## 5 Discussion  
The general framework that has emerged from the whole monitoring period of the Fontane di San Bernardo landslide is consistent with the typical movement characteristics of the movement of reactivated and slow-moving landslides [2; 3], as well as with previous information on the landslide dynamic itself [55]. The outcomes of both traditional and automatic inclinometer monitoring indicated that the most pronounced deformations develop at pre-existing and localized failure horizons, where the landslide materials can be assumed to be at their residual shear strength [19]. The continuous measurement of deep displacements showed that landslide kinematics have intermittent phases of extremely slow displacements and relative inactivity that can be interrupted by episodic accelerations. In the frame of this research, the identified motion patterns were defined as slow (SM), inactive (IM), and rapid motion (RM), respectively (Figure 12). These kinematics patterns are like those detected in previous studies through multitemporal in situ geotechnical monitoring of numerous reactivated and slow-moving landslides [7; 10; 11; 35; 48; 72]. Unlike various examples from the literature, in this study, automatic inclinometer probes specifically installed at the main failure surfaces, detected in advance through a manual probe, were used. Furthermore, at a representative sector of the landslide, deep displacement readings were coupled with continuous pore water pressure measurements at the sliding surface. Thereby, based on the joint analysis of rainfall, pore water pressure, and displacement data, interesting aspects concerning the framework of dynamic factors that influence the landslide hydrological response and its mobility were found. The outlined patterns of movement were identified across different sectors of the unstable volume, also showing consistent behaviour, suggesting that they could represent an intrinsic attribute of the landslide (Figure 12). Such similarities in behaviour were meaningful especially in terms of the initiation and duration of each discerned motion pattern (Figures 14-16). Instead, some differences were observed concerning the magnitude of deformations, mostly during sharp motions. In this regard, the extent of deformations measured at the middle section of the unstable volume was greater than that measured at the landslide foot (Figure 14). These observations are in agreement with previous information from geotechnical monitoring, as well as with evidence of damage to buildings and infrastructures [55; 61], and they could be related either to the different morphology of the two landslide sectors (e.g., [7; 10; 73]) or to the bedrock geometry (e.g., [74]), which is highly spatially variable for the landslide in question [55]. From monitoring data, it was observed that the SM and IM phases repeated cyclically, showing seasonality consistent with the local rainfall regime. But, unexpectedly, no significant seasonal fluctuations in pore water pressure were found (Figures 9 and 17). Specifically, the SM patterns consisted of uniform and extremely slow movements devel  
Figure 19: Relationships between cumulative displacement (**a**) and displacement rate (**b,c**) and pore water pressure during the rapid-motion (RM) stage. In all panels, the two movement events are labelled as RM1 and RM2. oping with no statistically significant variations in pore water pressure along the failure surface (Figure 17a and Table 5). In light of this, these movements may be supposed to occur at relatively constant effective stresses and therefore attributable to viscous shear displacements. In the literature, viscous deformations were already found to have an important role in the motion of deep-seated and slow landslides [42]. Instead, during the IM periods, although the pore water pressure regimes were essentially the same as those recorded during the SM stages, no statistically significant displacements were measured (Figure 17b and Table 5).