92-2 Communication of Landslide Risk: Lessons learned from Peru and Guatemala

Session: Landslide Inventory Mapping and Next Steps: Assessing Susceptibility, Hazard Models, Risk, and Policy

Presenting Author:

Authors:

Abstract:

It has long been recognized that there is a gap between the development of landslide information, such as inventories, and the communication and application of such knowledge in the communities for which they are created.  This becomes particularly difficult in international settings, which add complexities in cultural and language barriers, access to economic resources, prior knowledge of hazards, and ranking of landslide risks within the context of other problems faced by local residents.  We will discuss several tools to aid in this transition.  First, early engagement of communities is essential to build trust, manage expectations, and to create products that will be understood and used.  Part of this engagement includes cross-validating local knowledge of hazards (such as frequency of occurrence, magnitude of events, triggers, and vulnerability and risk) with scientific knowledge (such as causes, hazard chains and feedbacks, regional occurrences, and quantification).  Workshops with local residents mutually reinforce these complementary facets of knowledge and avoid the loss of trust in what sociologists term “information deficit thinking.”  Next, it is essential to understand the competing social welfare concerns, such as crime, health, money, and accidents, in order to recognize the level of commitment and resources available to address landslide hazards.  Regarding actual hazard communication, we had mixed success continuing with the workshop format, where mayors from the towns covered by our inventories were invited to interact with landslide experts in order to understand the maps and to identify misconceptions held by the officials.  Finally, management and mitigation options must be matched to socioeconomic limitations, standard local construction practices and skills, and local perception of risk.  Communities are more likely to take constructive action if options are grouped for implementation by individuals, small communities, or at the regional level, with recognition of the different motivation and resources available at each level.

Geological Society of America Abstracts with Program. Vol. 57, No. 6, 2025

doi: 10.1130/abs/2025AM-6555

© Copyright 2025 The Geological Society of America (GSA), all rights reserved.