo
actsheet
1
THE LANDSLIDE HAZARD
Case Study 1: Vaiont Reservoir Slide, Italy, 1963
On 9
th
October 1963 a huge slab of rock, some 200m wide, slid down a
valley side into the Vaiont Reservoir (Fig. 2). It created a huge wave 100m
high that overtopped the dam (amazingly not breaking it!) and surged into
the valley below, inundating villages and killing 2043 people.
Fig. 2 Vaiont Reservoir slide, Italy 1963.
What were the contributory causes?
The rocks were dipping down towards the bottom of the valley creating
natural slip planes. There were also fault lines creating slip planes.
The valley had been the scene of a previous landslide and much
of the rock was unstable
The reservoir had led to an increase in groundwater pore
pressure as the water table rose in the rocks
The site should never have been chosen for a reservoir; it was a
major engineering error.
What were the trigger factors?
The impoundment of the reservoir, increasing pore water pressure
to a dangerous level and reactivating an old slide
A period of heavy rainfall
What were the consequences?
The Vaiont Reservoir slide was one of the most serious civil engineering
errors of modern times. The reservoir should never have been constructed
at the site. It was very much a man-made rather than a naturaldisaster.
Classic planar landslide Rock fall
Rock topple Single rotational slump
Block slide Mud flow
Slide plane
Curved plane
Casso
Fault
Fault
Vaiont Dam
500m
Flood
zone
Longarone
1960 slide
Slide debris
1963 slide
Monte Toc
Reservoir
R
i
v
e
r
P
i
a
v
e
N
1200m
1000m
800m
600m
Reservoir
South
North
1960 slide
Old slide mass
Casso
Vaiont Gorge
Old slide mass
Thin bedded limestones
Original water table
1963 water table
Massive limestone
In the past, the landslide hazard has been somewhat neglected and
underestimated in that it has been linked solely with the high magnitude,
low frequency events that have caused massive loss of life, such as the
1963 Vaiont Dam disaster in Italy, when over 2000 people perished (Case
Study 1) or the 1970 Huascaran rock avalanche in the Peruvian Andes,
which wiped out two villages and killed 25,000 people.
Many people, particularly in the media, have failed to pay appropriate
attention to the landslides that occur as a consequence of earthquakes,
volcanoes, or hurricanes. Much of the destruction and loss of life that occurs
during these events is often directly related to slope failure rather than to
ground shaking or heavy rain and strong winds. All too often, the effects of
the landslides, in terms of loss of life and financial costs, are for recording
purposes, subsumed within the main event itself and therefore receive little
acknowledgement as a hazard in their own right. The result is that landslides
often go largely unrecognised as serious and frequent natural hazards.
Such misrepresentation is dangerous in hazard studies, for it results in a lack of
focus on the real issues. For example, in an earthquake prone area, we should not
only build houses that will withstand shaking but we should build them in areas
away from the dangers of slope failure. If slope failure goes unrecognised as a
potential hazard, then the risk of disaster is increased largely through ignorance.
Has the landslide hazard increased?
There are several reasons why the landslide hazard has increased in recent years:
Large parts of the world have been opened-up for resource exploitation,
power generation and infrastructure developments. Areas that were once
considered to be remote have become developed, putting more people at risk.
Urbanisation, particularly in LEDCs, has led to the sprawl of urban
areas onto hillsides previously considered too dangerous for habitation,
e.g. in Lima, Peru and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and in Hong Kong.
Coastal areas have been increasingly developed for industry and
tourism, and cliffed coasts are particularly vulnerable to collapse.
Human activity has interfered with slope profiles and processes.
Slopes have been modified, e.g. for road building and drainage, and
these modifications and alterations to the natural slope system have
themselves increased the frequency of landslides.
To summarise, more people are now at risk from a greater number of landslides.
What causes landslides?
It is possible to distinguish between two sets of factors, firstly those
contributing to the likelihood of a landslide, and secondly, those
responsible for triggering the landslide itself:
1. Contributory factors.
Aslope is a constantly evolving landscape unit. It is a response to a natural
set of factors and conditions, such as rock type, vegetation cover and
climate, and most slopes will eventually achieve a state of balance or
equilibrium. However it is a dynamic equilibrium as it is only when
conditions change, either naturally, such as a forest fire or earthquake, or as
a result of human activity, that the slope becomes unstable and responds by
altering its profile in order to achieve a new state of balance (see Fig. 3).
2. Trigger mechanisms
Each landslide event can be linked to a process that has triggered the slope
failure. Whilst several processes can act as triggers, such as a period of
intense frost shattering, slope undercutting by the sea or vibrations caused by
traffic, by far the most common triggers relate to water and seismic activity.
Water. An increase in groundwater pressure is considered by slope
engineers to be the most common cause of landslides. The additional
water can come from leaking drainage pipes or, most often, from heavy
rainfall. Environments subjected to periods of intense rainfall, for
example cyclones or monsoons, are particularly vulnerable to landslides.
These landslides were a major problem as a result of Hurricane Mitch.
Seismic activity. The vibrations resulting from earthquakes and
volcanic activity frequently trigger landslides. In an earthquake event,
it will often be the associated landslides that will cause greatest loss
of life and damage to property. This is particularly the case where silts
and clays become liquefied (jelly-like) in response to shaking, as was
the case in the 1964 Alaskan and the 1985 Mexico City earthquakes.
Fig. 3 Factors contributing to slope instability.
2
The landslide hazard Geo Factsheet
Steep gradient. The steeper a slope, the greater will be the
effectiveness of the downward pull of gravity, making collapse
more likely to occur. It is, however, wrong to assume that
landslides are only associated with steep slopes.
Rock type. Rocks differ in their ability to hold a slope; granite and
limestone, for example, will hold a vertical slope without collapsing
whereas sands and clays are only stable if the slope is at a low angle.
Rocks that are loose and unconsolidated are much more prone to
collapse. Rock juxtaposition is important too, as weaker rocks on top of
stronger rocks may be prone to sliding over the underlying strata.
Geological structure. The dip of rocks, or the presence of inclined
faults, will influence the likelihood of sliding. Heavily fractured or
jointed rocks will be more prone to weathering processes such as
frost shattering, making them vulnerable to collapse.
Water content and permeability. Water content, or more precisely
water pore pressure, is recognised as being one of the most
important factors in affecting slope vulnerability. Water serves to
reduce the friction between particles and it lubricates the slope
promoting collapse. The majority of landslides can be linked to the
presence of water in a slope.
Removal of vegetation. Vegetation, particularly in the form of
trees, reduces the likelihood of slope collapse because it intercepts
rainfall, uses water to grow and helps to bind soil and rock
particles together. If vegetation is removed, for example, for
timber or for the development of a ski slope, the slope immediately
becomes more vulnerable to collapse.
Slope undercutting. If a slope is undercut, either by natural
processes such as fluvial or marine erosion, or by human actions,
such as road building, it becomes unstable, increasing the
likelihood of collapse.
Human actions. As the development of slopes has increased in
recent years for settlement, resource exploitation and infrastructure
development, slopes have become increasingly modified, often
making them more vulnerable to collapse. Housing development, for
example, has increased the weight on slopes and interfered with the
natural drainage system. The dumping of colliery waste on upper
slopes is another way human actions can put increased pressure on a
slope, as at Aberfan. In altering slope profiles and processes, any
state of balance that might have existed is immediately
compromised. Landslides are increasing being linked to human
activity, for example leaking pipes, the removal of vegetation, and
the undercutting of slopes. All too often planners are neglecting to
take account of the possible effects of development on increasing the
landslide hazard.
Prolonged rainfall
This will saturate the soil
and encourage movement
Buildings
Increases weight on slope and
adds to downward pull of gravity
Bedrock
Solid bedrock below weak material:
the junction forms the likely slide plane
Rock type
Weak, saturated material or
shattered rock is more likely
to move then solid bedrock.
Excavation
Undercutting of
slope increases
instability.
Removal of vegetation
Roots bind the soil together.
Vegetation uses up some of
the soil moisture
Permeability
Water flowing on surface
of impermeable layer
B
e
d
d
in
g
p
l
a
n
e
S
t
e
e
p
s
l
o
p
e
How can the landslide hazard be reduced?
Reducing the slope hazard can take the form of behavioural responses,
which involve reducing peoples vulnerability to landslides, and structural
or engineering responses, which are designed to reduce the likelihood of a
landslide event occurring. Landslides in remote and unpopulated areas do
not represent a hazard as such and can be largely ignored.
1. Behavioural responses (avoidance)
One of the most important first steps in hazard mitigation is the
production of a landslide hazard map. These maps are constructed
following extensive engineering surveys of current slope characteristics,
together with evidence of past landslide activity. The finished maps
indicate those areas at greatest risk from landslides and, if used properly
in the planning process, should serve to reduce the landslide hazard by
keeping people away from the most vulnerable slopes.
Landslide hazard mapping is well developed in many parts of the world -
however such surveys are expensive and require considerable technical
expertise. They also require planners to respond appropriately to their
findings, which is not always the case when pressure for development is
high. Urban sprawl onto marginal hillsides in cities such as Caracas (Case
Study 3) occurs because the short-term demands for housing and land
outweigh the possible problems associated with a landslide, which, of
course, might never happen. Nevertheless, at its very basic level, planners
do have a duty to offer advice to people and to help them recognise the
most blatantly dangerous slopes, which should be avoided for habitation.
Scientific monitoring can be effective in predicting landslides. Instruments
can be used to monitor ground deformation, groundwater pressure and the
expansion of cracks and fissures. However, the landslide events themselves
are often so sudden as to give no warning. Therefore, monitoring can only
suggest the likelihood of collapse - it cannot provide a reliable timescale.
2. Structural engineering responses (prevention)
Structural responses, involving some form of engineering, are the most
common and widespread responses to the landslide hazard. The use of
steel pins, wire cages and netting (see Fig. 5) are common techniques
aimed at stabilising a slope or reducing the effects of small-scale collapse,
such as rockfalls. Improving slope drainage (Fig. 6) is a further common
and effective response.
Fig. 5 Methods of slope stabilisation.
Fig. 6 Improving slope drainage.
In common with all forms of hazard management, a cost-benefit analysis
needs to be conducted before engineering works are undertaken.
Ultimately, only those slopes posing the greatest risk to people and
highest financial losses will be protected with the most extensive and
sophisticated structures. Furthermore, as with flood defences, no scheme
will ever protect an area from a low frequency but high magnitude event.
The only absolute form of protection is behavioural.
Case Study 2 shows you how prevention can be both worthwhile and
effective for a low magnitude, but potentially frequent type of event.
3
The landslide hazard Geo Factsheet
Case Study 2: Hoar Edge slope stabilisation, Northern
England
During the construction of the Trans Pennine motorway, shallow
landslides occurred one of the newly cut slopes. A combination of
structural measures was subsequently employed to stabilise the slope
(Fig. 4).
Fig. 4 Hoar Edge slope stabilisation, Northern England.
The angle of the profile was lowered to reduce the likelihood of
further slips taking place
A rock buttress was constructed to act as a wall at the base or toe
of the slope
The top of the wall was held in place by 41 cable anchors that
were attached to a layer of stable sandstone below the ground
surface.
There has been no movement since these measures were employed.
50 metres
Ditch
Regraded profile
Rock
trap
N
a
tu
ra
l
p
ro
file
O
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
c
u
t
t
i
n
g S
and
ston
e
M
u
d
sto
n
e
M
u
d
sto
n
e
Ground anchors
Rockfill buttress
Slip surfaces
Shale
Sandstone
Reinforced earth
Gabion wall
Rock trap
Pattern bolting
Reinforced concrete
Anchored wall
Dental masonry
Suspended netting
Diversion ditch
Surface drain in trough
Pumped relief well
Surface stone drain
Free-draining
borehole or adit
Slip surface
Interception
tunnel parallel
to face
Relief drain into
lower aquifer
4
The landslide hazard Geo Factsheet
Case Study 3: Venezuela Debris Flows, 1999
What happened?
On 15-16
th
December 1999, landslides and mudflows devastated parts of
northern Venezuela (Fig. 7). Up to 30,000 people lost their lives, and
more than 400,000 were made homeless as 90,000 homes were
destroyed, washed away or buried by several metres of mud. The worst
hit areas were the shanty towns on the edge of Caracas and the
settlements in the small state of Vargas, to the north of the capital.
Plantations, roads and highways were destroyed and airports were
closed for several days. Billions of dollars worth of damage was caused
and, in the days immediately following the floods and landslides, food,
shelter and medical help were in short supply.
Fig. 7 Location map of Caracas, Venezuela
What were the contributory causes?
In the first two weeks in December 1999, northern Venezuela
experienced the heaviest rains to have occurred in 100 years. This led
to soils becoming saturated and water forming ponds on the surface.
In recent decades, large tracts of land had been cleared of forest to
make way for urban development, in particular shanty towns. The
absence of trees to intercept rainfall and hold together soil
undoubtedly contributed to the scale of the disaster.
The coastal strip of north Venezuela is mountainous and there are
many steep slopes. The Avila Mountain Range, the northern-most
part of the Andes, rises to over 2,500m just inland of the coast.
Caracas is bounded on most sides by very steep hillslopes, land
that is described as being marginal for habitation. Over the years,
shanty towns have been developed on these steep slopes, usually
with little or no planning and a subsequent lack of facilities such
as drainage. President Chavez blamed corrupt previous
governments for allowing illegal shanty towns to develop on land
considered to be too dangerous for habitation. A CNN report
published on 19
th
December 1999 stated that millions of poor
people had built homes (flimsy, precariously perched shacks) on
the mountainside because they couldnt afford to live anywhere
else, and for decades, government officials did little to stop them.
What was the trigger factor?
Heavy rainfall throughout December 1999, particularly the extreme
rainfall events that occurred on 15 and 16 December during which up
to 900mm fell. These storms led to flash flooding and triggered the
numerous debris flows.
What were the consequences?
This disaster has illustrated the need to plan urban developments more
carefully in the future, for whilst there were many natural factors
contributing towards the disaster, people should not have been allowed
to occupy such potentially dangerous hillslopes.
Case Study 4: Cherry Hills Landslide, Antipolo City,
Philippines, 1999
What happened?
On 3
rd
August 1999 a disastrous landslide occurred in the Cherry Hills
district of Antipolo City (Fig. 8), just 10km to the east of Manila. Many
houses were destroyed and some 58 people lost their lives.
What were the contributory factors?
The Cherry Hills development comprised low-cost housing units
constructed on steep slopes (up to 25 degrees) on the edges of the city.
The rocks comprised heavily fractured sedimentary rocks (siltstones,
sandstones and clays), with varying degrees of permeability and
shear strength. There had been numerous landslides in the past.
As early as 1998, buildings had begun to show cracks and displacement
of walls, particularly after heavy rain. These signs of slope instability
should have alerted the authorities to the impending danger of a major
landslide. There was evidence of previous landslides in the area and the
land was clearly unsuitable for human habitation.
What was the trigger factor?
Heavy rainfall between 31
st
July and 2
nd
August, associated with Tropical
Cyclone Ising, which intensified the normal monsoon rainfall. Some
565mm of rain was recorded in these three days.
Fig. 8 The Cherry Hills landslide.
What were the consequences?
This disaster was very much the result of poor planning. Much of the Cherry
Hills development should never have been constructed. In the absence of
affordable alternative housing, many people have returned to the area.
V E N E Z U E L A
C O L O M B I A
B R A Z I L
Caracas
0 metres 100
N
Landslide scarp
Disturbed
landslide
material
Zone of sub-surface
landslide disruption
leading to surface heave
Part of housing
district destroyed
by the landslide
C
H
E
R
R
Y
H
I
L
L
S

D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
Road to
Antipolo
City
0 100 200km
0 miles 200
C a r i b b e a n S e a
G U Y.
Guiana
Highlands
Andes
Llanos
Trinidad &
Tobago
N
5
The landslide hazard Geo Factsheet
Conclusion
The landslide hazard has in the past been somewhat underestimated, often
being subsumed within the context of other natural events, such as
earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Taken in isolation, however,
landslides are one of the most serious of all natural hazards, posing
significant threats to people and property worldwide.
Landslides take many forms and, whilst many occur in remote areas
posing little threat to people, an increasing number now occur in populated
areas. Whilst landslides are perfectly natural responses to slope instability,
an increasing number of them have a distinctive human element in their
cause, particularly where unsuitable land has been over-developed.
If the landslide hazard is not to increase further, greater research needs to
be undertaken to study slope processes and to produce hazard maps.
Planners then need to respond accordingly, either by restricting
development on dangerous slopes, or by ensuring that actions are taken
to stabilise the slopes.
References and further research
Most AS and A2 level textbooks have chapters devoted to slope processes, and
there are several books dealing with Natural Hazards that have whole chapters
devoted to landslides. The following references are perhaps less well known.
Waltham, A.C. Foundations of Engineering Geology (Blackie Academic
and Professional, 1994)
McCall, G.J.H. (Ed.) Geohazards (Chapman and Hall, 1992)
Landslide News (Japan Landslide Society) based at Kyoto University,
Uji, Kyoto, 611-0011, Japan (website http://L-news.dpri.kyoto-u.ac.jp) is
an outstanding publication packed full of recent landslide case studies.
Internet sites
There are far too many to list here; any search will reveal literally hundreds
of sites. Global and local news agencies (www.bbc.co.uk/news is always a
good starting point) will provide you with addition information on the
recent case studies featured in this article and on ones that post-date it.
For excellent information on the Venezuelan landslides, visit Colorado State
Universitys Flash Flood Laboratory at www.cira.colostate.edu/fflab/venezuela
for a full report and the USGSs Water Resources for the Caribbean site at
http://pr.water.usgs.gov/public/venezuelafor magnificent maps and photographs.
Exam Questions
A. What is the landslide hazard? (5 marks)
B. What factors are responsible for landslides? (8 marks)
C. Examine, with reference to examples you have studied, the role of
people and human activity in increasing the landslide hazard. (12 marks)
AS Answer hints
A. This is a fairly straightforward question requiring definitions and clear
links between the natural event and the threat posed to people. Remember
that a hazard only exists when people or human activity are at risk.
B. Here you need to be clear about the difference between the
contributory factors and the trigger factors. Illustrate the factors with
reference to examples.
C. This is a more challenging question, which requires you to evaluate
the role of people or human actions in either generating landslides or
turning them from natural events into man-made disasters. The case
studies in the article give you plenty to refer to, but make sure you
focus on the question.
Acknowledgements;
This Factsheet was researched by Simon Ross, Head of Geography, at Queens College,
Taunton, and a well-known author.
Geo Press. Unit 305B, The Big Peg, 120 Vyse Street, Birmingham B18 6NF
Geopress Factsheets may be copied free of charge by teaching staff or students, provided that
their school is a registered subscriber.
No part of these Factsheets may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in
any other form or by any other means, without the prior permission of the publisher. ISSN
1351-5136
Case Study 5: Los Colinas mudslide, El Salvador, 2001
What happened?
On 13
th
January 2001 an earthquake hit the Central American state of
El Salvador, causing widespread devastation and triggering several
landslides. At Los Colinas, near the capital San Salvador (Fig. 9), a
massive mudflow surged down a hillside to engulf the settlement. Many
hundreds of people lost their lives and several thousand were injured.
What were the contributory factors?
The residential district lies at the foot of a very steep hillslope, part
of which simply collapsed onto the housing below. Whilst the
housing had not been constructed on the hillslope itself, it was
clearly vulnerable to slope failure.
For several years environmental groups and local residents had
been protesting against the deforestation and over-development of
the sides of the Cordillera El Balsamo, the ridgeline that overlooks
Las Colinas. A lawsuit was even lodged against the construction
companies, which brought a ruling halting development. However,
that was overturned in 1999, and developers continued to strip away
trees and cut into the base of the hillslope.
Heavy rains during the winter had made the soils heavy and saturated.
What was the trigger factor?
The trigger for the mudslide was a massive 7.6 earthquake that occurred
in the Pacific Ocean to the south of San Salvador.
What were the consequences?
The pressure to develop new areas for housing is considerable and
despite the disaster, it seems likely that much of the land will be
developed once again, although possibly not with the middle class
housing that was there before the mudslide.
Fig. 9 Location map of El Salvador.
Exam Hint: Case Studies 3, 4 and 5 are ideal for supporting your
own exam answers as they are recent, clearly set out and full of
precise factual detail. Read through them and then consider
whether you think the causes were physical, or were human
factors the key.
HONDURAS
San Salvador
GUATEMALA
P a c i f i c
Oc e a n
Los Colinas
EL
S ALVADOR
0 miles 100
Epicentre
N