Coordinated by the Association of American State Geologists (AASG) – Facilitated by the 

United States Geological Survey (USGS) 

Estimating Landslide Losses—Preliminary Results of a 

Seven-State Pilot Project 

By Lynn M. Highland, Editor 

Open-File Report 2006–1032 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior 

Gale A. Norton, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2006 

Posted online February 2006 

Version 1.0 

This publication is only available online at 

http://www.usgs.gov/of/2006/1032/ 

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, 

natural hazards, and the environment: 

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov 

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual 

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. 

Suggested citation: 

Highland, L.M., 2006, Estimating landslide losses—preliminary results of a seven-state pilot project: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2006–1032, 11p. 
Estimating Landslide Losses—Preliminary Results of 

a Seven-State Pilot Project 

By Lynn M. Highland, Editor 

Introduction 

In 2001, the U.S. Geological Survey Landslide Hazards Program provided funding for seven State 

geological surveys to report on the status of landslide investigation strategies in each of their States, and to 

suggest improved ways to approach the tracking of landslides, their effects, losses associated with the 

landslides, and hazard mitigation strategies. Each State was to provide a draft report suggesting innovative 

ways to track landslides, and to participate in subsequent workshops. A workshop was convened in June 

2003 in Lincoln, Neb., to discuss the results and future strategies on how best to incorporate the seven pilot 

projects into one methodology that all of the 50 States could adopt. The seven individual reports produced 

by the State surveys are published here to put forth a forum for discussion of the varying methods of 

tracking landslides. The goal is to eventually adopt a single, universally applied methodology to track 

landslides that will provide a consistent framework for collecting data on landslide damage and economic 

impact. Participating States include: California (James Davis, Jack McMillan); Kentucky (Jim Cobb, John 

Kiefer, John Rockaway); Nebraska (Mark Kuzila, Duane Eversoll); Ohio (Thomas Berg, Jon Rockaway), 

Oregon (John Beaulieu, Yumei Wang, Renee Summers, Jon Hofmeister); Pennsylvania (Jay Parrish, Helen 

Delano); Utah (Richard Allis, Francis Ashland). The USGS personnel involved in the planning and meeting 

facilitation are Paula Gori, Peter Lyttle, and John Pallister. 

The general USGS strategy to address landslide loss reduction was developed with input from State 

geological surveys, the engineering-geology consulting community, and academic investigators. The 

strategy was reviewed by the National Research Council, 2004), is summarized in USGS Circular 1244 

(Spiker and Gori, 2003) and is endorsed by the AASG. 

This pilot study, conducted by seven State geological surveys, examines the feasibility of collecting 

accurate and reliable information on economic losses associated with landslides. Each State survey 

examined the availability, distribution, and inherent uncertainties of economic loss data in their study areas. 

Their results provide the basis for identifying the most fruitful methods of collecting landslide loss data 

nationally, using methods that are consistent and provide common goals. These results can enhance and 

establish the future directions of scientific investigation priorities by convincingly documenting landslide 

risks and consequences that are universal throughout the 50 States. 
This report is organized as follows: A general summary of the pilot project history, goals, and 

preliminary conclusions from the Lincoln, Neb. workshop are presented first. Internet links are then 

provided for each State report, which appear on the internet in PDF format and which have been placed at 

the end of this open-file report. A reference section follows the reports, and, lastly, an Appendix of 

categories of landslide loss and sources of loss information is included for the reader’s information. 

 Please note: The Oregon Geological Survey has also submitted a preliminary report on indirect loss 

estimation methodology, which is also linked with the others. Each State report is unique and presented in 

the form in which it was submitted, having been independently peer reviewed by each respective State 

survey. As such, no universal “style” or format has been adopted as there have been no decisions on which 

inventory methods will be recommended to the 50 states, as of this writing. The reports are presented here 

as information for decision makers, and for the record; although several reports provide recommendations on 

inventory methods that could be adopted nationwide, currently no decisions have been made on adopting a 

uniform methodology for the States. 

Background and Rationale for Development of the Seven State Geological Survey Pilot 

Projects 

The State geological surveys employed insights from an AASG-sponsored survey in 1999 and 2000, 

which asked the 50 States to submit reports of their landslide losses from the El Nino winter of 1997 – 1998. 

Twenty-nine States reported that landslides were among the top three geologic hazards in their jurisdictions. 

Of the 47 States that responded to the question on collection of landslide damage data for their States, 39 

reported that no systematic collection was being done, six States were unsure, and two States had some 

form of landslide damage information reporting system in place. The common obstacles to loss estimation 

include: nonstandard collection methodology, lack of a centralized data repository; lack of standard loss and 

landslide terminology, reluctance of property owners and others to reveal loss information; and absence of 

insurance claim adjustment information because landslide damage is generally not covered in private 

insurance policies. The AASG surveys also indicated that landslide hazard information is not available for 

many landslide-prone areas within their jurisdictions and that landslide hazards are poorly understood in 

many areas. Where landslide hazard information is available, apparently it is often not used in land-use 

policies and (or) development. A final summary of the results of the 50-State survey/questionnaire has not 

been officially published as of this writing, but the findings suggest that many State geological surveys are 

interested in coming up with a universal inventory methodology. Improving the estimation of landslide 

damage loss costs is an important objective for the Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy (Spiker and Gori, 

2003). Improved documentation would increase public awareness of the risk associated with landslides, and 

aid in the adoption of mitigation strategies. State geological surveys in California, Kentucky, Nebraska, 

Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Utah volunteered to participate, by submitting inventory methodologies. 

The Importance of Accurate Landslide-Loss Estimation 

In addition to accurate landslide inventories, the importance of tracking accompanying monetary 

losses more accurately frames the economic impact of landslide hazards. The annual expected economic 

cost of landslide damage in the United States has been estimated in a number of nationwide studies of 

landslide hazards (National Research Council, 1975; Schuster, 1978; Wiggins and others, 1978; Fleming and 

Taylor, 1980; Schuster and Fleming, 1986). A discussion of the history and application of landslide loss 

estimation can be found in Schuster (1996). The past estimates have been, in general, very qualitative and 

not well-documented. Landslide hazards, as defined in this investigation, present problems to property and 

public safety in all 50 States. Landslide monetary losses are also not generally systematically or 

comprehensively investigated by most of the State geological surveys. Yet it is well established that 
appropriate use of the knowledge of landslide movement processes and awareness of the geographic 

distribution of landslide hazard potential, including loss estimates, can contribute to efforts to avoid putting 

unprotected structures in harm’s way. As far as collective monetary loss estimates for all landslides in the 

United States, a 1985 National Research Council report estimated the average annual cost of landslides in 

the United States to be between $1 and $2 billion dollars. This figure, adjusted for inflation, would be $1.7 

– $3.6 billion in 2004 dollars. This estimated figure is a qualitative estimate with significant uncertainty. 

Assuming a constant dollar value as urban development continues, this figure grows every year. 

Content of Individual State Reports 

Each State geological survey investigation provides information on five topics: 

• Potential sources of landslide loss data; 

• Extent of standardization of landslide loss data; 

• Availability and accessibility of landslide damage losses by source; 

• Distinctions between direct and indirect landslide losses; 

• Conclusions. 

In addition, several investigations include information that can provide insights towards the development of 

a national landslide hazards mitigation policy: 

• Questions raised for landslide damage loss estimation; 

• Next steps to advancing understanding; 

• Recommendations for further action. 

Preliminary Conclusions by Pilot Study Participants 

 The following conclusions are based on discussions at the first project meeting, held in June 2003, in 

Lincoln, Nebraska. 

1. Data on highway and public utility repairs are generally available 

• Past data are generally labor intensive to retrieve; 

• Loss data are sometimes absorbed into general maintenance costs, 

 where it becomes cost-of-maintenance data rather than loss data. 

2. Data are not generally available for nondisaster event recovery periods; 

• Disaster pay out for direct cost replacement and repair may be available from Federal and State

 emergency management agencies as well as local governments; 

• The content of loss records kept by emergency management agencies is generally limited to 

eligibility for disaster assistance;

• Concerted efforts to conduct studies by devoting personnel, time, and funding can generally be 

fruitful; however they take long periods of time to compile because loss data usually become 

available only after periods of several months and, in some cases, many years. A USGS report on 

landslide losses from the Nisqually, Wash., Earthquake of 2001 (Highland, 2003) is one exception, 

as resources were allocated to compile an extensive report within a short period of time. The 

report, USGS Open file Report 03-211, is available as a paper report or online at:
 http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/ofr-03-211/. 

 This publication has extensive appendices on detailed landslide loss 

 compilations, photographs, and loss-estimation methodology. 

3. Record keeping of loss data is most extensive by local governments in urban 

 areas where ordinances require permits for reconstruction 

• Those records that are kept commonly are only of direct costs;

• The records are associated with issuance of rebuilding, repair, or grading permits associated with 

landslide damage;

• Record keeping is most complete in communities in which certain staff have developed a personal 

interest in tracking landslide damage losses.

4. Where record keeping exists it is not standardized 

• Categories of direct costs, for example, slope stabilization, structural repair, and so forth, are not 

systematically separated from each other during recording;

• Secondary direct costs, such as geotechnical investigations for remediation, mortgage-company 

losses on destroyed structures, and so forth, may be kept by different parties than those who keep 

the direct costs.

• Indirect costs, (such as, business interruption and other economic consequences of landslide 

damage), may only be available by post-event economic surveys and analysis by the business 

community.

5. Summary conclusions about landslide loss data 

• It is very labor intensive to retrospectively collect loss data from any of the identified sources. Use 

of information technology in future record keeping may provide a practical means of retrieving 

landslide loss data if the information is coded as it is recorded. A considerable amount of time, 

money, and personnel would have to be devoted to loss data collection, at least until methods are 

streamlined; 

• Media sources of cost data are generally incomplete and not systematic or reliable. However, many 

media outlets publish special reports from time to time that review data and knowledge about an 

incident. 

• Due to copyright issues and privacy concerns, consulting firms are not a practical source of extensive 

landslide cost data. However, these sources are not to be ruled out, as permission to use private 

and copyrighted data is sometimes granted, or in some cases can be purchased for a fee. 

• A standardized approach to landslide loss inventory would reduce the cost and improve the usability 

and availability of landslide loss information. 

 

 Pilot Project Questions 

 

 This section is a summary of still unanswered questions posed by pilot study participants that will 

help define the future goals and methods needed to address the challenges of collecting and analyzing 

landslide loss data. One of the primary questions is to decide which inventory/loss data methodology would 
be best for all 50 States. Possibilities include that (a) one of the Pilot Project proposals be adopted, or (b) 

aspects of several could be consolidated into one, universally adopted methodology. One suggestion was to 

decide on one or two methodologies or composite methodologies and test them “in the field,” and later 

critiquing the ensuing pros and cons at the end of a designated period of time. After these evaluations, it 

would likely be up to one unifying entity, such as the AASG to facilitate the adoption of the chosen 

methodology(s) by all 50 States. It would be best to reach a consensus on the type of adoption of a 

methodology, for example by a committee making recommendations and (or) by a vote by a representative 

of each State geological survey. The group discussed the acquisition of secondary direct costs and indirect 

costs, and whether these second-tier investigations would be cost-effective and/or useful. Other concerns 

were whether State geological surveys could work with local governments in landslide-prone areas to 

establish cost-effective means of retrieving loss data associated with future events, especially by employing 

new technology such as advanced Geographic Information Systems (GIS) for construction permit approvals, 

and so forth. There was discussion as to what would be the most effective means be to collect secondary 

and indirect loss data from private sector entities such as financial institutions, consulting firms, etc. A final 

question posed is whether there is a practical means to standardize and collect damage cost data from 

Federal and State land-management institutions using new information technology, and what entity would 

be the keeper of state data bases. Participants suggested that the U.S. Geological Survey might be a logical 

repository for all the State geological survey landslide inventory and loss data, and the question would 

remain as to how this effort would be funded and managed. 

 Next Steps and Recommendations Suggested by Pilot Study Participants 

1. Conduct a national workshop including AASG pilot State participants and their studies, representatives 

of some of the other State geological surveys with landslide-prone areas in their jurisdictions, 

representatives of State departments of transportation, USGS landslide program managers, and 

investigators and specialists from the consulting geological engineering, academic research, financial, 

and land-use planning communities to address the open questions from the pilot project. Possibly, a test 

case, or pilot methodology, would be agreed upon and would be put forward as a test of effectiveness. 

An evaluation would follow the pilot project implementation. 

2. Begin implementation of recommendations developed in the workshop that would also serve as part of 

the design and future goals of The National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy’s future vision, for 

working with State geological surveys.. 

 Internet Addresses for Accessing Each Pilot Study State Report 

State Geological Survey Landslide Loss Reports on the Internet/World-wide Web 

(In PDF Format) 

 California: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1032/pdf/California.pdf

 Kentucky: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1032/pdf/Kentucky.pdf

 Nebraska: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1032/pdf/Nebraska.pdf 

 Ohio: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1032/pdf/Ohio.pdf

 Oregon: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1032/pdf/Oregon1.pdf

 Second Oregon Report on Indirect losses: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1032/pdf/Oregon2.pdf

 Pennsylvania: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1032/pdf/Pennsylvania.pdf

 Utah: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1032/pdf/Utah.pdf
 References Cited 

Fleming, R.W., and Taylor, F.A., 1980, Estimating the costs of landslide damage in the United States: U.S. 

Geological Survey Circular 832. 

Highland, L. M., 2003, An account of preliminary landslide damage and losses resulting from the February 

28, 2001, Nisqually, Washington, Earthquake: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File report 03-211, online 

version: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/ofr-03-211/. 

 Natural Research Council, 1985, Reducing losses from landslides in the United States: Committee on 

Ground Failure Hazards, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, Washington, D.C., 

National Research Council, 41 p. 

National Research Council of the National Academies, 2004, Partnerships for reducing landslide risk: 

assessment of the National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy: Washington, D.C., The National 

Academies Press, online version: http://www.nap.edu/books/0309091403/html/. 

Schuster, R.L., 1996, Socioeconomic significance of landslides, in Landslides: Investigation and Mitigation: 

Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Special Report 247, 675 p.

Schuster, R.L., and Fleming, R.W., 1986, Economic losses and fatalities due to landslides: Bulletin of the 

Association of Engineering Geologists, vl. 23, no. 7. 

Schuster, R.L., 1978, Introduction in Schuster, R.L. and Krizek, R.J., eds.: Special report 176: 

Landslides—analysis and control, Washington D.C., Transportation Research Board, National Research 

Council, 

 Spiker, E. C., and Gori, P. L. 2003, National landslide hazards mitigation strategy -- A framework for loss 

reduction: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1244, online version: http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/c1244/. 

Wiggens, J.H., Slosson, J.E. and Krohn, J.R., 1978, National hazards—Earthquake, landslide, expansive soil 

 loss models, Redondo Beach, California Technical Report, J.H. Wiggins Co. 

It should be noted here that the State of Utah, in its analysis, identified a category of “secondary” direct costs 

that are proposed to be distinct from direct and indirect costs. As of this writing, there is no generally 

accepted “secondary” classification for indirect loss data--this aspect of Utah’s analysis may be 

controversial, but worth discussing at some future point in time. 
Appendix 

This section presents an introduction and short summary describing the types and sources of 

landslide loss data, that are generally available throughout the United States. For a more comprehensive 

discussion of losses, the reader should consult publications on losses in the reference section of this report. 

Highland’s Nisqually Earthquake Open-File Report (2003) presents a very thorough discussion of landslide 

loss data collection methodologies in its appendices. 

Comparison of direct and indirect landslide losses 

Direct costs are the repair, replacement, or maintenance resulting from damage to 

property or installations within the boundaries of the responsible landslides or from 

landslide-caused flooding (Schuster, 1996). All other costs of landslides are indirect. 

Some examples of indirect landslide losses are: 

1. Loss of industrial, agricultural, and forest productivity and tourist revenues as a result of damage to 

land or facilities or interruption of transportation systems; 

2. Reduced real estate values in areas threatened by landslides 

3. Loss of tax revenues on properties devalued as the result of landslides; 

4. Steps taken to prevent or mitigate additional landslide damage; 

5. Adverse effects on water quality in streams and irrigation facilities outside the landslide; 

6. Loss of human or animal productivity because of injury, death, or psychological trauma; 

7. Secondary physical effects, such as landslide-caused flooding, for which losses are both direct and 

indirect. 

 

Indirect costs may exceed direct costs; unfortunately, most indirect costs are difficult to 

 evaluate and thus are often ignored or, when estimated, are often overly conservative 

 (Highland, 2003). 

Information for landslide damage costs include both public and private sources. General conclusions from 

the pilot project concerning sources are presented in the following two sections. 

Public Sources of Landslide Loss Data

Federal Land Management Agencies: examples include the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National 

Park Service (NPS), and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 

• Loss data are usually only available for severe damage events; 

• Landslide damage loss data are difficult to separate from other types of damage data. 

• Public agencies are not necessarily required to track natural hazard damage costs, and at times 

categorize such costs as “general maintenance.” 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 

• Loss data are generally only available for declared disaster events; 

• Loss data are incomplete because only a portion of the data from these events are available from 

FEMA damage payout records. This is because a significant segment of the total losses are not 

eligible for FEMA reimbursement and (or) are covered by private insurance policies, making such 

data difficult to retrieve; 

• Damage loss data are not recorded in a standardized format; 

Indirect damage losses may not be tracked, or be available. There are generally no uniform FEMA 

regulations to collect and track these types of data, and Disaster Field Offices, set up in areas of 

disasters to facilitate rapid FEMA response, do not always have uniform requirements for data 

collection; 

• Landslide damage loss data are often difficult to separate from other types of damage data, such as 

clean-up and repair of damaged structures. 

State Highway Departments 

• Some landslide-loss data in many States are retrievable and are used in future-year budget 

projections;

• Many landslide costs are blended with “general maintenance” costs, and are not easy to extract from 

the totals.

State Emergency Management Agencies 

• States may co-administer FEMA reimbursements for declared disasters, requiring cross-checking of 

costs. This may be difficult if accounting procedures are different for each entity;

• Damage loss data are not standardized;

• Indirect damage losses may not be available, as indirect costs are not easily tracked and may be 

expensive to investigate.

Local Governments 

• Landslide damage loss data from road and street repairs are the most generally available information; 

• Local governments in some landslide-prone urban areas keep landslide damage loss records separate 

from other data—for example, landslide costs could be merged with storm or flood damage data, 

and not itemized as damage due to landslides; 

• Landslide loss data are most useful and complete for municipalities where certain staff members 

have personal interest in landslide damage. This interest may not endure through subsequent 

changes in personnel, and thus tracking may not be consistent over time; 

• Building and grading permitting requirements for repair, remodeling, and replacement of damaged 

structures are the most complete sources of landslide damage loss data; 

• Landslide loss data are difficult to separate from other types of storm or flood damage data. 

Private Sources of Landslide Damage Loss Cost Data 

Media Accounts 

• Several States tallied media accounts of significant events in which landslides contributed to the 

damage losses;
• Utah compared landslide property damage tallies from the print media for specific disasters with 

other sources, including local government records, and found that media tallies are the least 

reliable; 

• The categories for summarizing landslide loss information, such as size, triggering mechanism, and 

geologic materials, are not standardized; 

• Secondary and indirect losses are often not reported and (or) mentioned in media accounts, which 

otherwise are fairly reliable to use as sources of information. 

Engineering and Geotechnical Firms 

Several States explored the availability of damage loss data from consulting firms 

• Data are dispersed and difficult to assemble for a community or region; therefore, records are often 

incomplete; 

• Secondary direct loss data and indirect loss data are not generally available;