Abstract
Landslide risk can be assessed by evaluating geological conditions associated with past events. A sample of 2,4 16 slides from urban areas in West Virginia, each with 12 associated geological factors, has been analyzed using SAS computer methods. In addition, selected data have been normalized to account for areal distribution of rock formations, soil series, and slope percents. Final calculations yield landslide risk assessments of <0.50=low risk, 0.50 to 1.50=moderate risk, and >1.50=high risk. The simplicity of the method provides for a rapid, initial assessment prior to financial investment. However, it does not replace on-site investigations, nor excuse poor construction.
Similar content being viewed by others
References Cited
Briggs, R. P., J. S. Pomeroy, and W. E. Davies, 1975, Landsliding in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 728, 18 p.
Erley, D., and W. J. Kockelman, 1981, Reducing landslide hazards: A guide for planners: American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service Report 359, 29 p.
Lessing, P., B. R. Kulander, B. D. Wilson, S. L. Dean, and S. M. Woodring, 1976, West Virginia landslides and slide-prone areas: West Virginia Geological Survey,Environ. Geol. Bull. 15, 64 p.
Lessing, P., and R. B. Erwin, 1977, Landslides in West Virginia,in, Coates, D. R., ed., Landslides: Geological Society of America, Reviews in Engineering Geology, v. 3, p. 245–254.
Pomeroy, J. S., 1982, Landslides in the greater Pittsburgh region, Pennsylvania: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1229, 48 p.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1982, Goals and tasks of the landslide part of a ground-failure hazards reduction program: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 880, 49 p.
U.S. Soil Conservation Service, various dates, Soil surveys of counties in West Virginia: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lessing, P., Messina, C.P. & Fonner, R.F. Landslide risk assessment. Geo 5, 93–99 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02381102
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02381102