4.6 Article

An integrated approach for evaluating the effectiveness of landslide risk reduction in unplanned communities in the Caribbean

期刊

NATURAL HAZARDS
卷 61, 期 2, 页码 351-385

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11069-011-9920-7

关键词

Landslide modelling; Risk assessment; Cost-benefit analysis; Developing countries; Community

资金

  1. ESRC [ES/H005331/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/H005331/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite the recognition of the need for mitigation approaches to landslide risk in developing countries, the delivery of 'on-the-ground' measures is rarely undertaken. With respect to other 'natural' hazards, it is widely reported that mitigation can pay. However, the lack of such an evidence base in relation to landslides in developing countries hinders advocacy amongst decision makers for expenditure on ex-ante measures. This research addresses these limitations directly by developing and applying an integrated risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis of physical landslide mitigation measures implemented in an unplanned community in the Eastern Caribbean. In order to quantify the level of landslide risk reduction achieved, landslide hazard and vulnerability were modelled (before and after the intervention), and project costs, direct and indirect benefits were monetised. It is shown that the probability of landslide occurrence has been substantially reduced by implementing surface-water drainage measures and that the benefits of the project outweigh the costs by a ratio of 2.7-1. This paper adds to the evidence base that 'mitigation pays' with respect to landslide risk in the most vulnerable communities-thus strengthening the argument for ex-ante measures. This integrated project evaluation methodology should be suitable for adoption as part of the community-based landslide mitigation project cycle, and it is hoped that this resource, and the results of this study, will stimulate further such programmes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据