An integral part of systematic risk management for landslides is the assessment of landslide frequency. Qualitative approaches have frequently been used for landslide risk assessment but there is now an increasing trend towards quantitative assessments. In Australia, this has been highlighted by the publication of a comprehensive paper by the Australian Geomechanics Society in March, 2000. This paper replaced an earlier 1985 publication which provided guidelines and recommendations for qualitative risk assessment based primarily on site inspection, previous experience and engineering judgment. The assessment of landslide risk requires assessment of hazard, elements at risk and the consequences of landsliding on those elements. Attention must be given to the mobility of a landslide as well as to the vulnerability of elements at risk before the consequences can be assessed reliably. A hazard-consequence matrix approach is often a convenient framework for an integrated approach to risk assessment on a qualitative or quantitative basis (AS/NZS. 1999; Flentje et al 2000; Walker et al., 2000). The first important stage of any investigation concerns the assessment of landslide hazard which is often influenced by a range of factors. It is important to consider the basic causes and mechanisms of slope instability as well as the triggering factors. For example, the most common natural triggering factor in Australia is rainfall. Therefore, frequency of landsliding is often closely related to the intensity and duration of different rainstorms. This paper will discuss different aspects of a landslide risk assessment task with particular reference to quantitative assessment of the frequency based on historical and observational data. Reference will be made to the monitoring of surface and subsurface movements and piezometric levels as well as to the detailed historical and spatial analyses of rainfall records. The procedures and methods proposed in this paper will be illustrated with reference to two case studies. Both of these case studies are defined as slide' category (Cruden and Varnes, 1996) landslides and it is important to note that this paper is directed at the assessment of this type of failure mechanism.
展开▼
机译：滑坡系统风险管理的组成部分是滑坡频率的评估。定性方法经常被用于滑坡风险评估，但是现在有越来越多的趋势进行定量评估。在澳大利亚，这一点在2000年3月澳大利亚地质力学学会发表的综合论文中得到了强调。该论文取代了1985年早期的出版物，该出版物主要基于现场检查，先前的经验和工程设计为定性风险评估提供了指导和建议。判断。滑坡风险评估需要评估危害，风险要素以及滑坡对这些要素的后果。在可靠地评估后果之前，必须注意滑坡的流动性以及处于危险中的元素的脆弱性。危害后果矩阵法通常是定性或定量风险评估综合方法的便利框架（AS / NZS。1999; Flentje等2000; Walker等2000）。任何调查的第一个重要阶段都涉及对滑坡灾害的评估，而滑坡灾害的评估通常受一系列因素的影响。重要的是要考虑边坡失稳的基本原因和机理，以及触发因素。例如，澳大利亚最常见的自然触发因素是降雨。因此，滑坡的频率通常与不同暴雨的强度和持续时间密切相关。本文将讨论滑坡风险评估任务的不同方面，特别是参考基于历史和观测数据的频率定量评估。将参考对地表和地下运动以及测压水平的监测，以及对降雨记录的详细历史和空间分析。本文中提出的程序和方法将参考两个案例进行说明。这两个案例研究都被定义为滑坡类别（Cruden and Varnes，1996），是很重要的一点，值得注意的是，本文是针对这种破坏机制的评估。
展开▼
