Bjørn KALSNES1, Farrokh NADIM1, Joanne BAYER2, Anna SCOLOBIG2, Leonardo CASCINI3, Settimio FERLISI3 1Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, NGI, Norway; 2IIASA, Austria; 3University of Salerno, Italy

1. Landslide risk management
issues in SafeLand
A. Scolobig, J. Bayer (IIASA)
S. Ferlisi, L. Cascini (UNISA)
B.Kalsnes, F. Nadim (NGI/ICG)
IDRC Davos, 28 August 2012

2. Landslide risk research project -
SafeLand
• EC Call 2008 – Prediction of triggering and risk
assessment for landslides (in a global change
perspective)
• 27 partners from 12 countries
• More than 25 End users from 11 countries
• Coordinated by NGI/ICG (Norway)
• Total funding 6.6 mill €
• Project duration 1May 2009-1 May 2012

3. Main research topics
• Take into account climate change and human activity
• Forecast landslide hazards and detect risk zones
• Quantify triggering mechanisms, and model run-out
• Develop QRA frame for a better risk management
• Develop guidelines for use of remote sensing techniques,
monitoring and early warning systems.
• Help to choose an appropriate set of mitigation and
prevention measure
• To perform research on decision-making process for choosing
the most appropriate risk mitigation measure(s).

4. Risk management
• The development of a prototype of a web-based "toolbox” of
innovative and technically appropriate prevention and
mitigation measures. The toolbox does a preliminary
assessment and ranking of up to 60 structural and non-
structural landslide risk mitigation options.
• A case study on participatory processes to involve the
population exposed to landslide risk in the decision-making
process.

5. Nocera Inferiore: the case study
• Population (2010): 47,021 (~ 4,000 residents at
high risk)
• Last landslide: 4th March 2005
• 2008: ~ 30 million € risk mitigation project
rejected
•2010: 7 million € allocated (not transferred) for
risk mitigation
Nocera Inferiore and the 2005 landslide
(source: University of Salerno and Internet)

6. National level
Regional level
Natural Park
Institutional
Civil Protection Monti Lattari
framework
Provincial level
Agency for Genio civile
soil defence (Engeneering corp)
Fire brigade
corp
Municipal level
Commissioner
Soil /Mayor Civil
defence protection
Civil
department Risky areas
protection
residents Police
River basin Scientists Quarry Fire Municipal
and owners brigades
authority technical
universities Landslide officers
victims
committee Private
Civil consultants
protection Forestal
Professional
corp NGOs’ and
order groups
local
associations
Environment Emergency
Ministry Consorzio di bonifica
commissary (territory maintenance
consortium)
Environment and architectural
heritage agency

7. Methodological approach
Literature review
Semi-structured interviews (43)
Communication activities
Communication activities
Focus groups (2)
Questionnaire survey (373)
Participatory process (6 meetings with selected residents, 14 parallel
meetings, feedback)

8. The participatory process
Preparatory work
•desk study, 43 semi structured interviews, 2 focus groups, survey with 373 residents
Meeting 1&2: Identify discourses to frame risk mitigation options
•create a common deliberation space among 15 selected participants Parallel
•elicit participants’ views and perspectives about landslide risk and its communication
mitigation activities to
Meeting 3&4: Expert presentation and working groups broaden the
audience:
• presentation of risk assessment and risk mitigation options website,
•working groups of “like-minded” participants on-line
discussion
Meeting 5&6&7: Presentation and discussion of the compromise proposal
group, 3 videos,
• presentation of a compromise proposal prepared by the research team contacts with
• identification of priorities and next steps Fortress
local authorities
•feedback questionnaire Europe and media

9. Interdisciplinary research
Sociological
qualitative
tools(desk study, 43
interviews, focus
groups, etc.)
Compendium and a
web-based toolbox of Sociological
risk mitigation quantitative tools
measures (questionnaire survey,
373 residents)
Quantitative
assessment for
Spatial multi- flow like mass
criteria evaluation movements
Cost benefit
Hazard analysis
analysis

10. Hierarchy
Protect lives and properties
The risk
mitigation
discourses and
options
Market Egualitarian
Rational individual Careful stewardship
choice of the mountains

11. Working groups results: key agreement
• improvement of the warning system
• implementation of an integrated system of monitoring and territorial survey
• control works:
 general preference for active rather than passive ones
 construction of small retention basins, possibly in non visible areas
 building of erosion control works along the rills
• plan for the new control works maintenance and forestal assessment plan
The compromise
proposal

12. Comments stakeholder process
• Performing research in a “real” case. The project is ended, but the
problem is still there.
• Iterative process of participation (including an interview pre-stage)
is essential to build positive and trusting relationships among
participants.
• Important to recognize worldviews and interests.
• Benefits from the process itself (increased knowledge, interest and
involvement from local partisipants).

13. Website: www.safeland-fp7.eu
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION!