IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zib/zbnees/v4y2020i2p100-104.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Landslide Vulnerability Assesment (Lvas) In Luyang Area,Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia

Author

Listed:
  • Ahmad Nazrul Madri

    (Department of Public of Work (Sabah State), Slope Branch, Sembulan Road, 88538 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia)

  • Rodeano Roslee

    (Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Faculty of Science and Natural Resources, UMS Road, 88400 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia)

  • Mohd Fauzi Zikiri

    (Department of Public of Work (Sabah State), Slope Branch, Sembulan Road, 88538 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia)

Abstract

Landslide issues in Malaysia is successfully attract the interest and attention of stakeholders and the community of scientists to reduce the risk. Landslides are influenced by many factors that range from the intensity, duration and extent of a triggering factor (e.g. earthquake and rainfall) to the local physical conditions such as landform, morphological, geological materials and structures, hydrological and land uses. In this paper, we present the results of the Landslide Vulnerability Assessment (LVAs). Vulnerability is defined as the degree of losses of a given element at risk of being exposed to the occurrence of a landslides of a given magnitude or intensity, and often expressed on a scale of 0 (no loss) to 1 (total loss). The selection of the best LVAs depends on the exposed elements, landslide types and the scale of analysis. The concept of LVAs also refers to the feasibility of elements at risks on engineering structures, infrastructure facilities, communication systems, commercial (including insurance disclosures) and social. The vulnerability parameters include in assessing LVAs in this study are 1) physical implication (building structures, internal materials, property damage, infrastructural facilities and stabilization actions), social status (injury, fatalities, safety, loss of accommodation and public awareness) and interference on environment (affected period, daily operation & diversity). LVAs for study area produced by combining or overlaid of all Physical Vulnerability (Vp), Social Vulnerability (Vs) and Environmental Vulnerability (Ve) maps. The results for the Total of LVAs indicates that 30% (0.90 sq.m) of the study area classified as Very Low, 8% (0.24 sq.m) as Low, 8% (0.24 sq.m) as Moderate, 28% (0.84 sq.m) as High, 8% (0.24 sq.m) as Very High and 18% (0.54 sq.m) as Extremely High. Landslide Vulnerability level at a “high” to “very high” degree can leave an impact on individuals and society. This study found that residential, commercial, public and industrial infrastructure has higher vulnerability rather than the agricultural and forestry areas. This LVAs approach is suitable as a guideline for preliminary development planning, control and manage the landslide hazard / risk in the study area and potentially to be extended with different background environments.

Suggested Citation

  • Ahmad Nazrul Madri & Rodeano Roslee & Mohd Fauzi Zikiri, 2020. "Landslide Vulnerability Assesment (Lvas) In Luyang Area,Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia," Environment & Ecosystem Science (EES), Zibeline International Publishing, vol. 4(2), pages 100-104, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:zib:zbnees:v:4:y:2020:i:2:p:100-104
    DOI: 10.26480/ees.02.2020.100.104
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://environecosystem.com/download/14708/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.26480/ees.02.2020.100.104?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kunreuther, Howard & Novemsky, Nathan & Kahneman, Daniel, 2001. "Making Low Probabilities Useful," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 103-120, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Howard Kunreuther & Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2015. "Demand for fixed-price multi-year contracts: Experimental evidence from insurance decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 171-194, October.
    2. de Jong, Piet & Tickle, Leonie & Xu, Jianhui, 2020. "A more meaningful parameterization of the Lee–Carter model," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 1-8.
    3. Olivier Chanel & Graciela Chichilnisky, 2009. "The influence of fear in decisions: Experimental evidence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 271-298, December.
    4. Thomas Kourouxous & Thomas Bauer, 2019. "Violations of dominance in decision-making," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 209-239, April.
    5. Howard Kunreuther & Mark Pauly, 2006. "Rules Rather Than Discretion: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina," NBER Working Papers 12503, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Andrea Morone & Ozlem Ozdemir, 2006. "Valuing Protection against Low Probability, High Loss Risks: Experimental Evidence," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2006-34, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    7. Jaffee Dwight M., 2009. "Monoline Regulations to Control the Systemic Risk Created by Investment Banks and GSEs," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 9(3), pages 1-22, March.
    8. Bouchouicha, Ranoua & Martinsson, Peter & Medhin, Haileselassie & Vieider, Ferdinand M., 2017. "Stake effects on ambiguity attitudes for gains and losses," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 83(1), pages 19-35.
    9. Gianmarco León & Edward Miguel, 2017. "Risky Transportation Choices and the Value of a Statistical Life," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 9(1), pages 202-228, January.
    10. Matthew D. Rablen, 2023. "Loss Aversion, Risk Aversion, and the Shape of the Probability Weighting Function," Working Papers 2023013, The University of Sheffield, Department of Economics.
    11. Alexis Louaas & Pierre Picard, 2021. "Optimal insurance coverage of low-probability catastrophic risks," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 46(1), pages 61-88, March.
    12. Gianmarco León & Edward Miguel, 2013. "Transportation choices and the value of statistical life," Economics Working Papers 1389, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    13. Wenzel, Lars & Wolf, André, 2013. "Protection against major catastrophes: An economic perspective," HWWI Research Papers 137, Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWI).
    14. Eric R. Stone & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Abigail M. Wilkins & Emily M. Boker & Jacqueline MacDonald Gibson, 2017. "Designing Graphs to Communicate Risks: Understanding How the Choice of Graphical Format Influences Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 612-628, April.
    15. Rheinberger, Christoph M. & Schläpfer, Felix & Lobsiger, Michael, 2018. "A novel approach to estimating the demand value of public safety," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 285-305.
    16. Théodora Dupont-Courtade, 2012. "Insurance demand under ambiguity and conflict for extreme risks : Evidence from a large representative survey," Post-Print halshs-00718642, HAL.
    17. Leiter, Andrea M. & Rheinberger, Christoph M., 2016. "Risky sports and the value of safety information," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PA), pages 328-345.
    18. Erwann Michel-Kerjan & Paul A. Raschky & Howard C. Kunreuther, 2009. "Corporate Demand for Insurance: An Empirical Analysis of the U.S. Market for Catastrophe and Non-Catastrophe Risks," Working Papers 2009-10, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    19. Teresa Perry, 2023. "Did the 2016 election cause changes in substance use? An intersectional approach," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(3), pages 1020-1069, November.
    20. Howard Kunreuther & Mark Pauly, 2004. "Neglecting Disaster: Why Don't People Insure Against Large Losses?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 5-21, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zib:zbnees:v:4:y:2020:i:2:p:100-104. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Zibeline International Publishing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://environecosystem.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.