Original Article
Landslides (2005) 2: 329–342 F. Catani · N. Casagli · L. Ermini · G. Righini · G. Menduni
DOI: 10.1007/s10346-005-0021-0
Received: 11 April 2005
Accepted: 14 September 2005
Published online: 19 November 2005
Landslide hazard and risk mapping at catchment scale
© Springer-Verlag 2005 in the Arno River basin
Abstract We present the methodologies adopted and the outcomes
obtained in the analysis of landslide risk in the basin of the Arno River
(Central Italy) in the framework of a project sponsored by the Basin
Authority of the Arno River, started in the year 2002 and completed
at the beginning of 2005. In particular, a complete set of methods and
applications for the assessment of landslide susceptibility and risk are
described and discussed.
A new landslide inventory of the whole area was realized, using
conventional (aerial-photo interpretation and field surveys) and non-
conventional methods (e.g. remote sensing techniques such as DIn-
SAR and PS-InSAR).
The great majority of the mapped mass movements are rotational
slides (75%), solifluctions and other shallow slow movements (17%)
and flows (5%), while soil slips, and other rapid landslides, seem
less frequent everywhere within the basin. The relationships between
landslide characteristics and environmental factors have been as-
sessed through statistical analysis. As expected, the results show a
strong control of land cover, lithology and morphology on landslide
occurrence. The landslide frequency-size distribution shows a typical
scaling behaviour already underlined in other landslide inventories
worldwide. The assessment of landslide hazard in terms of probability
of occurrence in a given time, based for mapped landslides on direct
and indirect observations of the state of activity and recurrence time,
has been extended to landslide-free areas through the application
of statistical methods implemented in an artificial neural network
(ANN). Unique conditions units (UCU) were defined by the map
overlay of landslide preparatory factors (lithology, land cover, slope
gradient, slope curvature and upslope contributing area) and after-
wards used to construct a series of model vectors for the training and
test of the ANN. Various different ANNs were selected throughout
the basin, until each UCU was assigned a degree of membership to a
susceptibility and a hazard class. Model validation confirms that pre-
diction results are very good, with an average percentage of correctly
recognized mass movements of about 85%. The analysis also revealed
the existence of a large number of unmapped mass movements, thus
contributing to the completeness of the final inventory. Temporal haz-
ard was estimated via the translation of state of activity in recurrence
time and hence probability of occurrence. The following intersection
of hazard values with vulnerability and exposure figures, obtained by
reclassification of digital vector mapping at 1:10,000 scale, lead to the
definition of risk values for each terrain unit for different periods of
time into the future. The final results of the research are now under-
going a process of integration and implementation within land plan-
ning and risk prevention policies and practices at local and national
level.
Keywords Landslide hazard and risk . Catchment scale . Artificial
neural networks . Arno River basin
Introduction
In recent years, a new awareness towards landslide-related risks has
grown, producing the most interesting results especially in the tech-
niques for the reconnaissance and mapping of mass movements and
in the methods for the assessment of hazard, or probability of oc-
currence. Literature on the argument is overwhelmingly rich and
difficult to summarize, offering a variety of techniques and a fair
number of real examples. General overviews can be found in Brabb
(1984), Varnes and IAEG (1984), Hansen (1984), Gupta and Joshi
(1990), Carrara et al. (1991), Soeters and van Westen (1996), Turner
and Schuster (1996), Aleotti and Chowdhury (1999), Dai et al. (2002),
and van Westen (2004). All the authors agree upon the fact that the
first step towards a correct landslide risk assessment is a complete
knowledge of past events, to be attained by direct or indirect surveys.
Once an inventory map has been completed, the risk assessment
procedure can be implemented, with the final objective of defining
the expected value of losses in a certain area in a given period of time
as a consequence of an event of a given intensity (Varnes and IAEG
1984). The usual risk assessment protocol is based on the evaluation of
at least three subcomponents, i.e. hazard, vulnerability and exposure.
While many different methods and case studies exist concerning
the assessment and computation of the single sub-components, there
is still a lack of applications of the entire risk assessment proce-
dure over large areas in which the final result is directly employed
in designing risk mitigation policies at the regional and municipal
levels.
This paper presents a complete set of methods and applications for
the assessment of landslide risk in the basin of the Arno River (Central
Italy), as well as a series of original procedures for the assessment
and remediation of heterogeneities in landslide and susceptibility
maps.
Description of the area
Landslides and mass movements in general are very common in Italy,
especially along the main mountain chains such as the Alps or the
Apennines. The study area is no exception to this rule being strongly
subjected to mass movements that have accumulated a large number
of recorded cases (more than 27,500) and a huge total damage, both
in properties and life losses. The Arno River basin (Central Italy)
covers an area of about 9100 km2 and is located across the Northern
Apennine chain (Fig. 1). This orogen is a complex thrust-belt system
made up by the juxtaposition of several tectonic units, built up during
the Tertiary under a compressive regime that was followed by exten-
sional tectonics from the Upper Tortonian. The latter phase produced
a sequence of horst-graben structures with an alignment NW-SE that
resulted in the emplacement of Neogene sedimentary basins, mainly
of marine (to the West) and fluvio-lacustrine (to the East) origin
(Martini and Vai 2001). Today, the morphology is dictated by the
Landslides 2 . 2005 329
 Original Article
Fig. 1 Location, relief and main drainage
network of the Arno River basin. Major
mountain ridges are depicted with black
lines: (1) Mt. Pisano-Montagnola Senese; (2)
Mt. Albano-Chianti; (3) Calvana-Mt. Morello,
Pratomagno; (4) Mt.
Falterona-Mandrioli-Alpe di Catenaia
presence of NW-SE trending ridges where Mesozoic and Tertiary fly-
sch and calcareous units outcrop, separated by Pliocene-Quaternary
basins. The drainage of the Arno River is strongly conditioned by
this structure and results in a prevalence of NW-SE trending streams.
Four main ridges can be distinguished: 1) Mt. Pisano-Montagnola
Senese, made up of clastic and carbonate rocks of Mesozoic and Pa-
leozoic age; 2) Mt. Albano-Chianti, prevalently composed by flysch
units emplaced during the Tertiary and the Mesozoic; 3) Calvana-Mt.
Morello, Pratomagno, made up of calcareous and arenaceous flysch
of respectively the Ligurian and the Tuscan Series; 4) Mt. Falterona-
Mandrioli-Alpe di Catenaia, constituted by arenaceous and marly
flysch formations of the Ligurian Series (Fig. 1).
The inter-mountain basins formed from the Upper Tortonian (in
the South-West) to the Upper Pliocene and Pleistocene (in the North-
East). While the former experienced several episodes of marine re-
gression and transgression during the Miocene and Pliocene, the
latter were characterized by a fluvio-lacustrine depositional environ-
ment and gave rise to the present typical Tuscan smooth landscape
(Martini and Sagri 1993).
These geological settings clearly affect the typology and occur-
rence of surface processes, primarily through the differences in the
mechanical properties linked to the various prevalent lithologies. As
far as the susceptibility to landsliding is concerned, the classification
of lithology will be detailed in the section on hazard analysis. The
characteristics, number and causes of the mass movements will be
described in the inventory section.
The area is characterized by a temperate climate with a dry summer.
The general annual rainfall pattern is typified by a summer minimum
in July, and two maxima, one in November and the other at the end
of the winter. Mean values of yearly rainfall vary in relation to relief
330 Landslides 2 . 2005
and location, ranging from 800 mm on the Chiana valley to about
1800 mm on the Appenninic ridges.
Data and methods
Inventory: survey and statistics
As a minimum requirement, a landslide inventory should contain in
digital cartographic format essential information such as perimeter
definition, area, typology and state of activity (Varnes 1978; Cruden
and Varnes 1996) for each mapped mass movement. Important but
rarely available adds-on are: date of last and/or previous movements,
surface and subsurface hillslope hydrology, registered damages, trig-
gering causes and mechanisms, volume and three-dimensional struc-
ture, rate of movement and possible areas of expansion, mitigation
or restoration measures already in place.
It is widely known and agreed that slides affecting the Arno River
basin and generally the Northern Apennines, mainly move by reac-
tivation of dormant slides probably initiated during the early phases
of the Holocene as a consequence of ice retreat which occurred at the
end of the last glaciation (Bertolini et al. 2004). In the Arno River
basin, the frequency of first-time landslides is very low and the sus-
ceptibility of a given land area is largely a function of the presence or
absence of known instability.
The landslide inventory was organized on the basis of the classical
approach suggested by Soeters and van Westen (1996) as: (a) Acqui-
sition of literature and ancillary data such as existent inventories; (b)
mapping from aerial photographs at 1:13,000 and 1:33,000 scale (years
from 1993 to 2000); (c) field survey and validation, that represented a
key source especially for assessment of state of activity and validation
of hazard.
Fig. 2 Two examples of landslides in the
Arno River basin: (a) Consequences of the
reactivation of an old rotational slide near
Barberino (Mugello Valley) and, (b) The
Uzzano landslide of November 2000

As a whole 10 people worked for 20 months on the landslide map-

ping and setting up of the geographical database. For each landslide,
perimeter, area, typology and state of activity were recorded. Detach-
ment and deposition zones were mapped together.
The inventory work led to the completion of a database containing
27,500 records. The most represented surface processes were slides
(20575, 74.8%) and solifluctions (4774, 17.4%), followed by flows (1245,
4.5%). Examples of mapped landslides are shown in Fig. 2.
Landslide size ranged from less than 100 m2 to more than 4×106 m2 .
At the survey scale the minimum length or width of a mapped land-
slide is around 10 m corresponding to 1 mm on a 1:10,000 scale. This,
however, does not mean that all the landslides with width or length
greater than 10 m have been correctly mapped, since one of the most
common problems with several landslide inventories carried out at
basin scale worldwide is under-sampling (Whitehouse and Griffiths
1983; Ohmori and Hirano 1988; Sasaki et al. 1991; Noever 1993; Sugai
et al. 1994).
Figure 3 shows the landslide frequency/area diagram (Malamud
and Turcotte 1999; Stark and Hovius 2001), produced by plotting
the slope of the cumulative distribution of the number of landslides Fig. 3 Landslide area–frequency plot. The linear relationship holds for areas greater than
versus their area. This distribution shows a scaling behaviour that is 104 m2 . A roll-over is present for smaller mass movements than can be ascribed to under-
consistent with previously mentioned landslide inventories carried sampling due to survey scale (see text for details). dN/dA is the derivative of landslide frequency
out worldwide. with respect to total area, A is landslide area
In the present case the proposed scaling law holds for areas greater
than 104 m2 and shows a rollover for smaller landslides that can be up with other statistical analyses played a key role in the haz-
ascribed either to the under-sampling of small landslides due to the ard assessment analysis that will be shown in the following
survey scale or to some physical threshold concerning the minimum sections.
required mass for the development of rotational earth-slides, which
are the dominant type of mass movement in the study area. In other Susceptibility and hazard assessment
words it can be concluded that there is a good degree of confidence in Following the formal definition given by Varnes and IAEG (1984),
the accuracy of the inventory for landslides with an area greater than hazard can be defined as the expected probability of a mass movement
104 m2 , whilst there is a problem of under-sampling in the lower part of a given intensity which takes place in a certain area within a given
of the cumulative distribution. time span. This, essentially, means that landslide hazard assessment
Figure 4 shows the landslide distribution among lithology classes. procedures must take into account both space and time prediction.
Such basic statistics emphasises the control of lithology on slid- Predictions based solely on spatial probability of occurrence are,
ing activity, from the classes of the hard rocks with pelitic layers however, very common, due to the fact that they are relatively easier
to the complex mainly pelitic units. This consideration summed to carry out. In such cases the term “landslide susceptibility” should

Landslides 2 . 2005 331

 Original Article
hypotheses that directly influence the choice of parameters and the
way in which the prediction has to be carried out. To begin with,
while first time failures seldom occur within landslide free areas (see
inventory section), the latter might conceal past landslides that were
not recognized in the survey. An important priority of the suscepti-
bility mapping technique to be adopted should thus be the capacity
to unravel such “hidden” landslides where possible. Secondly, and as
a direct consequence of the first point, the most important parame-
ters for landslide susceptibility are those related to the average post-
failure conditions (Bromhead 2004). For example, slope angles in
hidden dormant landslide bodies would probably be similar to those
measured within mapped events and should be classified accordingly.
For these reasons, the method adopted for the susceptibility anal-
ysis in the Arno River basin was the setting up of suitable statistical
Fig. 4 Landslide distribution among lithology classes (cs – cohesive soils; gs – granular soils; estimators defined with the help of a set of artificial neural net-
hr – hard rock; cr – conglomerates and carbonate rocks weakly cemented; wr – weak rocks; works (ANN). Neural networks were chosen because they require
mc – marls and compact clays; rp –hard rocks with pelitic layers; cp – complex mainly pelitic
loose hypotheses on the variable distribution and allow for the use of
layers; according to Canuti et al. 1994)
mixed-type parameters (e.g. categorical and cardinal units) (Ermini
et al. 2005; Gomez and Kavzoglu 2005). The computation was carried
be considered more appropriate (Dai et al. 2002). Spatial prediction out through a discrete pixel basis analysis followed by the definition
can be based on a number of techniques and data. According to of unique condition units (Bonham-Carter 1994; Chung et al. 1995)
Aleotti and Chowdhury (1999), they can be classified in heuristic, for the application of statistical treatment within a GIS environment.
statistical and deterministic methods. The simplest method is the Finally, due to the ample variability of physiographic settings within
direct reconnaissance of movements and processes and the classi- the study area, the latter was split into five homogeneous domains
fication of hillslopes based on the expert knowledge of the linkages (macro areas from now on) basically in accordance to the lithology
between causes and effects (Humbert 1976; Brabb 1984; Hansen 1984; and climate (Fig. 5). For each macro area a different ANN model
Varnes and IAEG 1984; Casagli et al. 2004). Deterministic methods, parameterization was applied.
in which the relative probability of spatial occurrence of a mass
movement is usually derived from the computation of the factor of Choice and classification of preparatory factors
safety, are probably the most objective means of hazard assessment Many different landslide susceptibility parameters have been used in
(e.g. Wu and Sidle 1995; Iida 1999). Unfortunately, due to the large the definition of spatial hazard mapping. Some (e.g. slope gradient
spatial variability of the mechanical, hydrological and geometrical and lithology) are widely adopted and accepted while the application
parameters involved in the equations (e.g. Burton et al. 1998), their of others (e.g. structural settings, higher derivatives of elevation,
application is very difficult at the basin scale. The uncertainties in the soil depth) is still debated (Carrara and Guzzetti 1995; Baeza and
definition of strength parameters can be at least partially overcome Corominas 1996).
by the application of probabilistic methods (for a more in-depth On the basis of the prevailing characteristics of the landslides in the
description of such techniques refer to Baecher and Christian 2003). Arno River basin and the results of a preliminary monovariate sta-
For the preceding reasons, the most used methods for the assess- tistical analysis of the parameters within mapped mass movements,
ment of relative hazard nowadays are those based on the weighting five preparatory factors were selected: slope angle, lithology, profile
of landslide preparatory factors using statistical methods. The use curvature, land cover and upslope contributing area. All the mor-
of multivariate techniques, in which the natural and anthropogenic phometrical parameters have been derived from a DTM of the Arno
factors of hillslope instability are evaluated and weighted against basin, produced by the cartographic service of the Tuscany Region
each other in order to obtain the best estimation function, have long Administration and released in 2002. The resolution is 10 × 10 m.
gained the approval of scientists and risk managers all over the world. Horizontal accuracy is of about ±0.5 m. Vertical accuracy ranges from
Applications can be based on regressive methods (Bernknopf et al. ±1 m to a maximum of ±5 m depending on relief. A brief descrip-
1988; Jade and Sarkar 1993; Wieczorek et al. 1996), discriminant anal- tion of significance and computation techniques for each parameter
ysis (Carrara 1983; Carrara et al. 1991; Chung et al. 1995; Baeza and follows.
Corominas 1996) or neural networks (Bianchi and Catani 2002; Lee
et al. 2003; Lu and Rosenbaum 2003; Ermini et al. 2005; Gomez and I. Slope angle—One of the most important driving parameters in
Kavzoglu 2005). Guzzetti et al. (1999) and van Westen (2004) give a landslide analysis is that it represents the gravitational force com-
general review of current methodologies used in statistical analysis. ponent, regulating resultant mobilization vectors within a hills-
In the case of the Arno River basin the size and the variety of lope. Values were computed by the finite difference steepest de-
the environments involved requires the application of a statistical scent method (Wilson and Gallant 2000). Slope class boundaries
method flexible enough to allow for a spatially-varying calibration. (Table 1) were determined by taking into account maximum, av-
Moreover, the spatial heterogeneity of the inventory puts additional erage and minimum friction angles for both peak and residual
constraints (i.e. the necessity to account for the existence of both areas strength conditions, as derived by a number of studies at the site-
with underestimated landslide density and areas where the presence scale available in the literature (Focardi et al. 1994; Bertolini et al.
of slope instability is overestimated). 2001).
The large prevalence of slow mass movements (mainly reactivated II. Lithology—Again a fundamental instability factor, lithology and
earth slides, flows and solifluctions) entails important preliminary in particular lithotechnical classification was considered in the

332 Landslides 2 . 2005

 Fig. 5 The five macro areas used for the
suceptibility analysis. Training zones used for
ANN learning are shown in darker tones for
each macro area

analysis via the reclassification of the 32-class lithotechnical map to Tucker et al. (2001). Classes of convex, concave and planar slope
of the Arno basin previously published by Canuti et al. (1994). As forms were distinguished.
shown in Table 1 the reclassification produced eight terrain groups IV. Land cover—The vegetation cover and the use of land parcels
with different average mechanical behaviour with respect to the greatly influence slope behaviour at every scale (Hansen 1984;
investigated failures. Varnes and IAEG 1984). For the whole territory of the Arno River
III. Profile curvature—Profile curvature can be considered as the sec- basin a 1:50,000 scale land cover map is available with updated
ond derivative of the elevation along the direction of the maximum information from the year 2002. The land cover data base was clas-
slope gradient. Its value on a cell by cell basis was computed as the sified according to the CORINE (Coordination of Information on
second derivative of a fourth-order polynomial surface fitted over a the Environment) Land cover Project legend (Cumer 1994; Hey-
3×3 window. The physical significance of profile curvature in slope man et al. 1994). Nine class units were obtained for the overlay of
stability analysis is linked to the distribution of the forces within a preparatory factors, as shown in Table 1.
hillslope and, in the case of reactivations, to the reconnaissance of V. Upslope contributing area—The connection between soil water
the presence of convex landslide bodies at the footslopes. A simple content and mass movements is apparent and widely recognized
three-class reclassification scheme was adopted (Table 1) after the (Cruden and Fell 1997). The role of water can be easily modelled
application of a moving window median filter computed according via the use of a series of indices and quantities mainly dictated by
topography (Kirkby 1971; Dunne 1980; Moore et al. 1988; Moore
and Grayson 1991; Wilson and Gallant 2000) such as the size of
Table 1 Summary of susceptibility parameters used and classes adopted for the statistical
the area drained by a specific point in the hillslope (or specific
analysis. See text for details on parameters selection and class boundary definition
catchment area As ) that represents a proxy variable for water flux
Variable Utilized classes and, after a few simple computations, also an index of potential
Lithology Cohesive soils; granular soils; indurated rocks; soil saturation (O’Loughlin 1986; Montgomery and Dietrich 1994).
weakly cemented conglomerates and carbonate Several different methods have been proposed in the literature for
rocks; weak rocks; marls and compact clays; rocks the assessment of As . A complete review and comparison can be
with pelitic layers; complex mainly pelitic units found in Tarboton (1997). A map of flow directions assigned by
Land cover Artificially modified land; crops and permanent the application of a unique direction algorithm, in concave, and a
cultivation; grassland; heterogeneous cultivated flow partitioning code, in convex areas, as suggested by Freeman
land; forest; rangeland; scrubland; wetland (1991) and Martello et al. (2000) was used in the present research.
Slope angle 0–5◦ ; 5–10◦ ; 10–20◦ ; 20–33◦ ; 33–90◦ Once again, a reclassification procedure was applied using infor-
Curvature Concave; planar; convex mation derived from the comparison between frequency statistics
Upslope contributing area 0–1000 m2 ; 1000–1500 m2 ; >1500 m2 of landslide versus landslide free areas (Table 1).

Landslides 2 . 2005 333

 Original Article
Table 2 Basic information on macro areas. The third column shows the total number of UCUs whilst the fourth the number of UCUs after filtering. The reduction of the number of UCUs was
needed in order to exclude areas smaller than adopted map resolution and to reduce computation efforts required by the ANN generator
Macro area Area (km2 ) # of UCU # of UCU after filtering # of landslides % of landsliding area
01 2031 1,177,628 356,058 7660 8.51
02 2506 1,315,349 393,659 4904 6.28
03 1855 718,656 243,854 6800 4.57
04 1757 1,221,865 340,330 4555 20.3
05 981 664,150 197,871 2088 6.39

Application of statistical prediction Absolute hazard

The pre-processing of preparatory factors, as outlined above, pro- Temporal prediction was obtained through the combination of sus-
duced a set of thematic maps. The next step of the analysis was the ceptibility values with information on the state of activity for mapped
delineation of unique condition units. UCUs represent the basic anal- landslides. The latter was based on information derived from field sur-
ysis unit for the statistical treatment. Raster maps of the five factors veys, available data on past reactivations and new data obtained by
were added and then aggregated into polygons thus obtaining UCUs remote sensing techniques, in particular through the application of
with areas ranging from 10−4 to 10 km2 for the five homogeneous the InSAR permanent scatterers technology (Farina et al., in review).
areas. Information on the state of activity has been used to assign average
A preliminary statistical analysis of the UCU’s characteristics and recurrence intervals to the susceptibility classes and to active land-
distribution was carried out within each area in order to define the slides. In such a way five classes of recurrence time were selected and
spatial autocorrelation structure of the parameter combination. On associated to five classes of temporal hazard (10,000 years for H0;
this basis an averaging scheme was devised and applied in which small 1000 years for H1; 100 years for H2; 10 years for H3 and 1 year for H4),
UCUs (area less than 0.01 km2 ) were aggregated to larger ones by a the latter directly assigned only to active mapped mass movements.
majority filtering technique. The total number of UCUs before and Recurrence time was then translated into probability by the com-
after averaging is reported in Table 2 for each macro area. putation of the absolute hazard H(N) in a given time span N using
Neural network techniques require a preliminary training phase in the binomial distribution so that H(N) = 1 − (1 − 1/T ) N (see e.g.
which the system is supplied with a subset of both input and output Canuti and Casagli 1996 ). Computations were carried out for N=2, 5,
data in order to “learn” the statistical behaviour of the entire data 10, 20 and 30 years, respectively. Absolute hazard is thus characterized
set and to calibrate multivariate equations accordingly (Lee et al. by five classes (from H0 to H4) with probabilities ranging from 0
2003; Lu and Rosenbaum 2003; Ermini et al. 2005). In the case of the (class H0) to 1 (class H4) for each time span (Table 3).
Arno River basin a separate training phase was performed for each
homogeneous physiographic area using suitably defined subsets. As Intensity and run-out assessment
an output value, or predicted variable, the percentage of the UCU Intensity is intended as a measure of the severity of the phenomenon
area subject to landsliding was chosen, according to the inventory in terms of potential destructive power. Intensity is essentially con-
(Carrara and Guzzetti 1995). Training data were selected carefully sidered as depending upon kinetic energy, hence, mass and velocity
from the entire database of mass movements so as to represent a
meaningful sample of the total population. Moreover, training areas
were checked in the field for accuracy and completeness. Figure 5
shows the location of the training zones for each macro area.
In the multivariate analysis each basic area unit, or UCU, consti-
tutes a sample of the parameter set and must be provided to the com-
putation system as a single input vector. In practice, using an ANN
generator (Trajan 6.0 Professional Neural Network Simulator, Trajan
Software Ltd) an ensemble of input training vectors was processed for
each macro area producing a set of artificial neural networks, which
classified each UCU into a predicted susceptibility value from 0 to
100.
At the end of the procedure, a reclassification scheme was adopted
to translate ANN output values into four meaningful susceptibility
levels (from S0 to S3). The definition of class boundaries was based
on a modified version of the approach proposed by Ermini et al.
(2005), in which the cumulative density function (cdfL) of the ANN
output values within mapped landslides was compared to the total
cdf (cdfT) (Fig. 6). In this plot a sudden increase in the landslide–cdf
curve which is not accompanied by a similar rise in the total–cdf curve Fig. 6 Susceptibility class threshold definition: the cumulative distribution of the total ANN
represents a threshold output value that might be set as a limit between outputs cdfT (in black) is compared to the cumulative distribution of the ANN outputs within
susceptibility classes. The identification of such thresholds can be mapped landslide areas cdfL (in blue) through the difference between first derivatives (in red).
made easier with the help of the difference between the derivatives of The optimal class thresholds can be identified at the verge of sudden decreases of the difference
the two cdf functions (see Fig. 6 for details). curve as indicated in the figure (plot data refer to macro area 2)

334 Landslides 2 . 2005

Table 3 Hazard values reported as binomially-distributed probabilities of occurrence cu-
mulated over five different time intervals. Class H4 refers to active landslide only (see text for
details)
Return time H (2 years) H (5 years) H (10 years) H (20 years) H (30 years)
(years)
H4 1 1 1 1 1 1
H3 10 0.190 0.4095 0.6513 0.8784 0.9576
H2 100 0.020 0.0490 0.0956 0.1821 0.2603
H1 1000 0.002 0.0049 0.0099 0.0198 0.0296
H0 10000 0.000 0.0005 0.0010 0.0019 0.0029
(Hungr 1995). A more specific review on the subject is given by Turner
and Schuster (1996) and Hungr (1995).
Despite the many suggested methods, the practical assessment of
intensity at basin scale is often made difficult by the absence of detailed
information on volume and expected velocity for a large number of
landslides. Furthermore, when dealing with different types of land-
slides, the assessment of intensity is made even more complex by its
overlay with the problem of estimating the run-out or travel distance
(e.g. Scheidegger 1973; Sassa 1988; Corominas 1996). It is clear, in fact,
that the two variables are strictly connected. Examples of site-scale
intensity or run-out distance estimations can be found in Takahashi
et al. (1981), Finlay et al. (1999) and Sassa et al. (2004). Recently, Dai
and Lee (2001) proposed a frequency–volume relationship approach
to define intensity classes for rainfall-induced landslides.
In the case of the Arno River basin the definition of intensity
and run-out is influenced by the fact that, as seen in the inventory
section, the large majority of mass movements are deep-seated reac-
tivated slides sometimes evolving into flows. Restricting the analysis
to this type of movement introduces a notable simplification, since a
limited range of velocities can be adopted for the intensity computa-
tion and the expected mobilized volume can be reasonably deemed as
equal to the present estimated landslide volume (DRM 1990; Cruden
and Varnes 1996). Two main cases were considered: deep-seated rota-
tional slides and shallow flows or planar slides with virtually constant
depth. In the latter case, intensity was set proportional to the area
of the mapped landslide. In the former case, a simple geometric
model was used. Assuming a half-ellipsoidal shape, the volume of
a rotational slide can be estimated based on post-failure geometry,
according to WP/WLI (1990) as 1/6π Dd Wd Ld , where Dd , Wd and
Ld are, respectively, the depth, width and length of displaced mass.
Whilst length and width can be directly measured from the landslide
polygons, depth can be estimated from the ratio between depth and
length which ranges from 0.15 to 0.33 for rotational slides, as proposed
by Skempton and Hutchinson (1969). Taking a conservative value of
0.33 for the Dr /Lr ratio, landslide depth and volume can be calculated
for each mapped landslide.
Computed volumes in the Arno River basin range from 102 to
10 m3 . Most common values are around 104 m3 even though 28% of
8
the landslides have a volume greater than 5×105 m3 . On this basis four
classes of intensity were defined partially according to Fell (1994): I0
(V<103 m3 ), I1 (103 m3 ≤V<5×104 m3 ), I2 (5×104 m3 ≤V<106 m3 )
and I3 (V≥106 m3 ) using a log-frequency distribution reclassification
scheme. The assessment of expected intensity in landslide free areas
was carried out on the basis of a statistical analysis of factors influ-
encing volume and velocity (mainly, lithology, slope gradient and
curvature). Maximum expected intensities were registered for areas
with slope gradients between 25◦ and 45◦ , complex pelitic units and
convex profile curvature. Intensity classes were used in the following
phases for the choice of vulnerability values. Run-out was not esti-
mated because we accepted the simplifying hypothesis that for the
majority of the mapped phenomena (slow moving landslides) the de-
position area was mapped together with the detachment zone, thus
implying that susceptibility values reflect at least partially the effects
of run-out.
Vulnerability and exposure definition
The vulnerability is usually considered as a function of a given in-
tensity and it is defined as the expected degree of loss for an element
at risk as a consequence of a certain event (Varnes and IAEG 1984;
Fell 1994). The vulnerability value ranges generally between 0 (no
damage) to 1 (complete destruction). Its assessment involves in many
cases the evaluation of several different parameters and factors such
as building materials and techniques, state of conservation, presence
of protection structures, presence of warning systems and so on (Fell
1994; Fell and Hartford 1997). Vulnerability assessment can be split
into two main procedures, requiring fairly different methods and
assumptions: estimation of the vulnerability of life and property. Ex-
posure, defined as the number of lives or the value of properties
exposed at risk, is often strictly connected to vulnerability in its prac-
tical assessment (Schuster and Fleming 1986; Turner and Schuster
1996).
Despite its importance, the definition of the degree of loss of hu-
man life has rarely been considered and implemented in landslide risk
management, perhaps due to the intrinsic difficulty of its objective
definition. Only recently some authors have proposed solutions for
the problem, largely relying upon considerations on the host struc-
tures and infrastructures (Leone et al. 1996), population census data
such as density, education level or average age (Rautela and Lakhera
2000; Liu and Lei 2003) or consequence analysis (Bell and Glade
2004). These approaches require calibration and validation from his-
toric records.
The definition of the vulnerability of properties (buildings, struc-
tures, infrastructures, cultivated or productive land) and natural as-
sets has been slightly more successful and there are several cases in
which the assessment of the degree of loss has been carried out for
small to large areas (Fell 1994; Fell and Hartford 1997). In particular,
Finlay (1996) proposes a methodology, mainly based on historical
records, to assign a recommended value to the vulnerability of build-
ings in Hong Kong. Leone et al. (1996) starting from similar data
chose a different approach, setting up a vulnerability matrix that has
the advantage of being easily modified for its application in different
areas and conditions. In any case, the first phase of a vulnerability
assessment is the reconnaissance and mapping of the elements at
risk. This information must be accurate, updated and accompanied
by the minimum ancillary data necessary to classify the value and
vulnerability of the object. When these requirements are met, a sim-
ple yet effective classification can be attained that might in several
cases be sufficient to produce a risk map useful for prevention and
emergency planning. Examples are the classification used in France
for the Plans d’Exposition au Risque (Humbert 1976; DRM 1990) or
the approach proposed by Kong (2002) in which the elements at risk
are subdivided into general buildings, transportation infrastructures,
population patterns and essential facilities.
The Arno River basin is, for the most part (about 95%), located
within Tuscany, whose central administration cartographic service
completed in 2002 a digital topographic database at the scale 1:10,000.
As a result, a notably large set of numerical data is available for
Landslides 2 . 2005 335
 Original Article
Table 4 Classification, vulnerability and exposure of the principal elements at risk. Vulnerability values are given in percent of loss for each different class of intensity (from I0 to I3). Exposure is
given in euro/m2
Code Description Exposure (euro/m2 ) Vulnerability (% loss) as a function of intensity I
V (I=I0) V (I=I1) V (I=I2) V (I=I3)
201 PUBLIC/SOCIAL/ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING 3000 5 10 30 60
202 INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL BUILDING-FACTORY 1000 5 10 20 50
203 RELIGIOUS BUILDING/BELLTOWER/TABERNACLE 4000 5 15 30 60
204 BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION 100 5 15 30 40
205 ABANDONED/RUINED BUILDING 10 5 20 50 60
206 PROJECTING BODY/PORTICO/LOGGIA 100 5 10 20 40
207 SHED/KIOSK 100 5 15 50 60
208 AWNING//DORMER WINDOW 10 5 10 20 40
209 PRESSURIZED DOME 10 5 20 50 60
210 PERMANENT GREENHOUSE 10 5 20 40 60
211 TOLLGATE/RAILWAY STATION/STOPS 2000 5 10 30 50
212 POWER STATION/POWER SUBSTATION/POWER SHED 2000 5 10 20 50
213 MONUMENT 100 5 15 40 50
215 NURSERY GREENHOUSE 10 5 20 40 60
216 STABLE/BARN/BREEDING FARM 10 5 15 40 60
217 TOWER/CHIMNEY 100 5 15 40 50
218 SILO 10 5 15 40 50
219 CROSS/TABERNACLE 10 5 10 40 40
223 HOSPITAL COMPLEX 4000 5 10 50 70
224 SCHOOL COMPLEX 4000 5 20 50 70
225 SPORT FACILITIES 100 5 10 25 50
226 RELIGIOUS BUILDING COMPLEX 4000 5 15 50 70
227 CIVIL COMPLEX 4000 5 15 30 50
228 CEMETARIAL COMPLEX 100 5 10 30 50
229 CAMPGROUND/RESORT 100 5 20 50 80
301 TOLLROAD/HIGHWAY 200 5 30 50 80
302 STATE HIGHWAY/PROVINCIAL HIGHWAY 100 5 40 60 100
303 PROVINCIAL ROAD 50 5 50 80 100
304 LOCAL ROAD 50 5 60 80 100

the extraction of elements at risk. The approach that was followed exposure were then summarized by the definition of potential worth
in the present research was based on the selection of the relevant of losses (D), given by the product of vulnerability and exposure at a
information present in such digital maps as well as in the updated given intensity (D(I)=V(I)×E).
land cover map at the 1:50,000 scale and in the construction of sets of
thematic data according to Table 4.
For the determination of exposure and vulnerability a simple clas- Risk assessment
sification approach was adopted in which every single object was Risk was computed on the basis of the combination of the preceding
given a value on the basis of the information on typology and main parameters following a numerical approach as suggested by Varnes
utilization. A first subdivision was made between buildings, trans- and IAEG (1984), where R(T,I)=D(I)×H(T,I). The approach is pos-
port infrastructures and other land uses. Then, each main group sible either on a UCU or a pixel basis. In particular, the second
was further divided into subclasses. As shown in Table 4 the build- method was adopted so that for each pixel, the risk value was as-
ings typology was subdivided into civil/administrative/social and sessed by the product of pixel hazard by potential worth of losses
commercial/industrial, whilst at the same time the main building D. Given the absolute dominance of slow movements only the risk
utilization was recorded such as health care, education, residen- for properties and economic activities has been considered in this
tial and entertainment. A similar approach was used for transport study.
infrastructures. Basically, the conceptual framework adopted was based on the
Other land uses were derived from the extended three-class legend following assumptions:
of the CORINE land cover map. The exposure E of every single object
was estimated on the basis of their presumed asset and income values, I. assessment procedure set up to define quantitative risk for proper-
according to the figures adopted by the Italian Ministry of Finances ties and activities, expressed as euro/pixel over a given time span
and by the local authorities (value estimation) or on the basis of the (2, 5, 10, 20 and 30 years);
relative degree of vulnerability as proposed by DRM (1990). When II. each pixel has a single risk value;
more than one type of element at risk was present within the same III. highest-class priority for vulnerability and cumulative value for
unit area (or pixel), then the maximum value of vulnerability or exposure (i.e. the pixel assumes a value equal to the sum of the
value was selected (see also the following section). Vulnerability and objects it contains and the maximum vulnerability);

336 Landslides 2 . 2005

 Such assumptions represent a required simplification so that the Table 5 Summary statistics of the ANNs validation for the five macro areas. “% S3” and
procedure may be applied to several millions of pixels over the entire “% S2” are the percentages of total area classified in medium and high susceptibility classes.
area. On the other hand, they do not significantly lessen the accuracy “% L S3”, “% L S2” and “% L (S3+S2)” are the same percentages calculated over mapped
of the assessment for planning and risk management purposes at the landslides only. They reflect the percentage of correctly classified mass movements
basin scale. Macro area % S3 % S2 % L S3 % L S2 % L (S3+S2)
01 6.54 34.18 50.56 43.51 94.07
Results and validation 02 15.55 21.83 81.26 15.31 96.57
The main results of the research are briefly summarized. For rea- 03 13.28 6.89 76.89 11.03 87.92
son of space, only susceptibility and risk will be discussed in de- 04 15.38 21.00 68.91 22.51 91.42
tail since they represent the most interesting results of the present 05 9.53 14.41 57.76 23.75 81.51
research.
as a whole show that about 85% of mapped landslides are correctly
Susceptibility and hazard recognized by the prediction.
For each macro area, a statistically defined spatial hazard map
was produced, in which output values for each pixel range be- Macro area 1
tween 0 (lowest likelihood to host or produce a mass movement) Landslide susceptibility seems to depend on a number of different
to 100 (highest likelihood) and were reclassified in four classes factors and, in particular, to be driven by relief (26% of variance),
as S0, S1, S2 and S3 (see Fig. 6 for details on the reclassification land cover (25%) and upslope area (30%).
scheme). As shown in Table 2 7660 landslides were mapped in the area,
As expected, there is a strong correlation between relief and spatial covering 8.51% of the whole macro area (about 173 km2 ). Active
hazard, connected to the essential role played by slope steepness in mass movements account for 37% of the total. The adopted ANN (a
hillslope stability. This can be seen also in Fig. 7, showing the final Generalized Regression network) classifies 6.54% and 34.18% of the
hazard map for the study area. territory, respectively, in S3 and S2 susceptibility classes (Table 5). As
A more quantitative idea of the quality and reliability of the general a measure of model performance a validation procedure carried out
results can be obtained through the comparison between predicted on the whole dataset states that 94.07% of the mapped landslides are
and observed behaviour of landsliding. This has been accomplished correctly recognized by the susceptibility analysis, being partially or
via a validation procedure that compared susceptibility statistics with totally occupied by pixels in S3 or S2 class (50.56% in S3 and 43.51%
mapped landslides versus no landslide areas (ANN training areas were in S2).
excluded from the validation). Average values obtained for the basin

Fig. 7 Hazard map. Probability of

occurrence is computed over a 30-year period
using recurrence intervals and the binomial
distribution (see text and Table 3 for details)

Landslides 2 . 2005 337

 Original Article
Macro area 2
Here, landsliding processes appear to be mainly influenced by slope
angle and land cover, and secondarily by lithology. In particular,
grasslands and rangelands are specifically connected with the presence
of mass movements (22.2% of variance) when combined with slope
gradient between 10◦ and 18◦ (14.6% of variance), and cohesive soils
(6.6% of variance).
This area is characterized (Table 2) by the presence of about 4900
mapped mass movements, 30% of which are recognized as active.
They cover about 6.28% of the area, totalling 157 km2 . The chosen
optimal ANN (again, a Generalized Regression network) classifies
15.55% of the area in S3 and 21.83% in S2 susceptibility classes.
Validation figures (Table 5) show that 96.57% of landsliding in this
area is correctly classified by the prediction.
Macro area 3
As a whole, mass movements seem to be more dependent on relief and
land cover than lithology. Sensitivity analyses of ANN estimators show
that slope gradient (39.6% of total variance) and land cover (47.3%)
alone explain for the most part susceptibility variance. Lithology is of
minor importance (8.4%) along with curvature (2.8%) and upslope
area (1.9%).
In the area a total of 6800 mass movements have been registered
in the inventory database (Table 2), covering about 85 km2 (4.57%).
Active landslides account for 31% of the total. The selected ANN
predictor function (Generalized Regression network) assigns 13.28%
and 6.89% of the macro area to, respectively, S3 and S2 susceptibility
classes. The validation shows that 87.92% of the mapped landslides
are recognized correctly (76.89% to the class S3 and 11.03% to the
class S2). The remaining part is mainly assigned to class S1 (10.6%)
probably owing to the poor resolution of the geological and land
cover maps in some areas (Table 5).
Macro area 4
In this area slope gradient and upslope contributing area highly in-
fluence prediction results (26.8% and 24.1% of total variance, respec-
tively); lithology has a similar importance (23.7% of total variance)
whilst curvature (14.4%) and land cover (10.9%) are still meaningful.
All five parameters contribute to the prediction, probably owing to
the high morphological complexity and relief of the area.
A total of 4555 mass movements are reported for this area in the
inventory (Table 2), covering 20.3% of the territory and testifying its
anomalous character with respect to the others. This anomaly can be
partially explained by the results of the prediction, which allocates
15.38% of the area to the highest class (S3) and 21.00% to the S2,
thus totalling more than 35% of the territory as being susceptible to
landsliding. About 30% of inventoried landslides are active. Validation
results (Table 5) indicate a number of negative errors (landslides not
recognized by the ANN estimators) similar to those reported in macro
areas 1, 2 and 3, as confirmed by the percentage of correctly classified
mass movements (91.42%, divided between classes S3, 68.91% and S2,
22.51%). The high susceptibility of the zone and some over-assessment
in landslide detection and mapping account for the large proportion
of the area covered by hillslope instability.
Macro area 5
Hillslope instability is connected mainly with relief and lithology but
the reconnaissance of present landslide bodies is strictly linked to land
cover, and in particular to the presence of grassland and rangeland.
338 Landslides 2 . 2005
Table 6 Risk values computed as expected economic losses cumulated for the five time
intervals. Data refers to the Arno River basin as a whole in the absence of mitigation measures
(if countermeasures for the reduction of hazard or vulnerability were put into effect finally)
Cumulated Time (years) Expected economic losses (euro)
2 1,609,046,000
5 2,675,577,000
10 3,912,276,000
20 5,266,930,000
30 5,963,060,000
In total more than 2100 mass movements have been reported here,
47% of which are active (Table 2). They cover 6.39% of the total area.
The selected ANN predictor function assigns 9.53% of the territory
to S3 class and 14.41% to S2. Validation results (Table 5) show that sta-
tistical predictions performances in this macro area are slightly lower
than in the remaining four, with 81.51% of landslides recognized in
S3 (57.76%) and S2 (23.75%) classes. These figures can be probably
explained by the lower quality of data in the inventories that were
available for this region, many of which were quite clearly affected
by incompleteness or underestimation of surface instability. For the
same reason positive errors (UCUs classified as susceptible yet lacking
mapped instabilities) are common and might possibly indicate the
presence of hidden or unmapped mass movements. Here in particu-
lar, the ANN predictors have been trained towards the recognition of
such cases.
Risk
Table 6 reports the total risk computed over the Arno River basin
for five different periods of time in the absence of mitigation mea-
sures. It is worth noticing that the increase of expected losses with
time is not linear, due to the non-linear increase of hazard with
time. The figures obtained in this study may not be validated be-
cause there are no available data on landslide losses accounting
in the area. They are, however, in agreement with the economic
losses estimated at national level by the National Civil Protection
Agencies.
As expected, the overall risk distribution for the area strictly fol-
lows the allocation of urban and inhabited space (Fig. 8). There
are, however, notable exceptions, represented by the largest cities
such as Firenze, Arezzo, Prato, Pistoia and Pisa built on the large
Arno alluvial plain. Here, a low risk classification is most common,
for obvious reasons. It is important to note, however, that more
than 30% of the Arno River basin is subjected to a risk greater than
0.2 euro/m2 in 30 years, according to the analysis. In particular, hilly
areas in the north-eastern and southern part of the catchment seem
particularly affected by landslide risk, due to the contemporaneous
presence of sparsely but, densely inhabited areas and of unstable
terrains.
On the other hand, about 42% of the land, namely alluvial plains,
are virtually risk free and 15% is subject to expected losses lower than
0.02 euro/m2 in 30 years.
Highest values of risk, with expected economic losses greater than
2 euro/m2 in 30 years occupy only 4% of the basin as a whole, but
in some places they reach very high figures (e.g. a total of more
than 5 km2 has an expected risk of 1000 euro/m2 or more). Such
areas will deserve a special attention and site scale studies in the near
future.
Fig. 8 Reclassified risk map. Expected
losses are in euro per pixel over a 30-year
period. The map has been reclassified in four
risk classes for graphical purposes only.
Numerically, for each pixel (100 m2 ) a single
value of R(T) is computed
Discussion
Landslide susceptibility and hazard
The definition of landslide hazard at basin scale is forcefully biased
towards spatial prediction, for well known reasons. However, the use
of a high quality inventory with updated information on state of ac-
tivity can be of great help in areas characterized by the predominance
of reactivations over first movements. The dates of reactivations, ob-
tained by the integrated use of traditional and new techniques, gave
rise to the definition of the expected return period for each of the
mapped landslides and allowed the assessment of the temporal hazard
in “landslide-free” areas.
As for the evaluation of spatial hazard, more specific results can
be obtained, as seen in the previous sections. Some comments and
caveats are, however, needed in order to understand the significance
of the prediction and its possible application in different areas.
First of all, spatial susceptibility can be assessed with the proposed
method in a number of ways, depending on the needs of the end-
user and on data availability. Different levels of susceptibility class
thresholds can be selected depending on the required degree of safety.
As far as planning and management at large scale and over long time
spans are concerned, lower thresholds should be used, thus reducing
low-susceptibility areas to the advantage of security. When, instead,
shorter time spans and smaller areas are considered, higher thresholds
may be used to highlight worst cases in which short response efforts
have to be concentrated. It is clear, however, that each single case
of high susceptibility should be investigated at the site scale using
suitable field and laboratory tests and monitoring systems. Secondly,
but still of utmost importance, is that the choice of thresholds for
susceptibility classes is highly dependent on the interpretation of
results in selected validation areas.
In the case of the Arno River basin overall results indicate that a
large percentage of mapped landslides are correctly classified by the
ANN predictors. Validation figures (Table 5) are comparable with
(macro areas 3 and 5) or even better (macro areas 1, 2 and 4) than
those obtained in different regions by other authors using similar
techniques (for a comparison see e.g. Carrara and Guzzetti 1995). This
has, however, a drawback in terms of positive errors that occur when
high spatial hazard levels are predicted in areas that are landslide-
free according to the inventory. Positive errors can be quantified by
the percentage of land not affected by mapped mass movements
and classified in S3 by the prediction. Such percentage is around 5–
10% on average and can be diminished by raising susceptibility class
thresholds accordingly. It is clear, however, that this choice affects
the prediction as a whole increasing negative errors, i.e. landslide
areas with low susceptibility. Thus, a compromise solution must be
found that satisfies the final objectives of the spatial hazard map. To
this end it is important to identify possible causes for both negative
and positive errors. As for the former, relatively infrequent in the
study area, there are two possible explanations: (i) mass movements
not detected by the prediction method, mainly due to an insufficient
parameter definition (basically lithotechnical and land cover maps
that have a resolution lower than morphometrical parameters) and
(ii) erroneous interpretation of geomorphological evidences during
aerial photo interpretation or field survey, leading to the mapping of
nonexistent mass movements. Negative errors, or failed alerts, include
several such cases. Furthermore, they have limited extent and interest
with respect to the total area (0.51% of macro area 1, 0.22% of macro
Landslides 2 . 2005 339
 Original Article
Fig. 9 Example of positive errors in the
prediction map that could be explained as
possible unmapped mass movements. Areas
outlined in cyan are classified as S3 and have
shapes that are similar to mapped landslides
or flows. Post-analysis field surveys have
confirmed such hypothesis in the majority of
the inspected cases
area 2, 0.55% of macro area 3, 1.65% of macro area 4 and 1.1% of
macro area 5).
Positive errors are, conversely, very common over the whole basin.
They can be explained either by overestimation of susceptibility pa-
rameters by the statistical estimators or by the presence of hidden mass
movements, undiscovered during the reconnaissance phase. The lat-
ter case is very common in the study area due to the prevalence of
reactivations with recurrence time of tens of years, which leads to
the obliteration of surface evidences, also observed elsewhere in the
Northern Apennines (Focardi et al. 1994; Bertolini et al. 2001; Bianchi
and Catani 2002; Bertolini et al. 2004; Ermini et al. 2005).
The susceptibility assessment was therefore particularly effective in
discovering a large number of such cases, as highlighted by directed
field surveys carried out in the validation phase. Figure 9 shows an
example of positive error in which the susceptible area, though not
reported in the inventory, exhibits a clear similarity to the shape of
other mapped rotational slides or flows.
Possible future improvements in the application of the method to
the Arno River basin will be represented by the adoption of the now
undergoing new geological 1:10,000 scale high resolution mapping
that should provide a greater discriminating power distinguishing
e.g. between cohesive and granular terrains within the Pliocene unit
in part of the macro areas 3 and 5.
Risk management issues and requirements
With respect to theoretical definitions and conceptual frameworks for
the quantitative assessment of risk (Varnes and IAEG 1984; Einstein
1988; Cruden and Fell 1997), the approach used in this research can be
considered as somewhat averaged and simplified. For exactly the same
reasons it is, however, relatively easy to apply and implement in the
common risk management practices. At the end of the procedure,
for each UCU defined over the whole territory of the Arno River
basin, many different kinds of information are available for the use of
risk managers and local administrators such as the expected hazard,
intensity and degree of damage; the number and typology of the
340 Landslides 2 . 2005
elements at risk hosted by the UCU; the value and vulnerability class
for each element and for the UCU as a whole; the risk expressed as
expected economic losses on a pixel basis. This framework constitutes
a definite development in the field of risk management, because it
introduces an integrated and flexible environment at the service of
land planners and policy makers. With such a tool it is then possible
to experiment and simulate various levels of risk definition and to
choose between risk classes and absolute risk quantities (expressed in
terms of monetary value or number of endangered lives) on the basis
of available information.
At present, in Italy, landslide risk prevention is mainly performed
through the preparation and application of the so called “Hydroge-
ology structure plans” (or PAI, “Piani di Assetto Idrogeologico”), used
for the definition of regulatory practices in land use planning, that
rely largely on the geological and geomorphological maps produced,
with a low level of co-ordination, by each single municipality. This
leads to a final representation of the surface process dynamics that
is heterogeneous and incomplete and that henceforth generates an
unsatisfactory basin scale planning. The approach that is proposed
in this paper overcomes most such weaknesses because it eliminates
the shortcomings at their source. There remain, nevertheless, sev-
eral possible improvements that could hopefully be applied in the
near future, such as the direct definition of temporal hazard or the
detail-scale vulnerability classification of buildings. Another impor-
tant issue that remains unsolved at the basin scale is the prediction of
run-out distance for mapped landslides and intensity for first move-
ments or “hidden” landslides, problems that have been only partially
addressed in this study.
The proposed methodology is particularly useful, by design, for a
practical catchment-scale use of risk mapping that could rely, for its
implementation and updating, upon readily available information
such as remotely sensed data for the definition of the required
parameters. Risk factors that are subject to short-term changes are
in fact, for the most part, easily mapable through remote sensing:
land cover by means of well known methodologies as explained
before, morphometric variables with new technologies such as
InSAR techniques (Catani et al. 2005), inventory data and elements
at risk through the use of newly available high resolution images
such as IKONOS or more complex techniques, such as, InSAR and
PS-InSAR (van Westen 2004; Farina et al. in review).
Acknowledgements
The work was carried out by the Department of Earth Sciences of
the University of Firenze (DST) and the Basin Authority of the Arno
River (ADB) in the framework of a co-operative project for the land-
slide risk mapping of the Arno basin. M. Brugioni, L. Sulli and G.
Montini of ADB are acknowledged for their support in the organi-
zation, set-up and validation of results. We also kindly acknowledge
the following people at DST for the support given in field work,
photo interpretation, computer and GIS elaborations, logistics: A.
Bartolomei, M. Kukavicic, M. Mirannalti, M. Nocentini, and V. To-
fani. M-L. Ibsen, J. Corominas, R. Baum and an anonymous reviewer
are kindly acknowledged for comments and a careful revision of the
text.
References
Aleotti P, Chowdhury R (1999) Landslide hazard assessment: summary review and new perspectives.
Bull Eng Geol Environ 58:21–44
Baecher GB, Christian T (2003) Reliability and statistics in geotechnical engineering. Wiley, Cornwall,
UK, 605 pp
Baeza C, Corominas J (1996) Assessment of shallow landslide susceptibility by means of statistical
techniques. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Landslides, pp 147–152
Bell R, Glade T (2004) Quantitative risk analysis for landslides—examples from Bı́ldudalur,
NW-Iceland. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 4:117–131
BernknopfRL,CampbellRH,BrookshireDS,ShapiroCD(1988)Aprobabilisticapproachtolandslidehaz-
ard mapping in Cincinnati, Ohio, with applications for economic evaluation. IAEG Bull 24(1):39–56
Bertolini G, Pellegrini M, Tosatti G (eds) (2001) Le frane della regione Emilia-Romagna, oggetto di
interventi di protezione civile nel periodo 1994–1999. Quad Geol Appl 8(1–2)
Bertolini G, Casagli N, Ermini L, Malaguti C (2004) Radiocarbon data on Lateglacial and Holocene
landslides in the Northern Apennines. Nat Hazards 31:645–662
Bianchi F, Catani F (2002) Landscape dynamics risk management in Northern Apennines (Italy).
In: Brebbia CA, Zannetti P (eds) Development and application of computer techniques to
environmental studies, vol 1. WIT, Southampton, UK, pp 319–328
Bonham-Carter GF (1994) Geographic information systems for geoscientists: modeling with GIS.
Pergamon, Ottawa, Canada, 198 pp
Brabb EE (1984) Innovative approaches to landslide hazard and risk mapping. In: Proceedings of the
Fourth International Symposium on Landslides, vol 1. Canadian Geotechnical Society, Toronto,
Canada, pp 307–323
Bromhead EN (2004) Landslide slip surfaces: their origins, behaviour and geometry. In: Lacerda
WA, Ehrlich M, Fontoura SAB, Sayao ASF (eds) Landslides: evaluation and stabilization, vol 1.
Balkema, London, pp 3–21
Burton A, Arkell TJ, Bathurst JC (1998) Field variability of landslide model parameters. Environ Geol
35(2–3):100–114
Canuti P, Casagli N (1996) Considerazioni sulla valutazione del rischio di frana. CNR-GNDCI Publication
846, 57 pp, in Italian
Canuti P, Casagli N, Focardi P, Garzonio CA (1994) Lithology and slope instability phenomena in the
basin of the Arno River. Mem Soc Geol Ital 48:739–754
Carrara A (1983) Multivariate methods for landslide hazard evaluation. Math Geol 15(3):403–
426
Carrara A, Guzzetti F (eds) (1995) Geographical information systems in assessing natural hazards.
Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands
Carrara A, Cardinali M, Detti R, Guzzetti F, Pasqui V, Reichenbach P (1991) GIS techniques and
statistical models in evaluating landslide hazard. Earth Surf Processes Landforms 16:427–445
Casagli N, Catani F, Puglisi C, Delmonaco G, Ermini L, Margottini C (2004) An inventory-based
approach to landslide susceptibility assessment and its application to the Virginio River basin,
Italy. Environ Eng Geosci 10(3):203–216
Catani F, Farina P, Moretti S, Nico G, Strozzi T (2005) On the application of SAR interferometry
to geomorphological studies: estimation of landform attributes and mass movements.
Geomorphology 66:119–131
Chung CF, Fabbri AG, van Western CJ (1995) Multivariate regression analysis for landslide hazard
zonation. In: Carrara A, Guzzetti F (eds) Geographical information system in assessing natural
hazards. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 107–142
Corominas J (1996) The angle of reach as a mobility index for small and large landslides. Can Geotech
J 33:260–271
Cruden DM, Fell R (1997) Landslide risk assessment. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Landslide Risk
Assessment, Honolulu, Hawaii. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands and Brookfield, CT, 384 pp
Cruden DM, Varnes DJ (1996) Landslide types and processes. In: Turner AK, Schuster RL (eds)
Landslides investigation and mitigation, Special Report 247. Transportation Research Board,
National Research Council, Washington, DC, pp 36–75
Cumer A (1994) Il progetto CORINE Land Cover in Italia: un modello da seguire. Documenti del
territorio, Anno VIII, 28/29
Dai FC, Lee CF (2001) Frequency–volume relation and prediction of rainfall-induced landslides. Eng
Geol 59(3–4):253–266
Dai FC, Lee CF, Ngai YY (2002) Landslide risk assessment and management: an overview. Eng Geol
64:65–87
DRM – Délégation aux Risques Majeurs (1990) Les études préliminaries à la cartographie
réglementaire des risques naturels majeurs. Secrétariat d’Etat auprès du Premier Ministre
chargé de l’Environment et de la Prévention des Risques tecnologiques et naturels majeurs. La
Documentation Française. 143 pp
Dunne T (1980) Formation and controls of channel networks. Prog Phys Geogr 4:211–239
Einstein HH (1988) Landslide risk assessment procedure. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International
Symposium on Landslides, Lausanne, Switzerland, vol 2. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands, pp 1075–1090
Ermini L, Catani F, Casagli N (2005) Artificial neural networks applied to landslide susceptibility
assessment. Geomorphology 66:327–343
Farina P, Colombo D, Fumagalli A, Marks F, Moretti S (in review) Remote sensing techniques for
landslide risk analysis: outcomes from the ESA-SLAM project. Submitted to Eng Geol
Fell R (1994) Landslide risk assessment and acceptable risk. Can Geotech J 31:261–272
Fell R, Hartford D (1997) Landslide risk management. In: Cruden DM, Fell R (eds) Landslide risk
assessment. Proceedings of the Workshop on Landslide Risk Assessment, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands and Brookfield, CT, pp 51–109
Finlay PJ (1996) The risk assessment of slopes. PhD Thesis. School of Civil Engineering, University of
South Wales, Australia
Finlay PJ, Mostyn GR, Fell R (1999) Landslide risk assessment: prediction of travel distance. Can
Geotech J 36:556–562
Focardi P, Garzonio CA, Vannocci P (1994) Slope stability studies on a typical area of the Upper Arno
Valley. Mem Soc Geol Ital 48:805–812
Freeman GT (1991) Calculating catchment area with divergent flow based on a regular grid. Comput
Geosci 17:305–309
Gomez H, Kavzoglu T (2005) Assessment of shallow landslide susceptibility using artificial neural
networks in Jabanosa River basin, Venezuela. Eng Geol 78:11–27
Gupta RP, Joshi BC (1990) Landslide hazard zoning using the GIS approach—a case study from the
Ramganga catchment, Himalayas. Eng Geol 28:119–131
GuzzettiF,CarraraA,CardinaliM,ReichenbachP(1999)Landslidehazardevaluation:areviewofcurrent
techniques and their application in a multi-scale study, Central Italy. Geomorphology 31:181–216
Hansen A (1984) Landslide hazard analysis. In: Brundsen D, Prior DB (eds) Slope instability. Wiley,
New York, pp 523–602
Heyman Y, Steenmans C, Croisille G, Bossard M (1994) CORINE land cover project Technical guide.
European Commission, Directorate General Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection,
ECSC-EEC-EAEC, Brussels- Luxembourg, 136 pp
Humbert M (1976) La cartographie en France del Zones Exposées à des Risques liés aux Mouvements
du Sol. Cartes ZERMOS. IAEG Bull 16:80–82
Hungr O (1995) A model for the runout analysis of rapid flow slides, debris flows and avalanches. Can
Geotech J 32:610–623
Iida T (1999) A stochastic hydro-geomorphological model for shallow landsliding due to rainstorm.
Catena 34:293–313
Jade S, Sarkar S (1993). Statistical models for slope stability classification. Eng Geol 36:91–98
Kirkby MJ (1971) Hillslope hydrology. Wiley, New York
Kong WK (2002) Risk assessment of slopes. Q J Eng Geol 35(3):213–222
Lee S, Ryu J-H, Min K, Won J-S (2003) Landslide susceptibility analysis using GIS and artificial neural
networks. Earth Surf Processes Landforms 28(12):1361–1376
LeoneF,AsteJP,LeroiE(1996)Vulnerabilityassessmentofelementsexposedtomass-moving:working
toward a better risk perception. In: Senneset K (ed) Landslides. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 263–269
Liu X, Lei J (2003) A method for assessing regional debris flow risk: an application in Zhaotong of
Yunnan province (SW China). Geomorphology 52:181–191
Lu P, Rosenbaum MS (2003) Artificial neural networks and grey systems for the prediction of slope
stability. Nat Hazards 30(3):383–398
Malamud BD, Turcotte DL (1999) Self-organized critically to natural hazards. Nat Hazards 20:93–
116
Martello S, Catani F, Casagli N (2000) The role of geomorphological settings and triggering factors
in debris flow initiation during the June 1996 meteorological event in Versilia and Garfagnana
(Tuscany, Italy), In: Bromhead E, Dixon N, Ibsen ML (eds) Landslides in research, theory and
practice. VIII International Symposium on Landslides, Cardiff, UK, pp 1017–1024
Martini IP, Sagri M (1993) Tectono-sedimentary characteristics of Late Miocene-Quaternary
extensional basins of the Northern Apennines. Earth Sci Rev 34:197–233
Landslides 2 . 2005 341
 Original Article
Martini IP, Vai GB (eds) (2001) Anatomy of an Orogen: the Apennines and Adjacent Mediterranean
Basins. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 632
Montgomery DR, Dietrich WE (1994) A physically based model for the topographic control on shallow
landsliding. Water Resour Res 30:1153–1171
Moore ID, Grayson RB (1991) Terrain-based catchment partitioning and runoff prediction using
vector elevation data. Water Resour Res 27:1177–1191
Moore ID, O’Loughlin EM, Burch GJ (1988) A contour-based topographic model for hydrological and
ecological applications. Earth Surf Processes Landforms 13:305–320
Noever DA (1993). Himalayan sandpile. Phys Rev E 47:724–725
Ohmori H, Hirano M (1988) Magnitude, frequency and geomorphological significance of rocky
mudflows, land creep and the collapse of steep slopes. Zeit Geomorph NF 67:55–65
O’Loughlin EM (1986) Prediction of surface saturation zones in natural catchments by topographic
analysis. Water Resour Res 22(5):794–804
Rautela P, Lakhera RC (2000) Landslide risk analysis between Giri and Tons Rivers in Himachal
Himalaya (India). JAG 2(3–4):153–160
Sasaki Y, Abe M, Hirano I (1991) Fractals of slope failure size number distribution. J Jpn Sci Eng Geol
32:1–11
Sassa K (1988) Geotechnical model for the motion of landslides. In: Bonnard C (ed) Proceedings of the
5th International Symposium on Landslides, Lausanne. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp
37–55
Sassa K, Wang G, Fukuoka H, Wang F, Ochiai T, Sugiyama M, Sekiguchi T (2004) Landslide risk
evaluation and hazard zoning for rapid and long-travel landslides in urban development areas.
Landslides 1(3):221–235
Scheidegger AE (1973) On the prediction of the reach and velocity of catastrophic landslides. Rock
Mech 5:231–236
Schuster RL, Fleming RW (1986) Economic losses and fatalities due to landslides. Bull Am Assoc Eng
Geol 23(1):11–28
Skempton AW, Hutchinson JN (1969) Stability of natural slopes and embankment foundations.
In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering. Sociedad Mexicana de Mecàna de Suelos, Mexico City, State of the Art vol,
pp 291–340
Soeters R, van Westen CJ (1996) Slope instability recognition, analysis and zonation. In: Turner AK,
Schuster RL (eds) Landslides: investigation and mitigation. Transp Res. Board, Nat Res. Counc
Spec Rep 247:129–177
Stark C, Hovius N (2001) The characterization of landslide size distribution. Geophys Res Lett
28:1091–1094
Sugai T, Ohmori H, Hirano M (1994) Rock control on magnitudo-frequency distribution of landslide.
Trans Jpn Geomorph Union 15:233–251
342 Landslides 2 . 2005
Takahashi T, Aschida K, Sawa K (1981) Delimitation of debris-flow hazard areas. In: Erosion and
Sediment Transport in the Pacific Rim Steeplands. IAHS Spec Publ 132:589–603
Tarboton DG (1997) A new method for the determination of flow directions and contributing areas
in grid digital elevation models. Water Resour Res 33:309–319
Tucker GE, Catani F, Rinaldo A, Bras RL (2001) Statistical analysis of drainage density from digital
terrain data. Geomorphology 36:187–202
Turner AK, Schuster RL (eds) (1996) Landslides: investigation and mitigation. Transp Res Board, Nat
Res Counc Spec Rep 247
van Westen CJ (2004) Geo-information tools for landslide risk assessment: an overview of recent
developments. In: Lacerda WA, Ehrlich M, Fontoura SAB, Sayao ASF (eds) Landslides: evaluation
and stabilization, vol 1. Balkema, London, pp 39–56
Varnes DJ (1978) Slope movements. Type and processes. In: Schuster RL, Krizker RJ (eds)
Landslides: analysis and control. Nat Acad Sci, Transp. Res. Board, Wash, Spec Rep 176:11–
35
Varnes DJ, IAEG Commission on Landslides (1984) Landslide hazard zonation—a review of principles
and practice. UNESCO, Paris, pp 63
Whitehouse IE, Griffiths GA (1983) Frequency and hazard of large rock avalanches in the Southern
Alps, New Zealand. Geology 11:331–334
Wieczorek GF, Gori PL, Jager S, Kappel WM, Negussy D (1996) Assessment and management of
landslide hazards near Tully Valley landslide, Syracuse, New York, USA. In: Proceedings of the VII
International Symposium on Landslides, Trondheim, June 1996, vol 1. Balkema, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands, pp 411–416
WilsonJP,GallantJC(eds)(2000)Terrainanalysis,principlesandapplications.Wiley,NewYork,pp479
WP/WLI (1990) A suggested method for reporting a landslide. Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 41:5–
12
Wu TH, Sidle RC (1995) A distributed slope stability model for steep forested basins. Water Resour
Res 31(8):2097–2110
F. Catani (
) · N. Casagli · L. Ermini · G. Righini
Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, Università di Firenze,
Firenze, Italy
e-mail: fcatani@geo.unifi.it
Fax: +39-0552756296
G. Menduni
Autorità di Bacino del Fiume Arno,
Firenze, Italy