November 3, 2021

Introduction to local landslide early

warning systems

Authors: An introductory guide to local rainfall-triggered landslide early

SHEAR Knowledge warning systems. This guide includes an overview of monitoring
Brokers Team and warning methods, the role of community engagement, and
challenges to local landslide early warning systems.

Overview Summary
The Science for  Local landslide early warning systems (LEWSs) monitor a specific slope
Humanitarian that has been pre-identified as being at risk of failure.
Emergencies and
Resilience (SHEAR)  Changes in slope conditions are monitored using instruments to
programme supports measure the movement of slope materials and/or a proxy for pore water
world-leading research
pressure. Often a range of monitoring sensors are used.
to enhance the quality,
availability and use of
risk and forecast  Models are used to link past landslide observations or slope movement
information. with these site-specific conditions to understand the relationship
between certain conditions and the likelihood of a landslide occurring,
This snapshot provides termed as a threshold relationship.
an introduction to Local
Landslide Early Warning  Warnings are issued locally when this threshold is passed, i.e. when
Systems. there is a significant change in the monitored conditions over time which
is linked with a greater chance of a landslide occurring.
Further information can
be found in the two
accompanying SHEAR  Local LEWSs can only provide warning information for the specific
publications: instrumented locations (e.g. for a single landslide, for a single hillslopes).
Introduction to landslide They cannot provide information, forecasts or warnings outside the
early warning systems instrumented area.
and Introduction to
regional landslide early  The landslide forecast information is often easily interpreted and can
warning systems. generate an automatic warning to the local community or a mandated
person to disseminate the warning more widely.

 Typical responses include evacuating to pre-identified safe location(s)

and closing off roads.

 Best practice of local LEWSs emphasise the involvement of local

communities, including community awareness, engagement, risk
knowledge training, and local early action (e.g. evacuation).

1
1
Pore water pressure
Methods of monitoring
refers to the pressure of Monitoring methods are typically divided into two main approaches: monitoring proxy
water held within soil or indicators of hydrological conditions, or monitoring slope movement. Often multiple
rock, in gaps between monitoring methods are used on a single slope.
particles (pores). When
the gaps between
Monitoring hydrological proxy conditions as an indicator of pore water pressure can
particles are filled with
water (the pore water include using:
pressure changes), the  Rain gauges for measuring rainfall.
friction and forces acting  Hydraulic sensors to monitor pore pressure, soil moisture content and other
on the slope change and factors.
the slope becomes
increasingly unstable and Monitoring slope movement as an indicator of change can include using:
more likely to fail.  Inclinometers to determine the magnitude, rate, direction, depth, and type
of landslide movement.
Calibration of the forecast  Extensometers to determine the active boundaries of the landslide (on the
model requires detailed surface and at depth), correlate landslide movements to external
local data and knowledge environmental factors (e.g., precipitation events), and for early warning of
so that the relationship accelerating landslide behaviour. They can be manual or automatic (paper or
between monitored digital recorders).
conditions and warning  Wooden or metal stakes, posts, battens, or pegs driven into the ground and
levels are specifically manually monitored regularly for signs of movement or changes to rate of
tailored to the individual movement.
slope.
 GPS sensors to measure relative movement.
 Remote sensing technology or imagery to compare changes to or movement
of the slope over time.

Figure 1. Examples of monitoring methods for local landslide early warning systems.

More information at: www.shear.org.uk 2

2
Examples of warning
Landslide warning
alerts include: Local LEWSs can only provide warning information for the activity on specific
instrumented locations (e.g. for a single landslide, for a single hillslopes). They cannot
A flashing light or beeping provide information, forecasts or warnings outside the instrumented area.
sound at the central
server or operations base.
Local LEWSs provide very little warning lead time, from seconds to minutes, to hours.

A daily bulletin and/or an Warning levels are typically assigned automatically when a pre-determined threshold
alert SMS are sent to the of monitored conditions passes a certain level, such as a change in the rate of
concerned authorities and displacement of slope materials, or pore water pressure. Sometimes there are manual
experts. In parallel, local processes such as opportunities for expert judgement or assessment as well.
people at risk from the
landslide are informed via For automated systems, data is often transmitted automatically from sensors to a
alarms. central warning facility or device, and some sensors can contain specific software and
automated procedures for both pre- and post-processing of data.
At the highest warning
level, the local at-risk Once a warning threshold level is passed, alerts can be sent automatically to key
population are alerted groups, or for public dissemination.
through loud speakers or
sirens and asked to
evacuate the vulnerable
locations and requested Early action
to move to safer places.
Early action refers to actions taken in response to the warning information, rather than
after the landslide event.
Task force teams receive
alerts and coordinate the Early action examples include:
overall process of  Evacuation of the community to a pre-identified safe location (particularly
response, early action or overnight);
further dissemination.
 Closing schools and meeting places; and
 Closing off access to roads and/or rail routes.
Warning messages are
sent to the local bulletin
board.
Working with the community
In particular, local LEWSs require high levels of community engagement to be
effective. Most local LEWS projects include components to focus on this engagement.

Examples of these strategies include:

 Developing community-based awareness and educational programs about
landslides and the early warning system;
 Setting up local, accessible public communication systems such as sign
boards to facilitate warning and evacuation systems;
 Setting up local committees and volunteers and equipping them with
knowledge and skills to monitor slopes and communicate warnings;
 Incorporating local knowledge and skills into plans;
 Establishing safe evacuation routes and locations with the communities;
 Co-developing preparedness plans; and
 Conducting drills to practice the evacuation process.

3
More information at: www.shear.org.uk
3
Further reading Strengths, limitations and challenges of LEWSs
Billedo, E.B., Bhasin, R.K., Strengths:
Kjekstad, O. and
Arambepola, N.M.S.I.,  They provide locally-relevant warnings to communities at risk.
2013. An appraisal on  Forecast information can be interpreted easily and it is possible to generate
ongoing practices for automatic warnings.
landslide early warning
 Local LEWSs can support awareness and interest in landslide risk reduction,
systems in selected South
and East Asian Countries.
engaging the community in hazard mapping and hydro-meteorological data
Landslide Science and collection, which can be an entry point for longer term risk reduction
Practice, Springer Berlin practices
Heidelberg, pp. 573-580.  There is community ownership. Threshold levels can be adjusted as per the
communities’ requirements.
Cieslik K., Shakya P.,
Uprety M., Dewulf A.,
2019. Building resilience Limitations:
to chronic landslides
through citizen science.  Not applicable to other slopes beyond the one(s) being intensely
Frontiers in Earth Science, monitored.
in press.  Forecast model calibration requires detailed local data and knowledge - it is
a very resource intensive approach for one slope.
Intrieri, E., Carlà, T., and  It is hard to tell when hazard levels have reduced to a safe level for people
Gigli G., 2019. Forecasting to return to their homes.
the time of failure of
 There can be range of other factors that might complicate the relationship
landslides at slope-scale: A
literature review. Earth- between monitoring data and landslide occurrences.
Science Reviews, Volume  Warnings based on the actual ground movement might not provide
193, pp. 333-349. sufficient lead time to act in advance of a sudden failure.

Paul J.D., Buytaert W.,

Allen S., Ballesteros- Challenges:
Canovas J.A., Bhusal J.,
Cieslik K., Clark J., Dugar  Sustainability of the system
S., Hannah D.M., Stoffel Many local LEWSs are set up as pilots by research or development
M., et al., 2018a. Citizen funding. The only way to sustain the system beyond the pilot is for it to
science for hydrological be funded and owned long-term by e.g. local government institutions.
risk reduction and
resilience building. Wiley  Forecasting skill
Interdisciplinary Reviews: The accuracy of the warnings is variable based on the methods used
Water, 5, e1262.
for monitoring. Evaluation of the performance of different approaches
to monitoring outlined in this snapshot is currently not known.
Pecoraro, G., Calvello, M.
& Piciullo, L., 2019.
Monitoring strategies for  Not scalable
local landslide early Local LEWSs can only provide warning information for the specific
warning systems. slope it is monitoring. Warnings cannot be applied to un-monitored
Landslides 16, 213–231. slopes. Scaling up the system requires monitoring of all slopes.
Monitoring all slopes at risk of landslides in mountainous regions is not
a feasible approach due to the resource intensity required.

The SHEAR Knowledge Brokers would like to thank team members from the SHEAR Landslide-EVO project for their time and contributions to this guide. In
particular, members from Imperial College London, Royal Holloway University of London, Practical Action Consulting Nepal, and Geological Survey of Austria.

The SHEAR Knowledge Brokers would like to thank team members from the SHEAR Landslide-EVO project for their 4 time and co
More information at: www.shear.org.uk particular, members from Imperial College London, Royal Holloway University of London, Practical Action Consulting Nepal, and
4