Integration of landslide hazard into urban planning across Europe

Landscape and Urban Planning 196 (2020) 103740

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Landscape and Urban Planning journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan

Integration of landslide hazard into urban planning across Europe a,⁎

a

b

T b

Rosa María Mateos , Juan López-Vinielles , Eleftheria Poyiadji , Dimetrios Tsagkas , Michael Sheehyc, Kleopas Hadjicharalambousd, Pavel Liscáke, Laszlo Podolskif, Izabela Laskowiczg, Carla Iadanzah, Christoph Gauerti, Saša Todorovićj, Mateja Jemec Aufličk, Raluca Mafteil, Reginald L Hermannsm, Arben Kociun, Cvjetko Sandićo, Rike Mautera, Roberto Sarroa, Marta Béjara, Gerardo Herreraa a

Geological Survey of Spain, Department of Natural Hazards, Calle Ríos Rosas, 23, 28003 Madrid, Spain Hellenic Survey of Geology and Mineral Exploration, 70 Messoghion Str, 11527Athens, Greece Geological Survey of Ireland, Beggars Bush, Haddington Road, D04 K7X4 Dublin, Ireland d Geological Survey of Cyprus, Lefkonos 1, Strovolos, Cyprus e Geological Survey of Slovakia, Mlynská dolina 3962/1, 817 04 Bratislava, Eslovakia f Geological Survey of Croatia, Ul. Milana Sachsa 2, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia g Geological Survey of Poland, 4, Rakowiecka Street, 00-975 Warsaw, Poland h ISPRA, Geological Survey of Italy, Via Vitaliano Brancati 48-00144 Roma, Italy i Geological Survey of Saxony-Anhalt. Halle, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany j Geological Survey of Serbia, Kamenicka 6, P. fah 227, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia k Geological Survey of Slovenia, Dimičeva ulica 14, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia l Geological Survey of Romania. Caransebes, 1, sector 1, Bucharest, Romania m Geological Survey of Norway, Trondheim, Norway n Geological Survey of Austria, Neulinggasse 38, 1030 Vienna, Austria o Geological Survey of the Republic of Srpska (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Vuka Karadžića 148n, Zvornik 75400, Bosnia and Herzegovina b c

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Landslides Urban planning Legislation EuroGeoSurveys Europe

An enquiry-based and participatory analysis approach is carried out to identify the strengths and weaknesses in the heterogeneous legislations across Europe that regulate the integration of landslide hazard into urban planning. Twenty one national and eight regional Geological Surveys (GSs) have participated in the analysis. The GSs report almost 4000 recent (2015–2017) damaging landslides events resulting in 39 fatalities and 155 injuries, destruction to housing, infrastructure and properties. In addition, 11 countries report 18 MORLE events over the past 10 years responsible for 150 fatalities and severe economic impacts. Results also reveal almost 48 million people living in areas with high and very high degrees of landslide-susceptibility (around 1 million km2 according to ELSUS v2). This work shows that almost half the participating countries (10 countries) have no legal guidance in the National Land Bill to stipulate consideration of landslides in urban planning practices, and mapping tools are often not adapted to a standard required to inform sustainable development. Furthermore, there is a wide range of laws and a large heterogeneity of mapping methods, scales and procedures. A relevant deficiency detected in many countries is the lack of landslide maps at a detailed resolution for urban planning. Additionally, some case studies of suboptimal urban development practices in areas of known instability have been discussed; they are found to be related to weak rule of law and/or absence of good governance. This paper shows inconsistencies across Europe in the handling of landslides and proposes a series of key actions to improve this situation, highlighting the need for a common regulatory framework to deal with this geohazard appropriately.

⁎

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R.M. Mateos), [email protected] (E. Poyiadji), [email protected] (D. Tsagkas), [email protected] (M. Sheehy), [email protected] (K. Hadjicharalambous), [email protected] (P. Liscák), [email protected] (L. Podolski), [email protected] (I. Laskowicz), [email protected] (C. Iadanza), [email protected] (C. Gauert), [email protected] (S. Todorović), mateja.jemec-aufl[email protected] (M.J. Auflič), [email protected] (R.L. Hermanns), [email protected] (A. Kociu), [email protected] (C. Sandić), [email protected] (R. Mauter), [email protected] (R. Sarro), [email protected] (M. Béjar), [email protected] (G. Herrera). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103740 Received 3 July 2019; Received in revised form 20 December 2019; Accepted 20 December 2019 0169-2046/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Landscape and Urban Planning 196 (2020) 103740

R.M. Mateos, et al.

1. Introduction

including landslides were heterogeneous or even absent in many European countries and revealed the absence of common guidelines for reducing vulnerability to landslide hazard and risk. To date, no specific policy on landslides has been implemented at an EU level. EuroGeoSurveys (EGS) is a non-profit organisation representing 37 National Geological Surveys in Europe. In the present work, the Earth Observation and Geohazards Expert Group (EOEG) from EGS has developed a survey to evaluate the real impact of landslide in Europe and to identify the strengths and weaknesses in the heterogeneous legislations and policies currently in force in the different countries. With this objective in mind, some actions are proposed, highlighting the need for a common legislative framework, which supports the integration of landslides into national legislations.

The Treaty of Lisbon (European Union, 2007) foresees the right of all citizens to equal civil protection from natural hazards. On a global scale, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 (United Nations, 2015) adopted by the United Nations in 2015 clearly highlights the need of actions in the following 4 priority areas: (1) understanding disaster risk; (2) strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk; (3) investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience, and (4) enhancing preparation for disaster and an effective response. The Sendai Framework also emphasizes that disaster risk reduction practices have to develop regulatory measures to face climate change and rapid and unplanned urbanization. Many countries in Europe are highly urbanised. Urban sprawl (unplanned urban growth) has occurred in most European countries over recent decades and is predicted to continue. Taking into account the European Environment Agency report (EEA, 2016), a total area of 77,500 km2 in the European continent will be (or will have been) converted to urban areas between 2000 and 2030. Modifications to natural slope conditions for urban development have the potential to increase the landslide risk in many European regions (Di Martire, De Rosa, Pesce, Santangelo, & Calcaterra, 2012). Thus, there is an emerging appeal for hazard mitigation measures in new urban developments (Stevens, Berke, & Song, 2010). Climate change is expected to alter precipitation patterns in Europe having consequences for the frequency and distribution of landslides (IPCC, 2014; Seneviratne, Nicholls, Easterling, Goodess, Kanae, Kossin, Luo, Marengo, McInnes, Rahimi, Reichstein, Sorteberg, Vera, & Zhang, 2012). Where the frequency and intensity of severe rainfall events is supposed to increase, more landslides will be triggered and exposure to landslide risk will rise in these areas (Gariano & Guzzetti, 2016). In general, the impact of changing climate on rapid and shallow slope instabilities is forecasted to become more severe and widespread across Europe throughout the 21st century (Schlögl & Matulla, 2018). Landslides have a great impact on the socioeconomic framework of Europe. The report from the European Environment Agency (EEA, 2010) revealed that 70 fatal landslides were recorded in Europe for the period 1998–2009, causing 312 fatalities and destruction of an extensive amount of infrastructure and housing. A recent study (Haque et al., 2016) reported that during the period 1995–2014, 1370 fatalities and 784 injuries were recorded from 476 deadly landslide events in 27 European countries (including Turkey). The EEA (2010) report also revealed that although landslide inventories exist in many European countries, they are very heterogeneous and, in many cases, they are not available to the public. The lack of a comprehensive landslide inventory at a European level has reduced their visibility and impact for many years. This was partially solved by the initiative of the Joint Research Centre from the European Commission in 2012 (Van Den Eeckhaut and Hervás, 2012). The report named “Landslide inventories in Europe and policy recommendations for their interoperability and harmonization” took the first steps to compiling and analysing landslide databases in 28 European countries. This report was the seed for the creation of the European Landslide Expert Group and the development of the first European susceptibility map (ELSUS v1) presented by Günther, Van Den Eeckhaut, Malet, Reichenbach, and Hervás (2014). In 2017, EuroGeoSurveys analysed the landslide databases from the Geological Surveys of Europe (Herrera et al., 2017). A landslide density map was produced (LANDEN map) showing, for the first time, 210,544 km2 of landslide-prone areas in Europe. A second version of the European Susceptibility Map (ELSUS v2) was elaborated by Wilde, Günther, Reichenbach, Malet, and Hervás (2018) with a higher spatial resolution and more detailed information. This map will be exploited in the present work to analyse the social/ economic vulnerability to landslides of each participant country. Regarding how landslides are integrated into urban planning legislation, the EEA (2010) reported that methodologies and legislation

2. Methods Within the framework of the European Geological Surveys (EGS), the Earth Observation and Geohazards Expert Group (EOEG) carried out this survey by means of various questionnaires that were circulated among its members, as well as a participatory exercise. Twenty one National Geological Surveys participated: Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom, as well as eight regional Geological Surveys: Republic of Srpska (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria, Hesse, Lower Saxony, Northrhine-Westphalia and Saxony Anhalt in Germany, and Catalonia in Spain. Results were discussed and analyzed during the annual EOEG meeting held in Vienna in May 2018. The methodology is divided into the following parts:

2.1. The EOEG landslide inventory This section includes, for the first time, the EOEG landslide inventory and database which started in 2015. The idea behind this initiative is to come up with statistics regarding damaging landslides in Europe to better understanding their real impact. Through annual questionnaires, we have collected data from 3846 damaging landslides occurred in 19 European countries (including Switzerland and Ukrania but no Denmark, German regions, Norway, Slovakia and Sweden) during the timespan from 2015 to 2017. Data are focused on: the landslide typology (slides, rockfalls, flows, complex landslides); spatial distribution; triggering factor; fatalities and injuries; damages (to infrastructure, urban areas, landscape). Additionally, GSs reported a very brief description (if any) of the Multiple Occurrence Regional Landslide Events (MORLEs, defined by Crozier, 2005) registered over the past 10 years. Data collection regarding the average annual damage caused by landslides in the countries (economic losses and fatalities) is the last task. Sources of information are of different quality, as data regarding landslides are not available in some countries, on many occasions no official statistics exist.

2.2. Analysis of the population exposed to landslide in Europe Population exposure to landslides was calculated for every participant country by combining the European Landslide Susceptibility map (ELSUS v2) with the population density map (2015) available at the Global Human Settlement Layer (GHS-POP) from the JRC data catalogue (https://ghsl.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ghs_pop.php). The population density map, which provides an estimate of the number of people by 250 m × 250 m cell, was used to calculate the number of people located in high and very high landslide susceptibility areas according to ELSUS v2. Additionally, the aerial extent of high/very high landslidesusceptible areas in each country was also calculated. 2

Landscape and Urban Planning 196 (2020) 103740

R.M. Mateos, et al.

Republic and Romania have occurred in built-up areas, while for Ukraine the proportion is also high (80%). As an example, the Croatian GS reported the Hrvatska Kostajnica landslide (central Croatia) which destroyed part of this small town in March 2018 (Fig. 2). Multiple-Occurrence of Regional Landslide Events (MORLEs) are a special type of landslide phenomenon (Crozier, 2005) which can seriously affect socio-economic activities across borders. One event alone can involve hundreds to thousands of individual landslides occurring almost simultaneously over large areas (up to 20,000 km2). Table 1 collects the information regarding MORLE data reported by the affected countries. An example of one such event was the very intense rainfall episode (cyclone Tamara) in Serbia and Bosnia & Herzegovina in May 2014 (Arbanas et al., 2017; Đurić, Mladenović, Pešić-Georgiadis, Marjanović, & Abolmasov, 2017) which generated destruction of houses, roads, bridges and other infrastructure. In Serbia, the disaster resulted in 51 fatalities (including the effects of flooding), the evacuation of 32,000 people and economic losses of up to €1523.3 million (United Nations Serbia et al. 2014). Regarding the economic impact of landslides, there is a complete lack of information in 60% of the GSs. For the remaining GSs, average annual losses are reported and summarised in Table 2. Italy reports the greatest economic losses (between €1–3billion), but also includes the effects of flooding. According to ELSUS v2, population exposure to landslides for each country is shown in Fig. 3 (upper graph), as well as the aerial extent of high/very high landslide-susceptible areas by country (lower graph). We can observe that Italy, UK, France, Germany and Spain are the countries with more population exposed to landslides (> 4 million people in each country), highlighting Italy with more than 14 million people living in areas with high and very high degree of landslide susceptibility. Regarding surface areas (km2) identified with high and very high landslide-susceptibility (ELSUS v2): Italy, Spain, France, Norway and Romania are the countries with greater surface subject to landslides.

2.3. Questionnaire on policy, laws and regulations This questionnaire aims to identify national/regional legal singularities and to detect those deficiencies common to all. Ten questions have been raised to analyse how landslides are integrated into urban planning (legislation and procedures), including: the existence of a national/regional Land Bill that contemplates landslide hazard; the authorities responsible for urban planning in the country; the type of landslide maps officially required (if any); the existence of official methodological guides to draw up landslide maps; information related to mapping, reporting, revision and supervision competency requirements. 2.4. Questionnaire on landslide awareness and preparedness This questionnaire includes seven questions to provide information how landslides are perceived by society and how the community is prepared to face this geohazard by means of protection/prevention plans against landslides. GSs were required to inform about the existence of outreach programs to strengthen landslides awareness in their surveys. 2.5. Participatory exercise A participatory exercise was developed to record cases of poor urban practices in landslide-prone zones across Europe. The aim of this initiative is to identify common weaknesses and try to discover where the main deficiencies lie. Nine countries have reported calamitous examples: Spain, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Serbia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Poland and Romania. All the cases report severe damage to buildings and infrastructure caused by landslides and provoked strong social and economic impacts. The analysis and discussion for each case was provided by the correspondent GS. 3. Results

3.2. Landslides in the legislation 3.1. Landslide impacts in Europe and population exposure In most of the countries (72%), urban planning is carried out within the ambit of Local Government. Surprisingly, almost 50% of the countries currently have no legal measures at a national level (Land Bill) to take account of the threat from landslides during urban planning: Belgium, Denmark, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia, Ireland, Lithuania, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The remaining countries contemplate landslides in a National Land Bill, or even in regional laws, as occurs in Germany, Austria, Serbia and Spain (Fig. 4). In the case of Portugal, landslides are directly considered in a specific law named “National Ecological Reserve”, which includes some natural hazards (landslides, floods, coastal erosion and soil erosion). Within this law, the areas defined as landslide prone are strongly restricted for development purposes. In countries and regions with regulations where landslide maps are officially required, susceptibility maps are deemed sufficient in 50% of cases and inventory maps in 20% of them. Italy, Norway, as well as Catalonia (Spain) require for hazard maps, and only Italian and French legislations consider the need to construct risk maps (Fig. 4). 60% of the countries and 100% of the regions have developed methodological guides to draw up landslide maps, but in some countries, and specifically in those with no regulation, they are not official (only recommendation or guidelines). There is a large heterogeneity of mapping methods, scales and procedures. The example of scales has been presented in Table 3, which shows the variability in the recommended scale by the landslide guides for urban planning. Considering the criteria indicated by Fell et al. (2008) on the recommended scales for landslides zoning purpose at local (1:5000 to 1: 25.000) and site-specific zoning (1:5000 to 1:1000), we observe that 6 countries (Austria, France, Greece, Norway, Portugal and Serbia) and two regions

The common database recently created by EOEG have recorded information from 3846 damaging landslides across Europe (affecting the road and railway network as well as urban areas) in the period 2015–2017 (Fig. 1). Most of the landslides (69%) were triggered by episodes of intense and/or long-lasting rainfall. Croatia, Greece and Italy referred 43 landslides triggered by earthquakes during this period (1.1% of the total); for the rest (around 30%), the triggering factor is unknown but human activities can be also the cause of many slope failures. The most frequent landslide typology is the slide (48% of the total amount), followed by rockfalls (21%) and flows (11%); complex landslides are the least frequent typology (1.6%). Austria being the country with the most landslide events recorded (37.2% of the total), followed by Spain, Italy, France, Greece, Serbia, Slovenia and United Kingdom (57.8% of the total), whereas the remaining landslides (5%) are distributed across the rest of the countries (Fig. 1). 143 landslides caused 39 fatalities and 155 injured people during the period. Italy being the most affected country with 18 deaths and 73 injured. Most of the landslides (68%) are concentrated in mountainous and hilly regions; in particular, large rockfalls and debris flows dominate in the Alps and steep slopes in other mountain ranges (Apennines, Cantabrian Mountains, Pyrenees, Dinaric Alps and Carpathian). Flows and slides also occurred in clay-rich sediments in the large river basins of Europe (Danube, Rhine, Seine, etc.). Slides are numerous on cliffs in Southern England’s coast, affecting soft rocks (mainly chalk) as well as in the North West region and Scotland. In Ireland, slides mainly occur along the Southern-east coast affecting Cambrian and Devonian metasediments. Landslide damage is mainly concentrated in infrastructure and urban areas. 100% of the reported landslides from Croatia, Czech 3

Landscape and Urban Planning 196 (2020) 103740

R.M. Mateos, et al.

Fig. 1. Damaging landslide inventory developed by EOEG from EuroGeoSurveys during the span-period 2015–2017. Landslide typologies are represented for each participant country by a circle diagram. 3907 damaging landslides (black dots) were recorded; Austria being the country with the most landslide events. Coordinate reference system: ETRS89-LAEA Europe.

3.3. Landslide awareness and preparedness The GSs from Austria, Greece, Italy, Norway, Romania, Serbia and Sweden consider landslides as a National problem and, in general, the population is fully aware of, and coexists with, the risk. For the rest of the GSs, people who live in hazardous areas are aware of the risk, but only after a significant event. The perception of landslide risk in public administrators increases slightly, but in general, they are equally aware only after the occurrence of an important event. Regarding preparedness, Austria, France, Italy, Norway, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden have a continuous National Plan which contemplates measures of protection, prevention and mitigation against landslides. In the case of Portugal, the plan exists but only in some municipalities. The rest of the countries and regions only take actions after a significant event. Fig. 5 shows this with the additional information of the landslides events with fatalities and injuries during the period 2015–2017. Some countries (Greece, Spain, UK and Bosnia and Herzegovina), with fatal landslides and with a high range of population exposure (Fig. 3), have not yet implemented a continuous plan for landslide risk reduction. Although the participant GSs have experts on landslides, and are involved in landslide mapping, technical reports and landslide monitoring, this information is frequently unknown by society in general, and urban managers in particular. Half of the participant Geological Surveys have an outreach program to strengthen landslide awareness. Good examples are from the Geological Survey of Norway (NGU), the

Fig. 2. The Hrvatska Kostajnica landslide (Croatia) which partially affected some urban areas in March 2018. (3D model by Croatian Geological Survey).

(Catalonia in Spain and Republic of Srpska in Bosnia and Herzegovina) recommend hazard and risk maps at scales suitable for urban purposes. Supervision for the final approval of urban/land-use plans is mandatory in Austria, France, Greece, Norway and Serbia. It is usually carried out by geoexperts from other public administrations (not GSs).

4

Landscape and Urban Planning 196 (2020) 103740

R.M. Mateos, et al.

Table 1 MORLE events registered in some European countries during the past 10 years. Country

MORLEs event (since 2009)

Austria

- District of Feldbach, Styria. On 22th-24th June 2009. 465 shallow landslides in an area of 12 km2. - Taxenbach (Salzburg). On 1st-2nd July 2013. 108 shallow landslides in an area of 60 km2 - Stanzim Mürztal (Styria). On 24th-25th July 2016. 102 shallow landslides and flows in an area of 15 km2 - Ober-Wölz (Styria). On 4th-5th August 2017. 328 shallow landslides and flows Central part of Bosnia and Herzegovina. On 12nd-17th May 2014; The cyclone Tamara. More than 7100 (re)activated landslides. 10,000 people evacuated and 15,000 displaced. Loss: 5 to 10% of the Bosnia and Herzegovina GDP (European Commission, 2014). NW Croatia. Extreme precipitation on winter-spring 2013. More than 900 landslides in the Pannonian Basin (Bernat Gazibara et al., 2017). - Western Greece. On 31st January-2nd February 2015. Intense and prolonged rainfall that triggered numerous landslide events. - Lesbos. On 12nd June 2017. An earthquake of 6.1 Mw caused many falls and landslides. - Giampilieri (NE Sicily). On 1st October 2009. Very intense rainfall event which caused greater than 1000 landslides. 38 fatalities, 6 missing persons and damage to buildings and transportation infrastructures valued up to €550 Million. (Trigila, Iadanza, Esposito, & Scarascia-Mugnozza, 2015; Aronica, Brigand, & Morey, 2012). - Emilia-Romagna Region. March–April 2013. Extensive landslide occurrences due to a high-intensity precipitations and contemporaneous snow melting. Local authorities advised about 1,500 damages (Pizziolo, Bernardi, Daniele, Generali, & Piacentini, 2015). - NE Sicily. On 22nd November 2011. Extreme rainfall event. Hundreds of landslides which caused 4 fatalities (Fiorillo, Diodato & Meo, 2016). - - Cinque Terre (Liguria). On 25th October 2011. Very intense rainfall event. 300 landslides in Vernazza and more than 170 in Monterosso. 7 people died. (Cevasco, Brandolini, Scopesi, & Rellini, 2013). Flysch Carpathians. Summer 2010. 1000 reported landslides on urban areas. Costs around €960 million (Mrozek & Laskowicz, 2014) Funchal and Ribera Brava (Madeira) on 20th February 2010. Earth/mudflows caused 45 deaths, 6 missing and 68 injured. Losses valued up to €1.53 billion (Fragoso et al., 2012; Lira et al., 2013) Krupanj and Bajina Basta. In May 2014, the cyclon Tamara caused almost 1300 landslides. 51 fatalities (including landslides and flooding), 32,000 people evacuated and economic losses up to €1,523 million. (Đurić et al., 2017) Eastern regions. In May 2010. Extremely rainfall. 551 landslides were registered an emergency declared (Liščák et al., 2010). On 9th-14th September 2014, heavy rainfalls caused 800 slope failures with large material damage (Čarman, Jemec Auflič, Jež, & Milanič, 2017). - Val d’Aran. On 17th and 18th June 2013. Catastrophic rainfall event which caused numerous debris flows. Important damages to infrastructures. (Pinyol, González, & Moysset, 2017)

Bosnia & Herzegovina Croatia Greece Italy

Poland Portugal Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Spain (Catalonia)

whole area (Chacón et al., 2018), it was never carried out by the developers, and they were not obliged to do so by the administration. A judicial process was initiated in October 2013 by the affected property owners against the developers and construction companies. In 2016, the High Court of Andalusia, adjudicated in favour of the residential communities. Currently, the landslide is still active and no homeowner has been compensated.

British Geological Survey (BGS), and the Geological Survey of Ireland (GSI), which are actively engaged in communicating their research and information. In the case of Norway, landslide maps (both for susceptibility and hazard), databases, and maps for unstable rock slopes are online-available to the general public. 3.4. Cases of poor urban practices in areas of instability Nine GSs have reported cases of poor urban practices in landslideprone zones which have entailed strong social and economic impacts. Locations are indicated in Fig. 6.

3.4.2. The Limnes case in Cyprus The village of Pissouri is located in the SW part of Cyprus. “Limnes” is an area adjacent to the village that was built between 1990 and 2012 over the surface of a dormant landslide on very soft materials. Since 2012, urbanization of the “Limnes” area has faced severe problems due to both, settlement and slide movements which have caused much damage to dwellings and infrastructure. In total, 80 properties have been affected by serious land slippage (still active). The latter has caused some homes to rip apart, roads to buckle and electricity cables to move (Hearn, Larkin, Hadjicharalambous, Papageorgiou, & Zoi, 2018). The cost is estimated at €20 M. Since the manifestation of the landslide, some families were obliged to move out completely. The affected area was not included in any landslide inventory, landslide susceptibility, hazard or risk map until

3.4.1. The case of Cármenes del Mar (Spain) Urbanization on the southern coast of Spain at Cármenes del Mar (Granada) started around 1997 and continued until 2006. The development consists of 416 houses on the seafront, when initially only 100 were planned. The resort was built on a pre-existing large landslide (Mateos et al., 2017). In November 2015, the Regional Parliament of Andalusia declared a state of emergency in the resort. To date, 42 ruined houses have been evacuated, causing great social alarm. Although the preliminary geotechnical assessment identified the slope stability and recommended a more in-depth geotechnical study for the

Table 2 Economic and social impact of landslides reported (official/referenced) by the participating GSs. Country

Average annual economic losses (Euro)

Average annual fatalities (past 10 years)

Austria Bosnia and Herzegovina Cyprus France Greece Ireland Italy Norway Poland Serbia Spain Sweden UK

€592million (including all natural hazards) €2.03billion during floods and MORLE event in May 2014. (United Nations, 2016) Aprox. €5million Between €100–200million No data €0.5million €1–3billion (including floods) €5.13 million (annual average for the period 1980–2010) No data €100million €160million (Corominas, Mateos, & Remondo, 2017) €20million €89.3million (2015)

3

5

0 Few 1.2 0.1 12 5.3 (including snow avalanches) 0–1 1 2 0.8

Landscape and Urban Planning 196 (2020) 103740

R.M. Mateos, et al.

Fig. 3. Upper figure: Population exposure to landslides by countries by exploiting Landslide Susceptibility map (ELSUS v2) and the Population Density Map (Global Human Settlement Layer-GHS-POP). Lower figure: ELSUS v2-high and very high susceptibility surface area (km2) for each participant country.

during this 55-year period are waiting for compensation.

2013. Since 2013 however, the whole area has been included in the Cyprus GS landslide inventory and in a geological suitability map. Currently, the landslide is active and there is no judicial process for compensation yet. It has to be noted that in Cyprus there is no legislative framework in force for such cases.

3.4.4. The Sarno case in Italy In May 1998, in the villages of Sarno, Siano, Bracigliano and Quindici in the Campania Region (Southern Italy), more than 140 landslides (mainly hillslope debris flows) were triggered by a heavy rainfall event causing 159 fatalities, 178 destroyed and 450 damaged houses (Trigila & Iadanza, 2012). In the 19th century alone these zones were affected by more than 15 similar events. Most of the urban areas affected were built since the 60‘s. The increase of urban areas has therefore occurred in the absence of proper land use planning and with a memory loss of past events. The Sarno event led to the implementation of a relevant law in Italy (L. 267/1998) that regulates the need to identify landslide hazard and risk areas and the application of building restrictions in hazardous zones (River Basin Plans – PAI). After the catastrophic event, in addition to land use planning, debris flow mitigation measures were also carried out in the Sarno area, including: slope stabilization, check dams, and three large debris deposition basins (Episcopio, Curti, Mare) above the town (Versace, Capparelli, & Picarelli, 2008).

3.4.3. The Ropoto case in Greece According to the landslide database of the Hellenic Survey of Geology and Mineral Exploration (HSGME), the first recorded damage from landslides in the village of Ropoto (central Greece) was reported in 1963, when 100 dwellings were affected. From the outset, HSGME realised the magnitude of the phenomenon and proposed either the gradual re-settlement of the village to a new safer place or/and the application of simple and inexpensive stabilisation measures (effective in the early stages of the instability). Reactivations have occurred in 1979, 1984 and 2010. The most severe event took place in April 2012, resulting in major destruction of the central part of the village, which is still in ruins. The Ropoto case is a 55 year historical record of how a known instability is worsening while no relocation actions or corrective measures are taken (Lekkas, Vasilopoulou, & Hadzinakos, 1998). Although remedial measures were proposed as well as monitoring methods for early detection (Bellas & Voulgaridis, 2018) they have not yet been implemented. Owners of the many houses which were built

3.4.5. The Umka case in Serbia Umka is one of the biggest landslides in Serbia (Abolmasov, 6

Landscape and Urban Planning 196 (2020) 103740

R.M. Mateos, et al.

Fig. 4. Legislation: almost 50% of the countries currently have no legal measures to contemplate landslides in the National Land Bill. 50% of the countries with regulations only required susceptibility maps.

Milenković, Marjanović, Đurić, & Jelisavac, 2015). It is located 20 km SW of Belgrade, on the right side of the Sava River where it coalesces with the Duboko landslide. Around 400 dwellings, the IB-26 motorway, and many other infrastructures are affected by the landslide. The total economic damage is calculated at €4–5million. Additionally, the uncontrolled leakage from the sewerage network may cause great environmental problems such as groundwater and soil pollution and also the possibility of epidemic disease. Most of the dwellings in this area were built without a building permit. In those dwellings which do have building permits, constructors did not carry out geotechnical studies

because, under Serbian law, it is not compulsory. 3.4.6. The Čemšenik case in Slovenia The village of Čemšenik (central Slovenia) was built on a dormant landslide area many centuries ago. After heavy and abundant rainfall in 2010 new cracks appeared in the church and road, and about 20 residential houses were directly endangered. The Čemšenik case is not an isolated example in Slovenia. Many such landslides exist where the lives of hundreds of people were endangered and human casualties occurred (Jemec Auflič et al., 2017; Peternel, Jež, Milanič, Markelj, & Jemec

Table 3 Countries where the methodological guides consider landslide maps for urban planning (recommended scale indicated). *(Norway): variable scales based on the type of process. Country/Region

Urban planning

MAPS

Inventory

Austria Czech Republic France Greece Norway Poland Portugal Serbia Slovenia Catalonia Republic of Srpska (B&H)

1:10.000 1:2000–1:1000 1:10.000 1:5000–1:1000 1:5000–1:1000 1:5.000 1:5.000

Susceptibility

Hazard

Risk

1:25.000–1: 50.000 1:10.000 1:10.000 1:2000–1:1000 1:50.000

1:5.000–1:10.000

< 1:5.000

1:10.000–1:20.000

1:5000 1:1000–1:500 Yes *

1:5000–1:1000 1:5000–1:1000

1:5000–1:1000 1:5000–1:1000

1:1000–1:5.000 1:25.000–1:5.000

1:1000–1:5.000 < 1:5.000

1:5000–1:1000 1:5000–1:1000 1:25.000 1:5.000 1:25.000–1:5.000

7

Landscape and Urban Planning 196 (2020) 103740

R.M. Mateos, et al.

Fig. 5. Preparedness against landslides. Austria, France, Italy, Norway, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden have a continuous National plan to implement measures to protect, prevent and mitigate landslide disasters. The landslides which caused fatalities and injuries during 2015–2017 (from EOEG inventory in Fig. 1) have been represented.

raised against commune authorities and this is still in progress.

Auflič, 2018). Based on these recent events during the last decade, several methodologies and different hazard maps have been prepared in Slovenia, but no legislation has been enacted on their basis (Mikoš, Čarman, Papež, & Janža, 2014).

3.4.9. The Blidari and Glodeni case in Romania The villages of Blidari and Glodeni (west Romania) are affected by landslide activity with manifestations since 2006. In March 2018, after snow thawing and a period of heavy rainfall, the slides were reactivated. Numerous dwellings and infrastructure as well as the nearby railway were severely affected. In both villages, 14 households are in imminent danger, and 27 dwellings severely affected. All the residents know that the area in which they are located may be affected by landslides and, although they have been evacuated by civil protection, some continue to return to homes that are severely affected. Land stabilisation works have been carried out at various times but without success and the County Committee declared a state of emergency in 2010.

3.4.7. The Nižná Myšľa case in Slovakia In May and June 2010 extraordinary rainfalls induced more than 570 newly evolved slope failures in Eastern Slovakia. The most disastrous landslide occurred in the village of Nižná Myšľa on June 4th 2010: 40 inhabited houses were damaged along with much local infrastructure; 29 of the houses had to be demolished and several others became uninhabitable (Petro, Jánová, Žilka, Ondrejka, Liščák, & Balík, 2014). Despite the fact that the landslide had been well known for several decades, construction of housing estates continued until the disaster of 2010. Since then several phases of remediation have taken place at the site, however, the landslide is still active in places.

4. Discussion and conclusions 3.4.8. The Lanckorona case in Poland Lanckorona is a Polish village situated in the foothills of the West Carpathians. The first information about landslide activity in the village comes from 1960 when 24 buildings were severely damaged (Ziętara, 1969). For the next 50 years, due to lack of information about landslide activity in official documents, the area was again treated as a suitable place for housing. In 2010 extremely heavy rainfall reactivated the landslide: numerous buildings were severely damaged and 26 families (greater than100 people) had to leave their properties. A legal case was

4.1. Landslide impacts in Europe and population exposure Considering the participant countries, the present study reveals almost 48 million people living in areas with high and very high degrees of landslides-susceptibility (around 1 million km2 according to ELSUS v2). Nevertheless, there is a low visibility of landslide risk in Europe although landslides are a widespread hazard producing a significant social and economic impact. During the spanning period 2015–2017, 8

Landscape and Urban Planning 196 (2020) 103740

R.M. Mateos, et al.

Fig. 6. Location of the nine reported cases of poor urban practices in areas of instability.

scales and procedures and a great confusion of concepts regarding susceptibility, vulnerability, hazard and risk. One relevant deficiency detected is the lack of hazard/risk maps at a sufficiently detailed resolution (scales 1:5000 to 1:1000) in the legal procedure. In this scenario, and although the European Council reaffirmed the importance of disaster prevention as a tool for adaptation to climate change, to date, no specific EU policy on landslides has been implemented. The European strategy should be aimed at strengthening cooperation in law enforcement. It would be highly desirable to further improve legislative standards for landslides at the European level. The positive role the Flood Directive has played in the standardisation of flood assessment and management can inspire a similar framework for landslides.

39 fatalities and 155 injuries were reported by the participant GSs. The real impact is usually underestimated and it is difficult to quantify; in fact, there is a lack of information in many (60%) of the participant GSs. In addition, 11 GSs report 18 MORLEs during the past 10 years with a total amount of around 150 fatalities and severe economic impacts. Most are related to extreme rainfall episodes, and they are usually associated with other major natural disasters, such as flooding. MORLEs are not well recognised publicly and the media overlook their effects. It is necessary to implement national landslide databases in most European countries. In some GSs, landslide mapping is systematic; others only record damaging landslides, whereas in others, landslide maps are only available for certain regions or local areas. National landslide databases are needed with the amendment of Directive, 2007/ 2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007, which establishes an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) as open data, freely available for distribution to and use by the general public.

4.3. Landslide awareness and preparedness In general, policymakers underestimate the potential effects of landslides. Residents and public managers in landslide-prone areas are aware of the risk, but usually only after a significant event. By contrast, prevention and mitigation measures against landslides are not well developed across Europe; most countries only take action after a significant event. Major efforts on dissemination have to be carried out. Authorities and residents in areas of landslide hazard must be made aware of the dangers. The scientific community, educational institutions, companies, associations, Geological Surveys and many other corporations can play a vital role in this. Additionally, the communication between landslide

4.2. Landslides in legislation Half of the participant countries have no legal measures in a National Land Bill to stipulate the contemplation of landslides in urban planning practices. In the remaining countries, a wide range of laws (national and regional) regulates this, but with a large heterogeneity of governance. The legal measures taken for defining and mapping landslide hazard into the licensing process is very different from one country to another. There is a large diversity of mapping methods, 9

Landscape and Urban Planning 196 (2020) 103740

R.M. Mateos, et al.

National plan with measures of protection, prevention and mitigation against landslides (Fig. 5); and the GDP (2015) per capita for each country as economic factor, as there is a direct relationship between this value and the quality of the constructions as well as with the ability to become successful again after a damaging event (resilience). Fig. 7 synthesizes the inconsistencies across Europe in the handling of landslides. Fortunately, countries with the largest amount of population exposed to landslides, such as Italy, UK and France have strong National laws and continuous plans to implement protecting measures against landslides, as well as high rates of GDP per capita. A relevant case is Norway with the highest GDP per capita of the participant countries, with a robust legislation on the subject and with a National continuous plan to protect almost 1.5 million people living in high-very high susceptible land (ELSUS v2). On the other extreme, countries like Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Cyprus, Bosnia & Herzegovina and Czech Republic, with many people exposed to landslides (over 600x103 people in each country), they have no specific legislation and plan to face landslides, with the aggravating factor of having the lowest GDP per capita in Europe. To minimize the disparity identified, a European Landslide Directive should be promoted to establish the structures required for the assessment and management of the risks that landslides pose to human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity in the European Union, as illustrated in the case of 2007/60/EC Flood Directive. This legal framework should include time-bound provision for the following points: a) A preliminary Landslide Risk Assessment

experts and urban/land-use managers has to be improved. Urban and land-use authorities should develop strategies for landslide risk reduction in their municipalities/regions in collaboration with the scientific community. European institutions have to enhance this collaboration by means of European projects and national training programs in both directions. Specific lines of research should be enacted in the particular field of urban and land-use planning within the next research and innovation framework (Horizon Europe). 4.4. Cases of poor urban practices in areas of instability A combination of causes is behind the reported disasters and several common factors have been identified. Firstly, for all the cases, poor urban practices are related to a weak rule of law and/or absence of good governance. The legislative tools were not adequate to regulate the urban plan from the early stages. In the case of Cyprus, Slovenia and Slovakia, landslides are not contemplated in a National Land Bill, and this lack of specific legislation has led to calamities. In the case of Serbia and Spain, regulation depends on regional legislation; both countries report that constructors did not carried out the necessary geotechnical studies because they were not obliged to do so. In the case of Italy it is clear: the catastrophe in the Campanian region, with 159 fatalities, prompted the adoption of stricter legislation. In the cases of Greece, Romania and Poland, specific national legislation exists, but numerous weaknesses are identified in the control of its application. Although Greek legislation related to urban planning for new areas includes landslide assessment, there are serious problems with already established settlements, as demonstrated in the Ropoto case. Secondly, past landslide activity was not well recorded in official documents. There is a lack of official landslide inventory as well as susceptibility, hazard or risk maps at an appropriate scale where landslide activity could have been previously identified. Thirdly, the communication between the actors involved has not been very fluent. The social analysis of the cases explored reveals that dwelling occupiers were completely unaware of the risk before the disaster. Post-event, their life is substantially disrupted: they have to move, to continue paying the mortgage, the value of their property decreases, the insurance companies are not responsible for the damage and they have to face long, and uncertain, judicial processes. In most of the cases, governments have finally adopted very costly measures, whereas their efforts should have been made at the initial stages, on better information and appropriate urban and territorial planning.

• A description of the landslides occurred in the past which had sig-

•

nificant impacts. To build up the approach to be adopted in the production of landslide databases: to design common technical formats for the purpose of processing and transmission of data, including statistical and cartographic data following INSPIRE standards. An identification by the Member States of those areas where significant landslide risk exists or might be considered likely to occur. b) Landslides hazard and risk maps

• To define the approach to be adopted in the production of landslide

maps: the legal framework has to set out the minimum requirements in terms of the types (inventory, susceptibility, hazard and risk), scales and contents of the maps. Criteria indicated by Fell et al (2008) can be followed. Stringent requirements and high standards have to be applied for urban planning at a local level as well as construction projects. The maps have to include the different types of mass movements such as slides, rockfalls, flows, etc., and their secondary consequences: displacement waves, landslide dams with related upstream and potential downstream flooding.

5. Towards a common regulatory framework on landslides in Europe The present work reveals that landslide hazard is not only a local problem, but an international one, which demands urgent action in order to control the spread of urbanised areas on hazardous land. Urban sprawl is growing in many countries of Europe and increasingly takes place in landslides-prone areas. Similarly, the frequency of extreme rainfall events is increasing and it is expected to rise further in the near future (Madsen, Lawrence, Lang, Martinkova, & Kjeldsen, 2014). At an EU level (European Commission, 2013), it is a priority to enhance the integration between climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction policies and practices. Taking into account the information elaborated in this work, we have developed, for each participant country, a qualitative analysis to integrate physical and economic vulnerability to landslides, including legislation and preparedness. Fig. 7 shows the results of such integration where the following factors were considered: population exposure to landslides (Fig. 3, in this case using a logarithm scale for better visualization); the existence and type of legislation to take account of the threat from landslides (Fig. 4); the existence (or not) of a continuous

The Directive must take into consideration the achievements attained by some countries with high standards in their legislation, such as Norway and Austria. Both countries require either hazard or risk maps, or a combination of those, at scales suitable for urban purposes (< 1:10.000). c) Landslide Management Plans

• Implementation of risk management plans focused on prevention, • • 10

protection and preparedness, understanding the relationship between landslides, land-use and considering the changing climate. To define the technical requirements for any prevention and mitigation measures. To define the fundamental stages in legal procedure to ensure an appropriate assessment in landslide-prone areas. Competent personnel have to be involved at all stages, and specifically in the supervision and final approval of urban/land-use plans as well as in

Landscape and Urban Planning 196 (2020) 103740

R.M. Mateos, et al.

Fig. 7. Social and economic vulnerability to landslides for each participant country. The following elements are integrated: people exposed to landslides; the existence and type of legislation; the existence (or not) of a continuous plan facing landslides; and the GDP (2015) per capita.

- Saša Todorović,: Provides and discuss the Umka case in Serbia - Mateja Jemec Auflič: Provides and discuss the Čemšenik case in Slovenia - Pavel Liscák: Provides and discuss the Nižná Myšľa case in Slovakia - Izabela Laskowicz: Provides and discuss the Lanckorona case in Poland - Raluca Maftei: Provides and discuss the Blidari and Glodeni case in Romania - Cvjetko Sandić: Design and contributes to the MORLEs questionnaire - Christoph Gauert, Reginald L Hermanns and Arben Kociu: Contribute considerably to the discussion and to the final section “towards a common regulatory framework on landslide in Europe”.

any prevention or mitigation measures design.

• To define post-disaster strategies. Legal procedures based on lessons

learned. Development of potential mitigation strategies and to ensure good urban practices in areas with previous landslide occurrences. d) Implementing outreach and dissemination Programs

• To adopt National programs for the purpose of dissemination and

transmission of data; to provide residents of landslide hazard areas adapted information, as well as to design specific training for policymakers and land-use planners.

It is not envisaged that this common regulatory framework would reduce the high standards already achieved in countries such as Norway which has excellent national legislation on geohazards related to urban planning. The main objective of this proposal is to offer an essential, supporting legal structure for the countries which do not have legal guidance as well as to those countries with deficiencies in their current state of legislation in force. It is essential to understand that landslidehazard is a widespread problem that requires collaboration, and mutual understanding guided by a collective EU policy based on the principles of equality, security and solidarity.

Acknowledgements This survey has been developed within the framework of the Earth Observation and Geohazard Expert Group (EOEG) from EuroGeoSurveys and was funded by the European Commission, Directorate-General Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection (ECHO), through the project U-Geohaz: Geohazard Impact Assessment for Urban Areas. Grant Agreement No. 783169. This work has been partly funded by Salvador de Madariaga Mobility Program from the Spanish Ministry of Science, projects: PRX18/00020 and PRX19/00065. This work would not have been possible without the participation of the following EOEG members, who spent a considerable amount of time filling in the questionnaires: Niki Koulermou, Lídia Quental, Daniel Oliveira, Ruben Dias, Marcin Kułak, Maria Przyłucka, Alessandro Trigila, Mats Engdahl, Gustaf Peterson, Claire Dashwood, Jordi Marturiá, Dirk Kuhn, Clemens Ruch, Dominik Ehret, Heinz Martin Möbus, Thomas Nix, Stefan Henscheid, Roland Strauss, Katarina Atanasković Samolov, Petr Kycl, Veronika Kopačková, Vidas Mikulėnas, Vytautas Minkevičius, Alexandra Haberler, Cvjetko Sandić, Gilles Grandjean, Séverine Bernardie, Jens Jørgen Møller, Luciano Martins, Jan Walstra, Vedad Demir, Philippe Steeghs, Aleksandra Gulan, Hugo Raetzo. We would like to express our gratitude to all members and partners from EOEG as well as to the staff of EuroGeoSurvey Executive Committee for their valuable support.

6. Author statement - Rosa María Mateos and Gerardo Herrera: led, write and designed the study - Juan López-Vinielles, Rike Mauter, Roberto Sarro and Marta Béjar: performed the data analysis and designed the figures. - Eleftheria Poyiadji: designed and lead the EOEG landslides inventory. - Eleftheria Poyiadji and Dimitrios Tsagkas: provided all related to the Ropoto case in Greece - Michael Sheehy: English checking, revised and edited the manuscript - Laszlo Podolski: Provides the case of the Kostajnica landslide and contributes to the “results” section. - Kleopas Hadjicharalambous: Provides and discuss the Limnes case in Cyprus - Carla Iadanza: Provides and discuss the Sarno case in Italy 11

Landscape and Urban Planning 196 (2020) 103740

R.M. Mateos, et al.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contributing of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 151. Jemec Auflič, M., Jež, J., Popit, T., Košir, A., Maček, M., Logar, J., et al. (2017). The variety of landslide forms in Slovenia and its immediate NW surrounding. Landslides, 14, 1537–1546. Lekkas, E., Vasilopoulou, S., & Hadzinakos, I. (1998). Engineering Geological Conditions – Landslide Phenomena in the village of Ropoto Trikala, Greece. Proceedings: 8th International IAEG Congress, 1998 in Vancouver (pp. 1807–1812). Balkema, Rotterdam, vol. III. Lira, C., Lousada, M., Falcao, A. P., Gonçalves, A. B., Heleno, S., Matias, M., et al. (2013). The 20 February 2010 Madeira Island flash-floods: VHR satellite imagery processing in support of landslide inventory and sediment budget assessment. Natural Hazards Earth System Science, 13, 709–719. Liščák, P., Pauditš, P., Petro, Ľ., Iglárová, Ľ., Ondrejka, P., Dananaj, I., et al., 2010, Registration and evaluation of newly evolved slope failures in 2010 in Prešov and Košice regions. Mineralia Slovaca 42/2/2010. Dionýz Štúr Publishers, pp. 393–406. Madsen, H., Lawrence, D., Lang, M., Martinkova, M., & Kjeldsen, T. (2014). Review of trend analysis and climate change projections of extreme precipitation and floods in Europe. Journal of Hydrology, 519, 3634–3650. Mateos, R. M., Azañón, J. M., Roldán, F. J., Notti, D., Pérez-Peña, J. V., Galve, J. P., et al. (2017). The combined use of PSInSAR and UAV photogrammetry techniques for the analysis of the kinematics of a coastal landslide affecting an urban area (SE Spain). Landslides, 14, 743–754. Mikoš, M., Čarman, M., Papež, J., & Janža, M. (2014). Legislation and procedures for the assessment of landslide, rockfall and debris flow hazards and risks in Slovenia. Wildbach-und Lawinenverbau. 78(174), 212–221. Mrozek, T., & Laskowicz, I. (2014). Landslide risk reduction in Poland: from landslide inventory to improved mitigation and landuse practice in endangered areas. In K. Sassa, P. Canuti, & Y. Yin (Eds.). Landslide Science for a Safer Geoenvironment, Volume 2: Methods of Landslide Studies (pp. 765–771). Springer. Peternel, T., Jež, J., Milanič, B., Markelj, A., & Jemec Auflič, M. (2018). Engineeringgeological conditions of landslides above the settlement of Koroška Bela (NW Slovenia). Geologija, 61(2), 177–189. Petro, U., Jánová, V., Žilka, A., Ondrejka, P., Liščák, P., Balík, D., (2014). Catastrophic landslide in Nižná Myšľa village (Eastern Slovakia). In: Landslide Science for a Safer Geoenvironment. Giovanni B. Crosta, Ko-Fei Liu (eds). Proceedings of World Landslide Forum 3, 2-6 June 2014, Beijing, pp. 14-18. Pinyol, J., González, M., & Moysset, M. (2017). Preliminary estimation of Aubeta debris flow deposition and erosion volumes using LIDAR data. Barcelona, Spain Proceedings: JTC1 Workshop on Advances in Landslide Understanding. May 24–26, 2017 (pp. 4). . Pizziolo, M., Bernardi, M., Daniele, G., Generali, M., Piacentini, D., (2015). Landslide Occurrences during the High-Intensity Rainfall Event of March–April 2013 in the Emilia-Romagna Region (North Apennines, Italy). In: Engineering Geology for Society and Territory; G. Lollino et al. (eds.), Vol. 5, chapter 151: 777-780. Seneviratne, S.I., Nicholls, N., Easterling, D., Goodess, C.M., Kanae, S., Kossin, J., et al., 2012. Changes in climate extremes and their impacts on the natural physical environment. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (Field CB, V Barros, TF Stocker, D Qin, DJ Dokken, KL Ebi, MD Mastrandrea, KJ Mach, GK Plattner, SK Allen, M Tignor and PM Midgley (eds.). A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, pp. 109-230. Schlögl, M., & Matulla, C. (2018). Potential future exposure of European land transport infrastructure to rainfall-induced landslides throughout the 21st century. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 18, 1121–1132. Stevens, M. R., Berke, P. R., & Song, Y. (2010). Creating disaster-resilient communities: Evaluating the promise and performance of new urbanism. Landscape and Urban Planning, 94, 105–115. Trigila, A., & Iadanza, C. (2012). The national landslide inventory, landslide events, impacts and mitigation measures in Italy. In E. Eberhardt, C. Froese, A. K. Turner, & S. Leroueil (Vol. Eds.), Landslides and Engineered Slopes. Protecting Society through Improved Understanding: Vol. 1, (pp. 273–278). Trigila, A., Iadanza, C., Esposito, C., & Scarascia-Mugnozza, G. (2015). Comparison of Logistic Regression and Random Forests techniques for shallow landslide susceptibility assessment in Giampilieri (NE Sicily, Italy). Geomorphology, 249, 119–136. United Nations Serbia, European Union and World Bank Group, 2014. Serbia floods 2014 Report. Belgrade 2014, pp. 160. United Nations (2015). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. Geneva: United Nations37. United Nations, 2016. One United Nations Programme and Common Budgetary Framework Bosnia and Herzegovina 2015–2019. 2015 UN Country Results Report, pp. 31. Van Den Eeckhaut, M., Hervás, J., (2012). Landslides inventories in Europe and policy recommendations for their interoperability and harmonization. JCR Scientific and Policy Reports. European Commission. Report EUR 25666EN, pp. 202. Versace, P., Capparelli, G., & Picarelli, L. (2008). Landslide investigation and risk mitigation. The Sarno case. In Ken Ho, & Victor Li (Eds.). Proceedings of International Forum on Landslide Disaster Management. Hong Kong (China). Vol 1 (pp. 509–533). . Wilde, M., Günther, A., Reichenbach, P., Malet, J.-P., & Hervás, J. (2018). Pan-European landslide susceptibility mapping: ELSUS Version 2. Journal of Maps, 14(2), 97–104 and supplemental map. Ziętara, T. (1969). On the Classification of landslides in the Western Beskids. Studia Geomorphologica Carpatho-Balcanica, III, 111–131.

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103740. References Abolmasov, B., Milenković, S., Marjanović, M., Đurić, U., & Jelisavac, B. (2015). A geotechnical model of the Umka landslide with reference to landslides in weathered Neogene marls in Serbia. Landslides, 12, 689–702. Arbanas, S. M., Sečanj, M., Gazibara, S. B., Bernat, S., Krkač, M., Begić, H., et al. (2017). Landslides in the Dinarides and Pannonian Basin: From the largest historical and recent landslides in Croatia to catastrophic landslides caused by Cyclone Tamara (2014) in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Landslides, 14, 1861–1876. Aronica, G. T., Brigand, G., & Morey, N. (2012). Flash floods and debris flow in the city area of Messina, north-east part of Sicily, Italy in October 2009: The case of the Giampilieri catchment. Natural Hazards Earth Systems, 12, 1295–1309. Bellas, M., & Voulgaridis, G. (2018). Study of the major landslide at the community of Ropoto, Central Greece, mitigation and FBG early warning system. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions, 3, 30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-018-0133-8. Bernat Gazibara, S., Krkač, M., Vlahek, I., Pavlić, K., Begić, H., Zekan, S., … Snježana. (2017). Extreme precipitation events and landslides activation in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. In: M. Jemec Auflić, M. Mikoš, T. Verbovšek (Eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd regional symposium on landslides in the Adriatic Balkan Region: Advances in landslide research, October 2017, Ljubljana (Slovenia) (pp. 19–25). Cevasco, A., Brandolini, P., Scopesi, C., & Rellini, I. (2013). Relationships between geohydrological processes induced by heavy rainfall and land-use: The case of 25 October 2011 in the Vernazza catchment (Cinque Terre, NW Italy). Journal of Maps, 9, 289–298. Chacón, J., Alameda-Hernández, P., Chacón, E., Delgado, J., El Hamdouni, R., Fernández, P., et al. (2018). The Calaiza landslide on the coast of Granada (Andalusia, Spain). Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064018-1246-1. Corominas, J., Mateos, R. M., & Remondo, J. (2017). Review of landslide occurrence in Spain and its relation to climate. In K. Ho, S. Lacasse, & L. Picarelli (Eds.). Slope Safety Preparedness for Impact of Climate Change (pp. 351–377). Chapter 10. Crozier, M. J. (2005). Multiple occurrence regional landslide events in New Zealand: Hazard management issues. Landslides, 2, 247–256. Čarman, M., Jemec Auflič, M., Jež, J., & Milanič, B. (2017). Rainfall induced slope instabilities in the south-eastern region of Slovenia in September 2014. In B. Abolmasov, M. Marjanović, & U. Đurić (Eds.). Proceedings of the 2nd Regional Symposium on Landslides in the Adriatic-Balkan Region (pp. 11–14). Belgrade: University of Belgrade, Faculty of Mining and Geology RESYLAB, Belgrade 14-16 May 2015. Di Martire, D., De Rosa, M., Pesce, V., Santangelo, M. A., & Calcaterra, D. (2012). Landslide hazard and land management in high-density urban areas of Campanian region, Italy. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 12, 905–926. Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks. Official Journal of the European Union 2007: L: 27-34. Đurić, D., Mladenović, A., Pešić-Georgiadis, M., Marjanović, M., & Abolmasov, B. (2017). Using multiresolution and multitemporal satellite data for post-disaster landslide inventory in the Republic of Serbia. Landslides, 14, 1467–1482. European Commission, 2013. The EU strategy on adaptation to climate change. https:// ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/adaptation. Accessed 30 January 2019. European Commission, 2014. Floods in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Echo Joint Assessment Report, pp. 10. EEA (European Environmental Agency), 2010. Mapping the impacts of natural hazards and technological accidents in Europe. An overview of the last decade. EEA Technical report No. 13/2010, pp. 146. EEA (European Environmental Agency), 2016. Urban Sprawl in Europe. EEA report N. 11/2016. Joint EEA-FOEN report, pp. 140. European Union, 2007. Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community, 13 December 2007, 2007/C 306/01. Fiorillo, F., Diodato, N., & Meo, M. (2016). Reconstruction of a storm map and new approach in the definition of categories of the extreme rainfall, northeastern Sicily. Water, 8, 330. Fragoso, M., Trigo, R. M., Pinto, J. G., Lopes, S., Lopes, A., Ulbrich, S., et al. (2012). The 20 February 2010 Madeira flash-floods: Synoptic analysis and extreme rainfall assessment. Natural Hazards Earth System Science, 12, 715–730. Gariano, S. L., & Guzzetti, F. (2016). Landslides in a changing climate. Earth-Science Reviews, 162, 227–252. Günther, A., Van Den Eeckhaut, M., Malet, J. P., Reichenbach, P., & Hervás, J. (2014). Climate physiographically differentiated pan-European landslide susceptibility assessment using spatial multi-criteria evaluation and transnational landslide imformation. Geomorphology, 224, 69–85. Haque, U., Blum, P., da Silva, P. F., Andersen, P., Pilz, J., Chalov, S. R., et al. (2016). Fatal Landslides in Europe. Landslides, 13, 1545–1554. Hearn, G. J., Larkin, H., Hadjicharalambous, K., Papageorgiou, A., & Zoi, G. E. (2018). Proving a landslide: Ground behaviour problems at Pissouri, Cyprus. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, 51, 461–473. Herrera, G., Mateos, R. M., García-Davalillo, J. C., Grandjean, G., Poyiadji, E., Maftei, R., et al. (2017). Landslide databases in the Geological Surveys of Europe. Landslides, 15, 359–379.

12