Natural Hazards

, Volume 72, Issue 2, pp 481–501 | Cite as

The district of North Vancouver’s landslide management strategy: role of public involvement for determining tolerable risk and increasing community resilience

Original Paper


This paper examines the public involvement processes contained within the Landslide Management Strategy for the District of North Vancouver in British Columbia, Canada. Following a fatal landslide in the Berkley neighborhood in 2005, the District of North Vancouver convened a community-based Natural Hazards task force to establish risk-tolerance criteria for natural hazards. This paper describes the community task force approach and evaluates it against four criteria for successful public involvement: representative participation; early involvement; information availability; and impact on policy. It is identified that the District could have incorporated a broader understanding of risk, allowing public perspectives to influence the initial framing of the risk issue before charging the Natural Hazards task force to arrive at quantitative risk-tolerance criteria. The District could also have sought to engage a somewhat more representative portion of the population to serve on the Natural Hazards task force, seeking to incorporate a broader set of public values and types of knowledge. Notwithstanding, the Natural Hazards task force successfully utilized social, legal, and scientific information for informed decision-making, and their recommended risk-tolerance criteria were enacted into policy by the District of North Vancouver as a result of the process. The paper also investigates the District’s ongoing public involvement and education efforts with respect to landslide risks, considering information accessibility and its usefulness for increasing individual capacity and community resilience. Overall, the District’s ongoing, dynamic approach to risk management promises to empower individuals and foster resilient communities in the aftermath of the tragic Berkley landslide.


Landslide Task force Public participation Stakeholder Tolerable risk Resilience 



Dr. D.M. Cruden, Dr. C.G. Jardine, Dr. C.D. Martin, and Dr. N.R. Morgenstern are thanked for their thoughtful comments and encouragement during the drafting of this manuscript; two anonymous referees also provided constructive input. Funding for this research was provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), Alberta Innovates Technology Futures, and the University of Alberta.


  1. Aguirre BE (2006) On the concept of resilience. Disaster Research Centre, University of DelawareGoogle Scholar
  2. Beierle TC (2002) The quality of stakeholder-based decisions. Risk Anal 22(4):739–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. BGC Engineering Inc (BGC) (2006a) District of North Vancouver, Berkley landslide risk management: phase 1 risk assessment. Web. Accessed 21 June 2013
  4. BGC Engineering Inc (BGC) (2006b) District of North Vancouver, Berkley landslide risk management: phase 2 assessment of risk control options: final report. Web. Accessed 06 Dec 2013
  5. BGC Engineering Inc (BGC) (2007) District of North Vancouver, updated landslide risk assessment following stage 1 mitigation: final report. Web. Accessed 27 Nov 2013
  6. BGC Engineering Inc (BGC) (2010a) District of North Vancouver, landslide risk summary: final report. Web. Accessed 22 Nov 2013
  7. BGC Engineering Inc (BGC) (2010b, January 4) District of North Vancouver, 2009 landslide risk assessment for select escarpment slopes: final report. Web. Accessed 27 Nov 2013
  8. BGC Engineering Inc (BGC) (2011) District of North Vancouver, landslide risk assessment update—units 2871, 2873, 2875 and 2877, Cedar Village Crescent, Capilano Road: final. Web. Accessed 22 Nov 2013
  9. Bird DK, Gisladottir G, Dominey-Howes D (2010) Volcanic risk and tourism in southern Iceland: implications for hazard, risk and emergency response, education and training. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 189:33–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boholm A (1998) Comparative studies of risk perception: a review of 20 years of research. J Risk Res 1(2):135–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brunner E, Giroux J (2009) Examining resilience: a concept to improve societal security and technical safety. Fact Sheet, crisis and risk network. Center for Security Studies, ETH ZürichGoogle Scholar
  12. Chess C, Purcell K (1999) Public participation and the environment: do we know what works? Environ Sci Technol 33(16):2685–2692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dercole F (2009) Natural hazards risk tolerance criteria. The District of North Vancouver, Report to Council, Nov 10, 2009. Accessed 27 Feb 2013
  14. District of North Vancouver (DNV) (2006a) Media backgrounder: district receives Berkley escarpment landslide risk management report—phase two assessment of risk control options. Web.!.pdf. Accessed 02 Dec 2013
  15. District of North Vancouver (DNV) (2006b) Excerpt from the regular meeting of the council for the corporation of the district of North Vancouver. Web. Accessed 05 Dec 2013
  16. District of North Vancouver (DNV) (2006c) Census map series: 2006 income. Web. Accessed 03 April 2013
  17. District of North Vancouver (DNV) (2008) Natural hazards task force, Report to Mayor and Council. Powerpoint presentation. Web. Accessed 28 Feb 2013
  18. District of North Vancouver (DNV) (2011) United Nations Sasakawa Award nomination for disaster risk reduction. Web.!.pdf. Accessed 13 Feb 2013
  19. District of North Vancouver (DNV) (2012, April 17) Agenda: public hearing. Web. Accessed 02 Dec 2013
  20. District of North Vancouver (DNV) (2013a) Natural hazards management program. Web. Accessed 27 February 2013
  21. District of North Vancouver (DNV) (2013b) Natural hazards task force. Web. Accessed 13 March 2013
  22. District of North Vancouver (DNV) (2013c) Guide to living near steep slopes. Web. Accessed 27 Feb 2013
  23. Dorcey AHJ, McDaniels T (1999) Great expectations, mixed results: trends in citizen involvement in Canadian environmental governance. Web. Accessed 06 June 2011
  24. Edwards C (2009) Resilient nation. Demos, London. Accessed 30 Dec 2013
  25. Fell R, Corominas J, Bonnard C, Cascini L, Leroi E, Savage W (2008a) Guidelines for landslide susceptibility, hazard and risk zoning for land use planning. Eng Geol 102:85–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fell R, Corominas J, Bonnard C, Cascini L, Leroi E, Savage W (2008b) Commentary on guidelines for landslide susceptibility, hazard and risk zoning for land use planning. Eng Geol 102:99–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Frommer B (2013) Climate change and the resilient society: utopia or realistic option for German regions? Nat Hazards 67:99–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gauvin F-P, Abelson J (2006) Primer on public involvement. Health Council of CanadaGoogle Scholar
  29. Grothmann T, Reusswig F (2006) People at risk of flooding: why some residents take precautionary action while others do not. Nat Hazards 38:101–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Holling CS (1979) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 4:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Holub M, Fuchs S (2009) Mitigating mountain hazards in Austria-legislation, risk transfer, and awareness building. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9:523–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Horlick-Jones T (1998) Meaning and contextualisation in risk assessment. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 59:79–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) (2012) All about home insurance. Web. Accessed 02 Dec 2013
  34. Jakob M, Porter M (2007) Risk assessment and risk tolerance. powerpoint presentation. Web. Accessed 28 Feb 2013
  35. Jardine CG (2008a) Stakeholder participation in risk management decision making. In: Everitt, Melnick (eds) Encyclopedia of quantitative risk analysis and assessment. Wiley, Chichester, pp 1668–1672Google Scholar
  36. Jardine CG (2008b) Considerations in planning for successful risk communication. In: Everitt, Melnick (eds) Encyclopedia of quantitative risk analysis and assessment. Wiley, Chichester, pp 362–365Google Scholar
  37. Jardine CG, Hrudey SE, Shortreed JH, Krewski D, Furgal C, Craig L, McColl S (2003) Risk management frameworks for human health and environmental risks. J Toxicol Environ Health Part B: Crit Rev 6(6):569–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Joyce GM (2007) Natural hazards task force. The District of North Vancouver, Report to Council, July 12, 2007. Web. Accessed 05 Dec 2013
  39. Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, Brown HS, Emel J, Goble R, Kasperson JX, Ratick S (1988) The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Anal 8(2):177–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Leiss W (2001) In the chamber of risks: understanding risk controversies. McGill-Queen’s University Press, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  41. Leroi E, Bonnard C, Fell R, McInnes R (2005) Risk assessment and management. In: Hungr, Fell, Couture, and Eberhardt (eds) International conference on landslide risk management, Vancouver, Canada, pp 159–198Google Scholar
  42. Linden AM (2001) Canadian tort law, 7th edn. Butterworths, MarkhamGoogle Scholar
  43. Logan JR, Molotch HL (1987) Urban fortunes: the political economy of place. University of California Press, BerkleyGoogle Scholar
  44. Lorenz DF (2013) The diversity of resilience: contributions from a social science perspective. Nat Hazards 67:7–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lynn FM, Busenberg GJ (1995) Citizen advisory committees and environmental policy: what we know, what’s left to discover. Risk Anal 15(2):147–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Maguire B, Hagan P (2007) Disasters and communities: understanding social resilience. Aust J of Emerg Manag 22(2):16–20Google Scholar
  47. McDaniels T, Gregory RS, Fields D (1999) Democratizing risk management: successful public involvement in local water management decisions. Risk Anal 19(3):497–510Google Scholar
  48. Natural Hazards Task Force (NHTF) (2008) Recommendations on risk tolerance criteria for the District of North Vancouver. Submitted to District of North Vancouver Council, April 2008. Web. Accessed 05 Dec 2013
  49. Njome MS, Suh CE, Chuyong G, deWit MJ (2010) Volcanic risk perception in rural communities along the slopes of Mount Cameroon, West-Central Africa. J Afr Earth Sci 58:608–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. North Shore News (2009, March 24) North Vancouver District settles Kuttner landslide suit. Web. Accessed 19 June 2013
  51. Pearce L (2013) Disaster management and community planning, and public participation: how to achieve sustainable hazard mitigation. Nat Hazards 28:211–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Perrow C (1984) Normal accidents: living with high-risk technologies. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  53. Petts J (2004) Barriers to participation and deliberation in risk decisions: evidence from waste management. J Risk Res 7(2):115–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Popescu ME (1994) A suggested method for describing the causes of a landslide. International Geotechnical Societies’ UNESCO Working Party on World Landslide Inventory (WP/WLI). Bull Eng Geol Environ 50:71–74Google Scholar
  55. Porter M, Jakob M, Savigny KW, Fougere S, Morgenstern N (2007) Risk management for urban flow slides in North Vancouver, Canada. Can Geotech Conference, Ottawa, Ontario, pp 690–698Google Scholar
  56. Porter M, Jakob M, Holm C (2009) Proposed landslide risk tolerance criteria. Can Geotech Conf, Halifax, pp 533–541Google Scholar
  57. Province of British Columbia (2008) Coroner’s Report into the Death of Kuttner, Eliza Wing Mun Case No. 2005:255:0076Google Scholar
  58. Renn O (2008) Risk governance: coping with uncertainty in a complex world. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  59. Ridge J (2006) Slope safety action plan: district response to the phase 2 BGC report. Powerpoint presentation. Web. Accessed on 02 Dec 2013
  60. Roth F (2012) Visualizing risk: the use of graphical elements in risk analysis and communication. Focal Report 9, Risk and Resilience Research Group, Center for Security Studies, ETH ZürichGoogle Scholar
  61. Siegrist M, Gutscher H (2006) Flooding risks: a comparison of lay people’s perceptions and expert’s assessments in Switzerland. Risk Anal 26(4):971–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236:280–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Slovic P (1999) Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Anal 19(4):689–701Google Scholar
  64. Statement of Claim (2005, Jun 21). Supreme Court of British Columbia, Vancouver Registry No. S053396. Web. Accessed on 20 June 2013
  65. Statistics Canada (2007) Mortality, summary list of causes–2004. Released 27 April 2007. Web. Accessed on 04 Dec 2013
  66. United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) (2012) How to make cities more resilient: a handbook for local government leaders. GenevaGoogle Scholar
  67. US National Research Council (USNRC) (1996) Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  68. US Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management (USPCC) (1997) Framework for environmental health risk management, Final report. Washington DC, vols 1 and 2Google Scholar
  69. Wachinger G, Renn O, Begg C, Kuhlicke C (2013) The risk perception paradox—implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk Anal 33:1049–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wildavsky A (1988) Searching for safety. Transaction Books, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  71. Wildavsky A (1990) No risk is the highest risk of all. In: Glickman, Gough (eds) Readings in risk, resources for the future, Washington, DC, pp 120–127Google Scholar
  72. World Bank and the United Nations (2010) Natural hazards, unnatural disasters: the economics of effective prevention. World Bank, WashingtonCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations