University of Wollongong

Research Online
Faculty of Engineering and Information Sciences Papers

Faculty of Engineering and Information Sciences

1999

Landslide risk assessment - development of a

hazard consequence approach
Chit Ko Ko
University of Wollongong

Phillip N. Flentje
University of Wollongong, [email protected]

Robin N. Chowdhury
University of Wollongong, [email protected]

Publication Details
Ko Ko, C., Flentje, P. N. & Chowdhury, R. N. (1999). Landslide risk assessment - development of a hazard consequence approach. The
International Symposium on Slope Stability Engineering: Geotechnical and GeoEnvironmental Aspects (pp. 1309-1315). United
Kingdom: Balkema.

Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the

University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW
Library: [email protected]

Landslide risk assessment - development of a hazard consequence

approach
Abstract

Several Landslide Hazard and Risk Assessment methods have been developed and used in the State of New
South Wales (NSW), Australia. The Rail Services Australia Geotechnical Services and the Roads and Traffic
Authority of NSW have each developed Risk Assessment procedures suitable to their own specific needs. A
generic risk management methodology is presented in the Australian Standard/New Zealand Standard (AS/
NZS) 4360:1995. An approach similar to the (AS/NZS) 4360:1995 Risk Management Standard has been
applied by a NSW State Emergency Services geotechnical team (which included one of the writers) to 191
problem sites in the Wollongong Area, following a major rainstorm event in August 1998, (GTR, 1998). The
writers at the University of Wollongong (UOW) are developing a more comprehensive hazardconsequence
approach. This has required careful and precise definitions of the terms and parameters being used. It is the
writers' intention that this will lead to effective, efficient and consistent assessments of hazard and risk. Field
Data Sheets based on the stated concepts are being developed and tested at several field sites. The
formalisation of field data collection will provide a good mechanism for consistent data capture. Data
collected in this manner is most suited for management in a database environment.
Keywords

risk, development, hazard, consequence, approach, landslide, assessment

Disciplines

Engineering | Science and Technology Studies

Publication Details

Ko Ko, C., Flentje, P. N. & Chowdhury, R. N. (1999). Landslide risk assessment - development of a hazard
consequence approach. The International Symposium on Slope Stability Engineering: Geotechnical and
GeoEnvironmental Aspects (pp. 1309-1315). United Kingdom: Balkema.

This conference paper is available at Research Online: http://ro.uow.edu.au/eispapers/1787

Landslide Risk Assessment - Development of A Hazard-Consequence Approach

Chit Ko Ko, Dr. Phil Flentje and Professor Robin Chowdhury

Department of Civil, Mining and Environmental Engineering, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW,
Australia, 2522

ABSTRACT: Several Landslide Hazard and Risk Assessment methods have been developed and used in the
State of New South Wales (NSW), Australia. The Rail Services Australia Geotechnical Services and the
Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW have each developed Risk Assessment procedures suitable to their own
specific needs. A generic risk management methodology is presented in the Australian Standard/New Zealand
Standard (AS/NZS) 4360:1995. An approach similar to the (AS/NZS) 4360:1995 Risk Management Standard
has been applied by a NSW State Emergency Services geotechnical team (which included one of the writers)
to 191 problem sites in the Wollongong Area, following a major rainstorm event in August 1998, (GTR,
1998). The writers at the University of Wollongong (UOW) are developing a more comprehensive hazardconsequence approach. This has required careful and precise definitions of the terms and parameters being
used. It is the writers intention that this will lead to effective, efficient and consistent assessments of hazard
and risk. Field Data Sheets based on the stated concepts are being developed and tested at several field sites.
The formalisation of field data collection will provide a good mechanism for consistent data capture. Data
collected in this manner is most suited for management in a database environment.
1 INTRODUCTION
A study of the available hazard and risk assessment
methods and procedures indicates that different
levels or stages of risk assessment could be carried
out depending on the available data. The greater the
quantity of available data and the better its quality,
the greater the objectivity and accuracy of the
assessment achieved.
Comprehensive geotechnical investigations and
subsurface monitoring are costly and such
expenditure may or may not be required or
economically justified. On the other hand, site
inspections with some mapping are comparatively
cost effective as essential preliminary tools for the
decision making process.
At present, risk assessment methods are described
as
Qualitative,
Semi-quantitative
and
Quantitative in relation to the degree of subjective
judgement involved in making the assessment. In
most cases, Qualitative assessment is the prerequisite assessment for justification of further more
rigorous Semi-quantitative or Quantitative
assessments.

It is generally recognised that there is a need for

further improvements in achieving effective and
efficient hazard and risk evaluation. In order to
achieve a consistent outcome it is desirable to
develop systematic procedures for field data
collection and analysis. The following procedures
will be very useful in this regard:
Reducing the level of subjective assessments
or, at the very least, clearly identifying the
subjective component of the assessment
Defining the terms precisely and clearly, so
that there is no ambiguity in assessment or
interpretation
Development of approaches that are more
quantitative in format and output
A comprehensive set of Field Data Sheets based
on the above concept are being developed and have
reached the stage where Field Guide/Data Collection
Sheets for the hazard assessment of natural slopes
have been finalised. A trial hazard assessment test
on natural slopes has been carried out on selected
sites in the Wollongong area (South Coast, NSW,
Australia). The next stage is the use of these
procedures at problem sites on the North Coast
Railway Line between Coffs Harbour and Grafton

Area of NSW, Australia.

The scope of this paper does not include the
assessments of magnitude and frequency of
landslide triggering events such as rainstorms. This
aspect has been covered in recent work (Chowdhury
& Flentje, 1998 and Flentje & Chowdhury, 1999).
Preliminary or stage I hazard and risk assessment
discussed in this paper does not therefore include the
insight gained from analysis of rainfall data.
However, such insight is extremely valuable and
often essential for more detailed hazard and risk
assessment.
2 QUALITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT
METHODS
The Australian Geomechanics Society (Walker et al,
1985) has developed a geotechnical risk assessment
procedure associated with hillside development. The
Rail Services Australia Geotechnical Services
(RSA), Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW
(RTA), and a Sydney based Consulting firm have
developed risk assessment methods for their

2.1 Qualitative Risk Analysis Matrix (AS/NZS

4360:1995)
An example was appended to the Australian New
Zealand Standard (Table 1) for a qualitative risk
analysis matrix together with example descriptions
of the qualitative measures of Likelihood and
Consequences. This particular example and the
Standard as a whole does not directly or indirectly
refer to landslide hazard and risk assessment.
However, the approach can be useful for such an
application. A similar approach has been applied by
a team of two engineers and one geologist to 191
problem sites in the Wollongong Local Government
Area following the major storm event of August
1998 (GTR, 1998).
The risk assessment values may be expressed as
an alpha-numeric combination such as A5, B2 , E3,
C1 etc. These combinations are defined as high
risk, significant risk, moderate risk and low
risk respectively as shown in Table 1. This type of
assessment requires considerable judgement from an
experienced geotechnical engineer or engineering
geologist to interpret the levels of Likelihood and
Consequence that are assessed primarily from a

Table 1. Qualitative Risk Assessment Matrix Level of Risk (AS/NZS 4369:1995)

Consequence
Insignificant - 1
Minor - 2
Moderate - 3
Major - 4
S
S
H
H
A - Almost certain
M
S
S
H
B - Likely
L
M
S
H
C - Moderate
L
L
M
S
D - Unlikely
L
L
M
S
E - Rare
H = high risk: detailed research and management planning required at senior levels
S = significant risk: senior management attention needed
M = moderate risk: management responsibility must be specified
L = low risk: manage by routine procedures
Likelihood

respective needs.
The Australian Geomechanics Society method
arrives at risk assessment directly. However, the
other methods qualitatively assess the probability of
landsliding (hazard) and separately assess the
damage and/or loss of life (consequence). Based on
these assessments of hazard and consequence, risk is
determined and expressed in several categories. A
further step is taken in the RTA method where
numerical weighting is used in probability
assessment of slope failure or landsliding. Some
further details of these methods are described and
discussed below.

Catastrophic - 5
H
H
H
H
S

visual site inspection. In defining consequence,

examples pertaining to injury or loss of life,
economic loss and extent of toxic contamination are
provided in the example in AS/NZS 4360:1995.
However, the terms used for the qualitative
measures in the AS/NZS 4360:1995 tables, such as
in most circumstances and at some time are not
well defined. It is also important to note that the
landsliding processes and related phenomena are not
specifically considered in this Standard. This is
further justification for the work undertaken by the
writers as reported in this paper.

2.2 Rail Services Australia Geotechnical Services

(RSA) approach for Risk Assessment and Hazard
Management
The RSA Geotechnical Services (1997) have
developed a Risk Assessment and Hazard
Management Guideline. Using this guide, the RSA

The estimates of Probability and Consequence

are a subjective evaluation or qualitative assessment
taking into consideration the geotechnical features of
the site, the topography, track alignment, operating
requirements and maintenance practices (RSA,
1997). Hence this method also requires judgement

Table 2. Risk Assessment Matrix, RSA (1997)

CONSEQUENCE of the event

affecting the track

PROBABILITY of event affecting the track, in the short term (12 months).
Assessment is necessary of probability of event occurring and affecting the track
LOW (L)
HIGH (H) Event is MODERATE (M)
VERY LOW
Event is probable but
anticipated
Event is probable
Event is possible
not expected

Extreme (E)
- loss of life expected
- extensive damage and
disruption

3
Priority 3

Severe (S)
- loss of life is possible, not
expected
- appreciable damage and
disruption

3
Priority 1

4
Priority 1

3
Priority 1

4
Priority 2

Moderate (M)
- loss of life or serious injury not
expected
- minor damage to structures and
facilities
Minor

have completed risk assessments concerning 1200

Geotechnical
Problem
Sites
situated
on
approximately 4500km of railway line within the
state of NSW, Australia. The problem sites have
subsequently been categorised by the writers as
Slips, Cuttings, Embankments and Poor
Performance of the Track Formation.
The RSA risk assessment approach also uses a
matrix consisting of (a) Consequence and (b)
Probability, of an event affecting the track in the
short term (12months). Consequence of an event
affecting the track is qualitatively assessed in terms
of extreme, severe, moderate and minor.
Probability of event affecting the track is also
qualitatively expressed as high, moderate, low
and very low. Risk category value is then
quantitatively expressed between 1 and 5 in relation
to the ranks of Consequence and Probability as
shown in Table 2. A priority ranking for category 3
and 4 has been established because of the large
variety and number of problems normally assessed
in this category (Table 2).

of experienced geotechnical engineers or

engineering geologists. Examples of geotechnical
risk assessment for rail operation, and the definitions
of risk category and consequences resulting from
geotechnical events are also given. However, the
Probability assessment is based entirely on the
engineering/geological judgement of an experienced
professional.
2.3 Road and Traffic Authority of New South
Wales (RTA) Guide to a Slope Risk Rating System
The RTA (1994) introduced a systematic slope risk
rating system guide for in-house application.
Following considerable field application and
performance assessment a revised guide was issued
in 1995. The Slope Risk Rating is assigned on the
basis of qualitative levels of an Instability
Assessment and the severity of the Consequences of
slope failure. Two levels of reporting are included in
the risk assessment procedure, firstly the Slope
Instability Score Sheet and secondly, the Slope Risk

Table 3. RTA Slope Risk Rating

Instability
VH
Class
H
based on
M
Instability
L
Score
VL
VH = Very High
H = High
M = Medium
L = Low
VL = Very Low

VH
1
1
2
3
3

H
1
1
2
3
3

Consequence
M
2
2
3
4
4

Rating Report.
The Slope Risk Rating (Table 3) is designed to
establish an order of priority that adequately reflects
the need for geotechnical investigation and remedial
or preventive action. The potential for and the
consequences of slope failure are qualitatively
determined by an instability assessment and a
consequence assessment respectively, and the
process of assessment requires experience,
knowledge and includes a fair degree of subjectivity
(RTA, 1995).
The RTA risk assessment approach takes the
process of slope instability assessment a step further
by adopting a scoring technique. The classification
of slope instability assessment is based on field
observations of thirteen components, each with a
numerical weighting (score) recorded on the slope
instability score sheets. The score assigned to each
component is recorded either as a single value or as
the cumulative sum of the individual scores assigned
to the features. The instability score (I.S) which is
the sum of the individual scores assigned to each
component of a slope is qualitatively represented as
an Instability Class as shown in column 1, Table 3.
The score sheet also includes the following
information: (a) nature of the slope (cut, fill or
natural), and (b) material type (rock or soil), where
separate consideration and scoring are given for
rock slope and soil/fill slope. This type of
instability assessment by numerical weighting
utilising scoring sheets contributes to consistent and
repeatable assessments.

L
3
3
4
5
5

VL
4
4
5
5
5

3 DEVELOPMENT OF FIELD INSPECTION

DATA SHEETS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
WOLLONGONG (UOW)
3.1 Introduction
The first requirement in carrying out a risk
assessment is that the hazard has to be identified and
assessed. The first step of any hazard assessment
will be a thorough field inspection. An efficient and
reliable risk assessment requires the accurate
identification of hazard and the probability of its
occurrence. A comprehensive field inspection and
site study is also essential for determining the
consequences of failure. Hence it is important to
develop field inspection guide lines which will
facilitate consistent assessments by means of
minimising the need for subjective judgement and
the unreliability that is associated with inconsistent
procedures.
Field checklists that are of value in producing
such field inspection guidelines have been proposed
by, among others, Hutchinson (1995), Cruden &
Varnes (1996), Turner & McGuffy (1996), the RSA
(1997) and Fell & Hartford (1997).

3.2 Present Status

With the above concepts in mind, a series of field
sheets for systematic data collection have been
designed and developed. These are particularly
useful for initial site inspection when carrying out
qualitative hazard and risk assessment. The field
sheets also serve as a checklist for inspecting any
particular site. The main advantage of these sheets is
that a consistent assessment is facilitated.

Table 4. Probability rating chart

SCORE

PROBABILITY

DESCRIPTION
The event is expected and will occur in
most circumstances.

ANNUAL PROBABILITY
>0.2
(within 5years)

>100

Very High

80 - <100

High

There is a high probability that the event

may occur in the short term or will be
easily activated by adverse conditions.

0.2 - >0.02
(within 5 to 50years)

60 - <80

Medium

40 - <60

Low

The event is not expected, but could

occur under extreme adverse conditions
within extended long term period.

0.002 - >0.0002
(within 500 to 5000years)

<40

Very Low

The event is possible but may occur only

in exceptional circumstances and
adverse condition.

>0.0002
(greater than 5000years)

The event is probable and may occur

within medium to long term.

The field data sheets comprise of the following;

Field inspection sheets for Hazard Assessment of

(1) Natural slopes, 2) Embankments and SideFills, (3) Rock cuttings and (4) Soil cuttings
Field inspection sheets for Consequence
Assessment for (1) Railway Lines, (2) Roads, (3)
Gas Pipelines and Electrical Power Lines, (4)
Sewer and Tele-Communication Lines, (5) Water
Conduits and Water Storage, (6) Buildings, (7)
Lands, (8) Human casualty/fatality (transport
and/or open space) and (9) Human
casualty/fatality (buildings)
Risk
assessment
data
sheet
including
recommendations to attach appropriate site plans
and/or sketch drawings. Such sketches are very
useful in identifying, describing and highlighting
problem areas, and are essential when
communicating assessments to others.
Field inspection sheets for Hazard Assessments
for Natural Slopes have been fully developed at this
stage but are not included in this paper due to space
limitations. A weighting technique is used which
recognises the research findings of several previous
workers such as Stevenson (1977), Vecchia (1978),
Sinclair (1992), Anbalagan (1992), Chang (1992),
RTA (1995) and Kumar et al (1996).
The seven influencing factors for slope
performance considered are (1) site history, (2)
landslide indicators, (3) bedrock geology type and
landslide material type (e.g. rock or soil) and the
appropriate geotechnical properties, (4) geologic
structures (e.g. adverse bedding plane, faults, and
joints), (5) morphological factors such as slope
angle, seepage/ground moisture condition, erosion

0.02 - >0.002
(within 50 to 500years)

and vegetation, (6) preventative or remedial works

installed and their performance, and (7) adverse
human impact. Point scores are give to the above
mentioned factors and the probability/hazard rating
is determined according to the total score using
Table 4.
4 TRIAL HAZARD ASSESSMENT ON
SELECTED SITES, WOLLONGONG AREA
A preliminary trial hazard assessment was carried
out on the 6 selected sites in the Wollongong area to
test the applicability of the new field inspection
sheets for hazard assessment of natural slopes.
Hazard and risk assessments were also made using
the other four methods (e.g. AS/NZS, GTR, RSA &
RTA). Two professionals with very different levels
of experience in the slope instability field (i.e.
inexperience and extensive experience) carried out
the trials. The results are tabulated in Tables 5 and 6
for the experienced professional and the
inexperienced professional respectively.
5 DISCUSSION
All the methods compared in Tables 6 and 7 are
based on the probability (hazard) - consequence
matrix approach. Assessment by the AGS approach
is not included in these tables because that approach
considers risk directly and not in terms of its two
main components, the hazard and the consequence.
The results indicate that the assessments for
probability (and, therefore, hazard) can be

Table 5. Hazard assessments results derived from 5 qualitative methods on 6 selected sites by an
experienced professional.

Site
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6

AS/NZS
Probability
unlikely
moderate
moderate
likely
moderate
moderate

GTR (1998)
Probability
unlikely
likely
likely
almost certain
likely
almost certain

RSA
Probability
Very Low
High
High
High
High
High

RTA
Instability Class
High
Very High
Very High
Very High
Very High
Very High

UOW
Probability
Medium
High
High
Very High
High
Very High

Table 6. Hazard assessments results derived from 6 qualitative methods on 6 selected sites by an
inexperienced professional.

Site
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6

AS/NZS
Probability
unlikely
moderate
moderate
almost certain
moderate
moderate

GTR (1998)
Probability
moderate
likely
moderate
almost certain
likely
likely

RSA
Probability
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
Moderate
Moderate

significantly different depending on the individual

assessment method used. For example, in Table 6
for site 2, the probability is assessed as moderate or
likely or high or very high and this is indeed a very
significant variation that justifies the need for a
more comprehensive method.
Turning now to the UOW comprehensive
method, there are no significant differences between
the assessments made by the experienced and
inexperienced professionals for each of the 6 sites
(compare column 6 in each of Tables 6 and 7).
Similarly, there are few significant differences with
the assessments by the RTA method for each of the
six sites. On the other hand, the differences between
their respective assessments are greater using the
other less comprehensive methods
Another interesting point is that the AGS method
results in the risk category Very High for all the
six sites. This is because these are all landslide sites,
each of which is included in a Land Instability
Database of the Northern Illawarra (Flentje, 1998).
While each site has a history of movement, some are
currently active whilst others are currently inactive.
While the assessments by the RTA and UOW
methods are consistent with these sites being
landslides, only the UOW method captures the
differences in the future hazard of landsliding
between the different sites.

RTA
Instability Class
Medium
Very High
Very High
High
Very High
High

UOW
Probability
Medium
High
High
Very High
High
Very High

Thus the initial use of the UOW method at these

6 sites clearly justifies the development and
utilisation of comprehensive field data sheets and it
is expected that the method will also be vindicated
for consequence assessments that have so far not
been completed

6 CONCLUSIONS
Several qualitative hazard and risk assessment
methods and approaches have been studied and their
main features outlined in this paper. Each of these
approaches has been used successfully in the
context for which they were developed and within
the agencies that developed them for particular
applications. Yet it should be recognised that each
method has both its merits and limitations. The AGS
approach, for instance, has the merit of simplicity
but it requires an experienced geotechnical engineer
to make an assessment and the use of considerable
subjective judgement. Hazard and consequence are
not separated. Moreover, it is not possible to
distinguish the level of risk between different sites,
each with a previous history of instability.
Methods which consider a probability (hazard) consequence matrix approach allow systematic
assessment of risk and are, therefore, more valuable.

Such methods may vary from those that are mainly

qualitative to those that are increasingly quantitative.
Consistency of assessments requires that careful
thought be given to influencing factors for slope
stability, the weight to be given to each factor, and
the way in which data on each is recorded during
site inspections for hazard and risk assessment.
Effort must also be made to have clear and
unambiguous definitions for the terms used.
In this paper, the UOW approach has been
introduced briefly and the need for the development
of data sheets for hazard, consequence and risk
assessments has been highlighted. The method has
been used on six sites as a trial for hazard
assessment and other methods have also been used
for comparison.
Based on this limited field application, reliable,
consistent and repeatable assessments are obtained.
There is remarkable correspondence between the
assessments of an experienced and an inexperienced
professional, which is not achieved when other
methods are used by the same pair.
7 REFERENCES
Anbalagan, R., 1992. Terrain Evaluation and
Landslide Hazard Zonation for Environmental
Regeneration and Land Use Planning in
Mountainous Terrain. Proceedings of the Sixth
International Symposium, David H. Bell (ed.),
Christchurch, New Zealand, A. A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, Vol. 2., pp. 861-868.
AS/NZS, 1995. Standards Association of
Australia/New Zealand. Australian Standard/New
Zealand Standard 4360:1995. Risk Management.
Chang, S.C., 1992. The Simprecise Mapping and
Evaluation System for Engineering Geological
and Landslide Hazard Zonation. Proceedings of
the Sixth International Symposium, David H. Bell
(ed.), Christchurch, New Zealand, A. A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, Vol. 2., pp. 905-910.
Chowdhury, R. N. & Flentje, P. N., 1998. Effective
Urban Landslide Hazard Assessment. Eighth
Congress of the International Association of
Engineering Geology and the Environment, A
Global View from the Pacific Rim. September
21-25, Vancouver, British Columbia, Vol. 2., pp.
871-878.
Cruden D. M. & Varnes D. J., 1996. Landslide
Types and Process. Landslide Investigation and
Mitigation, Special Report 247, Transportation
Research Board, National Research Council,
Turner A.K. & Schuster R.L.(eds.), National
Academy Press, Washington D.C., pp. 36 - 75.

Fell .R., 1994. Landslide Risk Assessment and

Acceptable Risk. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
Vol. 31, pp. 261 - 272.
Fell R. & Hartford D., 1997. Landslide risk
management. Landslide Risk Assessment, Cruden
& Fell (eds.), Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 51 - 109.
Flentje, P.N. 1998. Computer Based Landslide
Hazard and Risk Assessment (Northern Illawarra
Region of New South Wales, Australia). Doctor of
Philosophy Thesis, University of Wollongong,
New South Wales, Australia. Unpublished, 525p.
Flentje, P.N. & Chowdhury, R. N., 1999.
Quantitative Landslide Hazard Assessment in an
Urban Area.
Proceedings of
the Eighth
Australian New Zealand Conference on
Geomechanics. Editor: Dr. Nihal Vitharana.
February 15-17, Hobart, Tasmania. Institution of
Engineers, Australia, Vol. 1., pp. 115-120.
GTR, 1998. A report concerning Hazard and Risk
associated with sites identified after the August
1998 rainstorm in Wollongong, NSW, Australia.
Report commissioned by Wollongong City
Council Emergency Services Department.
Confidential report prepared by a Geotechnical
Team including one of the authors. Unpublished
report.
Hutchinson, J. N., 1995.
Landslide Hazard
Assessment. Proceeding of the Sixth International
Symposium on Landslides, Christchurch, New
Zealand, Volume 3, pp. 1805 - 1841.
Kumar, K., Tolia, D.S. & Kumar Satish, 1996.
Landslide Hazard Evaluation in a part of
Himalaya.
Proceedings of
the Seventh
International Symposium on Landslides, Kaare
Senneset (ed.), Trodheim, Norway, A. A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol. 1, pp. 239-244.
RTA, 1995. Roads and Traffic Authority of New
South Wales, Geotechnical Engineering Unit
(Scientific Services Branch, Technical Services
Directorate), September. Guide to a Slope Risk
Rating System, unpublished report.
RSA, 1997. Rail Services Australia, Railway
Geotechnical Services, August. Geotechnical Risk
to Rail Operations - NSW, unpublished report.
Sinclair, T.J.E., 1992. SCARR: A Slope Condition
and Risk Rating. Proceedings of the Sixth
International Symposium, David H. Bell (ed.),
Christchurch, New Zealand, A. A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, Vol. 2., pp. 1057-1064.
Stevenson, P.C., 1977. An Empirical Method for the
Evaluation of Relative Landslide Risk.
International Association Engineering Geology
Bulletin, Vol. 16, pp. 69-72.
Turner A.K. & McGuffy V. C., 1996. Landslide
Types and Process. Landslide Investigation and

Mitigation, Special Report 247, Transportation

Research Board, Turner A.K. & Schuster
R.L.(eds.), National Research Council, National
Academy Press, Washington D.C., pp 121 - 128.
Vecchia, O., 1978. A Simple Terrain Index for the
Stability of Hillsides Scarps. In: J.D. Geddes
(ed.). Large ground Movements and Structures.
New York/Toronto, John Wiley, pp. 449 - 461.
Walker, B.F., Dale, M., Fell, R., Jeffrey, A.,
Leventhal, A., McMahon, M., Mostyn, G., and
Phillips, A., 1985. Geotechnical Risk Associated
with Hillside Development.
In Australian
Geomechanics News, No. 10, December 1985, pp.
29-35.