No abstract

No abstract

Landslides of natural and man-made slopes represent hazardous geomorphological processes that contribute to highly variable risks. Their consequences generally include loss of life, infrastructural, environmental and cultural assets damages.Prioritizing and mitigating slope risks in a sustainable manner, while considering climate change, is related to geoethics as any misallocation of resources will likely lead to increased exposure of the public.Until recently there was little recognition of the causes and global impacts of human actions. Today threat denying humans can be identified as acting inappropriately and ultimately unethically. Sustainable Risk Management and ethical issues should be discussed simultaneously to avoid the “discipline-silo's trap” and hazardous omissions.This contribution discusses slopes risk management at various scales, how to ensure better allotment of mitigative funds while complying with sustainability goals and geoethic requirements. The World Commission on Environment and Development (also known as the Bruntdland, 1987 report) defined sustainable development as one meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.The three case histories discussed in this contribution show how sustainability and ethics can be fostered by using rational, repeatable, transparent quantitative risk assessment applicable at local as well as large scale.

The purpose of this chapter is to focus attention on the "damage and risk" side of the geohazard (GHZ) phenomena rather than on their generating processes. Damage evaluations are indeed often neglected and oversimplified in predictive studies. As a result, risks are poorly understood and often considered as the mere expression of the probability or likelihood of an adverse event. In this chapter, we will use numerous real-life examples and will discuss among other subjects: technical glossary of risk, damages, crises, multidimensional consequences analysis, and definition of risk tolerance. This chapter also focuses on ethical (geo-ethical) issues linked to GHZs caused by human activities and their mitigation decisions and possible unintended consequences. The discussion includes the sometimes excessive and sometimes lacking (blindness) perception of risks by the public, corporate, and public officers. The root cause of some odd human behaviors when facing risks (biases) like the survivor bias is discussed. GHZs cast a long and often misunderstood shadow on human activities, development, and survival. By understanding how to model consequences and better evaluating risks and crises, we will be able to alleviate human and environmental suffering and foster sustainable development.

No abstract