Quantitative Vulnerability Estimation of

Structures for Individual Landslide:

Application to the Metropolitan Area of
San Salvador, El Salvador
Juan Du
Three Gorges Research Center for geo-hazard, Ministry of Education, China
University of Geosciences (Wuhan), Wuhan ,Hubei 430074
China
e-mail: dujuan_0709@126.com

Kunlong Yin
Faculty of Engineering, China University of Geosciences (Wuhan), Wuhan ,Hubei
430074 China
e-mail: yinkl@126.com

Suzanne Lacasse
International Centre for Geohazards / Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo,
NO-0855Norway
e-mail: Suzanne.Lacasse@ngi.no

Farrokh Nadim
International Centre for Geohazards / Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo,
NO-0855Norway
e-mail: Farrokh.Nadim@ngi.no

ABSTRACT
Vulnerability is a fundamental component in the evaluation of risk, which until recently had
not been considered systematically for individual landslides. Vulnerability to landslide
depends on the landslide intensity, the characteristics of the elements at risk, and the impact
mechanisms of landslide. The quantitative model includes intensity parameters, taking
account of the impact processes due to quick-moving slides and susceptibility parameters of
different structures. The model is illustrated with a catastrophic debris flow that occurred in
1982 in the Metropolitan Area of San Salvador, where eight scenarios were considered for the
vulnerability evaluation. Based on the calculation of runout intensity parameters, the
vulnerability of structures in different prediction scenarios was analyzed. This information
can be used by local authorities, rescue teams and emergency services as the basis for an
emergency plan and effective disaster management.
KEYWORDS: Landslide; Quantitative vulnerability evaluation; Intensity;
Susceptibility; San Salvador

- 1251 -
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. E 1252

INTRODUCTION
The ISSMGE glossary of risk assessment terms defines vulnerability as the degree of loss to a
given element or set of elements within the area affected by the landslide hazard. It is expressed
on a scale of 0 (no loss) to 1 (total loss).
In contrast to other natural processes such as flooding and earthquakes, it is not
straightforward to define, let alone assess, the vulnerability to landslides due to the complexity
and the wide range of landslide process[1,2]. However, in many cases, vulnerability determines the
losses to a greater degree than the hazard[3-5]. So, despite all the limitations and complexity, it is
an economic and political necessity to assess vulnerability to landslides[6-7].
Two fundamentally different perspectives exist for vulnerability estimation: investigations
based on natural science and those based on social science method and assumptions[8]. Within the
social science community, there is no consensus about definition of social vulnerability or its
correlates. Cutter[9] summarized the different definitions of social vulnerability from different
epistemological orientations (political, human, economical ecology and so on). Chambers[10]
stated that social vulnerability correlates to many loss forms (becoming or being physically
weaker, economically impoverished, socially dependent and psychologically harmed). Besides,
several characteristics have been identified that influence social vulnerability (called the Social
Vulnerability Index (SoVI)), including lack of access to resources and political power, social
capital, beliefs and customs, building stock and age, frail and physically limited individuals and
type and density of infrastructure and lifelines[9,11].
Commonly, assessments in landslide risk research are based on natural science approaches
and various attempts have been made. For preliminary research of landslide risk, vulnerability is
considered as total damage with the value of 1.0[12]. More detailed investigations apply damage
matrices[13], based on qualitative[14-15] and quantitative approaches[16-17]. Several conceptual
frameworks for quantitative vulnerability estimation were proposed [18-20].
The characteristics of vulnerable elements and landslide intensity are indispensable cores of
any landslide vulnerability model. Being exposed to landslides with different type and intensity,
the vulnerable elements would be impacted by different mechanisms[8,17] and there is a clear
distinction between vulnerability to fast- and slow-moving landslide[5,21]. The events that belong
to “extremely rapid” category[22] may cause massive impact or destruction to objects in the
affected area, due to the enormous energy and pulse peaks developed. In contrast, slow and
extremely slow landslides rarely threaten human life[7]. The focus of landslide risk mapping is on
delineation of the unstable area, overall and differential displacements and velocities, and
vulnerability of different objects to absolute and relative (differential) movements. Some
researchers have tried to consider landslide type or moving process in the vulnerability
assessment. For instance, Uzielli[19] used the same intensity parameters, kinetic and kinematic
relevance parameters, for different process of landslide activity. Li[23] proposed intensity
parameters for slow and rapid landslides. However, the impact mechanisms of different moving
stages and different categories of vulnerable elements were not expressed appropriately.
This paper proposes a quantitative model for the vulnerability estimation of structures to
individual landslides, using intensity parameters that consider impact mechanisms in the failure
stage. The application of the model is demonstrated through the case study of the 1982 landslide
at the El Picacho in El Salvador. Based on the data of run-out intensity parameters and attributes
of structures, the vulnerability distributions are analyzed and represented graphically.
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. E 1253

PROPOSED MODEL
Similar to the models proposed by Uzielli et al. [19] and Li[23], vulnerability is defined as a
function of intensity and susceptibility in the proposed model. These parameters are in turn
established on the basis of landslide impact mechanism and categories of vulnerable elements.
The proposed vulnerability model is defined by Eq.1 and represented graphically in Figure 1:
 1  I 2
   I ≤ 1− S
 2 1− S  (1)
V =  2
1 − 1  1 − I  I > 1− S
 2  S 

Figure 1: Proposed model for vulnerability (v) as a function of susceptibility (S) and
intensity (I).

V ∈ [0, 1] is the vulnerability of elements exposed to the landslide threat. For structures, 1
means the structure is completely destroyed and collapses, while values less than one represent
the degree of damage. I ∈ [0, 1] is the intensity of landslide. An intensity value of 1 means the
landslide has enormous damage potential and will destroy all the exposed elements in its path. S
∈ [0, 1] is the susceptibility and S = 0 means the vulnerable element has a very high inherent
resistance to landslide impact. V, I and S are all expressed in non-dimensional terms.
For the vulnerability estimation for individual landslide, in terms of different impact
mechanisms, the slow deformation stage and failure (rapid-movement) stage should be
considered separately. For the failure stage, structures are the main vulnerable elements.

LANDSLIDE INTENSITY
Definition of landslide vulnerability requires information on landslide intensity[24], which
should include information about the severity degree and space dimensions of the landslide.
When the landslide fails, it converts to high-to-medium velocity, highly mobile plastic debris
or granular flow and directly affects the physical elements in its path by a range of impact
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. E 1254

mechanisms[25]. The quick-moving mass has a high destruction potential to the structures in the
affected area.
The structures located within the release zone of a quick-moving landslide are completely
destroyed with the vulnerability of 1.0. For the structures within the run-out distance, the impact
mechanisms can be divided into two main categories: burial and impact pressure. So, the intensity
of the landslide for structures is defined as a function of its depth and impact pressure:
I fai − s = 1 − (1 − I pre )(1 − I f −dep ) (2)

where I pre and I f −dep are the parameters of impact pressure and landslide depth.

Impact pressure
After the landslide fails, the horizontal impact pressure is the main cause of damage to
structures13. In the review of 23 cases histories of catastrophic landslides in South American,
Schuster[26] observed that most casualties were caused by high-velocity debris avalanches and all
of the events clearly showed the importance of estimating the effects of density flows on
buildings in order to acquire useful estimates for their vulnerability. Spence[27] carried out
experimental study and given the lateral pressure limitations of wall panel infill used in RC frame
structures and different RC frames. The values of limiting horizontal pressure estimated by these
researchers ranged from 1 to 14 kPa and Table 1 summarizes their estimated pressure limit for
different building elements.
Table 1: Estimated resistances of structures and elements (Based on Spence, 2004)
Failure pressure
Building elements
(kPa)
Terra-cotta tile infill panel with openings 7.6-8.9
Terra-cotta tile infill panel without openings 5.5
Tuff infill panel (length 4 m, thickness 40 cm) 6.8-9
Tuff infill panel (length 4 m, thickness 60 cm) 10-13
Weak non-aseismic RC buildings (1 to 3 storeys) 4.5-8
Strong non-aseismic RC buildings (4 to 7 storeys) 5-9
Weak aseismic RC buildings (multi-storeys) 5-10
Strong aseismic RC buildings (multi-storeys) 6-14

Petrazzuoli[28] analyzed the collapse limit load of regular and irregular (planimetric
irregularities) RC structures to horizontal pressure with the strong beams and weak columns
structural models. Aseismic buildings were found to be 2-3 times stronger than non-aseismic
ones. The limit loads for regular buildings were 30% larger than irregular ones. The proposed
landslide vulnerability model uses the average value of each typology (Figure 2) to estimate the
horizontal pressure limit P vs. the number of stories n as Eq.3, in which the values of coefficient α
and β for each structure typology are listed in Table 2.
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. E 1255

a b

Figure 2: Average horizontal limit pressure vs. number of stories for different structural
design typologies (a: regular structure; b: irregular structure)

P = α ln(n ) + β (3)

Table 2: The values of coefficient α and β in Eq. 3 for different structural design
typologies
Regular structure
Strong Strong non-
structure Weak aseismic Weak non-aseismic
aseismic aseismic
α -4.384 -2.717 -2.157 -1.276
β 19.125 13.164 10.568 7.693
Irregular structure
Strong Strong non-
structure Weak aseismic Weak non-aseismic
aseismic aseismic
α -3.779 -2.467 -1.821 -1.343
β 14.553 10.288 8.068 6.066

The ratio of landslide impact pressure at the site of the building to horizontal pressure limit is
defined as the intensity parameter I pre (Table 3). The horizontal pressure limit of RC frame can
be obtained according to Eq.3, while the limit pressure of terra-cotta tile infill panel in Table 1
can be used for masonry structure.
Table 3: Proposed values of impact pressure intensity parameter
Ratio of landslide impact pressure to horizontal pressure limit I pre
of structure
<0.1 0.05
0.1-0.2 0.20
0.2-0.4 0.40
0.4-0.7 0.70
0.7-1.0 0.90
≥1.0 1.00
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. E 1256

Landslide depth
As inferred from the damage to structures, the intensity parameter for landslide depth should
be defined as the ratio of landslide depth to height of structure. When landslide depth is equal to
or higher than the structure, the structure is considered to completely lose its functionality. The
proposed values of I f −dep are shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Proposed values of landslide depth intensity parameter

Ratio of landslide depth to height of I f −dep
structure
<0.2 0.10
0.2-0.4 0.30
0.4-0.6 0.50
0.6-0.8 0.70
0.8-1.0 0.90
≥1.0 1.00

SUSCEPTIBILITY
Susceptibility reflects the lack of inherent capacity of a vulnerable element to preserve its
physical integrity and functionality under the landslide action of a certain degree of severity.
The resistance capacity of a structure to withstand the action of hazard depends on
morphological characteristics and utilization conditions[29-30]. Based on impact mechanisms
discussed in foregoing statement, four parameters are considered, including structure type s str ,
maintenance state smai , ratio of service years to design service life s ser and difference of the
directionality of landslide movement and the principal longitudinal direction of the structure sdir ,
with the model proposed as Eq.4.

S s = 1 − (1 − s str )(1 − s mai )(1 − s ser )(1 − s dir ) (4)

[31]
Heinimann proposed six categories of structures in terms of vulnerability to landslides as
listed in Table 5. Maintenance state is the performances of structures, which can be described by
the deformation condition of the superstructure and foundation. Six classes are identified with the
assigned values in Table 6. Moreover, design service life is the contemplated duration of service
of the structure under normal design, construction and utilization. The older the structure, the
more likely it is that material aging and structural failure would happen. The ratio of service years
to design service life is divided into seven classes as shown in Table 7.
Table 5: Proposed values of structure type susceptibility parameter (Based on Heinimann, 1999)
Structural typology Resistance s str
Lightest, simple structures Very high 1.00
Light structures High 0.90
Rock masonry, concrete and timber Medium 0.70
Brick masonry, concrete structures Low 0.50
Reinforced concrete structures Very low 0.30
Reinforced structures Extremely low 0.10
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. E 1257

Table 6: Proposed values of maintenance state susceptibility parameter

State of maintenance smai Description
Extremely good 0.00 No deformation, cracking and material aging
On structure distortion，only appear surface damage like coating
Good 0.05
exfoliating
Slight deformation 0.25 Appear fine crack in the wall (width<1mm)
Medium deformation 0.50 Foundation appears little settlement
The wall inclines; ground inclines or upwarp; tension cracks appear in
Serious deformation 0.75
the wall
Extremely Serious
1.00 The structure deflects; foundation lose support; pipeline interrupt
deformation

Table 7: Proposed values of service year susceptibility parameter

Ratio of service year to design service life s ser
≤ 0.1 0.05
0.1 - 0.4 0.10
0.4 - 0.6 0.30
0.6 - 0.8 0.50
0.8 - 1.0 0.70
1.0 - 1.2 0.80
> 1.2 1.00

Based on the investigation of buildings located on the slow moving landslides and impacted
by moving density flow, the damage degree is related to the direction of structure. Baxter[32]
indicated that, directionality is one of the main characteristics of the pyroclastic density currents.
When the wall of structure faced the full force of density currents, the damage would be the most
serious. So, the directionality difference of landslide movement and the longitudinal direction of
structure is considered as a susceptibility parameter. The damage would be most serious when the
angle between the two directions is 0°and be lightest when the angle gets close to 45° (Table 8).
Table 8: Proposed values of directionality difference susceptibility parameter
Difference of the directionality of landslide movement
sdir
and longitudinal of structure (°)
0-5 1.0-0.6
5-15 0.6-0.4
15-30 0.4-0.2
30-45 0.2-0.0

CASE STUDY
The city of San Salvador is the capital and largest city of El Salvador. Landslide is a serious
threat to people and infrastructures in the city. The vulnerability model outlined above was
applied to eight landslide scenarios in a landslide-prone area of San Salvador.
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. E 1258

Geological background and analysis model

The landslide failed on the upper slopes of the El Picacho peak on the edifice of San Salvador
volcano. It was triggered by an intense and prolonged period of rainfall from 17 to 19 September.
The landslide source area was located between 1,600 and 1,925 m.a.s.l. with the estimated
volume of 425,000 m3 and average depth of 7 m (Figure 3). The landslide material was
transformed into a debris flow that traveled a distance of ~4 km, which caused serious casualties
(about 300-500 persons were killed) and damage over an area of ~97,000 m2.

Figure 3: Plane view of 19 September 1982 debris flow and eight prediction scenarios

The runout model used for vulnerability estimation is the DAN3D model. Meanwhile, the
Voellmy model has proved to be adequate for the simulation of debris flows[33]. The formulation
of the Voellmy model is:

v2
τ = µσ + γ
ξ (5)

where τ is the bed shear stress, σ is the bed normal total stress, µ is the friction coefficient, γ is
the unit weight of the flowing mass, v is the depth-averaged flow velocity and ξ is the turbulent
coefficient.

Vulnerability analysis
According to the back-analysis of the 19 September 1982 event by Cepeda[34], the runout
parameters for this landslide were µ = 0.05 and ξ = 500(m s 2 ) . These parameters were used in this
study for vulnerability analysis of forward prediction scenarios resulting from the combination of
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. E 1259

the following criteria:(1) Catchment unit: Hydrology Tools of ArcGIS are utilized to obtain the
catchment units, as shown on Figure 3 and referred to as Catchment 1- 4. (2) Release area: High
frequency with steep slopes and shallow ruptures: slopes ≥40° and depth of rupture=3 m. Low
frequency with moderately steep slopes and deep ruptures: slopes ≥35° and depth of rupture=7 m.
The eight scenarios for vulnerability prediction analysis are presented in Fig 3.
Susceptibility: Different structure types were discerned from the remote sensing image for the
area of San Salvador. Five main categories of housing/ infrastructure were classified. For
different structure types, the average estimate data of susceptibility factors are given in Table 9.

Table 9: Susceptibility factors of structures in San Salvador

Structure type s str s mai sser
Reinforced structures 0.1 0.1 0.05
Industrial factory buildings 0.2 0.1 0.1
Reinforced concrete structures 0.3 0.2 0.1
Brick masonry and concrete structures 0.5 0.2 0.15
Brick masonry and timber structures 0.8 0.5 0.3

Intensity: As the output data, the maximum slide thickness passed by each grid node
(representing the slide’s impact area) and the maximum velocity seen by each grid node were
used to estimate landslide intensity.
For the structures, lateral loading or dynamic pressure of flowing mass increases in
proportion to the square of the velocity using the standard formula (see e.g. Valentine, 1998) [35]:
1
p= ρ ⋅ v2 (6)
2
Where p is the impact pressure (kPa), ρ is the density of flowing mass ( Kg m3 ), and v is the
velocity ( m s ). I pre and I f − dep can be obtained with the average data of the height and horizontal
pressure limit of structures as shown in Table 10.
Table 10: Average attribute data of structures in San Salvador
Average
Average Horizontal pressure
Structure type number of
height limit (kPa)
floor
Reinforced structures 20~32 > 60m 20
Industrial factory structures 1~2 6m 18
Reinforced concrete structures 6~20 35m 11
Brick masonry and concrete
2~6 12m 8
structures
Brick masonry and timber structures 1~2 4m 5
Vulnerability: Based on the Eq.1, the vulnerability of structures is calculated. The
accumulation area and numbers of structures in affected zone of eight scenarios are listed in
Table 11. Considering the limited paper space, only the vulnerability distribution of structures at
catchment 4 with steep slope is shown in Figs 4.
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. E 1260

Table 11: Average vulnerability structures for eight scenarios for forward predictions
Area Average
Slope Depth Volume Accumulation No. of
Scenario Catchment (×103 vulnerability
(°) (m) (×103m3) area (×103m2) structures
m2) of structures
1_thin Catchment1 40 3 48 144 196 518 0.82
2_thin Catchment2 40 3 155 467 1003 3279 0.84
3_thin Catchment3 40 3 36 108 257 360 0.71
4_thin Catchment4 40 3 47 142 183 396 0.68
1_deep Catchment1 35 7 127 891 457 3813 0.83
2_deep Catchment2 35 7 532 3728 2823 12634 0.87
3_deep Catchment3 35 7 97 682 808 2906 0.76
4_deep Catchment4 35 7 68 480 382 1716 0.72

Figure 4: Vulnerability distributions of structures in Catchment 4

The vulnerability of structures ranges from 0.0 to 1.0. In the accumulation zone, the
maximum impact pressure reaches 6250 kPa, which is much greater than the horizontal pressure
limit of structures. Due to the high impact pressure, about 64% of the impacted structures fall into
the high vulnerability level. The structures at the edge of accumulation zone have lower
vulnerability, except that some structures with weak structure type exhibit high vulnerability.

CONCLUSION
Based on previous research and new insights, a model for the estimation of landslide
vulnerability is proposed, with focus on establishing reliable vulnerability factors for
combinations of landslide impact processes and elements at risk. The vulnerability function is
defined quantitatively with two core parameters of intensity and susceptibility. In terms of
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. E 1261

different impact mechanisms, two deformation stages are identified. The paper focused on the
failure stage.
Reliable intensity estimation should consider the relationship between severity degree and
spatial dimensions of landslide and the expected damage of vulnerable elements. In the failure
stage, because of different impact mechanisms, different intensity models are established for
stationary and non-stationary vulnerable elements. For structures, impact pressure and landslide
depth are considered in vulnerability assessment. On the basis of available statistical data,
functions of horizontal limit pressure versus the number of stories of different structures are
proposed to quantify the impact intensity parameter of moving mass.
The application of the model is demonstrated with the 1982 landslide at the El Picacho, in
San Salvador and eight prediction scenarios within the same area. The software package DAN3D
was utilized for the back-analysis of the 1982 landslide and vulnerability prediction to obtain the
run-out distance, affected area, velocity and depth of flowing mass. The vulnerability
distributions of structures are illustrated. They provide the opportunity to identify the most
vulnerable zones of the residential area, which can be used by local authorities, rescue teams and
emergency services to allocate or manage the resources accordingly, make emergency plan and
do disaster management effectively.
It is important to note that the model has some limitations, which need further research. For
example, in contrast to earthquake hazard, the research about the relationship between
deformation or impact of landslide and the destruction of structures could improve the predictive
models. Besides, different kind of landslides will have different deformation and impact
mechanisms, such as the landslide with topple or fall movement categories, which require a
different estimation system. Furthermore, some of the subjective and empirical parameters
performed in the model should be calibrated and gradually rationalize with the addition of
objective data and expert judgment.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was funded by The National Natural Sciences Foundation of China (41301589).
The first author wishes to thank the China Scholarship Council and Norwegian Geotechnical
Institute (NGI) for funding her stay at ICG/NGI, where most of the works described in this paper
was done. The authors would also like to thank Prof. Oldrich Hungr, who kindly provided a beta
version of DAN3D to NGI, and Drs. José Mauricio Cepeda and Dieter Issler of NGI for their kind
help and guidance.

REFERENCES
1. Glade, T. 2003. Vulnerability assessment in landslide risk analysis. Erde 134(2):123–146.
2. Leroi, E. 1996. Landslide hazard—risk maps at different scales: objectives, tools and
development. Proceeding of 7th international symposium on landslides, June 17–21,
Trondheim, pp 35–51.
3. Einstein, H.H. 1988. Special lecture - landslide risk assessment procedure, In: 5th
International Symposium on Landslides, Switzerland, July 10-15, Landslides, 2: 1075-
1090.
4. Alexander, D.E. 1993. Natural Disasters. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Routledge and
Boston, London. pp. 9-10.
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. E 1262

5. Alexander, D.E. 2004. Vulnerability to landslide. Landslide Hazard and Risk. John Wiley
& Sons, Ltd. pp. 175-198.
6. Varnes, D.J. 1984. Landslide hazard zonation: a review of principles and practice.
UNESCO, France, pp. 1–63.
7. Alexander, D.E. 1984. Building damage by landslide: the case of Ancona, Italy, Ekistics-
The Problems and Science of Human Settlements, 51: 452-462.
8. Crozier, M.J., Glade, T. 2004. Landslide hazard and risk: issues,concepts and approach.
Landslide hazard and Risk .John Wiley&Sons, Ltd . pp 1-40.
9. Cutter, S.L., Boruff, B.J., Shirley, W.L. 2003. Social Vulnerability to Environmental
Hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 84(2): 242-261. doi: 10.1111/1540-6237.8402002.
10. Chambers, R. 2006. Vulnerability, Coping and Policy (Editorial Introduction), Institute of
Development Studies Bulletin, 37 (4): 33-40.
11. Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., Wisner, B. 1994. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s
Vulnerability, and Disasters. London: Routledge.
12. Petley, D.N., Hearn, G.J., Hart, A. 2004. Towards the development of a landslide risk
assessment for rural roads in Nepal. Landslide Hazard and Risk. John Wiley&Sons, Ltd.
pp. 597-617.
13. Leone, F., Ast´e, J.P., Leroi, E. 1996. Vulnerability assessment of elements exposed to
mass moving: working towards a better risk perception. In: Senneset K (ed) Landslides.
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 263–269.
14. Cardinali, M., Reichenbach, P., Guzetti, F. et al. 2002. A geomorphological approach to
the estimation of landslide hazards and risks in Umbria, Certral Italy. Natural Hazards and
Earth System Sciences, 2: 57-72. doi:10.5194/nhess-2-57-2002.
15. Reichenbach, P., Galli, M., Cardinali, M. et al. 2004. Geomophological mapping to assess
landslide risk: concepts, methods and applications in the Umbria region of central Italy.
Landslide hazard and Risk .John Wiley&Sons, Ltd, pp:429-468.
16. Fell, R. 1994. Landslide risk assessment and acceptable risk. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal 31:261-272. doi: 10.1139/t94-031.
17. Michael-Leiba, M., Baynes, F., Scott, G. 2000. Quantitative landslide risk assessment of
Cairns, Australis, in Bromhead, E., Dixon, N., and Ibsen, M.-L. (eds), Landslieds in
Research, Theory and Practice (Cardiff: Thomas Telford). pp. 1059-1064.
18. Düzgün, H.S.B., Lacasse, S. 2005. Vulnerability and acceptable risk in integrated risk
assessment framework. In: Hungr O, Fell R, Couture R, Eberhardt E (eds) Landslide risk
management. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 505–515.
19. Uzielli, M., Nadim, F., Lacasse, S., Kaynia, A.M. 2008. A conceptual framework for
quantitative estimation of physical vulnerability to landslides. Engineering Geology, 102:
251–256. doi: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2008.03.011.
20. Kaynia, A.M., Papathoma-Köhle, M., Neuhäuser, B. 2008. Probabilistic assessment of
vulnerability to landslide: application to the village of Lichtenstein, Baden-Württemberg,
Germany. Engineering Geology, 101(1-2):33–48. doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2008.03.008.
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. E 1263

21. Hollenstein, K. (2004) The role of administrative bodies in landslide risk assessment.
Landslide hazard and Risk .John Wiley&Sons,Ltd. pp 285-310.
22. Cruden, D.M., Varnes, D.J. 1996. Landslide types and processes. In: Landslide
investigation and mitigation. National Academy Press, Washington. pp. 36–75.
23. Li, Z.H., Nadim, F., Huang, H.W., Uzielli, M., Lacasse, S. 2010. Quantitative vulnerability
estimation for scenario-based landslide hazards, Landslides, 7:125–134. doi:
10.1007/s10346-009-0190-3.
24. Guzzetti, F., Carrara, A., Cardinali, M., Reichenbach, P. 1999. Landslide hazard
evaluation: an aid to a sustainable development. Geomorphol 31:181–216.
doi:10.1016/S0169-555X(99)00078-1.
25. Glade, T., Crozier, M.J. 2004. The Natural of Landslide Hazard Impact. Landslide Hazard
and Risk. England: John Wiley&Sons, Ltd, pp 44-74.
26. Schuster, R.L., Salcedo, D.A., Valenzuela, L. 2002. Overview of catastrophic landslides of
South America in the twentieth century. In: Evans, S.G., DeGraff, J.V. (Eds.), Catastrophic
Landslides; Effects, Occurrence, and Mechanisms. Reviews in Engineering Geology,
Geological Society of America, 15:1–34.
27. Spence, R.J.S., Baxter, P.J., Zuccaro, G. 2004. Building vulnerability and human casualty
estimation for a pyroclastic flow: a model and its application to Vesuvius, Journal of
Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 133(1-4): 321-343. doi: 10.1016/S0377-
0273(03)00405-0.
28. Petrazzuoli, S.M., Zuccaro, G. 2004. Structural resistance of reinforced concrete buildings
under pyroclastic flows: a study of the Vesuvian area, Journal of Volcanology and
Geothermal Research. 133(1-4): 353-367. doi: 10.1016/S0377-0273(03)00407-4.
29. Amatruda, G., Bonnard, C., Castelli, M. 2004. A key approach: the IMIRILAND project
method. Identification and mitigation of large landslide risks in Europe — advances in risk
assessment. In: Bonnard, C., Forlati, F., Scavia, C. (Eds.), European Commission, Fifth
Framework Program. Balkema. pp. 13–44.
30. Coburn, A., Spence, R. 2002. Earthquake protection. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium,
Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex PO19 8SQ, England.
31. Heinimann, H.R. 1999. Risikoanalyse bei gravitativen Naturgefahren – Fallbeispiele und
Daten. Umwelt-Materialen 107/I, Bern.
32. Baxter, P.J., Boyd, R., Cole, P., Spence, R. 2004. The impacts on buildings of pyroclastic
surges at the Soufriere Hills Volcano, Montserrat. Bulletin of Volcanology. 67(4): 292-
313. doi: 10.1007/s00445-004-0365-7.
33. Revellino, P., Hungr, O., Guadagno, F.M. et al. 2004. Velocity and runout simulation of
destructive debris flows and debris avalanches in pyroclastic deposits, Campania region,
Italy. Environmental Geology, 45(3): 295–311. doi: 10.1007/s00254-003-0885-z.
34. Cepeda, J., Chávez, J.A., Martínez, C.C. 2010. Procedure for the selection of runout model
parameters from landslide back-analyses: application to the Metropolitan Area of San
Salvador, El Salvador. Landslides, 7:105–116. doi: 10.1007/s10346-010-0197-9.
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. E 1264

35. Valentine, G.A. 1998. Damage to structures by pyroclastic FLows and surges, inferred
from nuclear weapons effects. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 87(1-4):
117-140. doi: 10.1016/S0377-0273(98)00094-8.

© 2014 ejge