AbstractTraditionally, earth scientists assess landslide occurrence on the basis of geomorphological investigations carried out through aerial photograph interpretation and fieldwork. Conversely, local administrators primarily evaluate the impact of natural catastrophes, such as landsliding, on the basis of historical records and data. Owing to the substantial difference in the structure and spatial density of these two types of information, it is difficult to compare them directly and few investigators have attempted this.We compared landslide information derived from geomorphological mapping and historical data in a pilot area (the Staffora river basin, northern Italy). To do this we generated two multivariate statistical models where the dependent variable was either the mapped landslide deposits (geomorphological model), or the historical sites affected by landslide‐induced damage (historical model). By quantitatively comparing these two model maps, we demonstrate that the geomorphological model performs better in terms of percentage of terrain units correctly predicted as stable or unstable. The historical model underestimates landslide hazard mainly where human structures are lacking. However, it highlights slopes where landslide movements take place with a high frequency at the temporal scale of human life. Hence, the joint use of these two models may facilitate the knowledge of the overall instability conditions of a given region and the identification of the landslides that are most frequently reactivated. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.