Natural Hazards

, Volume 52, Issue 3, pp 539–560 | Cite as

A simplified method for assessing landslide damage indices

  • Olga Petrucci
  • Giovanni Gullà
Original Paper


The Support Analysis Framework (SAF) is a tool that converts descriptions of landslide effects into numerical indices expressing direct, indirect and intangible damage. Sections assessing direct damage are made up of ‘elements’ characterised by relative values and the ‘levels of loss’ that they can suffer. By typing an x value into the cell representing an element and a level of loss, formulas multiply the value of the element by the level of loss, obtaining a value used in the damage indices assessing. Indirect damage deals with: (a) emergency response and (b) efforts to restore pre-landslide conditions. The level of loss depends on the number of people affected (a) or the cost of actions (b). For intangible damage, the level of loss depends on the number of people affected. We assess the damage indices for a landslide occurred in Calabria (Italy) in 2005, using both the SAF and the SAFL, a customised version that takes into account the local socio-economic framework by including only elements present in the analysed municipality. We assess the damage indices for three scenarios with different initial conditions and compare them to the 2005 event; the results would have been useful to mitigate damage. The SAF can be used by nonspecialists, and it allows the ranking of damage caused by different landslides, thus supporting local authorities in prioritising countermeasures and civil protection offices to speed up responses to refund requests. The sorting of dormant phenomena according to their possible damage helps with defensive measures, emergency plans and insurance purposes.


Landslide damage Damage indices 


  1. Alexander D (1989) Urban landslides. Prog Phys Geogr 13:157–191. doi: 10.1177/030913338901300201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander D (2008) A brief survey of GIS in mass-movement studies, with reflections on theory and methods. Geomorphology 94:261–267. doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.09.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bahoken F, Chiroiu L, Guillande R (2003) Développement d’échelles d’intensité par type de phénomènes naturels. SIRNAT-JPRN, Orléans. Accessed 3 March 2009
  4. Blöchl A, Braun B (2005) Economic assessment of landslide risks in the Swabian Alb, Germany—research framework and first results of homeowners’ and experts’ surveys. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 5:389–396Google Scholar
  5. Blong R (2003a) A review of damage intensity scales. Nat Hazards 29:57–76. doi: 10.1023/A:1022960414329 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blong R (2003b) A new damage index. Nat Hazards 30:1–23. doi: 10.1023/A:1025018822429 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crandell J, Kochkin V (2005) Scientific damage assessment methodology and practical applications. Accessed 2 March 2009
  8. Douglas J (2007) Physical vulnerability modelling in natural hazard risk assessment. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 7:283–288Google Scholar
  9. Fleming RW, Taylor FA (1980) Estimating the costs of landslide damage in the United States. U.S. Geological Survey Circular, vol 832, 21 ppGoogle Scholar
  10. Fuchs S, Thöni M, McAlpin MC, Gruber U, Bründl M (2007) Avalanche hazard mitigation strategies assessed by cost effectiveness analyses and cost benefit analyses—evidence from Davos, Switzerland. Nat Hazards 41:113–129. doi: 10.1007/s11069-006-9031-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hengjian L, Kohiyama M, Horie K, Maki N, Hayashi H, Tanaka S (2003) Building damage and casualties after an earthquake. Nat Hazards 29:387–403. doi: 10.1023/A:1024724524972 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Highland LM (2003) An account of preliminary landslide damage and losses resulting from the February 28, 2001, Nisqually, Washington, Earthquake. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File report 03-211. Online version: Accessed 23 February 2009
  13. Highland LM (2006) Estimating Landslide Losses-Preliminary results of a seven-state pilot project. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2006–1032 Accessed 23 February 2009
  14. Hollenstein K (2005) Reconsidering the risk assessment concept: standardizing the impact description as a building block for vulnerability assessment. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 5:301–307Google Scholar
  15. Horie K, Maki N, Kohiyama M, Lu H, Tanaka S, Hashitera S, Shigekawa K, Hayashi H (2003) Process of housing damage assessment: the 1995 Hanshin–Awaji earthquake disaster case. Nat Hazards 29:341–370. doi: 10.1023/A:1024777104808 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. IMIRILAND Impact of Large Landslides in the Mountain Environment: Identification and Mitigation of Risk (2004) Contract n° EVG1-CT-2000-00035. Deliverable D16: Relevant criteria to assess vulnerability and riskGoogle Scholar
  17. Iovine G, Petrucci O, Rizzo V, Tansi C (2007) The March 7th 2005 Cavallerizzo (Cerzeto) landslide in Calabria—Southern Italy. In: Culshaw et al (eds) Engineering Geology for Tomorrow’s Cities. Geological Society, London, Engineering Geology Special Publications, CD paper number 785 (Proceedings of the 10th IAEG International Congress, IAEG2006—Nottingham, United Kingdom, 6–10 September 2006)Google Scholar
  18. Middelmann MH (2007) Impact of natural disasters. In: Natural Hazards in Australia identifying Risk Analysis requirements, Risk and Impact Analysis Group, Geospatial and Earth Monitoring Division Accessed 20 February 2009
  19. 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
  20. Petrucci O (2005) Indagine storica sui dissesti idrogeologici nell’abitato di Cavallerizzo di Cerzeto (CS). Indagine effettuata come Responsabile dell’Indagine Storica nell’ambito dell’attività del CNR-IRPI come Centro di Competenza per la Protezione Civile Nazionale 14 ppGoogle Scholar
  21. Petrucci O, Pasqua AA (2008) The study of past damaging hydrogeological events for damage susceptibility zonation. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 8:881–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Petrucci O, Polemio M (2009) The role of meteorological and climatic conditions in the occurrence of damaging hydro-geologic events in Southern Italy. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9:105–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Petrucci O, Versace P (2004) ASICal: a database of landslides and floods occurred in Calabria (Italy). In: Gaudio R (ed) Proceedings of the 1st Italian-Russian workshop: new trends in hydrology, Rende (Italy), September 24th–26th, 2002. CNR-GNDCI 2823:49–55Google Scholar
  24. Petrucci O, De Matteis V, Versace P (2003) Aspetti metodologici nella identificazione dell’impatto al suolo degli eventi alluvionali. La Difesa della Montagna. Convegno Nazionale, Assisi, dicembre 2002. CNR-GNDCI 2830:522–530Google Scholar
  25. Petrucci O, Polemio M, Pasqua AA (2008) Analysis of damaging hydro-geological events: the case of Calabria region (southern Italy). Environ Manag 25:483–495Google Scholar
  26. Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri (2005) Ordinanza 3427: Primi interventi urgenti diretti a fronteggiare i danni conseguenti ai gravissimi dissesti idrogeologici con connessi diffusi movimenti franosi verificatisi nel territorio del comune di Cerzeto. 9 ppGoogle Scholar
  27. Remondo J, Soto J, González-Díez A, Díaz de Terán JR, Cendrero A (2005) Human impact on geomorphic processes and hazards in mountain areas in northern Spain. Geomorphology 66(1–4):69–84. doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2004.09.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rizzo V (2008) La frana di Cavallerizzo (Cerzeto, Cosenza): criteri utilizzati per l’allertamento; aspetti e problematiche. Geologi 1:5–33Google Scholar
  29. SCARM (2000) Floodplain Management in Australia-Best Practice Principles and Guidelines. Agricolture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, Standing Committee on Agricolture and Resource Management, Report No. 73, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  30. Schuster RL, Fleming RW (1986) Economic losses and fatalities due to landslides. Bull Assoc Eng Geol 23(1):11–28Google Scholar
  31. Schuster RL, Highland LM (2007) The third Hans Cloos lecture. Urban landslides: socioeconomic impacts and overview of mitigative strategies. Bull Eng Geol Environ 66:1–27. doi: 10.1007/s10064-006-0080-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Smith DI, Handmer JW, McKay JM, Switzer MAD, Williams BJ (1995) Non-structural measures for flood mitigation. Current adoption in urban Areas. Report to the National Landcare Program, Department of Primary Industries and Energy, vol 1. Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  33. Varnes DJ, IAEG Commission on Landslides (1984) Landslide hazard zonation—a review of principles and practice. UNESCO, Paris, 63 ppGoogle Scholar
  34. Wold RL Jr, Jochim CL (1989) Landslide loss reduction: a guide for State and Local Government planning. Colorado Geological Survey, Department of Natural ResourcesGoogle Scholar
  35. Zêzere JL, Garcia RAC, Oliveira SC, Reis E (2008) Probabilistic landslide risk analysis considering direct costs in the area north of Lisbon (Portugal). Geomorphology 94:467–495. doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.10.040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CNR-IRPI CosenzaRende, CosenzaItaly

Personalised recommendations