Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 65

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Landslide susceptibility assessment

Cees van Westen


United Nations University ITC School for Disaster Geo-Information Management
International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)
Enschede, The Netherlands
E-mail: westen@itc.nl
Associated Institute of the

ISL 2004

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Suceptibility: contents of lecture


What is susceptibility

Landslides

Susceptibility

What controls it:


Landslide type
Scale
Objectives
Which data are required?
Which techniques can be used to assess it?
Heuristic, statistical, deterministic
Validation
From susceptibility to hazards
Discussion part..Which method to use when?
ISL 2004

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

What is susceptibility?
Landslide susceptibility is:
The relative spatial likelihood for the occurrence of
landslides of a particular type and volume
Landslide hazard is:
The probability of occurrence of a particular landslide
type (initiation and run-out, volume, speed) within a
specified period of time and in a given area.
Landslide risk is:
The expected losses (monetary, or in number of buildings
/ people) due to specific landslide type type (initiation and
run-out, volume, speed) within a specified period of time
and in a given area.
Hazard = Susceptibility * Triggering factors

Where?
ISL 2004

Spatial probability

When?
Temporal probability

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Spatial landslide risk assessment framework


Environmental
Parameters

Occurrence
type, magnitude,
time, activity

Triggering Factors
time, magnitude,
intensity

values, classes

Landslides Inventory

Geology, Soil,
Landuse,
Slope, Height
Internal relief

(type, magnitude)
/ time

Frequency
Analysis

Number of
occurrence in a
given time.

Number of
occurrence in a
given time.

m - (distance) /
(type, magnitude)

Susceptible areas for the


initiation of landslide.
% / (type, magnitude)
/ time

Inventory analysis

Natural Hazard

Heuristic analysis

Probability of occurrence within a


specified period of time and within a
given area of a landslide.

Specific Risk
Expected degree of loss due
to landslide.

Population, building,
industry, agriculture,
Infrastructure, services

[0..1] / (type,
magnitude, distance)

Run-out
Potential path covered by
the landslide occurrence.

Susceptibility

Landslide hazard methods

object and attributes

Earthquakes
and
(intensity, magnitude)
Rainfall
/ time

Frequency
Analysis
%- (probability) /
(type, magnitude)

Elements at Risk

$ / object

Vulnerability
Degrees of loss to a given
element(s) at risk resulting
from the occurrence of a
landslide of a given
magnitude.
[0, no loss.. 1, total loss]

Value

$ / (type,
magnitude)

Consequence
Loss outcome from the
occurrence a landslide of
certain type or magnitude.

% / [0..1] / (type,
magnitude) / time

Deterministic analysis
% / $ / (type,
magnitude) / time

Risk evaluation

Expected number of lives lost, persons injured, damage to property,


or disruption of economic activity due to landslide.

ISL 2004

Acceptable risk
Tolerable risk

E. Castellanos,, 2008

Statistical analysis

Total Risk

Costs of building,
engineering works,
infrastructure,
environmental
features, and
economic activities
in the area affected
by landslides.

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

What is required for expressing


Component

Susceptibility Hazard

Risk

Landslide initiation
Spatial probability
Temporal probability
Landslide type
Volume

Relative
At best relative
Yes
Relative

Absolute
Absolute
Yes
Yes

Real
Real
Yes
Yes

Landslide runout
Spatial probability
Temporal probability
Landslide type
Volume
Speed

No
No
No
No
No

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Landslide consequences
Building damage
Infrastrusture damage
Population damage

No
No
No

No
No
No

Yes
Yes
Yes

ISL 2004

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

What controls landslide susceptibility?


Landslide distribution
Landslide types
Failure mechanisms
Age & activity
Area covered by landslides
Controlling factors
Type
Homogeneity
Triggering factors
Earthquakes
Rainfall
Human interventions
Others
ISL 2004

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

All landslides known?

Type of study area?


Watershed
Line
Point

Basically all landslides are known


from the past 30-40 years based on
registers

Red : landslide initiation on cut slope


Pink : Landslide run out
Dark green : landslide initiation on natural
slope
Light green : Landslide run out
Triangles : Rain gauge location
ISL 2004

Pankaj Jaiswal, 2008

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

All landslides known?

Mapping landslides from images without prior knowledge is a tricky


business many old landslides are not properly known
The use of (as many as possible) sets of older images (airphotos and
satellite images improves the interpretability.

An example of rapid change in land cover in the Nilgiri hills.


Marapallam debris slide as seen in different years.

ISL 2004

1993

1998

2007

Pankaj Jaiswal, 2008

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Who needs a susceptibility map if you know all slides

CEO Hong Kong: Enhanced Natural Terrain


Landslide Inventory (ENTLI) : ~15,800 recent
landslide features have been identified based on
airphoto interpretation. For each terrain unit the
temporal and spatial probability is known.
ISL 2004

Ken Ho, CEO, HongKong, 2007

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Scale of analysis
National scale
(< 1:1.000.000) Mainly inventory. Public
awareness & policy support

Regional scale
(1:100.000 - 1:1.000.000) For reconnaissance
phases for planning projects for the
construction of infrastructural works, or
agricultural development projects.

Hazard example

GEOLOGY
Geological Period
e.g. Middle Eocene: Aleutorite,
marl, limestone, chert,
conglomerate, olitostrome.
Geological formations
e.g. Yateras formation:
limestones, marls and clays

Medium scale
(1:25.000 - 1:100.000). For land use planning
and construction of infrastructural works,
environmental impact assessment and
municipal planning.

Large scale
(1:2.000 - 1:25.000). For risk assessment and

Lithological unit
e.g. karstic limestones

Geotechnical parameters
e.g. Internal friction 5, bulk
unit weight 16.5 kPa/m,
viscosity 2.5 kPa.s

National level
1:1,000,000 scale

Provincial Level
1:100,000 scale

Municipal level
1:50,000 scale

Local level
1:25,000 scale

N
p

N
m
h

N
b

H
a

detailed planning.

Site investigation
(>1: 2.000). Detailed risk assessment, and
design of slope stabilization works
ISL 2004

Castellanos and Van Westen, 2008

Each scale has its own objectives, and


has its own possibilities for data
collection

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Landslide Susceptibility in Germany


0,2
0,6
5,4
Very low
Low
Moderate
High
93,8
Class

Description
Very low

At human discretion no danger

Low

Building damage and directly affected people unlikely

Moderate

Building damage possible, people probably endangered

High

Building destruction likely, people endangered


Glade, Dikau and Bell

1 : 2,750,000

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Example: Cuba
Level (scale)

Method

Semi-quantitative with SMCE


National
(1:1,000,000) Risk index by ranking and

Organization

Use

National Civil
Defence

Locating priority areas for regional


studies and guide national policy
Periodic assessment to monitor
local improvement

weighting

Provincial
(1:100,000)

Semi-quantitative with SMCE


Spatial model via
Statistical method and weighting

Provincial
government and
civil defence

Provincial disaster risk reduction


plan
Locating landslides and priority
areas for investigating causes and
consequences

Municipal
(1:50,000)

Quantitative
TMU and expert judgment
(adaptation needed for
generalization)

Municipal
government and
civil defence

Municipal disaster risk reduction


plan
Estimating losses and delimitating
areas for mitigation actions

Local
(1:25,000)

Quantitative
Runout modelling based on
geotechnical parameters
(adaptation needed for
generalization)

Local and
municipal
government and
civil defence

Local disaster risk reduction plan


Identifying elements at risk
affected by different scenarios and
implementing mitigation actions

ISL 2004

Castellanos and Van Westen, 2008

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)


Regional Medium Large
Update Frequency

Input data

>10

Landslides

Occurrence/Inventory

Geology

Lithology

10

0.8

RS
day

Use

Models

Scale
R

Geotechnical parameters
Hydrological parameters

Structure
Faults
Soils

Soil types
Soil depth

Geotechnical parameters
Hydrological parameters

Slope hydrology

Hydrology
Geomorphology

Main units
Detailed mapping units

Elevation

DEM

Slope / Aspect etc


Flow accumulation

Meteo data

Rainfall / Temperature

Seismic data

Hazard maps
Catalogs & strong motion

Elements at risk

Land use

Hydrological parameters

Infrastructure
Building footprints
Population data

High
Moderate

ISL 2004

Low

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Which data to collect?


Objectives of the study
Availability of existing data
Type of landslides
Available resources
Size of study area
Complexity of the area
Selection Collection spatial and non spatial data

Selection of susceptibility
analysis technique
ISL 2004

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Main methods
Inventory based
Magnitude-frequency
Activity mapping
Data driven:
Bivariate statistics
Weights of evidence
Information value
Frequency ratio
Multi-variate statistics
Logistic regression
Discriminant analysis
Cluster analysis
Artificial
Neural Networks
ISL 2004

Knowledge driven:
Boolean Logic
Fuzzy logic
Multiclass overlay
Spatial multicriteria
evaluation
Probabilistic methods
Parameter uncertainty
Temporal prediction
Deterministic methods
Static methods
Infinite slope based
Profile based
Dynamic methods

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Landslide activity analysis

ISL 2004

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Landslide mapping can be difficult

ISL 2004

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Direct / Indirect methods


Direct methods

experience driven applied geomorphological approach,


where the earth scientist evaluates the direct
relationship between the landslides and the
geomorphological and geological setting during the
survey at the site of the failure.
Indirect methods
the mapping of a large amount of parameters and the
(statistical or deterministic) analysis of all these
possible contributing factors in relation to the
occurrence of slope instability phenomena, determining
in this way the relation between the terrain conditions
and the occurrence of landslides. Based on the results
of this analysis statements are made regarding the
conditions under which slope failures occur.
ISL 2004

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Geomorphological hazard mapping

ISL 2004

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Storing Geomorphological data in GIS


Store Geomorpholo-

gical information in
several data layers:
A: Main Units
B: Sub units
C: Landslides
D: Material types
E: Hazard

ISL 2004

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Geomorphological hazard map

ISL 2004

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Rating methods

Index methods: predefined,


e.g.

Mora-Vahrson method
(Central America)
BIS method (India)
Problem: they are either very
general and cannot be
applied in larger scales
Differences between areas
are ignored
Sometimes do not even
require a landslide inventory

Index methods: experts


derived

Index overlay, multi-class


overlay
Fuzzy-logic
Spatial Multi Critera
Evaluation

ISL 2004

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Knowledge driven method


The expert decides:
On which criteria are used
On which input maps are selected
On the weights of the classes of
the input maps
On the weights of the input maps
themselves

Subjective
Not reproducible
Difficult: how important are the
different factors

Is there a way to improve and


make this more objective?

ISL 2004

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Spatial Multi-Criteria Evaluation

ISL 2004

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

The criteria tree

ISL 2004

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

The criteria tree

ISL 2004

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Multi Criteria Evaluation


Inventory

Environmental Parameters
Geomorphometric
Ground Conditions

Landslides

Triggering Factors

Earthquakes
Internal relief

Geology
Provinces
Rainfall

Slope Angle

Landuse

Municipalities

Susceptibility
Index

NationalLandslide
Landslide
National
MitigationPlan
Plan
Mitigation

a. slope angle, b. geology, c.


landuse, d. maximum rainfall
expected in 24h and e. maximum
peak ground acceleration

Data sources:
SRTM DEM derivatives maps (90m)
National Atlas of Cuba (1:1,000,000 scale)
National Statistics Office (ONE)
National
Organizations
ISL 2004

Area: 110,860 km2


Analysis unit: pixel based at 90 m.
Risk assessment method: semi-quantitative
spatial multicriteria.
Final map: at 1:1,000,000 scale

Castellanos and Van Westen, 2008

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Final output map

Castellanos and Van Westen, 2008

ISL 2004

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Knowledge driven methods


Advantages:
Expert knowledge can be properly included
Flexible, both in causal factors, as in sub-goals
Can be used for both hazard and risk assessment
Disadvantages:
Subjectivity (however.)
Doesnt give quantitative estimation of hazard
Cannot be used for quantitative risk assessment

ISL 2004

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Data driven methods


The expert decides:
On which criteria are used
On which input maps are selected
Weights are determined:
By comparing the inputs maps
with known occurrence of the
feature one would like to predict
Basically based on densities
Converted into spatial
probabilities
Using bivariate or multivariate
methods
Results can be validated

ISL 2004

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Bivariate statistical methods


Frequency ratio:
FR =

Area of landslides in Class / Area of all Landslides


Area of Class / Entire map

Hazard index:
FR = LN

Area of landslides in Class / Area of Class


Area of all landslides in the map / Area of Entire map

Weights of evidence:

ISL 2004

+
W i = log e

P { B i | S}
P { Bi| S }

W i = log e

P { B i| S}
P { B i| S }

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Influence of input data


SRTM DEM

Slope angle versus


landslides
1:50000 topomap

1:2000 topomap

Lidar DEM
ISL 2004

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Bivariate statistical analysis


Factor maps

Cross tables

Weight maps

Soil
.
.
.

Slopes

.
.
.

WSoils
.
.
.

Combination of weights

WGeology

Geology

WSlopes

Validation
Susceptibility map
ISL 2004& van Westen, 2008)
(Castellanos

E. Castellanos, Jun-2008

Map overlaying procedure

Landslides

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Example
B
+

Wi

P { B i | S}
= log e
P { Bi| S }

W i = log e

S
S

P { B i| S}
P { B i| S }

+
W i = log e

W i = log e

Npix 2
Npix 1 + Npix 2
=
Npix 4
Npix 3 + Npix 4

ISL 2004

npix1

npix2

180

20

npix4

3420

6380

9800

3600

6400

10000

0.9
= Ln 2.578 = 0.9474

=
3420
3420 + 6380

0.349

20
180 + 20

0.1
= Ln 0.1536 = -1.87

=
6380
3420 + 6380

200

npix3

180
180 + 20

Npix 1
Npix 1 + Npix 2
Npix 3
Npix 3 + Npix 4

0.651

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth


Observation
(ITC)
Evidence
maps
Example of statistical analysis

Aspcl

geol

geom

slope

landuse

drain

fault

road

Rasterize; distance calculation

Cross operation between factor maps and evidence maps


To calculate four possible combinations of potential landslide
conditioning factor and a landslide inventory map that are npix shows
pixel number. Then calculate weight of evidence can be
written in number of pixels as follow equations:

Npix1
Npix1 + Npix2
W+i = loge
Npix3
Npix3 + Npix4

Waspcl
w60aspcl

wfinal

Wgeol
w60geol

slide60

Create attribute map, calculate prior


probability for all landslides in study
area.
Then, create a bit map showing only
active landslides

Create class, group domain, Reclassify

Npix2
Npix1+ Npix2
Wi = loge
Npix4
Npix3 +Npix4

Wgeom
w60geom

slide

Class_distfault

Wlanduse
w60landuse

Class_disrtdrain

Wslope
w60slope

Class_distroad

Wfault
w60fault

To create final weight evidence maps for each evidence maps (Use script)
To calculate success rate and predict rate then reclassify final weight evidence map.
To compare the result map, which is shows added activity landslide. Also this map can be to check
result is how well predicting final weight evidence map.

bslide

Wdrain
w60drain

bslide60

Wroad
w60road

w60final

Prediction map of landslides

Prediction rate
ISL 2004

Class_wfinal

Added landslide area

Class_w60final

Success rate

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Combine methods..

ISL 2004

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Landslide mapping

Frequency

Debris flow

26

9.3

Rock fall

22

7.8

215

76.5

18

6.4

Slides
Topples

Castellanos, 2008
ISL 2004
Total

281

100.0

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Hazard analysis - factors


Geomorphology

Slope angle

Drainage density

Rainfall

ISL 2004

Geology

Slope aspect

Fault distance

PGA

Landuse

Internal relief

Soils

Road distance

Castellanos, 2008

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Multi-variate models
Multiple regression
Logistic regression
Artificial Neural Network
Basic units:

Pixels
Unique condition polygons
DTM slope units

ISL 2004 Melchiore and Van Westen, 2008


Castellanos,

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Susceptibility maps per causal mechanism


Debris hazard

SlideT hazard

Rockfall hazard

Slide hazard

Topples hazard

ISL 2004

No hazard
Low hazard
Moderate hazard
High hazard

Castellanos and Van Westen, 2008

All hazards

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Combine methods..

ISL 2004

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Physically based modeling


Main data types:
Soil data

Depth
Hydrological properties
Geotechnical properties

Digital Elevation Models


Slope angle
Local drain direction
Contributing areas
Groundwater

measurements
ISL 2004

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Physically based modeling


Deterministic Models: No Uncertainty (Single value at a given space
& moment of time)
Stochastic Models: Involves Uncertainty (Probability depended)
Static Models: Independent of time. Time Frozen
Dynamic Models: Simulates changes through time

Process Driven Models: Models based on general physical laws.


Data Driven Models: Models valid under certain conditions defined
by the properties and processes of the study area.
Eg: Downward approach to hydrological model development

ISL 2004

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Dynamic models
STARWARS + PROBSTAB

TRIGRS

SINMAP

SHALSTAB

IO

Utrecht University

USGS

Utah State University

University of
California (Berkeley),
and Stillwater
Sciences

PE

PCRaster

Fortran

ArcView

ArcView

TC

Dynamic

Dynamic

Static

Static

2.5 D + 1D

2 D + 1D

1D

1D

HC

Water Level, Effective


Degree of Saturation,
Runoff, Bed Rock Storage

Infiltration,
Runoff,
Pressure head
at min FOS

Wetness Index
[Beven and Kirkby,
1979]

Wetness Index [Beven


and Kirkby, 1979]

SPC

Fully capable

Capable (not
recommended)

Capable (not
recommended)

Incapable

IO: Institute of Origin; PE: Programme Environment; TC: Temporal Component; D: Dimension; HC:
Hydrological Component; SPC: Spatial Parameterization Capability

Different implementations of the infinite slope model


ISL 2004

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

STARWARS + PROBSTAB
SD

RF ET Ksat hA

DEM

STARWARS
Discharge
BRStore
WL

Perched Water Level (m)

ISL 2004

Factor of Safety (with


root cohesion)

RC

BU

PROBSTAB
PF
FOS

Factor of Safety (with


out root cohesion)

RF: Rainfall (time series) (m/d)


ET: Evapotranspiration (m/d)
Ksat: Saturated Hydraulic
Conductivity (m/d)
hA: Air Entry Value (m)
: Slope of SWRC (-)
N: Porosity (-)
RC: Root Cohesion (kPa)
C: Soil Cohesion (kPa)
: Internal friction angle
BD: Bulk Unit Weight (kN/m3)
S: Surcharge (kPa)
BRStore: Bed rock store (m3)
WL: Water level (m)
: Volumetric moisture content
PF: Probability of Failure
FOS: Factor of Safety

Sekhar et al., 2008

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

TRIGRS
uww
idw

uws

SD

DEM

Ksat

inf

NRI

TRIGRS

FOS
PP

Factor of Safety (with


root cohesion)

NRI: Net Rainfall Intensity (time


series) (m/sec)
Ksat: Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
(m/sec)
C: Cohesion (kPa)
: Internal friction angle ()
uwv: Unit Weight of Water (Kgm/s2)
uws: Unit Weight of Soil (Kgm/s2)
idw: Initial depth of water (m)
inf: Initial infiltration rate (m/sec)
D: Diffusivity (m2/sec)
SD: Soil depth (m)
PP: Pressure head at maximum depth
FOS: Factor of Safety (-)
Factor of Safety (with
out root cohesion)
FOS

ISL 2004

Sekhar et al., 2008

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

SINMAP
Phimax

Phimin

T/Rmax

DEM

T/Rmin

Cmax

Cmin

SINMAP

Stability
Index
Scenario actual inputs

Scenario default
inputs

Scenario actual
inputs

Scenario default inputs

ISL 2004

Sekhar et al., 2008

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

SHALSTAB
Phi

DEM

q/t

Sden

Scenario default inputs

Scenario actual inputs

SHALSTAB

Stability
Index
Scenario default inputs

Scenario actual inputs

ISL 2004

Sekhar et al., 2008

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Model comparison
STARWARS+PROBSTAB provided better results than other models
9 Area of failure over estimated
9 Temporal failure conditions predicted fairly well
SHALSTAB provided better results than SINMAP
9 Not to over look the capability of SINMAP for distributed
parameterization
Applicability of TRIGRS is limited in data poor regions because of:
9 Lack of rainfall intensity data in most landslide hazard prone areas of
the developing world
9 Lack of knowledge of initial conditions
Actual Failure
Area: 0.0021 km2
No of slides: 21

STARWARS
+
PROBSTAB

TRIGRS

SINMAP
(limited to lower
threshold)

SHALSTAB
(limited to stability index
-2.5)

Predicted Area
[(FOS<1), km2]

2.2

2.3

3.7

2.8

Known landslide locations


predicted failed during the critical
season (FOS<1)

18

15

13

ISL 2004

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Validation
Best validation is to wait and see
Very few publications on checking landslide

hazard maps (or risk maps) some time later.


Now it is based on historical data.
Dynamic deterministic modeling allows to
validate when and where
Other methods only where.

ISL 2004

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Validation
Several studies have been done on comparing

method
Very few studies have been done on checking old
landslide maps.
Partition of the data set
Estimation Group and Validation Group
Methods of Crossvalidation
- random validation
- spatial validation (moving window)
- temporal validation
ISL 2004

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Percentage of all landslides

Success & Prediction rate

70 percent of all new landslides is


located in 30 % of the map with
highest prediction scores

Percentage of weight map ordered from high to low


(Chung & Fabbri, 1999)

ISL 2004

Success rate: How well the model performs.


Prediction rate: How well the model predicts

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Success rate
If you use heuristic analysis, the success rate could

be very high
Topples
Large rockslides

ANN with continuous variables

Rockfalls
Debrisflows
Slides

ANN with classes variables

Weight of evidence all variables


Weight of evidence combining variables

ISL 2004

Castellanos, Melchiore and Van Westen, 2008

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Results..
Weights

Percentage
landslides

Percentage
area

High

>1.76

90 %

5.2 %

Mod

<1.76

9%

2.6 %

Low

<0

1%

91.7 %

Area covered by landslides: 1.6 %


Very good prediction !?!

ISL 2004

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

From susceptibility to hazard


Only susceptibility

Still to do

Known now

Risk = Hazard * Vulnerability * Amount


How much percentage of the high, moderate and low
hazard classes may be affected by landsides?
In which period will these landslides occur?
What is the vulnerability to landslides?

Results using mapping units


High
Moderate
Low
4426
buildings

9645
buildings

22019
buildings

Hazard = Spatial probability * Temporal probability


The temporal probability that landslides may occur due to a triggering event. Here
we will link the return period of the triggering event with the landslides that are
caused by it. We have differentiated return periods of: 50, 100, 200, 300 and 400
years.
The spatial probability that a particular area would be affected by landslides of the
given temporal probability. This is calculated as the landslide density within the
landslide susceptibility class.
ISL 2004

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

From susceptibility to hazard


Landslide_ID map
Million dollar
information!!!

If the indication of the high, moderate and low areas


susceptibility is correct, different landslide events
with different return periods will give different
distributions of landslides in these classes.

The probability can be estimated by multiplying the


temporal probability (1/return/period for annual
probability) with the spatial probability (= what is
the chance that 1 pixel is affected)

Landslide related to different return periods


Susceptibility

Cross

Density in
high
ISL 2004

Density in

Density in

moderate

low

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Calculating hazard
Assumption is that events with a larger return period
will also trigger those landslides that would be triggered
by events from smaller return periods

Susceptibility classes

Return periods

ISL 2004

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

From susceptibility to hazards

ISL 2004

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Conclusions
Relation between scale and landslide

susceptibility models
Qualitative methods

Quantitative methods

Scale

Inventory

Heuristic
Analysis

Statistical
Analysis

Process-based
Analysis

Neural network
Analysis

< 1:10,000

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

1:25,000
1:50,000

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

>
1:100,000

Yes

Yes

Yes/No

No

No

based on Soeters & van Westen (1996) and Aleotti & Chowdhury (1999)

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Conclusions
Separate landslide susceptibility models

are needed:

For different landslide types


For different failure mechanisms

Sometimes it is better to skip susceptibility

assessment.

ISL 2004

If you already know the landslide initiation areas


If landslides are caused by reactivation of old ones

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Conclusions: methods..
There are many papers that compare methods

for susceptibility assessment


Susceptibility research is much more model
driven, than data driven.
Much more emphasis should be given on the
analysis of appropriate input data, and of the
inclusion of expert opinion in the analysis.
Most methods report that around 75% of the
landslides were predicted. What about the
25%?
ISL 2004

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Conclusions: data
The availability of data greatly determines the

possibility of using particular susceptibility


methods

Physical based models require detailed soil/rock


characteristics
Depends on the homogeneity of the area

Dont simple use the factors everyone is using:


GIS-based factor derived from DEMs are easy to make but
are they also useful?
Strong relation between failure mechanism and factors to
collect.
ISL 2004

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Conclusions
Validation.
A susceptibility map is useless unless it is validated.

Spatial validation
Temporal validation

Validation of statistically derived results are often more


difficult

How long is a susceptibility map valid?


As soon as any of the (intrinsic or triggering) factors
changes, e.g.:

ISL 2004

Road construction
Climate change

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

RiskCity
Training package on landslide
susceptibility, hazard and risk assessment

ISL 2004

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)

Discussion:
What would be the best methods to use

in the Mountain risk study areas?

ISL 2004

Valtellina?
Firenze?
Dolomites?
Andorra?
Barcelonette?
Swiss areas?

= landslide
= susceptibility