Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 212

ACTUAL CONDITION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF SLOPE

FAILURE IN EAST TIMOR BY MULTIVARIATE


STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

By:
05KC051
Lourenco Soares

A thesis submitted to Department of Civil and Environmental


Engineering, Saitama University, Japan for the Requirements of
Master’s Degree

August 2007

Supervisor
Professor Hidehiko KAZAMA

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering


Graduate School of Science and Engineering
Saitama University, JAPAN
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
At the outset, it is my duty to acknowledge with gratitude the generous help that I
have received from my advisor, Professor Hidehiko KAZAMA. He is responsible for
involving me in this master’s course in the first place. He taught me how to ask questions and
express my ideas. He showed me different ways to approach a research problem and the need
to be persistent to accomplish any goal. I also thank Mrs. Yumiko SHIRO and Mr. Masato
IWAMA for their strong support in making me acquainted with Japanese life style in the past
two years. I expresses with my deepest, heart felt gratitude to Mr. Kobayashi for being
helpful person.
Besides my advisor, I would like to thank the rest of my thesis committee: Professor
Kunio Watanabe and Assoc. Professor M. Osada, who asked me good questions, gave
insightful comments and reviewed my work on a very short notice. And most of all I would
like to express my heart felt thanks to all staffs in Geosphere Research Institute of Saitama
University (GRIS) which have direct and indirect value for finalizing this thesis.
I would like to pass my great respect and Special thanks to Japan International
Cooperation Agency (JICA) and Japan International Cooperation Center (JICE) for their
support in funding my tuition and living expenses through out my stay in Japan to pursue the
Master program in Saitama University, Japan smoothly. Especially, I would like to express
my heart felt thanks to Mr. Mizuki MATSUZAKI, Ms. Yuri OSAWA, Mrs. WATANABE
and Ms. Sayaka OSHIMI for their strong support, advice, suggestions, encouragement and
their kindness cooperation for helping me in every aspect of my study and my life in Japan.
Last, but not least, I thank my family (Amain sayang , Maun Du, Ina Noi, Alin Eqi),
the late my father”† Salvador Soares” and my mother “ Andreza Soares, for giving me life in
the first place, for educating me with aspects from both arts and sciences, for unconditional
support and encouragement to pursue my interests, even when the interests went beyond
boundaries of language, field and geography. My brothers (Maun Domingos, Enty, Rito,
Abes and Aje) and friends: for sharing experience of life and dissertation to me, for listening
to my complaints and frustrations, and for believing in me, most of all supporting.

i
CONTENTS

Acknowledgement
Contents
List of figures
List of tables
Abstract

CHAPTER I
Introduction
1.1 Background of study ………………………………………………….. 1
1.2 Propose and scope of the study ……………………………………….. 2
1.3 Data collection and methodology of research ………………………... 4

CHAPTER II
Study Site Description and Literature review
2.1 Study site description ………………………………………………… 9
2.1.1 Geographical condition, location, and boundaries of study site.. 9
2.1.2 Topography ……………………………………………………. 13
2.1.3 Geology, landforms and soil ………………………………….. 14
2.1.4 Climate ………………………………………………………… 19
2.1.5 Vegetation ……… …………………………………………….. 24
2.2 Literature review ……………………………………………………… 31

CHAPTER III
Actual Condition, Characteristics and Distribution of Slope Failure in East Timor
3.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………. 36
3.2 Characteristics and distribution of slope failure in East Timor ……….. 40
3.2.1 Lithology ……………………………………………………… 41
3.2.2 Vegetation …….. ……………………………………………… 44
3.2.3 Inclination angle of slope ………………………………………. 46

ii
3.2.4 Direction of slope ……………………………………………… 49
3.2.5 Landscape topography ………………………………………… 51
3.2.6 Elevation ………………………………………………………. 53
3.2.7 Slope width………. ……………………………………………. 54
3.2.8 Slope length …………………………………………………… 58

CHAPTER IV
Analyzing Method
4.1 Logistic regression analysis …………………………………………… 63
4.2 Independent variables and sampling …………………………………. 67
4.3 GIS application for slope failure mapping …………………………….. 70

CHAPTER V
Analysis Result
5.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………. 72
5.2 All study site analysis result …………………………………………… 72
5.3 Specific site Analysis ………………………………………………….. 82
5.3.1 Bobonaro site …………………………………………………. 82
5.3.2 Cailaco site ……………………………………………………. 92
5.3.3 Zumalai site …………………………………………………… 100

CHAPTER
Conclussion and Future Subject
6.1 Conclusions…….…………………………………………………………. 109
6.2 Future Subject ……………………………………………………………... 110
References ……………………………………………………………………. 111
APPENDIX A: Physical Data of Slope Failure and Unfailure slope
APPENDIX B: Logistic Regression Analysis

iii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE DESCRIPTION PAGE

1.1 Flow chart of research methodology 6


1.2 Slope failure location with aerial photograph 7
2.1 Boundary of study site 10
2.2 Study site and slope failure 11
2.3 Study site and unfailure slope 12
2.4 Topography of East Timor 14
2.5 East Timor geological map 17
2.6 physical types of East Timor 18
2.7 Areas prone of landslide and flooding in East Timor 18
2.8 Altitude and mean temperature correlation 20
2.9 Monthly distribution of rainfall in East Timor (based on data
from Ferreira 1965) 20
2.10 The amount of daily rainfall from July – December 2006
in Dare station 22
2.11 The amount of daily rainfall from July – December 2006
in Aileu station 23
2.12 The amount of daily rainfall from July – December 2006
in Betano station 23
2.13 Climate 24
2.14 Natural distribution of forest in East Timor 26
2.15 Actual forest covers 27
2.16 Firewood cut by community as o source of income and
used for cooking 28
2.17 Cutting and burning the forest by community 29
2.18 Sifting agriculture (slashes and burn agriculture) 29
2.19 Category of land cover in East Timor 31
3.1 Older landslide topography in East Timor 37
3.2 Older landslide topography in East Timor 37
3.3 Recent landslide topography in East Timor 38
3.4 Recent landslide occurred on cut slope alongside road
in East Timor 39
3.5 Surface failure on hill slopes of mountainous in East Timor 39
3.6 Surface failure on hill slopes of mountainous in East Timor 40
3.7 Lithology 44
3.8 Distribution of vegetation 46
3.9 Distribution of inclination angle of slopes failure 48
3.10 Distribution of direction of slope 50
3.11 Landscape topography 52
3.12 Distribution of elevation 54
3.13 Width of landslide 56
3.14 Width of surface failure 57

iv
3.15 Width of surface failure and landslide 58
3.16 Length of landslide 60
3.17 Length of surface failure 51
3.18 Length of surface failure and landslide mix 59
4.1 Flow chart of logistic regression analysis 69
4.2 Flow chart of Production of probabilities of slope failure maps
based on GIS techniques 71
5.1 Ranking of the top ten significant item and category based on
influence ratio in all study site 76
5.2 The top ten ranking of interaction term when combined with
other variable based on influence ratio in all study site 76
5.3 Observed groups and predicted probabilities of slope failure
by logistic regression analysis 80
5.4 Histogram of p redicting for probabilities of slope failure 81
5.5 Map of relative slope failure susceptibility 81
5.6 Ranking of the top ten significant item and category based on
influence ratio in Bobonaro site 85
5.7 The top ten ranking of interaction term when combined with
other variable based on influence ratio in Bobonaro site 86
5.8 Observed groups and predicted probabilities of slope failure
by logistic regression analysis 89
5.9 Histogram of predicting for probabilities of slope failure
in Bobonaro site 90
5.10 Ranking of the top ten significant item and category based on
influence ratio in Cailaco site 95
5.11 The top ten ranking of interaction term when combined with
other variable based on influence ratio in Cailaco site 96
5.12 Observed groups and predicted probabilities of slope failure
by logistic regression analysis 99
5.13 Histogram of predicting for probabilities of slope failure
in Cailaco site 100
5.14 Ranking of the top ten significant item and category based on
influence ratio in Zumalai site 103
5.15 The top ten ranking of interaction term when combined with
other variable based on influence ratio in Zumalai site 104
5.16 Observed groups and predicted probabilities of slope failure
by logistic regression analysis 107
5.17 Predicting for probabilities of slope failure in Zumalai site 108

v
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE DESCRIPTION PAGE

2.1 Land use in East Timor, Indonesia government estimation 30


2.2 Land use, Alternative estimation, Saldanha 30
3.1 Density of slope failure in study site 41
3.2 Description of geological structures in each study area 39
3.3 Lithology 43
3.4 Distribution of vegetation 45
3.5 Distribution of inclination angle of slope failure 48
3.6 Distribution of direction of slope 50
3.7 Landscape topography 52
3.8 Distribution of elevation 53
3.9 Width of landslide 55
3.10 Width of surface failure 56
3.11 Width of the mix of surface failure and landslide 57
3.12 Length of landslide 59
3.13 Length of surface failure 60
3.14 Length of surface failure and landslide mix 51
4.1 Classification of predicted the probabilities of slope failure
from the logistic regression analysis 67
4.2 Categories of the independent variables 68
5.1 Classification table of cut value 0.50 73
5.2 Coefficient values and influence ratio of logistic regression
of each item and category in all study site 73
5.3 Cofficient values and influence ratio of logistic regression
of interaction term with other item and category in all study site 74
5.4 Classification of predicted the probabilities of slope failure
from the logistic regression analysis 79
5.5 Predicting for probability of slope failure 80
5.6 Classification table of cut value 0.50 in Bobonaro site 82
5.7 Coefficient values and influence ratio of logistic regression
of each item and category in Bobonaro site 82
5.8 Cofficient values and influence ratio of logistic regression
of interaction term with other item and category in Bobonaro
site 83
5.9 Predicting for probability of slope failure in Bobonaro site 90
5.10 Classification table of cut value 0.50 in Cailaco site 92
5.11 Coefficient values and influence ratio of logistic regression
of each item and category in Cailaco site 92
5.12 Cofficient values and influence ratio of logistic regression
of interaction term with other item and category in Cailaco site 93
5.13 Predicting for probability of slope failure in Cailaco site 99
5.14 Classification table of cut value 0.50 in Zumalai site 100

vi
5.15 Coefficient values and influence ratio of logistic regression
of each item and category in Zumalai site 101
5.16 Cofficient values and influence ratio of logistic regression
of interaction term with other item and category in Zumalai site 102
5.17 Predicting for probability of slope failure in Zumalai site 107

vii
ABSTRACT
East Timor has risk number of natural hazards. Each year, heavy seasonal rain falling on
steep slopes causes frequent flash flooding and slope failure, which are considered to be the
two major natural hazards in the country. Apart from their potential to cause casualties and
damage to rural communities, these events cause major disruption to the fragile road network,
isolating communities and even whole districts for a long duration. Slope failures (i.e.,
landslide and surface failure) in mountainous terrain often occur as a result of heavy rainfall,
resulting in the loss of life and damage to the natural environment. In this regard, slope
failure hazard assessment as well as identify the characteristics and distribution of slope
failure can provide much mitigation through proper project planning and implementation.
Propose of this study are to know actual condition and characteristics of slope failure and
to determine clearly the factors influencing of the slope failure occurrence in East Timor. The
factors that influent to the slope failure in study area may be categories in the intrinsic
variables that contribute for slope failure, such as geology, inclination angle of the slope,
vegetation, elevation, direction and landscape topography of slope.
Logistic regression analysis is a multivariate technique that considers several physical
parameters that may affect probability. This modeling is intended to describe the likelihood
of slope failure on a regional scale, and is very suitable for the assessment of slope failure
actual condition and its characteristics because the observed data consist of item and category
with a value of 0(absence of slope failure) or 1(presence of slope failure). The predicting and
assess of slope failure occurrence for the training samples in this analysis. If we have a model
that successfully distinguishes the two groups based on a classification cutoff value of 0.5.
Result analysis shown that the model produced a concordance rate of 90 % with the use
of 0.5 as a classification cutoff value. By examining this result to predict that’s factors
influencing slope failure, we can see what a different classification rule should be adopted
when applying the model analysis to each factor in the study area and obtain regression
model composed of significant variables. The influence of the interaction among factors
contributing for slope failure occurrence was examined. When the interaction term were
introduce, the proportion of the observed all items and category predicted as high influence
ratio increased by 1 to 4 times of individual category, which indicated a better prediction.

viii
The comparison of the results from the analysis including the interaction terms among
category and the individual category, the interaction term indicate that interactions among the
variables of category were found to be significant for predicting probability of slope failure.
From the result, slope failure would most possibly occur in area where cover by bare land
and grassland and the elevation ranges from 200m to 800m, the surface slopes is steep and
thin sedimentary rocks.

ix
CONTENTS OF APPENDIX

Appendix A : Physical data of slope failure and un-failure


A.1 Physical data of slope failure
A.1.1 Bobonaro site …………………………………………………. 117
A.1.2 Cailaco site ……………………………………………………. 122
A.1.3 Zumalai site …………………………………………………… 126
A.1.4 Atsabe site ……………………………………………………. 128
A.1.5 Maliana site …………………………………………………… 130
A.1.6 Ainaro site ……………………………………………………. 131
A.1.7 Hatolia site …………………………………………………… 132
A.1.8 Hatobuilico site ……………………………………………… 133
A.2 Physical data of unfailure slope
A.2.1 Bobonaro site …………………………………………………. 134
A.2.2 Cailaco site ……………………………………………………. 139
A.2.3 Zumalai site …………………………………………………… 143
A.2.4 Atsabe site ……………………………………………………. 145
A.2.5 Maliana site …………………………………………………… 147
A.2.6 Ainaro site ……………………………………………………. 148
A.2.7 Hatolia site …………………………………………………… 149
A.2.8 Hatobuilico site ……………………………………………… 150
Appendix B : Logistic regression analysis result
B.1 All study site ………………………………………………………. 151
B.2 Specific site
B.2.1 Bobonaro site ………………………………………………. 165
B.2.2 Cailaco site ………………………………………………… 178
B.2.3 Zumalai site ……………………………………………….. 189
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of Study


East Timor is a rugged island with a narrow or non existent coastal plain along its
northern coast and a southern coastal plain that varies from less than a kilometers wide in
some areas to as much as 20 km in others. Highest mountain with a height of 2,963 meters is
the Tatamailau or Ramelau in the Ainaro district. Slopes are steep, with as much as 44% of
the country having a slope of 40% or more. Slopes this steep may need a zigzag path to climb.
The soils are limestone-dominated. Such soils are prone to erosion, particularly on steep
slopes and where vegetation cover has been degraded by poor agricultural practices or
deforestation. This is the case in many parts of East Timor where the natural vegetation has
been modified by human activity over centuries leaving sparse savannah woodland or
grassland in most areas. East Timor is dryer than most equatorial islands, receiving most of
its rainfall during the northwestern monsoon, which occurs from December to March.
Southern slopes receive additional rain during the shorter southeast trade winds period
between May and July.
East Timor has risk number of natural hazards. Each year, heavy seasonal rain falling on
steep slopes causes frequent flash flooding and slope failure, which are considered to be the
two major natural hazards in the country. Apart from their potential to cause casualties and
damage to rural communities, these events cause major disruption to the fragile road network,
isolating communities and even whole districts for a long duration..
East Timor has two climate seasons are wet and dry season. From November to April, the
country is risk of tropical cyclones and lesser tropical storms, which can cause coastal
flooding and wave damage. In the dry season, drought conditions exist in large parts of East
Timor. A delay in the onset of seasonal rains can become disastrous as fires can get quickly
out of control.
East Timor has a very fragile environment. It is particularly dried compared with other
parts of the region, and is prone to regular droughts. Deforestation combined with steep
slopes, thin soils and heavy seasonal rains have resulted in erosion and soil loss.

1
The situation has been exacerbated by deforestation, which has become more substantial
during the last three decades. One of the country’s most valued forest resources is
sandalwood which has now been reduced to just a few stands due to of over-exploitation.
Another problem is that many rural communities rely on selling wood for fuel as source of
family income and as a result, have contributed to deforestation.
Geological hazards also threaten East Timor. Areas to the north of the island have
experienced earthquakes of up to 6.9 on the Richter scale within the last 10 years. These can
cause local tsunamis. A four-meter-high tsunami, caused by a major earthquake, struck the
north coast of Timor in 1995. In addition, other hazards exist, including major transport
accidents; urban fires and agricultural hazards. These risks are likely to increase as the nation
develops unless necessary precautions are made and regulations put in place.
Slope failures (i.e., landslide and surface failure) in mountainous terrain often occur as a
result of heavy rainfall, resulting in the loss of life and damage to the natural environment. In
this regard, slope failure hazard assessment as well as identify the characteristics and
distribution of slope failure can provide much mitigation through proper project planning and
implementation.

1.2 Propose and Scope of the Study


It is difficult to examine the natural hazard as well as slope failure hazard in East Timor
because of the lack of consistent data, however little data has been collected to provide this
study. The primary aims of this initial study are to identify the major influence factors for
slope failure in East Timor. Logistic regression analysis is a multivariate statistical analysis
has been used extensively at most of previously researcher to predict the factors influence to
the slope failures occurrences. The purpose of this study is to present a method that utilizes
and employs statistical analysis to define the physical parameters contributing to the
occurrence of landslides. This method allows a series of statistically meaningful and
independent variables to be included in the assessment of the analysis model. The procedure
is based on the actual slope failure cases and is therefore representative of failure conditions
and relatively objective. Logistic regression analysis describing in this study is to:
• To know the actual condition and characteristics of slope failure in East Timor

2
• Identify clearly the factors that are related to slope failures,
• Estimate the relative contribution of factors causing slope failures, and
• Establish a relation between the factors and slope failures.
The scope of activities with developing and applying the logistic regression analysis in
this study consist of five main steps:
• Pre-selection of variables based on a slope failure distribution analysis;
• Selection of statistically significant variables by a P-value significance test;
• Logistic regression modeling with those variables that passed the significance test;
• Logistic regression modeling with significant variables including the interaction
terms; and
• Evaluation of the model results.
In the first step, a slope failure characteristics analysis is used to pre-select the variables
that are relevant for the regression. This analysis involves overlaying the variables of
category of slope failure occurrences and the variables of category of a factor (such as
lithology), then calculating the percentage of coverage of the slope failure occurrence on
each class for each input factor, such as slope inclination angle within elevation factor. By
comparing the slope failure distributions, a preliminary ranking of the variables can be
developed. Important variables will be considered in the following significance tests.
In the second step, the significance p-value of 0.05 is specified as the cut-off value to
choose the variable for further analyses and 0.10 is chosen as the value for elimination of
insignificant variables. The variables that passed the significance test can be entered into the
logistic regression modeling in the next step. After the steps of pre-selection and significance
test, we can know the total of the independent variables were selected for the regression
analyzing.
In the third step, the model is checked for its goodness of fit by entering a variable or
removing a variable. Following the SPSS procedures, 20 iterations are preferred to obtain
optimal models of analysis. The final suitable logistic regression analysis is based on the
variables presented in the final step of the statistical calculation in the SPSS program, and the
regression coefficients are obtained.

3
In the fourth step, the interaction terms representing the interactions among variables are
entered into the logistic regression analysis. In particular, the interactions among variables
from six category factors (i.e., lithology, vegetation cover, slope aspect, elevation inclination
angle and landscape topography) are selected to form the interaction terms for the
regression. The interactions among two, three, and four variables at one time were tested.
Only significant interaction terms are retained for analyzing. When interaction terms are
introduced into the model, the ranking of the significance of some of the variables will
change. Some of the variables showing significance in the previous step may become
insignificant, and some of the interaction terms showing significance are added into the
model. After many tests with the interaction terms, the model that produces the best
prediction result is adopted as the final optimal model.
In the fifth step, the models obtained from above and the factors influence to the slope
failure occurrences generated from the models are evaluated. Slope failure probability values
between 0 and 1 at each unique-condition unit are obtained from the final regression.

1.3 Data Collection and Methodology of Research


Slope failure often occurs at specific locations under certain topographic and geologic
conditions. Therefore it is important to utilize existing data (history of the problem and data
review) in order to understand the topography, geology, and properties of similar slope
failure. It is also important to understand their relationship with meteorologist factors,
chronology of topographic change or erosion by rivers, earthquakes, and other factors which
may have a relationship with the slope deformation surrounding the study site prior to the
detailed investigation.
In this study, data collections to provide this research are:
• Aerial photograph with magnitude scale 1:13,000
• Topography map with magnitude scale 1:15,000
• geology map with magnitude scale 1:350,000
• Rainfall Data (July 2004 – December 2006)

4
Investigations of Aerial photographs are used to understand the chronologic and
topographic changes over the country. Furthermore, in order to be able to effectively
interpret the phenomena related to slope failure. By utilizing aerial photographs, it is possible
to interpret landslide phenomena and warning signs, geology structure, topography and
distribution of vegetation type.

Topographic investigation is necessary to identify any changes in the site topography.


That can be accomplished by recognizing; 1) the overall topographic feature of the site;
2) understanding the topographic characteristics of the site slopes; and 3) estimating the
regional geologic structure of the site. Such methods include comparing the aerial
photographs of the site and vicinity taken prior to and after the sliding, and interpreting the
topographic maps and aerial photographs.

Geological map is necessary to investigate geologic structure, however to identify the


bedrock distribution, rocks types and rock mass engineering properties in the surrounding study
site.

Based on aerial photograph and topographic map in the study area, there are 506 number
of slope failures from the inventory. For each slope failures inventory, it includes information
such as location, slope geometry (slope inclination angle, direction, width and length),
geology factor (rocks types), vegetation cover (high tree, low tree, grassland and no
vegetation), landscape topography (valley, ridge and flat) and slope aspect (direction) are
used for actual condition and characteristics of slope failures analysis.

Considering the regional variations identified and data availability in the above, six
factors were considered in this study: geology factor, vegetation cover, slope gradient (i.e.,
slope inclination angle), elevation, landscape topography and slope aspect (i.e., direction).
Detail research methodology in this study has shown in Figure 1.1.

5
Start

- Topographic Map - Geological Map


- Aerial Photograph - Rainfall Data

Select Study Area and Detection of Slope Failure

Map of Locations Representing of the Selecting Area of Slope Failure and


Unfailure Slope by Random

- Lothology - Vegetation Cover - Elevation


- Slope Gradient - Slope Aspect - Landscape Topography

Extraction of Independent Variables for points representing of Slope Failure and


Unfailure

Multivariate Statistical Analysis by Logistic Regression Analysis

Stepwise of logistic Regression Analysis

Development of Logistic regression Analysis

Verification of the probabilities and Susceptibilities of Slope failure mapping

Result of Analysis and Discussion

Figure.1.1 Flow chart of research methodology

6
Figure 1.2 Slope failure locations with aerial photograph.

7
A key assumption using this approach is that the potential (occurrence possibility) of
slope failure will be comparable to the actual frequency of slope failure. After the study area
was selected, slope failure areas were detected in the study area by investigation of Aerial
photograph. The maps of aerial photograph used were these from January 2000 (Figure 1.2),
after slope failure. This air photograph, in combination with logistic regression analysis result
and GIS was used to evaluate and predicted the probability of slope failure in the study area.
A GIS database has been developed using ArcGIS version 3.3 software. The slope failure
in the study area and the factors contributing for slope failure have been recorded and saved
as separate layers in the database. All the data layers were in vector format, transformed in
grids with cell size 30x30 meters.

8
CHAPTER II
STUDY SITE DESCRIPTION AND LITERATURE
REVIEW

2.1 Study Site Description


2.1.1 Geographical Condition , Location, and Boundaries, of Study Site
East Timor is approximately the eastern half of the island of Timor, and part of the Lesser
Sunda Island chain, distant from Australia by only 500 km. It is between longitudes 1270 22”
and 1320 25” and latitude 80 17” and 100 22” with a general orientation of southwest to
northeast. The area of East Timor as a whole is only about 15,007 km2 and the coastline is
706 km. Timor’s boundaries are as follows:
• In the north, the boundary of Wetar Strait with Ombai Strait.
• In the east, the boundary with the Maluku Strait.
• In the south, the boundary with the Timor Sea.
• In the west, the boundary with Nusa Tenggara Timor, the eastern region of Indonesia.
In this study, the study site at the western part of East Timor. There are lies between
latitude 080 52’’ 30’’ and 090 15’’00’’ to South and longitude 1250 15’’ 30’’and 1260
15’’00’’to East, and has area about 1448 km2 with elevations ranging from 200m to 2100m.
The study area is mountainous area, which is also landslide prone, and is quite flat in the
south. The underlying bedrock is limestone, siltstone, sandstone, shale and conglomerate.
Most folds are developed in the western mountainous area and a thrust fault extends from
north to south of the study area. The study site are covering eight sub district in western part
of East Timor, there are Bobonaro, Cailaco, Zumalai, Atsabe, Maliana, Ainaro, Hatolia and
Hatobuilico (Figure 2.1, Figure 2.2 , and Figure 2.3 ).

9
Firuge 2.1 Boundary of study site
N

Boundary of study site

Atsabe

Cailaco

Hatobuilico
Hatolia

Ainaro
Maliana
Zumalai
Bobonaro

10
Atsabe

Hatobuilico

Cailaco Hatolia

Maliana Ainaro
Zumalai

Bobonaro

Figure 2.2 Study site and slope failure

11
Atsabe

Cailaco
Hatobuilico

Hatolia

Ainaro
Maliana Bobonaro
Zumalai

Figure 2.3 Study site and unfailure slope

12
2.1.2 Topography
A mountain range runs from the east to the west of East Timor. The mountainous terrain
results in many watersheds and streams, making transportation very difficult. The land is
made up of limestone, coral, thick clayey soil, sand and a small amount of volcanic origin. In
East Timor there are seven mountains with heights over 2000m as seen in the following table.
The highest mountain with a height of 2,963 metres is the Tatamailau peak of the Ramelau
Range in the Ainaro district. Name of District Height Mountain Above Sea Level
1.Tatamailau Ainaro 2,963 metres 2.Sabiria Aileu 2,495 metres 3.Usululi Baucau 2,620
metres 4.Harupai Ermera 2,293 metres 5.Cablake Manufahi 2,495 metres 6.Laklo Manatuto
2,050 metres 7.Matebian Baucau 2,373 metres As a broad outline, the watersheds of East
Timor can be divided into two areas; northern and southern. Of the many rivers in East
Timor, the following rivers flow all year round; the Laklo river in the district of Manatuto,
the Seical river in Baucau district, the Bulobo, Marobo, Malibaka and Nunura rivers in
Bobonaro district, Gleno river in Ermera district, Karau Ulun in Manufahi district, the rivers
of Dilor, Uca, Uwetoko, Bebui and Irabere in Viqueque district, the Loes river in Liquica,
and the Tono river in Oecussi.
Overall the climate in East Timor is classified as tropical. The minimum temperature
range is 18-21ºC while the maximum temperature range is 26-32ºC. In the north (as far east
as Baucau) the rainy season begins in November and is usually accompanied by a westerly
monsoon; the months of May and October are months of change from dry to wet season. In
the east and the south the situation is different - the rainy season is at its height in April. The
dry season occurs during May, and the rainy season returns at the beginning of June until
August. When it is winter in Australia (August to October), sometimes the temperature in
East Timor can be as low as 18ºc. This is also true of the opposite scenario. When it is
summer in Australia, the temperature is high on the coast of East Timor, even in the rainy
season.

13
Figure 2.4 Topography of East Timor (Source from Internet)

2.1.3 Geology, land forms, and soil


Timor is a continental fragment, not a volcanic island. The foundation is largely made up
of limestone and other sedimentary deposits. This differentiates it from its neighbors to the
north and west in the Sunda chain which are volcanic. It is theorized that Timor, in fact, is a
piece of the Australian geological plate which, separated from the mainland, has been pushed
into the Indonesian plate. (Monk et al. 1997:23) That it has been repeatedly uplifted and
submerged over the millennia accounts for the presence of coral layers in the soil at heights
of up to 2,000 meters above sea level. The erosion of these rocks is considerable.
The topography of East Timor is dominated by a massive central backbone of up to
3,000 meters, the Ramelau mountain range, which is dissected by deep valleys prone to flash
floods. Toward the northern side, the mountains extend almost to the coast without extensive

14
plains. To the south, on the other hand, mountains taper off some distance from the sea
leaving a wide littoral plain, more propitious for agriculture.
The plain is 20 km and even 30 km wide running almost the length of East Timor and
widens at the eastern end. There are more perennial streams flowing to the southern coast
which allow for more agriculture and irrigation.
The Fuiloro plateau, in the far East, descends in altitude southwards, from 700 meters to
1500 meters. The slope is almost unnoticeable due to the large area, which may have been
the primitive lagoon of a big fossil atoll. Three other main planaltic formations surround it:
Nári in the north, Lospalos to the center-west and Rare to the south. Nestled in the mountain
range near the border with West Timor lies the low plateau of Maliana in what was once a
gulf. This area is better suited to irrigated agriculture than the rest of East Timor. As much as
44 percent of East Timor may have a slope of land of more than 40 percent. (Monk et al.
1997:52; Dick 1991) A slope of 40 percent is difficult to descend and may need a zigzag path.
Bierenbroodspot (1986 in Monk et al. 1997:107) suggested the following erodibilty
classification and appropriate uses for sloping land on Timor:
• Land with less than 17 percent slope tends to be suitable for cultivation provided
that any incipient soil erosion is controlled;
• Land between 17 percent and 30 percent is best used for grazing as soil erosion
cannot be controlled on such steep slopes under permanent or shifting cultivation;
• Land over 30 percent suffering from soil erosion is unsuitable for sustainable
agriculture and can require reforestation or conversion to suitable tree or perennial
cover crops.
Soils are ultimately the combination of base rock, topography, climate, vegetation and, to
some extent, the fauna which is present in any one place. Topography influences the
weathering, depth, erodibility, infiltration, and leaching of a soil. The major limitations to
plant production, and therefore to agriculture, are steep slopes and shallow soils. The outer-
arc islands, dominated by limestone, generally have lower, rounded hills with relatively
infertile, alkaline soils. Often the better soils are only on the alluvial deposits along the coasts
and in depressions such as lake or lacustrine basins surrounded by steeper, eroded land. Such
a lacustrine basin occurs in north central Timor (Maliana).

15
Climate is perhaps the most important factor affecting the development of tropical soils
(Mohr et al. 1972). The most important climatic factor affecting tropical soil fertility and
structure is temperature. Up to 20°C, humus forms faster than it is broken down, enriching
the soils with nutrients and improving its structure (Chambers 1983). Above 20°C, and
particularly in hot, arid Conditions, bacteria decompose dead vegetation faster than it
accumulates, with the result that humus and fertility levels diminish. Thus, many tropical
soils have a low organic content and inherent low fertility. Tropical soils can maintain natural
fertility where climatic conditions favor the accumulation of humus. This occurs in
continuously moist soils found in wetter regions or higher altitudes; or when nutrients are
resupplied from outside the system, such as when a volcanic eruption spreads mineral-rich
ash deposits over the land. A second important climatic factor affecting fertility and structure
is the soil moisture regime, that is, the relationship between the length of the dry season and
total rainfall. Most of the area experiences a seasonal climate.
Prolonged droughts are followed by total annual precipitation which falls within a few
months or even days. This strongly affects the movement of salts and minerals through the
soil. Soils may bake hard and crack during a prolonged dry season. These conditions are
intensified in savannas, because the annual fires remove the supply of new organic matter
and, at the end of the rainy season with ground cover at a minimum, heavy rainfall may result
in surface runoff with potential for rill and gully erosion. The soils of the outer-arc islands
tend to have less clay and, as a result, lower water holding capacity (WHC) than the inner
volcanic arc islands (Carson 1989). Shallow, calcareous soils on raised coral reefs on islands
such as Timor have a limited WHC; Timor's soils are 20-30 cm deep over the island
(Mahadeva and Laksono 1976), except where there are lake deposits. The area with steep
slopes and thin soils is naturally biased toward high rates of erosion. Some local farmers have
an understanding for the fragility of the soil and have developed a sophisticated indigenous
method of soil conservation. In other areas, however, soil is being lost at high rates through
inappropriate land management. In particular, high losses of organic matter occur during and
shortly after clearing, and before establishment of suitable cover crops. Under such
conditions, intense bombardment of the soil surface by rain can quickly break down soil-
organo aggregates, thus permitting high erosion losses. In addition, surface temperatures

16
increase on cleared land, thus increasing oxidation and loss of organic matter. As it is
difficult to restore organic matter, conservation measures such as early planting of cover
crops, incorporation of plant residues and erosion control should be strictly followed
(FENCO 1981).

Figure 2.5: East Timor geological map (Instituto Superior Tecnico, Portugal, 2000)

17
Figure 2.6 Physical types of East Timor
Source: Monk et al. 1997: Figure 2.10, originally from RePPProT 1989b
The physical types present in East Timor are 2 - tidal swamps; 4 - meander belts; 7 - Fan and lahars; 8 - terraces; 9 -
undulating rolling and hillocky plains; 10 - hills; and 11 - mountains. (Monk, et al. 1997:50; original RePPProT). A
revised draft map is in preparation for East Timor by the Geological Research and Development Centre, Bandung -GRDC.
The geology of East Timor was mapped previously by Audley-Charles (1968).

Fig.2.7 Areas prone of landslide and flooding in East Timor


(Source: Monk et al. 1997: Figure 2.13originally RePPProt 1989a.

18
2.1.4 Climate
Knowledge of climatic conditions is of great importance for environmental management.
Climatic maps showing the amount of rainfall, including dry or drought periods indicate what
crops that will grow on an island or in a particular valley, or what pests may migrate into the
area if particular crops are cultivated. Much historical data exists for both temperature and
rainfall from the Portuguese colonial period. East Timor continues to have more stations for
measuring these and other factors than do the neighboring areas in Indonesia. Climate is a
function of the latitude, wind patterns bringing rain, rainfall volume, seasonality, and
intensity, soils, and the altitude above sea level. There is a clear correlation for East Timor
between altitude and average temperature and seasonal variations as shown by Felgas (Figure
2.8, reproduced in Monk 1997).
While the general climate in East Timor can be classified as hot (average temperature 210
C) and humid (70-80 percent), the geographic position and the topography is such that
climatic conditions differ substantially between mountainous regions and lower altitudes.
Even regions of the same altitude have very different climates when separated by high
mountains which act like a wall. Therefore, since topography is not equal to climate, a
system that separates lowlands, mountains, and plains is a useful first step to classifying
climactic conditions.
On the southern coast rainfall is high, with volumes of 2,000 mm or more per year spread
over a longer period of months. On the northern coast, at the same altitudes, rainfall could be
as little as 500-1,000 mm per year and concentrated in a shorter period of months. The
Indonesian government, (RePPProT) used the Schmidt and Ferguson method of counting and
comparing months with more than or less than 100 mm rainfall each and the Fontanel and
Chantefort method of combining this with temperature data.
The result is that the northern coast is basically seasonally dry except on the coast which
is permanently dry. The southern coast is permanently moist (Monk et al. 1997:75-77). A
permanently moist climate might allow for the growing of two annual harvests of crops, such
as rice. However, for the purpose of land use planning, a more detailed discrimination of
climate is necessary. (See sections on rainfall, vegetative cover, and agriculture, below.)

19
Figure 2.8: Altitude and mean temperature correlation
Source: Monk et al. 1997: Figure 2.19, originally from Felgas 1956

Figure 2.9 Monthly distribution of rainfall in Timor Leste (based on data from Ferreira 1965).

20
It is difficult to examine present climate risk in East Timor because of the lack of
consistent climate data. During the Portuguese period several stations measured
rainfall/climate data for varying periods from 1914 to 1975, but many of these records are
incomplete. It is unclear how much data was recorded during the period of Indonesian
control from 1975 to 1999. Since 1999 there have been no meteorological or hydrological
services available in East Timor. In November 2000, 50 rain gauges were distributed around
the country by the Department of Agriculture and funded by AusAID, however little data has
been collected from these gauges (Ongoing monitoring and educational activities are
important to establish continuity in such programs). Automatic weather stations have been
installed at the main airports (Dili, Baucau and Suai) by the Australian Bureau of
Meteorology (Darwin). Weather or seasonal climate forecasts have only been used
sporadically by the National Disaster Management Office, and these were based on
information available from the internet. Furthermore, there are currently no means to
communicate this information to the users that require it. The Australian Bureau of
Meteorology will be providing weather forecasts for East Timor for as long as Australian
forces are present in the territory (see http://www.bom.gov.au/reguser/by_prod/aviation/).
As well as this lack of temperature and rainfall data, there is a lack of consistent data on a
range of climate-related processes like river runoff, tides, floods, and groundwater levels.
This lack of data makes it difficult to assess whether climate is changing in East Timor.
There is also insufficient data on which to base scenarios of future climate changes and its
impact on environmental and social systems. Nevertheless, some broad conclusions about
climate change in East Timor can be drawn and these will be discussed in the following
pages. East Timor is predominately influenced by the monsoon climate. There are two
distinct rainfall patterns: the Northern Monomodal Rainfall Pattern produces a 4-6 month wet
season beginning in December which affects most of the northern side of the country and
tapers to the East; and the Southern Bimodal Rainfall Pattern which produces a longer (7-9
month) wet season with two rainfall peaks starting in December and again in May which
affects the southern side of the country (Keefer 2000: 11). Rainfall can be broadly described
as being low to very low along the northern coast of East Timor (<1000mm/annum), low to
moderate throughout the central and elevated areas (1500-2000mm/annum), and relatively

21
high (>2500mm/annum) in high altitude areas which are mostly in the west. In common with
most tropical locations, extremely heavy rainfalls occasionally occur over East Timor during
relatively short time intervals (Figure 2.9).
The general climatic conditions define two zones: northern areas and southern areas,
divided by mountains into:
• The northern area characterized by one rainfall peak within four to six months in the
wet season. The northern coastal areas have an average yearly rainfall from 500 to
1500 mm, while higher altitudes above 500 m receive abundant rainfall from 1 500 to
3 000 mm, an average of monthly rainfall from 50mm to 150mm (Figure 2.10).
• The southern areas characterized by two rainfall peaks that appear within seven to
nine months in the wet season. The first peak appears between December and
February and the second peak appears between May and June. The southern coastal
areas have an average annual rainfall from 1 500 to 2000 mm. The areas above 500 m
receive more abundant rainfall from 1 700 to 3 500 mm, an average of monthly
rainfall from 70 mm to 150mm (Figure 2.11 and 2.12).

The amount of daily rainfall in Dare station

July-Dec. 2004 2005 2006

240
220
200
180
160
140
Days

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0

5.1 - 10

15.1 - 20

25.1 - 30

35.1 - 40

45.1 - 50

55.1 - 60

65.1 - 70

75.1 - 80

85.1 - 90

95.1 - 100

Intensity rainfall (mm/day)

Figure 2.10 The amount of daily rainfall from July 2004 – December 2006
in Dare station

22
The amount of daily ranifall in Aileu Station

July -Dec. 2004 2005 2006

200
180
160
140
120
Days

100
80
60
40
20
0
0

0.1 - 5

5.1 - 10

10.1 - 15

15.1 - 20

20.1 - 25

25.1 - 30

30.1 - 35

35.1 - 40

40.1 - 45

45.1 - 50

50.1 - 55

55.1 - 60

60.1 - 65

65.1 - 70

70.1 - 75
Intensity rainfall(mm/day)

Figure 2.11 The amount of daily rainfall from July 2004 – December 2006
In Aileu station

The amount of daily rainfall in Betano station

July-Dec. 2004 2005 2006

260
240
220
200
180
160
Days

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0

0.1 - 5

5.1 - 10

10.1 - 15

15.1 - 20

20.1 - 25

25.1 - 30

30.1 - 35

35.1 - 40

40.1 - 45

45.1 - 50

50.1 - 55

55.1 - 60

60.1 - 65

65.1 - 70

70.1 - 75

75.1 - 80

Intensity rainfall (mm/day)

Figure 2.12 The amount of daily rainfall from July 2004 – December 2006
In Betano station

23
Figure 2.13: Climate
Source: Monk et al. 1997: Figure 2.17, originally from RePPProT 1989a

2.1.5 Vegetation
The present vegetation cover is a combination of what could be there given the climate
and the particularities of each area, and anthropic actions of settlements, clearings,
agriculture, grazing, plantations, etc. This section speculates what the natural distribution of
forests and grasslands in East Timor would have been. It also assesses what is known of the
historical distribution of vegetation cover. It was noted previously that East Timor suffers
from an exceptionally dry climate, especially in the northern half. This condition directly
affects the likely historical distribution of forest. Monk suggests that classification of forests
in this area is particularly difficult because of the extreme influence of altitude and rainfall
patterns on forest types. These vary widely in small areas and along steep slopes. Not enough
work has been done on classification specifically for East Nusa Tenggara, Maluku and East
Timor. Figure 2.14 shows the types of forest which would be naturally occurring in eastern
Indonesia based on the number of dry months and annual rainfall.
According to the classification utilized in Monk et al. (1997), the natural vegetation for
East Timor would be various kinds of forest from evergreen in the mountains, especially the
southern slopes, to thorn forest along the northern coasts. Because of the influence of the
mountains on rainfall in the southern part of East Timor, by the 1950s rainforest originally

24
occurring on the south escarpment of the Fuiloro limestone plateau had been extensively
replaced by secondary forest (Felgas 1956; van Steenis, un-publicized. in Monk et al.
1997:234). All land would be covered by different types of forest. Savanna and grassland are
assumed to be secondary vegetation (Monk et al. 1997:197).
This vegetation distribution would be before the indigenous people or the Portuguese
began to occupy the land. Monsoon forest, one of the most sensitive and vulnerable of the
tropical forest formations, is easily lost. The original monsoon forests of the dry regions have
been extensively replaced by savanna and grassland. Generations have repeatedly burnt the
dry forests for hunting and to accommodate shifting cultivation. (Monk et al. 1997:202)
When these forest types are disturbed, principally by burning, then secondary vegetation,
savanna or grasslands emerge. Figure 2.15 indicates there are very few areas of forest left.
Deforestation is not a phenomenon confined to the eastern part of the island. When Crippen
International carried out a detailed survey of forests in West Timor, it found that the majority
of this part of the island was also covered with savannas and grasslands (Crippen
International 1980 vol.14 - Forestry). It is also worth noting that when RePPProT used
Landsat images from 1972 to 1986 to update aerial photos and coverage estimates, there
were no aerial photos available for East Timor.
Official numbers exist for the location and distribution of forest types on East Timor but
these are of uncertain accuracy because of both their source and their age. Up-to date
information gathered from remote sensing satellites or aerial photography, and actual in-the-
field observations will be of critical importance. Monk et al. (1997: 211) concludes: "The
accuracy of historical data available for East Timor is even more difficult to assess as no
official survey seems to exist.” Felgas (1956) quotes estimates by Ruy Cinatti, the head of
the Portuguese Timor Agricultural 17 and Veterinary Technical Department indicating that
there were 74 km2 of mangroves; 2149 km2 of primary forest and 2646 km2 of savanna and
grassland.
This suggests that closed forest cover in East Timor rose from 16 percent in the 1950s to
29 percent in the 1980s. It is, however, not likely that such extensive reforestation occurred
either naturally or through human activity. This casts doubt on any forestcover figures for
East Timor. Scrub forest, savannas, and grasslands areas now make up as much as three

25
fourths of the land. Various grasses, xerophytic shrubs in the driest areas, and other shrubs
are present including evergreens, small trees, and vines interspersed with stands of casuarina,
eucalyptus, bamboo, acacia, or even palms. (Metzner 1977:104-114) Although much
anecdotal information on the savannas exists, detailed quantitative descriptions are lacking.
There are three ecological descriptions including two prepared by consultancy companies on
West Timor (ACIL Australia Pty. 1986m; Crippen International 1980F).

Figure 2.14: Natural distribution of forest in East Timor


Note: A = Evergreen rain forest; B= Semi-evergreen rain forest; C= Moist
deciduous forest; D= Dry deciduous forest;E= Thorn forest
Source: Monk et al 1997: Figure 4.4

26
Figure 2.15 Actual forest
Source: Monk et al. 1997: Figure 4.5 Based on data and maps from Collins et al.
1991 with permission from N.M.Collins of World Conservation Monitoring Centre;
The National Forestry Inventory Project, from the Directorate General of Forest
Inventory and Land Use Planning and Information System Development Project for
the Management of Tropical Forests; RePPProT 190b; K.A. Monk pers. obs.

The main consequences of deforestation are loss of genetic resources and increased risk
of erosion and flash floods resulting from bare hillsides. Even before the era of Portuguese
colonization, the original forest area of East Timor was shrinking as agriculture expanded
through plantations or household production. Particularly in a landscape not endowed with
fertile soils and regular and bountiful rainfall, the productivity of newly cleared lands quickly
falls and farmers are forced to burn and clear new lands.
Particularly in a landscape not endowed with fertile soils and regular and bountiful
rainfall, the productivity of newly cleared lands quickly falls and farmers are forced to burn
and clear new lands. If this occurs before the soil is entirely exhausted, the area will quickly
return to a secondary forest lacking the species and complexities of the primary forest.
In 1994, the GOI estimated actual land use (Table 2.1). The term “light forest lands” is
used for much of the shrub or savanna. Saldanha, (1999) describes a forest component
distinct from the majority shrubs (Table 2.2). As many as 70,000 hectares of forest were
burned in the last decade by official estimates but some analysts believe that the real number
is higher (Gomes 1999; 65).
There is not adequate information on the actual extent and conditions of the various
forests and forest types given the deforestation that has occurred in recent years. From the
time of the first settlers on the island there has been shifting cultivation with negative but not

27
disastrous consequences. However, in recent years with the high increase in population in
certain areas, there is increased pressure on the land. Many Timorese have been displaced to
more marginal lands and their former lands occupied by migrant farmers whose practices
may not be adapted to Timorese conditions. The situation has been exacerbated by
deforestation, which has become more substantial during the last three decades. One of the
country’s most valued forest resources is sandalwood which has now been reduced to just a
few stands due to of over-exploitation. Another problem is that many rural communities rely
on selling wood for fuel as source of family income and as a result, have contributed to
deforestation (Figures 2.14, Figure 2.15 and Figure 2.16).

Figure 2.16 Firewood cut by community as a source of income and used for cooking.

28
Figure 2.17 Cutting and burning the forest

Figure 2.18 Sifting agriculture (slashes & burn agriculture)

29
Tabel 2.1 Land use in East Timor, 1994, Indonesia government estimated
Land use %
Human settlement 1
Irrigated rice field 3
Non-irrigated rice field 3
Plantation 3
Mixed framing 2
Light forest 76
Bush land 9
Lakes, ponds, swamps 0
Critical land 0
Others 1

Source: Brahmana and Emmanuel, 1994


Table 2.2 Land Use, Alternative estimation
Land use %
Village 1
Rice paddies 3
Rain fed paddies 4
Plantation rice paddies 1
Mix plantation 1
Homogeneous mix 8
Shrubs 81
Forest 1
Swamps, lakes 0
Roads, rivers 1
Source: Saldanha, 1999

East Timor is a comparatively small but mountainous territory, extending roughly 300 km in
length and 100 km at its widest point. Estimates of the extent of forest cover over East Timor are
notoriously variable. One respected study using LandSat imagery established a figure of 41 per cent
for the eastern half of the island, with just 29 per cent as closed forest; this figure was adopted by the
Indonesian government, which recorded forest cover as 40.6 per cent.3 These totals cover a wide range
of forest types, including predominantly open and mixed savanna along the drier northern coast and
hinterland, extensive eucalyptus and moist upland forests in the central highlands and semi deciduous
monsoon and tropical lowland forest blocks along the southern coast and hinterland (Figure 2.19)

30
Figure 2.19 Category of land cover in East Timor
(Modified version of map produced by GIS unit, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and Japan International
Cooperation Agency [JICA], Dili, East Timor,2001)

2.2 Literature Review

A slope failure (i.e., landslide, surface failure, debris flow, rockfall and erosion) is define
by Cruden (1991) for the working party on world slope failure inventory, as “a movement of
a mass of rock, earth or debris down a slope”. Varnes (1978) indicated that slope movement
would be a better comprehensive term as it does not infer process. His definition is “a
downward and outward movement of slope forming materials under the influence of gravity”.
In both the mining and civil aspects of engineering, slope failures can take lives and negate
all the hard design and development processes involved in completion of a project. Slope
failures can occur at any time of the year and sometimes can happen without any obvious
warning signs. They can range from sinkholes to rockslides or avalanches. There are many
effective ways to prevent of slope failures but uncertainties about surrounding environmental
conditions that may cause a slope failure must be investigated to find the proper way to
handle the potential problem.

31
From the aerial photo investigation in the study area, the slope failures were mainly
landslide and surface failure, and most landslide features is subdivides in recent and older
landslides. Cruden and Varnes, 1996 defined that Landslide described as “recent” have
distinct features, clearly define boundaries and have moved in the past several years. They
include active, suspended, and dormant earth flows and earth slides. Older landslides have
hummocky topography, muted features, and indistinct boundaries. This category includes
dormant, relic, and ancient earth flows and earth slides. Data on recent and older landslides
have been used to develop the landslide hazard analysis in this study. These landslides are
predominantly shallow failures with basal failure planes in the soil or weathered bedrock.
Although deeper earth and rock slides also occur, such deep landslides overlap areas with
shallow landslides.
Slope failures have caused large numbers of casualties and huge economic losses in
hilly and mountainous areas of the world. In tropical country like East Timor where heavy
rainfall occasionally occurred and high temperatures around the year, cause intense
weathering and formation of thick soil and weathered rock profile. With these set of climate
and geological condition, combined with other causative factors, slope failure is one of the
most destructive natural disasters in East Timor. Each year, a number of major slope failures
were reported in East Timor, involving fill and cut of natural slopes, which results in death of
people and have posed serious threats to settlements and structures that support transportation.
Most of these slope failure occurred on natural slope and cut slopes or embankments
alongside roads in mountainous areas.
Richard Dikau at al. (1996) stated as the probability of slope failure changes, due to
changing climate or increasing human activity it becomes more important to recognize the
potential event as well as geomorphologies and geology and these can be catalogued,
classified and mapped. A primary task, therefore, is to develop a manual of such indicators
and mapping techniques, providing a basic understanding to slope failure recognition.
However, potential sites that are slope failure-prone should therefore be identified in advance
to reduce such damage. In this regard, actual condition, distribution and characteristics of
slope failure will be known to provide much of the basic information essential for hazard
mitigation through proper project planning and implementation.

32
Slope failure hazard was defined by Varnes (1984) as the probability of occurrence of a
potentially damaging slope failure phenomenon within a specified period of time and within
a given area. The factors that determine the slope failure hazard of an area may be grouped in
two categories: (1) the intrinsic variables that contribute to slope failure occurrence, such as
geology, slope inclination angle, slope aspect, elevation, soil geotechnical properties,
vegetation cover, and a long-term drainage patterns; and (2) the extrinsic variables that tend
to trigger slope failure occurrence, such as heavy rainfall, and earthquakes (Wu and Sidle
1995); Atkinson and Massari 1998). Obviously, the probability of slope failure occurrence
depends on both the intrinsic and extrinsic variables. However, the extrinsic variables may
change over a very short time span, and are thus very difficult to estimate. If extrinsic
variables are not taken into account, the term of “actual condition, characteristics and
distribution slope failure” could be employed to define the likelihood of occurrence of a
slope failure event. The spatial distribution of the intrinsic variables within a given area
determines the spatial distribution of relative slope failure occurrences in that region (Carrara
and others 1995). A variety of techniques, such as heuristic, statistical, and deterministic
approaches, has been developed to predicted probabilities of slope failure occurrences. In
heuristic approaches, expert opinions are used to estimate slope failure potential from data on
intrinsic variables. They are based on the assumption that the relationship between
probability of slope failure occurrences and the intrinsic variables are known and are
specified in the model of analysis. A set of variables are then entered into the analysis model
to estimate probability of slope failure occurrence (Niemann and Howes 1991; Anbalagan
1992; Pachauri and Pant 1992; Atkinson and Massari 1998). One problem with the heuristic
models is that they need long-term information on the slope failure and their causal factors
for a similar geo-environmental condition or for the same site, and these are, in most cases,
not available. Statistical analysis models involve the statistical determination of the
combinations of variables that have led to slope failure occurrence in the past. Quantitative or
semi-quantitative estimates are then made for areas currently free of slope failure, but where
similar conditions exist.
Logistic regression analysis is one of the multivariate statistical analysis models, is useful
for predicting presence or absence of a outcome based on values of a set of predictor

33
variables.Klein-baum (1994), stated that the advantage of logistic regression analysis over
other multivariate statistical technique, including multiple regression analysis and
discriminant analysis, is that the dependent variable can have only two values an event
occurring or not occurring, and that predicted values can be interpreted as probability
because they are constrained to fall in the interval between 0 and 1.
Mark and Ellen (1995) used logistic regression to predict the sites of rainfall induced
shallow landslides that initiate debris flows in San Mateo County, California. In this study,
the dependent variable is a binary variable representing of the slope failure or un-failure of
slopes.
Recently, there were studies on slope failures hazard evaluation using GIS, and many of
these studies have applied probabilistic methods (Rowbotham and Dudycha 1998; Guzzetti et
al. 1999; Jibson et al. 2000; Luzi et al. 2000; Parise and Jibson 2000; Rautelal and Lakhera
2000; Baeza and Corominas 2001; Lee and Min 2001; Temesgen et al. 2001; Clerici et al.
2002; Donati and Turrini 2002; Lee et al. 2002a,b; Rece and Capolongo 2002; Zhou et al.
2002; Chung and Fabbri 2003; Remondo et al. 2003; Lee and Choi 2003c; Lee et al. 2004b).
The logistic regression method has also been applied to slope failure hazard mapping
(Atkinson and Massari 1998; Dai et al. 2001; Dai and Lee 2002; Ohlmacher and Davis 2003).
There are other methods for hazard mapping, such as the deterministic (or safety factor)
approach used by Gokceoglu et al. (2000); Romeo (2000); Carro et al. (2003); Shou and
Wang (2003), and Zhou et al. (2003). Fuzzy logic and artificial neural network methods have
also been applied in various case studies (Ercanoglu and Gokceoglu 2002; Pistocchi et al.
2002; Lee et al. 2003a, b; Lee et al. 2004a).
To represent the distinction quantitatively, logistic regression analysis were used. For this
analysis, the calculated and extracted factors were mapped to a 30-m-resolution grid. The
raster data were converted for the statistical program used. Then, using the logistic regression
analysis models, the spatial relationships between the slope failure location and each slope
failure-related factor, such as geology, vegetation cover, slope gradient (i.e., slope inclination
angle), elevation, landscape topography and slope aspect (i.e., direction), were analyzed in
the statistical program, and a formula of slope failure occurrence possibility was extracted
using the relationships. The formula was used for calculating the probability of slope failure

34
occurrence, which was mapped to each grid cell. Finally, the susceptibility and probabilities
occurrence map was verified using known slope failure locations and success rates were
calculated (Chung and Fabbri 1999) for quantitative verification. In this study, GIS software,
ArcView 3.3 and statistical software, SPSS 10.0, were used as the basic analysis tools for
spatial management and data manipulation.

35
CHAPTER III
ACTUAL CONDITION, CHARACTERISTICS AND
DISTRIBUTION OF SLOPE FAILURE IN EAST TIMOR

3.1 Introduction
According to aerial photograph investigation, the actual slope failure distribution will
established in this study are landslide, surface failure and mix of landslide and surface failure.
From the aerial photo investigation in the study area most landslide features is subdivides in
recent and older landslides (Figure 3.1, Figure 3.2, and Figure 3.3). Cruden and Varnes, 1996
defined that Landslide described as “recent” have distinct features, clearly define boundaries
and have moved in the past several years. They include active, suspended, and dormant earth
flows and earth slides. Older landslides have hummocky topography, muted features, and
indistinct boundaries. This category includes dormant, relic, and ancient earth flows and
earth slides. Data on recent and older landslides have been used to develop the landslide
hazard analysis in this study. These landslides are predominantly shallow failures with basal
failure planes in the soil or weathered bedrock. Although deeper earth and rock slides also
occur, such deep landslides overlap areas with shallow landslides.
In East Timor, slope failures are common in the mountainous areas and in many regions.
The high occasional rainfall, steep slopes, high weathering rates and slope material with a
low shear resistance or high clay content are often considered the main preconditions for
mass movement in East Timor, turning it in an inherent susceptible area of slope failure.
The main causal factors for slope failure in highlands, as found in international literature,
can be divided into preparatory and triggering causal factor (Glade and Crozier, 2004).
Preparatory causal factors, i.e. factors making slopes susceptible to movement over time
without actually initiating it, often reported for this region include the increasing population
pressure with slope disturbance and deforestation as a consequence and the reduction in
material strength by weathering. Triggering causal factors on the other hand can be seen as
external stimuli responsible for the actual initiation of mass movements. The triggering
causal factors in the region can be earthquakes, excessive rainfall events and human
disturbance such as slope excavation and terracing, inconsiderate irrigation and water leakage.

36
Figure 3.1 Older landslide topography in East Timor
(Source:Prof. H. Kazama documentation,August 2005)

Figure 3.2 Older landslide topography in East Timor


(Source:Prof. H. Kazama documentation, August 2005)

37
Figure 3.3 Recent landslide topography in East Timor
(Source:Prof. H. Kazama documentation,August 2005)

In many regions of the East Timor highlands, a clear insight into the local causes for
mass movement is lacking. Therefore, the search for region-specific solutions is hampered.
In East Timor, slope failure i.e., landslides, surface falure, erosion, and rock fall are common
in the mountainous areas of all districts but so far no systematic scientific research has been
conducted on this topic. Western part of East Timor, situated on the southwestern foot slopes
of the mountainous of Tatamailau (Ainaro), Sabiria (Aileu), Harupai (Ermera), Atubuti
(Bobonaro) is the most sensitive area for slope failure in East Timor. As a broad outline, the
watersheds of East Timor can be divided into two areas; northern and southern. Of the many
rivers in this study site, the following rivers flow all year round; the Bulobo, Marobo,
Malibaka and Nunura rivers in Bobonaro , Gleno river in Ermera,ladibau in Hatolia, Aimera
in Cailaco, Belulik in Ainaro and Mola in Zumalai.
Mass movements associated with intense rainstorms are reported to have occurred
sporadically in mountainous since the twentieth century but the increase in fatalities and
losses as a consequence of the enormous population growth draws attention to the
phenomenon nowadays. By studying the causal factors for slope failure in these mountainous
areas of western part of East Timor, this study tries to contribute to the restricted knowledge

38
on slope failure in East Timor. After a brief introduction of the study area and the spatial
distribution and characteristics of its landslides, the preconditions, preparatory and triggering
causal factors for mass movement affecting slope failure will be discussed with attention to
their spatial variation.

Figure 3.4 Recent landslide occurred on cut slopes alongside road in East Timor
(Source:Prof. H. Kazama documentation,August2005)

Figure 3.5 Surface failure on hill slopes of mountainous in East Timor


(Source:Prof. H. Kazama documentation, August 2005)

39
3.6 Surface failure on hill slopes of mountainous in East Timor

As state in above, According to aerial photograph investigation, the actual slope failure
distribution will established in this study are landslide, surface failure and mix of landslide
and slope failure. The distribution and characteristics of slope failure in East Timor has
shown in Table 3.1 to Table 3.13 and Figure 3.7 to Figure 3.18 .

3.2 Characteristics and Distribution of Slope Failure in East Timor


Two types of slope failures were identified based on aerial photograph and
topography map are surface failure and landslide. This study covers four of topographic
and air photograph sheets, and 506 number of slope failure and 506 number of unfailure
slope with area 1448 km2 are already mapped in the region. A significant number of these
slope failures were reactivations of old slope failures. There are density of the distribution
of slope failure in East Timor will describe in Table 3.1, and show that landslide and
slope failure are common in East Timor with highest density in Bobonaro , Cailaco and
Zumalai site, and moderately density in Hatolia and Atsabe site and the lowest density in
Maliana, Ainaro and Hatobuilico study site. Types of slope failure occurred in East
Timor dominantly by landslide 56% with density 0.28 Number/km2 ,surface failure are
37% with density 0.16 Number/km2 and mix of landslide and surface failure are 7% with
density 0.08 Number/km2.

40
Table 3.1 Density of slope failure in study site
Site Area Type and density of slope failure
(Km2) Landslide Density Surface Density Mix Density Total
(N/km2) failure (N/km2) (N/km2) density
(N/km2)
Bobonaro 259 88 0.34 61 0.24 18 0.07 0.64
Cailaco 88 93 1.06 30 0.34 10 0.11 1.51
Zumalai 150 42 0.28 33 0.22 0 0 0.50
Atsabe 89 21 0.24 12 0.13 6 0.07 0.44
Maliana 75 16 0.21 15 0.20 0 0 0.41
Ainaro 385 5 0.01 18 0.05 0 0 0.06
Hatolia 255 13 0.05 7 0.03 0 0 0.08
Hatobuilico 147 5 0.03 13 0.09 0 0 0.12
Total 1448 283 0.28 189 0.16 34 0.08 0.35

3.2.1 Lithology
Lithology exerts a fundamental control on the geomorphology of a slope failure. The
nature and rate of geomorphological processes, including the slope failures process, is
partially on the lithology and weathering characteristics of the underlying materials. Based
on the East Timor geological map with 1:350,000- scale solid and superficial geological map
covering the study area were used to identify the geological groups, with each group
comprising units of broadly similar lithology. For analysis, the groups were further
reclassified into three categories of geological materials with similar engineering properties.
They are: sedimentary rocks with a few volcanic and igneous rocks, Sedimentary rocks and
littoral deposit and Sedimentary rocks and a few metamorphic rocks and volcanic rocks.
Detail of lithology analysis for this study are categories in five dominant lithology
based on geological map with attributes of geology in study area, namely: Sedimentary rocks
(Sr), Littoral deposit rocks (Ld), Metamorphic rocks (Mr) Igneous rocks (Ir) and volcanic
rock (Vr). Description of geological structures in each study area has shown in Table 3.2 and
Table 3.3, and Figure 3.7. It can be seen that many number of slope failure relatively highest

41
density in sedimentary rocks and littoral deposit rocks and lowest in igneous rocks,
metamorphic rocks and volcanic rocks. The Tatamailau, Sabiria , Harupai , Atubuti
mountains hills located in the study area are several hundreds to two thousands meters high
in elevation is the most sensitive area for slope failure. There are composed of Miocene to
Pliocene sedimentary rocks such as sandstones, limestones and siltstones, in part associated
with a small amount of Mesozoic volcanic rocks. These sedimentary rocks and associated
volcanics make up the Bobonaro and Lolotoe formation that are arranged chronological in
other. Like many of the mountain ridges in the western region, these mountains hills
correspond to folded structures of anticlines and synclines, and are elongated toward the
north – northeast direction following the fold axes.

Table 3.2 Description of geological structures in each study area


Study Area Age Lithology General Lithological
Description
Bobonaro Tertiary Pliocene Bobonaro Sedimentary Mainly composed by chaotic rock
and Complex Rocks and a few with scaly matrix and blocks of
Miocene and of Volcanic and older rock ; doleritic lava, volcanic
Lolotoe Igneous rocks breccia, tuff, green sandstone,
Formation metagabro a,d metadiorite
Cailaco Tertiary Pliocene Bobonaro Sedimentary Mainly composed by chaotic rock
and Complex rocks and littoral with scaly matrix and blocks of
Miocene and deposit. older rock; alternating
Viqueque conglomerate, conglomerate
Formation sandstone, sandstone, a lot of
foraminifera in marl and sandstone
Zumalai Palaozoic Miocene Bobonaro Sedimentary Mainly composed by chaotic rock
and And Complex, rocks and littoral with scaly matrix and blocks of
Mesozoic Permian Cablaci deposit older rock ;contains marine
Limestone foraminifera, Clastic limestone,
and Cribas crustaline, fine coarse grained,
Formation shale, claystone, siltstone and
micaceous quarts sandstone
Atsabe Tertiary Miocene Bobonaro Sedimentary Mainly composed by chaotic rock
and and Complex, rocks and littoral with scaly matrix and blocks of
Mesozoic middle to Cablaci deposit older rock ;contains marine
Jurassic Limestone foraminifera, and also dominant by
and sandstone, shale siltstone and
Wailuli limestone.
Formation

42
Table 3.2 ( …continued)
Maliana Tertiary Late to Viqueque Sedimentary Mainly composed by chaotic rock
Pleistocen Formation rocks and littoral with scaly matrix and blocks of
e and , deposit older rock; alternating
Miocene Bobonaro conglomerate, conglomerate
Complex sandstone, sandstone, a lot of
and foraminifera in marl and
Ainaro sandstone; mixture sand and clay
Formation
Ainaro Quaternar Early Bobonaro Sedimentary Mainly composed by chaotic rock
y and Miocene Complex, rocks and littoral with scaly matrix and blocks of
Mezosoic and Ainaro deposit older rock ;contains marine
middle to Formation foraminifera, mixture sand and
Jurassic and clay
Cablaci
Limestone

Hatolia Mezosoic Early Wailuli Sedimentary Dominanted by sandstone, shale


Jurassic Formation rocks and a few silttone, limenstone; phylite, schist,
and late to and Aileu of Metamorphic amphibolite, slate, metasandstone,
Jurassic Formation rocks and sandstone, shale and a few of
volcanic rocks volcanic rocks
Hatobuilico Mesozoic Early Wailuli Sedimentary Dominanted by sandstone, shale
Jurassic Formation Rocks and a few silttone, limenstone; doleritic lava,
and late , Lolotoe of metamorphic volcanic breccia, tuff, green
Eosin Formation rock and sandstone, metagabro a,d
anf volcanic rocks metadiorite
Dartollu
Limestone

Table 3.3 Lithology


Lithology types and number of slopes failure
Site Sedimentary Littoral Igneous Metamorphi Volcanic Total
Rocks(SR) Deposit Rocks(IR) c Rocks(VR
Rocks(LR Rocks(MR) )
)
1. Bobonaro 101 19 25 0 22 167
2 Cailaco 87 46 0 0 0 133
3. Zumalai 57 18 0 0 0 75
4.Atsabe 21 18 0 0 0 39
5. Maliana 20 18 0 0 0 31
6.Ainaro 14 9 0 0 0 23
7. Hatolia 12 0 0 4 4 20
8. Hatobuilico 9 0 0 5 4 18
Total 321 121 25 9 30 506

43
Lithology of Slope Failure
All Site
Bononaro Cailaco Zumalai Atsabe
Maliana Ainaro Hatolia Hatobuilico
Un-failure Failure
110
100

Number of Slopes Failure


350 90 Failure
80
300
N u m b e r o f s lo p e

70
60
250 50
200 40
30
150 20
10
100
0
50 SR LR IR MR VR
0 Lithology

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Lithology of Unfailure Slopes


SR LR IR MR VR
Lithology Bononaro Ca ila co Zuma la i Atsa be
Malia na Aina ro Ha tolia Hatobuilico

90

SR: sedimentary rocks 80


ber of Un-failureSlopes

LR : Littoral deposit rocks


70 Unfailure
60

IR : Igneous rocks 50

40
MR: Metamorphic rocks 30
Num

VR: Volcanic rocks 20

10

0
SR LR IR MR VR
Lithology

Figure 3.7. Lithology


3.2.2 Vegetation
Many studies have revealed a clear relationship between vegetation cover and slope
stability, especially for shallow landslides. Parameters, such as cohesion, internal friction
angle, weight of the soil and pore-water pressure, all tend to be substantially modified by the
presence of vegetation. Vegetation can both enhance effective soil cohesion due to root
matrix reinforcement and soil suction or negative water pressure through evapotranspiration
and interception. According to Selby (1993), tree-covered hillslopes are thought to increase
soil shear strength by about 60% depending on the tree type. Mehrotra et al. (1996) show that
landslide activity increases by up to 15% in those places where the original vegetation cover

44
has been removed or altered. In order to correlate vegetation cover with other factors
affecting slope failure, a vegetation classification was carried out in this study. The intention
was to discriminate between different vegetation cover types. Indeed, many studies have
pointed out that the degree of soil stability provided by vegetation decreases in the following
order: trees, shrub, grass and bare soil (Coppin and Richards, 1990).
The presence or absence of thick vegetation may affect slope failure. Due to the
characteristics of the study area, where land cover is not homogenous with the presence of
natural vegetation and for the purpose of this study and based on aerial photograph
interpretation these vegetation types were then simplified in to four types, namely woodland
or high tree (HT), scrublands or low tree (LT), grassland (G) and bare land or no vegetation
(NV).
To assess the effect of vegetation cover on the slope failure, the correlation between
vegetation type and number of slope failure is shown in Table 3.4 and Figure 3.8. It can be
seen that the number of slope failures on bare land and grassland is highest, and is lowest on
woodland and scrubland. This is in agreement with the fact that vegetation cover, especially
of a woody type with strong and big root systems, help to improve the stability of slopes.
Other cause of this agreement is many Timorese have been displaced to more marginal lands
and their former lands occupied by migrant farmers whose practices may not be adapted to Timorese
conditions. The situation has been exacerbated by deforestation, which has become more
substantial during the last three decades. Another problem is that many rural communities
rely on selling wood for fuel as source of family income and as a result, have contributed to
deforestation. Under such conditions, intense bombardment of the soil surface by rain can
quickly break down soil-organo aggregates, thus permitting slope failure.
Table 3.4 Distribution of vegetation
Study Area Types of vegetation cover and Number of Slope failures Total
High Tree Low Tree Grassland No Vegetation
Bobonaro 8 21 76 62 167
Cailaco 0 10 50 73 133
Zumalai 7 33 20 15 75
Atsabe 0 8 25 6 38
Maliana 1 8 10 12 31
Ainaro 4 5 10 4 23
Hatolia 0 6 11 3 20
Hatobuilico 1 3 2 12 18
Total 21 94 204 187 506

45
All Site Vegetation Cover of Slopes Failure

Bononaro Cailaco Zumalai Atsabe


Un-failure Failure
Maliana Ainaro Hatolia Hatobuilico
300
80
N um ber of typ e of slop e

250

Number of Slopes Failure


70
60 Failure
200
50

150 40
30
100 20
10
50 0
High Tree Low Tre e Grassland No Vege tation
0 Vegetation
0 1 2 3 4 5
Vegetation Cover of Unfailure Slopes
HT LT G NV
Bononaro Cailaco Zumalai Atsabe
Vegetation
Maliana Ainaro Hatolia Hatobuilico

HT : High tree 90

80
LT : Low tree
Number of Un-Failureslopes

70
G : Grassland 60
Unfailure
NV: No vegetation 50

40

30

20

10

0
High Tr e e Low Tr e e Gr ass land No Vege tation
Figure 3.3 Vegetation Vegetation

Figure 3.8 Distribution of vegetation

3.2.3 Inclination angle of slope


Slope is the angle formed between any part of the surface of the earth and a horizontal
datum. It is the means by which gravity induces stress in the slope rocks, flux of water and
other materials; therefore, it is of great significance in hydrology and geomorphology. In fact,
slopes affect the velocity of both surface and subsurface flow and hence soil water content,
soil formation, erosion potential and a large number of important geomorphic processes. It
has been widely shown that landslides tend to occur more frequently on steeper slopes
(McDermid and Franklin, 1995; Cooke and Doornkamp, 1990). Slope failure tends to

46
increase with slope angle but when the slope becomes near vertical, landsliding is scarce or
absent altogether. The reason is the lack of soil development and debris accumulation in such
topographic conditions (Selby, 1993; Derruau, 1983). A long slope may include sections that
can be affected by large movements originating further up the hills slope. The estimation of
the slope angle for this study was implemented using by topographic map investigation in
which slope is considered as the change in elevation over a fixed distance.
Inclination angle of slope is an essential component of slope stability and an important
control on slope failure. As slope inclination angle increases, the level of gravitation-induced
shear stress in the residual soil increases as well. Gentle hill slopes are expected to have a
flow frequency of slope failures because of generally lower shear stresses associated with
low inclination angle. In this study, inclination angle of slope has categories with ranges: 60 –
120, 120 – 180, 180 – 240, 240 – 300, 300 – 360, 360 – 420 and 420 - 480. In regional slope
failure (i.e., landslide and surface failure) susceptibility or hazard assessment, slope
inclination angle in terms of slope failure activity in taken into consideration as an
conditioning factor(Y. Duman et all, 2006). In the study site, the distribution number of
slope failure occurred with inclination angle of slope has shown in Table 3.5 and Figure 3.10 .
It can be seen that examination of the distribution of number of slope failure with
corresponding slope inclination angle ranges shows that most of slope failures with
inclination angle do have ranges increase in the 120 – 300 and gradually decrease in the
ranges 60 – 120 and 300 – 480. This is refection that steep natural slope with outcropping
bedrock and hence much higher shear strength may not susceptible to shallow landslide.

47
Table 3.5 Distribution inclination angle of slope
Site Inclination angle and number of slope failure Total
60~120 120~180 180~24 240~300 300~360 360~42 420~480

1. Bobonaro 17 38 38 37 23 13 1 167
2. Cailaco 19 42 34 18 17 3 0 133
3. Zumalai 5 26 17 5 12 9 1 75
4. Atsabe 9 6 8 6 6 3 1 39
5. Maliana 3 8 6 3 6 5 0 31
6. Ainaro 0 1 4 4 4 8 2 23
7. Hatolia 2 4 4 5 3 2 0 20
8. Hatobuilico 0 3 2 3 8 2 0 18
Total 55 128 113 81 79 45 5 506

Slope Inclination Angle of Slopes Failure

All Site Bononaro Cailaco Zumalai Atsabe


Maliana Ainaro Hatolia Hatobuilico
Un-failure Failure 45

40
Number of Slopes Failure

200 35
Failure
30
175
N u m b e r o f slo p es

25
150
20
125 15

100 10

75 5

0
50 6~12 12~18 18~24 24~30 30~36 36~42 42~48

25 Slope Inclination angle (o)

0 Slope Inclination Angle of Unfailure Slopes

06~12 12~182 8~24 24~30


4 30~36 36~42
6 42~48 8 Bononaro Cailaco Zumalai Atsabe
Maliana Ainaro Hatolia Hatobuilico

Inclination angle ( o ) 60
Number of Un-failure slopes

50

Unfailure
40

30

20

10

0
6~12 12~18 18~24 24~30 30~36 36~42 42~48
Slope Inclination angle(o)

Figure 3.9 Distribution of inclination angle of slopes

48
3.2.4 Direction of Slope
Aspect is often expressed as a compass direction .The aspect of slope failures ( i.e., the
direction) has the potential to influence its physical properties and its susceptibility to slope
failure. The processes that may be operating include exposure to sunlight, drying winds,
rainfall, earthquake and groundwater behavior. Although, the relation between slope aspect
(i.e., direction) and mass movement has long been investigated, no general agreement exists
on the effect of the aspect on slope failure occurrence (Carrara et al. 1991). However, slope
aspect is related to the general physiographic trend of the area and/or the main precipitation
direction, and direction of the slope failure is roughly perpendicular to general physiographic
trend. Several researchers have reported a relationship between slope orientation and
landslide occurrence. For example, DeGraff and Romesburg (1980) point out that, to some
extent, aspect gathers the structural and organic basic conditions of a slope including fault
planes and climatic factors, respectively. It is reported by Lineback et al. (2001) that larger
numbers of landslides occur in the wetter north-facing aspects than in drier, south facing
aspects. Marston et al. (1998) report a similar finding and highlight that soil exposed on
south-facing slopes are subject to several wetting and drying cycles, thus increasing landslide
activity in the Himalayas.
The distribution of direction among the aerial photograph and topography maps show that
the general physiographic trend of the study site is East to West and an important part of
slope failures in most of study area was highest number on North – Northeast and Northwest
facing slope, indicating that natural terrain slope failures is more common on these slopes.
The frequency of slope failures was lowest on those slopes facing, south and west, while the
frequency of slope failures remained moderate on the east, southeast and southwest facing
slopes. The distribution of slope failures direction has shown in Table 3.5 and Figure 3.10.

49
Table 3.6 Distribution of direction of slope
Direction and number of slope failure
Site N NE E SE S SW W NW Total
1. Bobonaro 42 49 10 25 5 16 12 8 167
2. Cailaco 19 53 21 11 0 0 0 29 133
3. Zumalai 4 28 5 11 0 17 3 7 75
4. Atsabe 3 4 0 0 0 6 0 26 39
5. Maliana 0 0 9 7 2 10 0 3 31
6. Ainaro 0 2 0 1 0 0 3 17 23
7. Hatolia 1 0 0 5 7 3 4 0 20
8. hatobuilico 5 3 0 9 0 0 0 1 18
Total 74 139 45 69 14 52 22 91 506

All Site Direction of Slopes Failure

Bononaro Cailaco Zumalai Atsabe


Un-failure Failure Maliana Ainaro Hatolia Hatobuilico

60
Number of Slopes Failure

50
150 Failure
40
N u m b e r o f s lo p e

30
100
20

10
50 0
N NE E SE S SW W NW
Direction
0
Direction of Unfailure Slopes
0 N NE2 E SE4 S 6 W
SW 8
NW 10
Bononaro Cailaco Zumalai Atsabe
Direction Maliana Ainaro Hatolia Hatobuilico

45

40
Unfailure
Number of Unfailure Slopes

35
N : North S : South 30

NE : Northeast SW : Southwest 25

E : East W : West 20

15
SE : Southeast NW : Northwest
10

0
N NE E SE S SW W NW
Direction

Figure 3.10 Distribution of direction of slope

50
3.2.5 Landscape topography
Landscape topographic represents a theoretical measure of the accumulation of flow at
any point within a river basin. The landscape topography can be thought of as an abstract
parameter to be used as a basis for estimating the local soil moisture status and thus slope
failure areas due to surface topographic effects on hydrologic response. Soil moisture plays
an important role in slope instability, particularly for shallow landslides and surface failure.
Water operation may be through the accumulation of rainfall, as an agent of weathering,
hydration of fine soils (i.e. clayey soils), undercutting of slopes and spontaneous liquefaction.
In fact, according to Lamb (1996), hallow landslides can occur on slopes when water from
precipitation infiltrates the soil and eliminates the suction and lowers the apparent cohesion.
Modeling water in soil slopes in extensive areas is a difficult task as soil water content is
governed by a number of factors, some of which are estimated from laboratory tests. Since
landscape topographic is intended to represent the topographic control on soil wetness, it is
considered in this study as an indirect measurement of soil water content. According to the
topographic map investigation in this study, the landscape topographic index three variables
are required, which are namely Valley (V), Ridge (R) and Flat (F).
We interpret the flat, ridge and valley topography as the result of subaerial erosion. Most
of study areas located in hilly lands of mountainous landscape, while there is covered with
loose soil mantle of variable thickness. In such a slope failures (i.e., landslide and surface
failure) of soil mantle ridge, valley and flat topography, shallow slope failures typically only
involved the soil mantle and commonly occurred at or near the soil- bedrock boundary. The
distribution of landscape topography of slopes has shown in table 3.7 and figure 3.11. It can
be seen that landscape topography of study site where slope failure occurred with ridge and
valley topography that often dominates shallow landslide and surface failure location. This
assessment indicated that most of slope failure occurred in the hilly and mountainous terrain
of ridge and valley of study site. Overall distribution of the slope failure was determined
primarily by the intensity of ground shaking; the local density of slope failure reflected
differing local geology. Where ridge and valley tops have been severely fractured, abundant
landslides may develop later when saturated with water.

51
Tabel 3.7 Landscape topography
Site Landscape topography and number of slope failure Total
Valley Ridge Flat
1. Bobonaro 51 106 10 167
2. Cailaco 90 30 13 133
3. Zumalai 75 0 0 75
4. Atsabe 25 14 0 39
5. Maliana 13 18 0 31
6. Ainaro 23 0 0 23
7. Hatolia 11 9 0 20
8. hatobuilico 18 0 0 18
Total 306 177 23 506

Landscape Topography of Slope Failure


Bononaro Cailaco Zumalai Atsabe
All Site Maliana Ainaro Hatolia Hatobuilico

120

Un-failure Failure 100


Number of Slopes Failure

Failure
80

350 60
N u m b er o f slo p es

300 40

250 20

200 0
Valley Ridge Flat
Landscape Topography
150
100 Bononaro Cailaco Zumalai Atsabe
Valley Ridge Flat Maliana Ainaro Hatolia Hatobuilico
50
0 70

0 1
Valley 2
Ridge 3
No Vegetation4 60
Unfailure
Number of Un-failure Slopes

50

Landscape topography 40

30

20

10

0
V alle y Ridge Flat
Landscape Topography

Figure 3.11 Landscape topography

52
3.2.6 Elevation
Some researches have found that landslide activity, within a specific basin, occurs at
certain elevations (Greenbaum et al., 1995; Jordan et al., 2000), the relationship between
landslide activity and elevation is still unclear, hence it requires further studies. Pachauri and
Pant 1992 report that the elevation is a good indicator of slope failure susceptibility to
occurred. However, it is well known that elevation influences a large number of biophysical
parameters and anthropogenic activities. In turn, these conditions are likely to affect slope
stability and generate slope failure (Vivas, 1992). Elevation also affects soil characteristics
significantly. Ochoa (1978) relates the influence of elevation on physical–chemical soil
properties in the Cordillera de Me´rida. He argues that soil texture varies with elevation, as
the grain size increases with the altitude. Although, in the study site, there is a considerable
difference between the lowest and the highest elevation values has shown in Table 3.8 and
Figure 3.12. It can be seen that hill slopes between 200m to 800m in elevation had
frequencies of slope failure that were 2 times greater than those on hill slopes that are less
than 1400m to 2100m and greater than 800m to 1400m in elevation. At intermediate
elevations there are mountain summit, which is more prone to landslide that are usually
characterized by weather rocks, and the shear strength of these is much higher. At very low
elevations, the frequency of slope failure is low because the terrain is gentle, and is covered
by residual soil, and higher perched water table will required initiating slope failure (F.C Day
et al. 2000).
Table 3.8 Distribution of elevation
Site Elevation number of slope failure (m) Total
200~500 500~800 800~1100 1100~1400 1400~1700 1700~2100
1. Bobonaro 29 57 26 36 19 0 167
2. Cailaco 68 38 24 3 0 0 133
3. Zumalai 39 36 0 0 0 0 75
4. Atsabe 6 11 0 14 8 0 39
5. Maliana 10 8 6 6 1 0 31
6. Ainaro 4 4 10 4 1 0 23
7. Hatolia 7 13 0 0 0 0 20
8. hatobuilico 0 0 5 4 5 4 18
Total 163 167 71 67 34 4 506

53
Elevation of Slopes Failure
Bononaro Cailaco Zumalai Atsabe
All Site M aliana Ainaro Hatolia Hatobuilico

Un-failure Failure 80
70

Number of slopes Failure


60
50 Failure
300 40
30
250
N u m b e r o f slo p e

20
10
200 0
2~5 5~8 8~11 11~14 14~17 17~21
150 Elevation(x100m)

100 Elevation of Unfailure Slope

Bononaro Cailaco Zumalai Atsabe


50 Maliana Ainaro Hatolia Hatobuilico

0 120

0 2~51 5~8 2 8~1111~14


3 4 14~17
5 17~21
6 7 Number of Unfailure slopes
100

80
Unfailure
Elevation (x100m)
60

40

20

0
2~5 5~8 8~11 11~14 14~17 17~21
Elevation (x100m)

Figure 3.12 Distribution of elevation

3.2.7 Slope width


Table 3.9 and Figure 3.13 shows that most of landslide occurred in all study sites
frequently do have width with ranging from 31 m to 90 m. Some site like Bobonaro, Cailaco,
Atsabe, Maliana, hatolia and Hatobuilico study site, landslide occurred moderately with
ranges greatest than 90m to 150m, and especially Bobonaro and Cailaco site, a few number
of landslide occurred with ranges greatest than 150m. Table 3.10 and Figure 3.14 shows that
most of surface failure occurred in all study sites frequently do have width with ranging from
31m to 150m, especially in case of Bobonaro site a few number of surface failure occurred
have ranges greatest than 150m to 360m. Table 3.11 and Figure 3.15 shows that in some site

54
like Bobonaro, Cailaco and Atsabe study site, most number of surface failure occurred in
older landslide area do have width with ranging 31m to 120m.
Based on aerial photograph and topographic maps investigation, most of slope failure
occurred in grassland and bare land areas where lateral roots strength of grassland could not
provide help to improve the stability of slopes. However, we assess that estimated slope
failure width (i.e., width of landslide and surface failure), assuming that root strength acts
primarily through a perimeter boundary. Reneau and Dietrich (1987) derived an expression
relating landslide width to length by assuming that the soil was saturated and that its strength
was composed of frictional term acting on a basal slide area and a root strength acting on the
perimeter of the slide.
In this study, we predict that slope failure width increases with decreasing root strength,
its means that as larger masses of soil are needed to overcome resisting forces. Perhaps
surprisingly, the drier the soil, the larger of slope failure mass and width, whereas the water
table rise reduces the size needed for failure. The comparison of this result with field data
suggests that slope failure size is controlled by the local patchiness of soil thickness, root
strength and topographically-driven relative saturation.

Table 3.9 Width of landslide


Ranges(m) Bobonaro Cailaco Zumalai Atsabe Maliana Ainaro Hatolia Hatobuilico Total
0.1 - 30 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 4
30.1 - 60 31 27 24 4 5 1 1 1 94
60.1 - 90 22 31 11 10 5 3 6 3 91
90.1 - 120 14 5 2 4 5 0 4 1 35
120.1 - 150 10 22 0 2 1 0 1 0 36
150.1 - 180 7 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 12
180.1 - 210 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 3
210.1 - 240 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
240.1 - 270 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
270.1 - 300 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Total 88 93 42 21 16 5 13 5 283

55
Bobonaro Cailaco Zumalai Atsabe
Maliana Ainaro Hatolia Hatobuilico

35
30
Number of Landslide

25
20
15
10

5
0
0.1 - 30

30.1 - 60

60.1 - 90

90.1 - 120

120.1 - 150

150.1 - 180

180.1 - 210

210.1 - 240

240.1 - 270

270.1 - 300
Width (m)

Figure 3.13 Width of landslide

Table 3.10 Width of surface failure


Ranges(m) Bobonaro Cailaco Zumalai Atsabe Maliana Ainaro Hatolia Hatobuilico Total
0.1 - 30 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
30.1 - 60 20 11 18 5 3 9 2 7 75
60.1 - 90 13 7 8 4 4 4 2 1 43
90.1 - 120 14 6 2 1 0 4 0 2 29
120.1 - 150 2 6 2 2 2 1 1 0 16
150.1 - 180 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 9
180.1 - 210 3 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 8
210.1 - 240 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 4
240.1 - 270 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
270.1 - 300 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
300.1 - 330 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
330.1 - 360 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Total 61 30 33 12 15 18 7 13 189

56
Bobonaro Cailaco Zum alai Ats abe Maliana Ainaro Hatolia Hatobuilico

25
Number of Surface Failure

20

15

10

0
0.1 - 30

30.1 - 60

60.1 - 90

90.1 - 120

120.1 - 150

150.1 - 180

180.1 - 210

210.1 - 240

240.1 - 270

270.1 - 300

300.1 - 330

330.1 - 360
Width (m)

Figure 3.14 Width of surface failure

Table 3.11 Width of surface failure and landslide


Ranges(m) Bobonaro Cailaco Atsabe Total
0.1 - 30 0 0 0 0
30.1 - 60 6 3 0 9
60.1 - 90 6 2 4 12
90.1 - 120 4 2 2 8
120.1 - 150 1 2 0 3
150.1 - 180 0 1 0 1
180.1 - 210 0 0 0 0
210.1 - 240 0 0 0 0
240.1 - 270 1 0 0 1
Total 18 10 6 34

57
Bobonaro(MIX) Cailaco(MIX) Atsabe(MIX)
Number of Landslide and Surface Failure

0
0

0.1 - 30

30.1 - 60

60.1 - 90

90.1 - 120

120.1 - 150

150.1 - 180

180.1 - 210

210.1 - 240

240.1 - 270
Width (m)

Figure 15 Width of surface failure and landslide

3.2.8 Slope length


Slope length is the distance along a slope subject to uninterrupted overland flow, from of
the point at which overland flow begins to where deposition starts, or where flow enters a
well-defined channel (Wischmeier and Smith, 1978). This distance is computed on the
horizontal and normal to the contours of the surface of the slope. It is, in fact, the horizontal
projection of the slope distance, which is measured along the slope surface.
In this study, slope length was estimated using by topography map investigation which
generates real slope length values. Table 3.12 and figure 3.16 shows that most of landslide
occurred in all study sites frequently do have length with ranging from 31m to 150m and a
few numbers of landslides were occurred with length 180m to 210m. In some site as well as
Bobonaro and Cailaco study site, a few number of landslide occurred with ranges greatest
than 240m to 510m. Table 3.13 and figure3.17 shows that most of surface failure occurred in
all study site frequently do have length highest with ranging from 31m to 90m and
moderately number of surface failure were occurred with length 91m to 180m in Bobonaro,
Cailaco and Zumalai study site, and a few number of surface failure occurred in Bobonaro ,

58
Cailaco and Hatobuilico site do have ranging greatest than 180m. Carrara et al. (1995) argue
that field and laboratory analyses show that slide density increases linearly with slope length
up to a threshold value of about 500 m. However, slope length may be considered an
important factor in landslide activity since longer slope lengths increase the potential of
erosive agents to dislodge and transport materials downslope. Moreover, downslope water
velocity is greater on longer slopes. The slope length is of paramount importance for the
travel distance of materials.

Table 3.12 Length of landslide


Ranges(m) Bobonaro Cailaco Zumalai Atsabe Maliana Ainaro Hatolia Hatobuilico Total
0.1 - 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
30.1 - 60 13 6 12 2 2 0 3 0 38
60.1 - 90 24 11 6 3 4 2 3 0 53
90.1 - 120 19 18 5 5 6 0 3 0 56
120.1 - 150 14 20 5 4 3 1 2 3 52
150.1 - 180 7 4 7 3 0 0 0 0 21
180.1 - 210 1 11 4 1 1 2 1 1 22
210.1 - 240 2 7 2 0 0 0 0 1 12
240.1 - 270 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 4
270.1 - 300 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
300.1 - 330 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 4
330.1 - 360 1 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 8
360.1 - 390 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
390.1 - 420 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
420.1 - 450 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
450.1 - 480 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
480.1 - 510 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Total 88 93 42 21 16 5 13 5 283

59
Bobonaro Cailaco Zumalai Atsabe
Maliana Ainaro Hatolia Hatobuilico

25

20
Number of Landslide

15

10

0
0.1 - 30

30.1 - 60

60.1 - 90

90.1 - 120

120.1 - 150

150.1 - 180

180.1 - 210

210.1 - 240

240.1 - 270

270.1 - 300

300.1 - 330

330.1 - 360

360.1 - 390

390.1 - 420

420.1 - 450

450.1 - 480

480.1 - 510
Length (m)

Figure 3.16 Length of landslide

Table 3.13 Length of Surface failure


Ranges(m) Bobonaro Cailaco Zumalai Atsabe Maliana Ainaro Hatolia Hatobuilico Total
0.1 - 30 0 0 1 3 1 4 0 0 9
30.1 - 60 10 2 22 6 5 8 1 0 54
60.1 - 90 24 14 5 3 5 2 5 3 61
90.1 - 120 9 5 3 0 1 1 0 3 22
120.1 - 150 8 3 0 0 2 1 1 1 16
150.1 - 180 5 3 2 0 0 1 0 3 14
180.1 - 210 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 4
210.1 - 240 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 5
240.1 - 270 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
270.1 - 300 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
300.1 - 330 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
330.1 - 360 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Total 61 30 33 12 15 18 7 13 189

60
Bobonaro Cailaco Zumalai Atsabe Maliana Ainaro Hatolia Hatobuilico

25
number of Surface Failure

20

15

10

0
0.1 - 30

30.1 - 60

60.1 - 90

90.1 - 120

120.1 - 150

150.1 - 180

180.1 - 210

210.1 - 240

240.1 - 270

270.1 - 300

300.1 - 330

330.1 - 360
Length (m)

Figure 3.17 Length of surface failure

Table 3.14 Length of surface failure and landslide


Ranges(m) Bobonaro Cailaco Atsabe Total
0.1 - 30 3 0 0 3
30.1 - 60 4 3 4 11
60.1 - 90 7 2 1 10
90.1 - 120 1 3 1 5
120.1 - 150 0 2 0 2
150.1 - 180 1 0 0 1
180.1 - 210 1 0 0 1
210.1 - 240 1 0 0 1
Total 18 10 6 34

61
Number of Landslide and Surface Failure

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0

0.1 - 30

30.1 - 60
Bobonaro(MIX)

60.1 - 90

62
90.1 - 120
Cailaco(MIX)

Length (m)
120.1 - 150

150.1 - 180
Atsabe(MIX)

Figure 18. Length of surface failure and landslide


180.1 - 210

210.1 - 240
CHAPTER IV
ANALYZING METHOD
4.1 Logistic Regression Analysis
Landslide susceptibility evaluation involves a high level of uncertainty due to data
limitation and model shortcomings (Zezere 2002). For this reason, the landslide researchers
have considered different techniques for analyzing factors contributing of landslide
occurrence and preparation landslide susceptibility maps. One of these techniques is
statistical analysis. In this study, a multivariate statistical analysis in the form of logistic
regression was used to analyzing the factors contributing of slope failure in East Timor. The
fundamental principle of logistic regression is based on the analysis of a problem, in which a
result measured with dichotomous variables (such as zero and one or true and false) is
determined from one or more independent factors (Menard 1995).
Logistic regression analysis is a multivariate technique that considers several physical
parameters that may affect probability. Logistic regression can be used to determine the
relation of slope failure occurrence and the related factors. The dependent variable (y) for this
analysis is the failure or un-failure of a slope.
Considering P independent variables, x1 , x 2 ,......, x p , affecting slope failure occurrences,

we define the vector X = ( x1 , x 2 ,......, x p ). In this study, the independent variables correspond

to the classes of the independent variables categories in Table 1; each of these variables is
binary, with values of 1 (failure) or 0 (un-failure). The reason we consider each class as an
independent variable is that we are interested in detailed relationships of these classes and not
just the relationships between the broader independent variables (or factors).
The conditional probability that a slope failure occurs is represented by ( P( y = 1 X ) . The

logit of the multiple logistic regression models (Hosmer and Lemeshow, 2000) is:
Logit(y)= b0 + b1 x1 + b1 x2 + ......b p x p (1)

Where b0 is the constant of the equation, and b1, b2,……,bp are the coefficients of
variables x1 , x 2 ,......, x p .

The probability P( y = 1 X ) can be expressed in the logistic regression model :

63
1
P( y = 1 X ) = −(b0 +b1x1 +b2 x2 +...,+bp x p ) (2)
1+ e

where e is the constant 2.718


Assume that we obtain a sample of n observations (Xj,xj), j = 1,2, …, n, Xj= (x1j,x2j,…xpj),
the yj is either 1 or 0, yj = 1 for a slope failure event, and yj = 0 for non event (un-failure). By
fitting the binary logistic regression analysis using the sample observations, we estimate the
logistic regression coefficient bi, i = 0, 1, ... , p. Based on this model, the probability of slope
failure occurrence in the future can be estimated using Eq. (2).
By examining the sign of a variable’s coefficient estimate, the effect of that variable on
the probability of slope failure occurrence could be determined. A positive coefficient
estimate indicates that the independent variable increases the probability of a slope failure,
assuming that the other variables in the model are held constant. Another method that can be
used to interpret the regression results and examine the significance of a variable in the
model involves determining the influence ratio.
The influence ratio is odds ratio of statistics used to assess the risk of a particular
outcome if a certain factor is present. The influence ratio is a relative measure of risk, telling
us how much more likely it is that some item of factor is exposed to the category under
study will develop the outcome as compares to some item of factor who is not exposed. Odds
are a way of presenting probabilities, but unless you know much about betting you will
probably need an explanation of how odds are calculated. The influence of an event
happening is the probability that event will happen divided by the probability that the event
will not happen.
By definition, the influence ratio is the ratio of the odds for variable xi = 1 (i = 1,2, ..., p)
to the odds for xi = 0 (Hosmer and Lemeshow 2000). In slope failure analysis, the influence
ratio approximates how much more likely it is for the slope failure to be present (y = 1)
among those events with variable xi = 1 than for those events with variable xi = 0. The
influence ratio is computed by exponentiations the coefficient estimate for each dichotomous
explanatory variable and it can be expressed:

Influnce ratio = e b …………………………………………………….(3)

64
Where e = 2.718 and b is coefficient value.
Using the logistic regression model, the spatial relationship between slope failure and the
factors influence to slope failure was assessed. The spatial databases of each factor were
converted use in the statistical package, and the correlations between slope failures were
calculated. Though there were two cases, in the first case, only one factor was analysis.
Besides, logistic regression mathematical equations were formulated for each case.
Finally, the probability that predicts the possibility of slope failure was calculated using
the spatial database, data from equation (1) and (2) with coefficient value of logistic
regression of each factor. However, in the second case, all factors were used and logistic
regression mathematical equations were formulated as shown in equation (2) and (4) for each
factor. Mathematically, probabilities of the possibility of slope failure can be express:
Zp = b0 + (Cl xLithology) + (Ci x Inclination angle)+(Cv x vegetation) + (Clt x Landscape
topography) + (Cd x Direction) + (Ce x Elevation) ……………………………(4)
Where Zp : probabilities of the possibility of slope failure Cl: coefficient of lithology, Ci:
coefficient of slope inclination angle, Cv : coefficient of vegetation, Clt : coefficient of
landscape topography, Cd : coefficient of direction, and Ce ; coefficient of elevation.
The model of analyzing building involves five main steps:
• Selection of variables based on a slope failure distribution analysis;
• Selection of statistically significant variables by a P-value significance test;
• Logistic regression analysis with those variables that passed the significance test;
• Logistic regression analysis with significant variables including the interaction terms;
and
• Evaluation of the analysis results.
In the first step, a slope failure distribution analysis is used to pre-select the variables that
are relevant for the regression. This analysis involves overlaying the variables of category of
slope failure occurrences and the variables of category of a factor (such as sedimentary
rocks), then calculating the percentage of coverage of the slope failure occurrence on each
class for each input factor, such as slope inclination angle within elevation factor. By
comparing the slope failure distributions, a preliminary ranking of the variables can be
developed. Important variables will be considered in the following significance tests.

65
In the second step, the significance p-value of 0.05 is specified as the cut-off value to
choose the variable for further analyses and > 0.05 is chosen as the value for elimination of
insignificant variables. The variables that passed the significance test can be entered into the
logistic regression analysis in the next step (SPSS 1999). After the steps of pre-selection and
significance test, some independent variables will be out of the original independent
variables were selected for the regression analysis.
In the third step, the model is checked for its goodness of fit by entering a variable or
removing a variable. Following the SPSS procedures, iteration of some variables are
preferred to obtain optimal analysis. The final suitable logistic regression analysis is based on
the variables presented in the final step of the statistical calculation in the SPSS program, and
the regression coefficients are obtained.
In the fourth step, the interaction terms representing the interactions among variables are
entered into the logistic regression analysis. In particular, the interactions among variables
from six factors affecting slope failure are selected to form the interaction terms for the
regression. The interactions among two, three, and four variables at one time were tested.
Only significant interaction terms are retained for analysis. When interaction terms are
introduced into the model, the ranking of the significance of some of the variables will
change. Some of the variables showing significance in the previous step may become
insignificant, and some of the interaction terms showing significance are added into the
model. After many tests with the interaction terms, the model that produces the best
prediction result is adopted as the final optimal model. Despite the fact that all independent
variables including different interaction terms were introduced in the regression analysis,
logistic regression analysis will be showed significance in the final best model when
interaction terms were added.
In the fifth step, the models obtained from above and the factors influence to the slope
failure occurrences generated from the analysis are evaluated. Slope failure probability
values between 0 and 1 at each unique-condition unit are obtained from the final regression.
A general description of the slope failure probability is adopted in this study, and the range of
slope failure probability is grouped into five categories to create the final.

66
Table 4.1 Classification of predicted the probabilities of slope failure from the logistic
regression analysis (Atkinson and Massara, 1998)
Estimated Probabilities of occurrence Relative of probabilities class
0.75 ~ 1.0 Very high
0.55 ~ 0.75 High
0.30 ~ 0.55 Moderate
0.10 ~ 0.30 Low
0.00 ~ 0.10 Very low

4.2 Independent Variables and Sampling


Several different geological and geographical parameters considered to be relevant to the
occurrence of slope failure were selected as the independent variables. lithology, direction,
vegetation and landscape topography were treated as categorical independent variables,
whereas inclination angle of slope and elevation were continuous independent variables
(table 14).
For the purpose of the statistical analysis, sample data representing both failure and
unfailure of slopes must be provided to fit the logistic regression analysis. The way in which
these data are obtained will affect both the nature of the regression relation and the accuracy
of the resulting estimates (Atkinson and Massari, 1998).
In this study, the data set of slope failure inventory is an indispensable data source
representative of samples of slope failure occurrences. All locations of the slope failure scars
were thus used to extract the physical parameter (independent variables) automatically from
the existing data layers. Altogether, 506 locations were chosen for the representing the un-
failure area. These locations were obtained using a random sampling scheme.
In the present situation, the dependent variable is a binary variable representing the
failure and unfailure of slope. Where the dependent variable is binary, the logistic link
function is applicable (Atkinson and Massari 1998). The dependent variable must be input as
either 0 or 1, so the model analysis applies well to analysis for possibility of slope failure
occurrence. Logistic regression coefficients can be used to estimate ratio for each of the
independent variables in the model analysis. The training data were then used to input to the

67
logistic regression analysis within the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS), desk-top
statistical software, to obtain the coefficient and odds ratio for the logistic regression analysis.

Table 4.2 Categories of the independent variables


Items Variable of categories Code
Lithology Sedimentary Rocks and mixtures with recent materials (i.e., S_R
heterogeneous soil and small rocks)
Littoral deposit and mixtures with recent materials (i.e., L_R
heterogeneous soil and small rocks
Igneous rocks and mixtures with recent materials (i.e., I_R
heterogeneous soil and small rocks
Metamorphic rocks and mixtures with recent materials (i.e., M_R
heterogeneous soil and small rocks
Volcanic rocks and mixtures with recent materials (i.e., V_R
heterogeneous soil and small rocks
Inclination Angle 60 – 120 Inc_6
0 0
12 – 18 Inc_12
0 0
18 – 24 Inc_18
240 – 300 Inc_24
0 0
30 - 36 Inc_30
0 0
36 - 42 Inc_36
0 0
42 – 48 Inc_42
Vegetation Woodland or High Tree HT
Scrubland or Low Tree LT
Grassland G
Bare land or n vegetation NV
Landscape Valley V
Ridge R
Flat F
Direction N N
NE NE
E E
SE SE
S S
SW SW
W W
NW NW

68
Table 4.2 ( Continued….)
Items Variable of categories Code
Elevation 200m – 500m Elev_200
500m – 800m Elev_500
800m – 1100m Elev_800
1100m – 1400m Elev_1100
1400m – 1700m Elev_1400
1700m – 2100m Elev_1700

Start

Explanatory Dependent
Variable (X) Variable (Y)

Y=f(x1,x2,…xn)

1
P(event ) =
− (b + b x + ...b x )
1+ e 0 11 n n

R2,X2, test
NO
R2= Hosmer and Lameshow
Test
X2= Fit goodness Test
P(event) test
P(event) ≤ 0.05
NO
Yes

Finish
Figure 4.1 Flow chart of logistic
regression analysis

69
4.3 GIS Application for Slope Failure Mapping
In the last twenty years, Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and Remote Sensing
have become integral tools for the evaluation of natural hazard phenomena (Nagarajan et al
1998; Liu et al 2004). Moreover, GIS is an excellent and useful tool for the spatial analysis
of a multi-dimensional phenomenon such as landslides and for the landslide susceptibility
mapping (Carrara et al 1999; van Westen et al 1999; Lan et al 2004).
Slope failure events are associated with various physical factors and therefore almost all
methods of slope failure i.e., landslide susceptibility mapping focus on: a) the determination
of the physical factors which are directly or indirectly correlated with slope failure (slope
failure factors); b) the selection of the rating-weighting system of all factors and of the
classes of each one of them; c) the overall estimation of the relative role of causative factors
in producingslope failure; and d) the final susceptibility zoning by classifying the land
surface according to different hazard degrees (Anbalagan 1992; Guzzetti et al 1999; Dai et al
2002).
The slope failure i.e., landslide and surface failure map is a practical tool in natural and
urban planning; it can be applied for determining land use zones, in construction design and
planning various future projects. In this study, GIS based on predicting probability of slope
failure maps were generated; in the study site are western parts of East timor. This was
accomplished by methods for correlating factors, which affect slope failure occurrences. The
factors influence to slope failures which were taken into account was: lithology, slope
inclination angle, slope gradients, vegetation, landscape topography, slope aspect (direction)
and elevation. A frequency distribution of the number of the slope failure events of the study
area in each items of the factor category was performed in order to rate the classes. The
models used to combine the factors influence to slope failure and assess the overall
probability of slope failure by statistics logistic regression analysis. The produced maps were
classified into four zones: the Very Low, Low , Moderate, High and Very High probability
zone and validated using the other number of the slope failure events of the study area.
Evaluation of the results is optimized through a Landslide Models Indicator, the application
of which demonstrated that the best desired outcome is provided by the model. Moreover it
was estimated that this model is easier to set up and operate than the first model.

70
Regarding the identification of the factors influence to slope failure, the used data are in
some cases either readily available or can be easily collected. In other cases statistical
analysis was performed. As for the assigned rates and weights, the methodology used
involves landslide inventory and frequency distribution, frequency ratio, density, multivariate
statistical methods, trial and error method, local experience, field knowledge and literature
(Gupta and Joshi 1990; Anbalagan 1992; Zêzere et al 1999; Temesgen et al 2001; Lee and
Min 2001; Donati and Turrini 2002; Saha et al 2002; Gritzner et al 2001; Liu et al 2004, Lee
and Sambath 2006). Most of the methods employed for the overall estimation of the relative
contribution factors influence to slope failure are based on statistical mathematical operations,
which combine the factors (Temesgen et al 2001; Saha et al 2002; Chau et al 2004, Ayalew
et al 2005). Finally, the goals of this study are: a) the production of probabilities of slope
failure susceptibility maps based on GIS techniques using the models of combining the
instability factors and estimation of overall slope failure susceptibility and b) the evaluation
of these models and produced maps. A GIS database has been developed using ArcGIS
version 3.3 software. The slope failure occurrences in the study area and the influence factors
have been recorded and saved as separate layers in the database. All the data layers were in
vector format, transformed in grids with cell size 30x30 meters.

Start

Slope Failure inventory map

Rating of each factors and category


where influence to slope failure

Apply Statistics Logistic regression


Analysis

Production of probabilities of slope


failure maps based on GIS techniques

Figure 4.2 Flow chart of Production of


Finish probabilities of slope failure
maps based on GIS techniques

71
CHAPTER V
ANALYSIS RESULT
5.1 Introduction
A logistic regression analysis was constructed initially based on the physical parameters
or independent variables as defined above. Then, each step, independent variables are
evaluated for removal one by one if they do not contribute sufficiently to the regression
equation. In this analysis, the likelihood-ratio test is always used for determining whether
variables should be added to the analysis. This involves estimating the model analysis with
each independent variable eliminated in turn and looking at the change in to the logarithm of
likelihood when each independent variable is deleted. If the result analysis observed
significance level is greater than probability for stepwise (0.05 in this analysis) for remaining
in the analysis, the variables is removed from the analysis and statistics analysis are
recalculated to see if any other independent variables are eligible for removal. The
independent variables in this analysis are: lithology, inclination angle, vegetation, landscape
topography, direction and elevation.
By studying and analysis the causal factors affecting for slope failure in regional
mountainous of these study site, this study tries to contribute to the restricted knowledge on
slope failure in East Timor. After a brief introduction of the study area and the spatial
distribution and characteristics of its slope failure, the preconditions, preparatory and
triggering causal factors will be discussed with attention to their spatial variation.

5.2 All Study site Analysis Result


Logistic regression analysis result of all study (i.e., Bobonaro, cailaco, Zumalai, Atsabe,
Maliana, Ainaro, Hatolia and Hatobuilico) are shows in table 5.1 and 5.2. It can be seen that
the model analysis produced a concordance rate of 90.3 % with the use of 0.50 as a
classification cutoff value. This result is in agreement with the work in northern Italy by
Carrara and others (1991).By examining this result to predict probabilities of slope failure
affecting by the independent variables, we can see what a different classification rule should
be adopted when applying the model analysis to each factor in the study area and obtained
regression model composed of significant variables.

72
Table 5.1 Classification table of the cut value 0.50
Predicted
Observed Status of Slope Percentage Correct
Unfailure Failure
Status of Un-failure 450 56 90.5
Step slope Failure 50 456 90.1
Overall Percentage 90.3

Table 5.2 Coefficient values and influence ratio of logistic regression of each item and
category in all study site
Item Category Slope Failure Coefficient Influence
value Ratio
Number Percentage
Lithology Sed. rocks 321 63.4 3.66 39.03
Lit. dep. rocks 121 23.9 2.48 11.89
Igneous rocks 25 4.9 0.14 1.15
Meta. Rocks 9 1.9 -0.12 0.89
Vol. rocks 30 5.9 3.22 25.2
Inclination 6 ~ 12 55 10.9 -2.63 0.07
o
Angle ( ) 12.1 ~ 18 128 25.3 -2.03 0.13
18.1 ~ 24 113 22.3 -1.86 0.16
24.1 ~ 30 81 16.0 -1.14 0.32
30.1 ~ 36 79 15.6 0.75 2.11
36.1 ~ 42 45 8.9 1.1 3
42.1 ~ 48 5 1.0 -0.18 0.83
Vegetation High tree 21 4.3 -1.02 0.36
Low tree 94 18.6 1.02 2.78
Grassland 204 40.3 1.8 6.05
No vegetation 187 37.0 4.49 32.89
Landscape Valley 306 60.5 2.22 9.24
topography Ridge 177 35.0 1.57 4.79
Flat 23 4.5 -1.57 0.21
Direction North 74 14.6 2.01 7.48
Northeast 139 27.5 2.79 16.31
East 45 8.9 0.72 2.05
Southeast 69 13.6 1.23 3.44
South 14 2.8 -0.32 0.73
Southwesr 52 10.3 0.64 1.90
West 22 4.3 0.32 1.38
Northwest 91 18.0 2.22 9.19

73
Table 5.2 (continued …)
Item Category Slope Failure Coefficient Influence
value Ratio
Number Percentage
Elevation 200 ~ 500 163 32.2 -1.11 0.33
(m) 500.1 ~ 800 167 33.0 -0.71 0.49
800.1 ~ 1100 71 14.0 -0.22 0.80
1100.1 ~ 1400 67 13.3 0.04 1.04
1400.1 ~ 1700 34 6.7 -0.74 0.48
1700.1 ~ 2100 4 0.8 0.22 1.02

Table 5.3 Coefficient values and influence ratio of the logistic regression of interaction term
when combined with other item and categories in all study site
Item Category Slope Failure Coefficient Influence
Ratio
Number Percentage Value
Lithology Sed. rocks 321 63.4 4.08 59.07
Lit. dep. rocks 121 23.9 2.8 16.41
Igneous rocks 25 4.9 0.26 1.3
Meta. Rocks 9 1.9 0.03 1.03
Vol. rocks 30 5.9 4.44 84.64
Inclination 6 ~ 12 55 10.9 -0.75 0.47
o
Angle ( ) 12.1 ~ 18 128 25.3 -0.16 0.85
18.1 ~ 24 113 22.3 -0.36 0.68
24.1 ~ 30 81 16.0 0.59 1.79
30.1 ~ 36 79 15.6 1.78 5.95
36.1 ~ 42 45 8.9 1.61 4.02
42.1 ~ 48 5 1.0 NA NA
Vegetation High tree 21 4.3 -1.34 0.26
Low tree 94 18.6 1.39 4.02
Grassland 204 40.3 3.11 22.46
No vegetation 187 37.0 4.9 134.71
Landscape Valley 306 60.5 2.59 13.3
topography Ridge 177 35.0 2.06 7.82
Flat 23 4.5 -2.06 0.13
Direction North 74 14.6 2.15 8.56
Northeast 139 27.5 3.26 26.06
East 45 8.9 0.73 2.07
Southeast 69 13.6 1.54 4.65
South 14 2.8 0.53 1.7

74
Table 5.3 (continued)
Item Category Slope Failure Coefficient Influence
Ratio
Number Percentage Value
Direction Southwest 52 10.3 0.87 2.83
(Continued…) West 22 4.3 -0.59 0.56
Northwest 91 18.0 3.26 11.28
Elevation 200 ~ 500 163 32.2 1.41 4.1
(m) 500.1 ~ 800 167 33.0 1.11 3.05
800.1 ~ 1100 71 14.0 1.21 3.35
1100.1 ~ 1400 67 13.3 2.61 13.6
1400.1 ~ 1700 34 6.7 3.28 26.67
1700.1 ~ 2100 4 0.8 NA NA

From the analysis result (Table 5.2), the regression coefficients of the lithology item and
category of sedimentary rocks are 3.66, which is the highest among all items and category.
This variable most contributes and affecting to slope failures; the influence ratio of slope
failure against unfailure slope is 39 times when this variable is present and other items and
category are controlled.
The coefficient of the vegetation item and category of no vegetation or bare land is 3.49
which is the second highest, with an influence ratio of 33. And the next most categories is
volcanic rocks, northeast, littoral deposit rocks, valley side, northwest, north, grassland, and
ridge side (Figure 5.1).

75
45
40
All site
35
Influence ratio

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Bare land

North

Grassland

Ridge
Sedimetary

Volcanics

deposit rocks
Northeast

Northwest
Valley
rocks
rocks

Littoral

Cate gory

Fig. 5.1 Ranking of the top ten significant item and category
based on influence ratio

160
All site
140
Influence ratio

120 No interaction
100 Interaction with each item and category
80
60
40
20
0
Bare land

North

Ridge
Northeast

Northwest
Sedimetary rocks

Volcanics rocks

Valley
Littoral deposit rocks

Grassland

Category

Figure 5.2 The top ten ranking of interaction term when combined with other
variables based on the influence ratio

76
The next is the interaction term when combined with other variables controlled by this
analysis, the regression coefficient and influence ratio of most of the variables gradually
increases 1 to 4.5 times an individual variable (Table 5.3 and Figure 5.2).
Based on this analysis result and the actual condition and characteristics slope failure
distribution in study area, it can be seen that geology features are most important variable in
this study, distribution of lithology as well as bedrock of sedimentary rocks and littoral
deposit rocks, surface materials, and the difference between surface aspect and dip direction
of bedding are more important than elevation and difference between slope and inclination
angle in controlling slope stability. Most slope failure occurred in study area where the
factors representing the terrain aspect nearly parallel to the dip direction of the bedrock
coexists with other influential conditions including the a few igneous rocks, metamorphic
rocks and volcanic rocks thin till or other unconsolidated material, steep slope and elevation
from 200 to 2100 m.
Vegetation variables were used in this analysis and shown significance, as the vegetation
used in this study might be different from that of the time the slope failure occurred, the
interpretation of the importance of the vegetation cover may vary over time, but in actual
condition in East Timor, most of study site where slope failure are covered by bare land and
grassland. However, when heavy rainfall infiltrates in to the soil slope, it will clearly increase
the moisture content of the soil above the phreatic surface, but as the water flows downward,
it may also result in a rise in the position of the phreatic surface. Such a rise could be the
caused of slope failure.
Landscape topography is one of the important variables affecting to slope failure
occurrences. Landscape of soil mantled ridge and valley topography, shallow landslides
typically only involve the soil mantle and commonly occur at or near the soil-bedrock
boundary. These landslides may mobilize and travel a short distance down slope before
coming to rest either still on the hillside. The analysis result shows that emerges from this
work on topography landslides shows that surface topography has a great bearing on the
location and frequency of shallow landslide. Importantly, it is not just the local slope that
matters, but also the curvature of the topography and how it focuses or spreads runoff down
slope. A physically, that quantifies the influence of surface topography on pore pressure in a

77
shallow slope stability model may effectively capture the essential linkage between
topography and slope failure.
The direction of slope has the potential to influences its physical properties and it
susceptibility to failure. The process that may be operating including to sunlight, drying
winds and possibly rainfall (Evans and others 1999). The distribution of aspect among the
mapped and the significance analysis shows that the frequency of slope failure was highest
on northeast – northwest and north – facing slopes, indicating that natural terrain landslide is
more common on these slopes. The frequency of slope failure was lowest on those slopes
facing south and west, while the frequency of slope failure remained moderate on the East –
southeast and southwest-facing slopes. From the air photograph interpretation shows that this
may be attributed to fact that there is more vegetation cover on south and west slopes.
Based on the logistic regression analysis result and slope failure distribution analysis in
those areas, vegetation, lithology, landscape topography of slope and elevation are more
important than elevation and inclination angle of slope failure.
From the Figure 5.3 is the histogram to predict the probabilities of slope failures affected
by independent variables are used in this analysis. Theoretically, if we have an analysis
model that successfully distinguishes the two independent variables on a classification cutoff
value of 0.5, the cases for which slope failure has occurred should be to the right of 0.5,
whereas the cases for which slope failure has not occurred should be to the left of 0.5( Figure
5.3). A fivefold classification scheme, ranging from very high probabilities of slope failure,
to very low, was employed for the predicted probabilities of occurred. It should be noted that
the complexity of the failure processes means that any evaluation of stability contains a
considerable amount of uncertainty. The use of predicted probability of slope failure in this
study is limited and is not suitable for site specific evaluation. The reliability of the
assessment result depends on a multitude of factors ranging from the quality of the data base,
the introduction of potential errors associated with data entry to the limitations and
assumptions inherent in the statistical techniques ( Rowbotham and Dudycha 1998).

78
Table 5.4 Classification of predicted the probabilities of slope failure
from the logistic regression analysis (Atkinson and Massara, 1998)
Estimated Probabilities of occurrence Relative of probabilities class
0.75 ~ 1.0 Very high
0.55 ~ 0.75 High
0.30 ~ 0.55 Moderate
0.10 ~ 0.30 Low
0.00 ~ 0.10 Very low

The ranges individual classes presented in Table 5.4 were derived based on the histogram
of the estimated of probabilities of slope failure shown in Table 5.5 and Figure 5.3, and
Figure 5.4. Zones classified for predicting of slope failure in this study site as being of “very
high probabilities”, accounting for 65% of this study area and exhibit a strongly clustered
pattern of spatial distribution and cover by grassland and bare land. This category is
distinguished from the “high” category by relatively high elevations and steeper terrain. Most
of the locations of identified slope failure actually occurred within this class. The” high
probabilities class”, occupies 11% of the study area, is mainly distributed in the middle
section of slopes and bears a high potential for slope failure occurrence. The zone of
moderate class covers 11% of the study are, and are featured by lower sections of slopes and
ridges. The zone of low probabilities of slope failure occurred, covering 9% of this study area,
is relatively dispersed in its spatial distribution, and hence the chance for slope failure to
develop within this class is small. And finally, zone of “very low” covering 4% of total study
area are distributed on high mountains that are characterized by relatively gentle gradient of
slope. All these sites are highly table and are not favorable to development of slope failure.
In this study, a particular problem with uncertainty is that the 1:15,000-scale topographic
condition cannot fully reflect the micro-topography conditions prerequisite for slope failure
because slope failure in the all study area is characterized by small and bigger volumes, that a
slight change in micro-scale landform may have a strong influence on the slope failure. This,
however, has not been reflected in the topographic map. Another problem is the 1:350,000-
scale geological map used in this study cannot fully reflect the distribution of colluviums or
residual soils that are of critical significance to the slope failure.

79
R 240 ô ô
E ó ó
Q ó ó
U ó1 0ó
E 160 ô0 1ô
N ó0 1ó
C ó0 1ó
Y ó0 1ó
80 ô0 1ô
ó0 1ó
ó0 1ó
ó0000 0010 010 10 10 10 10 110 01111 111ó
Predicted òòòòòòòòòòòòòòôòòòòòòòòòòòòòòôòòòòòòòòòòòòòòôòòòòòòòòòòòòòòò
Prob: 0 .25 .5 .75 1
Group: 000000000000000000000000000000111111111111111111111111111111
Unfailure Failure
Predicted Probability is of Membership for 1.00
The Cut Value is .50
Symbols: 0 - .00
1 - 1.00
Each Symbol Represents 20 Cases.

Figure 5.3 Observed Groups and Predicted Probabilities (Logistic regression analysis)

Table 5.5 Predicting for probability of slope failure


Failure Unfailure
Probability ranges Number Percentage Number Percentage
0 ~ 0.10 20 4.35 220 47.80
0.11 ~ 0.20 20 4.35 60 13.05
0.21 ~ 0.30 20 4.35 40 8.70
0.31 ~ 0.40 20 4.35 20 4.35
0.41 ~ 0.50 20 4.35 20 4.35
0.51 ~ 0.60 20 4.35 20 4.35
0.61 ~ 0.70 20 4.35 20 4.35
0.71 ~ 0.80 40 8.70 20 4.35
0.81 ~ 0.90 80 17.40 20 4.35
0.19 ~ 1.00 200 43.45 20 4.35
Total 460 100 460 100

80
All site

0.9~1
Probabilities of occurrence

0.8~0.9
0.7~0.8
0.6~0.7
Unfailred
0.5~0.6
Failured
0.4~0.5
0.3~0.4
0.2~0.3
0.1~0.2
0~0.1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of occurrences
Figure 5.4 Histogram of predicted probabilities of slope failure

Figure 5.5 Map of relative slope failure susceptibility

81
5.3 Specific Site Analysis
5.3.1 Bobonaro site
Logistic regression analyses of Bobonaro site are shows in Table 5.6 and Table 5.7. It can
be seen that the model analysis produce a concordance rate of 88.6% with the use of 0.5 as a
classification cutoff value. By examining this result to predict probabilities of slope failure
affecting by the independent variables, we can see what a different classification rule should
be adopted when applying the model analysis to each factor in the study site and obtain the
regression model composed of significant variables.

Table 5.6 Classification table of the cut value 0.50


Predicted
Observed Status of Slope Percentage Correct
Unfailure Failure
Status of Unfailure 153 14 91.6
Step slope Failure 24 143 85.6
Overall Percentage 88.6

Table 5.7 Coefficient values and influence ratio of logistic regression of each item and
category
Item Category Slope Failure Coefficient Influence
Number Percentage value value
Lithology Sed. rocks 101 60.5 1.66 5.28
Lit. dep. rocks 19 11.4 0.18 1.2
Igneous rocks 25 15 -0.77 0.46
Meta. Rocks 0 0 0 0
Vol. rocks 22 13.1 0.2 1.23
Inclination 6 ~ 12 17 10.2 -2.89 0.06
o
Angle ( ) 12.1 ~ 18 38 22.7 -2.06 0.13
18.1 ~ 24 38 22.7 -2.02 0.13
24.1 ~ 30 37 22.2 -1.21 0.3
30.1 ~ 36 23 13.8 -0.93 0.30
36.1 ~ 42 13 7.8 2.57 13
42.1 ~ 48 1 0.6 -3.23 0.04
Vegeatation High tree 8 4.8 -0.37 0.69
Low tree 21 12.6 0.37 1.45
Grassland 76 45.5 1.93 6.89
No vegetation 62 37.1 3.83 46.01

82
Table 5.7 ( continued….)
Item Category Slope Failure Coefficient Influence
Number Percentage value value
Landscape Valley 51 30.5 1.45 4.28
topography Ridge 106 63.5 2.05 7.78
Flat 10 6.0 -1.45 0.21
Direction North 42 25.1 2.32 10.12
Northeast 49 29.3 1.71 5.51
East 10 6 -0.73 0.48
Southeast 25 15 0.04 1
South 5 3 -0.27 0.77
Southwesr 16 9.6 0.04 1.04
West 12 7.2 0.24 1.27
Northwest 8 4.8 -0.04 0.96
Elevation 200 ~ 500 29 17.4 -1.79 0.17
(m) 500.1 ~ 800 57 34 0.2 1.23
800.1 ~ 1100 26 15.6 1.24 3.47
1100.1 ~ 1400 36 21.6 3.77 43.5
1400.1 ~ 1700 19 11.4 -1.81 0.16
1700.1 ~ 2100 0 0 0 0

Table 5.8 Coefficient values and influence ratio of the logistic regression of interaction term
when combined with other item and categories in Bobonaro site
Item Category Slope Failure Coefficient Influence
Number Percentage value Value
Lithology Sed. rocks 101 60.5 2.41 11.18
Lit. dep. rocks 19 11.4 0.73 2.07
Igneous rocks 25 15 No No
Meta. Rocks 0 0 No No
Vol. rocks 22 13.1 No No
Inclination 6 ~ 12 17 10.2 -2.76 0.62
o
Angle ( ) 12.1 ~ 18 38 22.7 -1.87 0.15
18.1 ~ 24 38 22.7 -1.64 0.11
24.1 ~ 30 37 22.2 -0.89 0.23
30.1 ~ 36 23 13.8 -0.61 0.46
36.1 ~ 42 13 7.8 2.91 18.36
42.1 ~ 48 1 0.6 No No

83
Table 5.8 (continued…)
Item Category Slope Failure Coefficient Influence
Number Percentage value Value
Vegetation High tree 8 4.8 -1.19 0.3
Low tree 21 12.6 1.38 4
Grassland 76 45.5 3.11 22.37
No vegetation 62 37.1 5.01 149.81
Landscape Valley 51 30.5 3.91 49.68
topography Ridge 106 63.5 2.73 15.25
Flat 10 6.0 -1.81 0.16
Direction North 42 25.1 3.08 21.79
Northeast 49 29.3 3.62 37.14
East 10 6 1.66 5.24
Southeast 25 15 1.85 6.36
South 5 3 0.33 1.38
Southwesr 16 9.6 0.3 1.36
West 12 7.2 -0.58 0.56
Northwest 8 4.8 0.17 1.19
Elevation 200 ~ 500 29 17.4 0.61 1.84
(m) 500.1 ~ 800 57 34 2.89 17.94
800.1 ~ 1100 26 15.6 2.75 15.58
1100.1 ~ 1400 36 21.6 5.06 156.84
1400.1 ~ 1700 19 11.4 No No
1700.1 ~ 2100 0 0 No No

From the analysis result (Table 5.7), the regression coefficients of the vegetation item and
category of no vegetation or bare land are 3.83, which is the highest among all items and
category. This variable most contributes and affecting to slope failures; the influence ratio of
slope failure against unfailure slope is 46 times when this category is present and other items
and category are controlled.
The coefficient of the elevation item and category of elevation 1100m ~ 1400m is 3.77
which is the second highest, with an influence ratio of 44. And the next most category is
inclination angle 36 o ~ 42 o , North, ridge, grassland, northeast, sedimentary rocks, valley
side and elevation 800m ~ 1100m ( Figure 5.6).

84
The next is the interaction term when combined with other variables controlled by
this analysis, the regression coefficient and influence ratio of most of the item and category
gradually increases (Table 5.8 and Figure 5.7).

50
45
40
Influence ratio

35
Bobonaro site
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Elev.1100~1400

Elev.800~1100
Sedimetary
Bare land

angle_36~42

N orth

R idge

Northeast

Valley
Grassland
Inclination

rocks
Category

Figure 5.6 Ranking of the top ten significant item and category based on influence ratio

85
180
Bobonaro site
160
140
Influence ratio

120
No interaction
100
Interaction with each item and category
80
60
40
20
0
Elev.1100~1400

Elev.800~1100
Bare land

angle_36~42

North

Ridge

Grassland

Northeast

Sedimetary

Valley
Inclination

Category rocks

Figure 5.7 The top ten ranking of interaction term when combined with other variables based
on the influence ratio
Based on this analysis result, the actual condition and distribution of slope failure in
Bobonaro site, it can be seen that vegetation is most important factor were used in this
analysis and show significance. In this site, most of slope failure has occurred in the bare
land and grassland area. However, when heavy rainfall occurred and infiltrates in to the soil,
it will clearly increase the moisture content of the soil above phreatic surface and the water
flows downward, it may also result in a rise the position of the phreatic surface and could be
the caused of slope failure. While the variation in soil types and characteristics throughout
the Bobonaro ridge is large, some of them have a distinct boundary between the soil and the
underlying rock is common. During heavy rains, water stagnates on this continuity, creating
positive pore water pressures on this shear plane on which the soil can easily slide down.
Elevation is one of the important factors affecting for slope failure in this site. Most of
slope failure occurred frequently do have ranging from 200m to 1700m. The distribution of
elevation of slopes failure in this site shows that hill slopes between 200m to 500m in
elevation had frequencies of slope failure that were greater than those on hill slopes that are

86
800m to 1100m and 1400m to 1700m and less than hill slopes that are 500m to 800m and
1100m to 1400m in elevation. At intermediate elevations there are mountain summit, which
is more prone to landslide that are usually characterized by weather rocks, and the shear
strength of these is much higher. At very low elevations, the frequency of slope failure is low
because the terrain is gentle, and is covered by residual soil, and higher perched water table
will required initiating slope failure.
In this site, slope inclination angle is an important variable occurrence and show
significance. Inclination angle is an essential component of slope stability analysis. As slope
inclination angle increases, the level of gravitation-induced shear stress in the residual soils
increases as well. It can be seen that examination of the distribution of number of slope
failure with corresponding slope inclination angle in Bobonaro study site shows that most of
slope failures has occurred with inclination angle ranges increase in the 120 – 360 and
gradually decrease in the ranges 60 – 120 and 360 – 480. This is refection that steep natural
slope with outcropping bedrock and hence much higher shear strength may be susceptible to
shallow landslide.
The direction of slope has the potential to influences its physical properties and it
susceptibility to failure. The process that may be operating including to sunlight, drying
winds and possibly rainfall (Evans and others 1999). The distribution of aspect among the
mapped and the significance analysis shows that the frequency of slope failure was highest
on north and northeast– facing slopes, indicating that natural terrain landslide is more
common on these slopes. The frequency of slope failure was lowest on those slopes facing
east - south – west and northwest, while the frequency of slope failure remained moderate on
the southeast and southwest -facing slopes. From the air photograph interpretation shows that
this may be attributed to fact that there is more vegetation cover on east, south, west and
northwest slopes.
Geology features are most important variable in this study, distribution of sedimentary
rocks and a few of igneous rocks and metamorphic rocks, surface materials, and the
difference between surface aspect and dip direction of bedding are more important than
elevation and difference between slope and inclination angle in controlling slope stability.
Most slope failure has occurred in study area where the factors representing the terrain aspect

87
nearly parallel to the dip direction of the bedrock coexists with other influential conditions
including the littoral deposit bedrock thin till or other unconsolidated material, steep slope
and elevation from 200m to 1700 m.
It should be note that thin colluvium or residual soil in steep terrain, which is most
susceptible to slope failure, is not fully reflected in the geological map by lithological
characteristics of underlying bedrock. Structural information is also available from digital
geological maps. However, qualitative examination of spatial distributions suggests that the
correlation between slope failure and mapped linier structural feature at the 1:350,000- scale
is not good, and the structural information is, thus, excluded in this study.
Landscape topography is one of the important variables affecting to slope failure. In this
study sites, landscape of soil mantled ridge and valley topography, shallow landslides
typically only involve the soil mantle and commonly occur at or near the soil-bedrock
boundary. These landslides may mobilize and travel a short distance down slope before
coming to rest either still on the hillside. The analysis result shows that emerges from this
work on topography landslides shows that surface topography has a great bearing on the
location and frequency of shallow landslide. Importantly, it is not just the local slope that
matters, but also the curvature of the topography and how it focuses or spreads runoff down
slope. A physically, that quantifies the influence of surface topography on pore pressure in a
shallow slope stability model may effectively capture the essential linkage between
topography and slope failure.
Compared to other study site, the critical slope for slope failure in Bobonaro site is rather
higher, with slope failure occurring on slopes do have inclination angle from 6 o onward.
Gentle slopes exhibiting slope failure are common in the Bobonaro zone, where soil
stratification and human interference are also important.
From the Figure 5.8 and Figure 5.9 are the histograms to predict the probabilities of slope
failures affected by independent variables are used in this analysis. Theoretically, if we have
an analysis model that successfully distinguishes the two independent variables on a
classification cutoff value of 0.5, the cases for which slope failure has occurred should be to
the right of 0.5, whereas the cases for which slope failure has not occurred should be to the
left of 0.5(Figure 5.8). A fivefold classification scheme, ranging from very high probabilities

88
of slope failure, to very low, was employed for the predicted probabilities of occurrence. It
should be noted that the complexity of the failure processes means that any evaluation of
stability contains a considerable amount of uncertainty. The use of predicted probability of
slope failure in this study is limited and is not suitable for site specific evaluation. The
reliability of the assessment result depends on a multitude of factors ranging from the quality
of the data base, the introduction of potential errors associated with data entry to the
limitations and assumptions inherent in the statistical techniques ( Rowbotham and Dudycha
1998).

F ó 1ó
R 60 ô 1ô
E ó 1ó
Q ó 1ó
U ó 1ó
E 40 ô0 1ô
N ó0 1ó
C ó0 0 1ó
Y ó0 0 1ó
20 ô0 0 1ô
ó0 0 0 0 11ó
ó0 010 0 1 1 1 1 1 11ó
ó0 000000 0 00 0 10 10 10 110 11110 10111ó
Predicted òòòòòòòòòòòòòòôòòòòòòòòòòòòòòôòòòòòòòòòòòòòòôòòòòòòòòòòòòòòò
Prob: 0 .25 .5 .75 1
Group: 000000000000000000000000000000111111111111111111111111111111
Unfailure Failure
Predicted Probability is of Membership for 1.00
The Cut Value is .50
Symbols: 0 - .00
1 - 1.00
Each Symbol Represents 5 Cases.

Figure 5.8 Observed Groups and Predicted Probabilities (Logistic regression analysis)

89
Table 5.9 Predicting for probability of slope failure in Bobonaro Site
Failure Unfailure
Probability ranges Number Percentage Number Percentage
0 ~ 0.10 5 3 90 57
0.11 ~ 0.20 5 3 25 16
0.21 ~ 0.30 5 3 15 9
0.31 ~ 0.40 5 3 5 3
0.41 ~ 0.50 5 3 5 3
0.51 ~ 0.60 5 3 5 3
0.61 ~ 0.70 5 3 5 3
0.71 ~ 0.80 10 6 5 3
0.81 ~ 0.90 30 20 5 3
0.91 ~ 1.00 80 53 0 0
Total 155 100 160 100

Bobonaro site

0.9~1
0.8~0.9
Probabilities of occurrence

0.7~0.8
0.6~0.7
Failured
0.5~0.6
Unfailred
0.4~0.5
0.3~0.4
0.2~0.3
0.1~0.2
0~0.1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of occurrences

Figure 5.9 Histogram of the predicted probabilities of slope failure

90
The ranges individual classes presented in Table 5.4 were derived based on the histogram
of the estimated of probabilities of slope failure shown in Table 5.9 and Figure 5.8 and
Figure 5.9. Zones classified for predicting of slope failure in Bobonaro site as being of “very
high probabilities”, accounting for 76% of Bobonaro site and exhibit a strongly clustered
pattern of spatial distribution and cover by grassland and bare land. This category is
distinguished from the “high” category by relatively high elevations and steeper terrain. Most
of the locations of identified slope failure actually occurred within this class. The” high
probabilities class”, occupies 7.5% of the study area, is mainly distributed in the middle
section of slopes and bears a high potential for slope failure. The zone of moderate class
covers 7.5% of the study area, and is featured by lower sections of slopes and ridges. The
zone of “low probabilities” of slope failure, covering 6% of this study area, is relatively
dispersed in its spatial distribution, and hence the chance for slope failure to develop within
this class is small. And finally, zone of “very low” covering 3% of total study area are
distributed on high mountains that are characterized by relatively gentle gradient of slope. All
these sites are highly table and are not favorable to development of slope failure.
It should be noted that the complexity of the failure processes means that any evaluation
of stability contains a considerable amount of uncertainty. The use of predicted probability of
slope failure in this study is limited and is not suitable for site specific evaluation. The
reliability of the assessment result depends on a multitude of factors ranging from the quality
of the data base, the introduction of potential errors associated with data entry to the
limitations and assumptions inherent in the statistical techniques ( Rowbotham and Dudycha
1998).

91
5.3.2 Cailaco site
Logistic regression analyses of Cailaco site are shows in Table 5.10 and Table 5.10. It
can be seen that the model analysis produce a concordance rate of 94% with the use of 0.5 as
a classification cutoff value. By examining this result to predict probabilities of slope failure
affecting by the independent variables, we can see what a different classification rule should
be adopted when applying the model analysis to each factor in the study site and obtain the
regression model composed of significant variables.

Table 5.10 Classification table of the cut value 0.50


Predicted
Observed Status of Slope Percentage Correct
Unfailure Failure
Status of Unfailure 125 8 94.0
Step slope Failure 8 125 94.0
Overall Percentage 94.0

Table 5.11 Coefficient values and influence ratio of logistic regression


of each item and category
Item Category Slope Failure Coefficient Influence
Number Percentage value ratio
Lithology Sed. rocks 87 65.4 2.26 9.54
Lit. dep. rocks 46 34.6 1.15 3.17
Igneous rocks 0 0 0 0
Meta. Rocks 0 0 0 0
Vol. rocks 0 0 0 0
Inclination 6 ~ 12 19 14.2 -1.07 0.42
o
Angle ( ) 12.1 ~ 18 42 31.6 -0.68 0.51
18.1 ~ 24 34 25.6 -0.28 0.76
24.1 ~ 30 18 13.5 0.41 1.5
30.1 ~ 36 17 12.8 2.43 11.33
36.1 ~ 42 3 2.3 -1.04 0.35
42.1 ~ 48 0 0 0 0
Vegeatation High tree 0 0 0 0
Low tree 10 7.5 -1.76 0.17
Grassland 50 37.6 3.01 20.29
No vegetation 73 54.9 4.61 100.74

92
Table 5.11 (continued…)
Item Category Slope Failure Coefficient Influence
Number Percentage value ratio
Landscape Valley 90 67.6 1.51 4.52
topography Ridge 30 22.6 0.35 1.42
Flat 13 9.8 -0.35 0.7
Direction North 19 14.3 2.38 3.17
Northeast 53 39.8 3.51 33.47
East 21 15.8 1.59 4.89
Southeast 11 8.3 1.58 4.86
South 0 0 0 0
Southwesr 0 0 0 0
West 0 0 0 0
Northwest 29 21.8 2.8 16.43
Elevation 200 ~ 500 68 51.1 -0.41 0.67
(m) 500.1 ~ 800 30 22.6 0.53 1.7
800.1 ~ 1100 24 18 1.53 4.6
1100.1 ~ 1400 3 2.3 -1.53 0.22
1400.1 ~ 1700 0 0 0 0
1700.1 ~ 2100 0 0 0 0

Table 5.12 Coefficient values and influence ratio of the logistic regression of interaction term
when combined with other item and categories
Item Category Slope Failure Coefficient Influence
Number Percentage value value
Lithology Sed. rocks 87 65.4 2.82 16.82
Lit. dep. rocks 46 34.6 2.04 7.69
Igneous rocks 0 0 0 0
Meta. Rocks 0 0 0 0
Vol. rocks 0 0 0 0
Inclination 6 ~ 12 19 14.2 -1.68 0.19
o
Angle ( ) 12.1 ~ 18 42 31.6 -0.83 0.44
18.1 ~ 24 34 25.6 -0.68 0.51
24.1 ~ 30 18 13.5 0.99 2.69
30.1 ~ 36 17 12.8 2.62 13.76
36.1 ~ 42 3 2.3 0 0
42.1 ~ 48 0 0 0 0

93
Table 5.12 (continued…)
Item Category Slope Failure Coefficient Influence
Number Percentage value value
Vegeatation High tree 0 0 0 0
Low tree 10 7.5 -2.1 0.12
Grassland 50 37.6 4.39 80.33
No vegetation 73 54.9 6 404.67
Landscape Valley 90 67.6 1.67 5.29
topography Ridge 30 22.6 1.37 3.92
Flat 13 9.8 0.01 1.01
Direction North 19 14.3 2.42 11.2
Northeast 53 39.8 3.85 47
East 21 15.8 1.8 6.04
Southeast 11 8.3 1.85 6.36
South 0 0 0 0
Southwesr 0 0 0 0
West 0 0 0 0
Northwest 29 21.8 3.38 29.41
Elevation 200 ~ 500 68 51.1 1.69 5.42
(m) 500.1 ~ 800 30 22.6 .1.53 4.62
800.1 ~ 1100 24 18 2.11 8.22
1100.1 ~ 1400 3 2.3 0 0
1400.1 ~ 1700 0 0 0 0
1700.1 ~ 2100 0 0 0 0

From the analysis result (Table 5.11), the regression coefficients of the vegetation item
and category of no vegetation or bare land are 3.83, which is the highest among all items and
category. This variable most contributes and affecting to slope failures; the influence ratio of
slope failure against unfailure slope is 46 times when this category is present and other items
and category are controlled.
The coefficient of the elevation item and category of elevation 1100m ~ 1400m is 3.77
which is the second highest, with an influence ratio of 44. And the next most category is
inclination angle 36 o ~ 42 o , grassland, northwest, inclination angle of slope are 30 o ~ 36 o ,
sedimentary rocks, east –southeast - facing of slopes, elevation 800m ~ 1100m and valley
side of slopes ( Figure 5.10).

94
The next is the interaction term when combined with other variables controlled by this
analysis, the regression coefficient and influence ratio of most of the item and category
gradually increases 1 to 4 times an individual variables (Table 5.12 and Figure 5.11).
Based on the logistic regression analysis result and slope failure distribution analysis in
Cailaco site, vegetation, direction, inclination angle of slope, lithology and landscape
topography of slope are more important than slope elevation.

120

100
Influence ratio

80
Cailaco site
60

40

20

0
Northwest

Sedimetary
Northeast
Bare land

Grassland

angle_30~36

Elev.800~1100
East

Southeast

Valley
Inclination

rocks

Cate gory

Fig. 5.10 Ranking of the top ten significant item and category based on influence ratio

95
450
Cailaco site
400
350
Influence ratio

300
250
200 No interaction

150 Interaction with each item and


category
100
50
0
Northwest

Sedimetary
Northeast

East

Southeast
Bare land

Grassland

angle_30~36

Elev.800~1100

Valley
Inclination

rocks

Category

Figure 5.11 The top ten ranking of interaction term when combined with
other variables based on the influence ratio

Vegetation variables were used in this analysis and shown significance, as the vegetation
used in this study might be different from that of the time the slope failure has occurred, the
interpretation of the importance of the vegetation cover may vary over time, but in actual
condition in Cailaco site, most of slope failure occurred are covered by bare land and
grassland. However, when heavy rainfall infiltrates in to the soil slope, it will clearly increase
the moisture content of the soil above the phreatic surface, but as the water flows downward,
it may also result in a rise in the position of the phreatic surface. Such a rise could be the
caused of slope failure.
The direction of slope has the potential to influences its physical properties and it
susceptibility to failure. The process that may be operating including to sunlight, drying
winds and possibly rainfall. The distribution of aspect among the mapped and the
significance analysis shows that the frequency of slope failure was highest on northeast and

96
northwest facing slopes, indicating that natural terrain landslide is more common on these
slopes. The frequency of slope failure was lowest on those slopes facing south, while the
frequency of slope failure remained moderate on the East and east -facing slopes. From the
air photograph interpretation shows that this may be attributed to fact that there is more
vegetation cover on south – west and southwest facing slopes.
In this site, slope inclination angle is an important variable of slope failure and show
significance. Inclination angle is an essential component of slope stability analysis. As slope
inclination angle increases, the level of gravitation-induced shear stress in the residual soils
increases as well. It can be seen that examination of the distribution of number of slope
failure with corresponding slope inclination angle in Cailaco site shows that most of slope
failures occurred with inclination angle ranges increase in the 120 – 300 and gradually
decrease in the ranges 60 – 120 and 300 – 420.
Landscape topography is one of the important variables affecting to slope failure.
Landscape of soil mantled ridge and valley topography, shallow landslides typically only
involve the soil mantle and commonly occur at or near the soil-bedrock boundary. These
landslides may mobilize and travel a short distance down slope before coming to rest either
still on the hillside. The analysis result shows that emerges from this work on topography
landslides shows that surface topography has a great bearing on the location and frequency of
shallow landslide. Importantly, it is not just the local slope that matters, but also the curvature
of the topography and how it focuses or spreads runoff down slope. A physically, that
quantifies the influence of surface topography on pore pressure in a shallow slope stability
model may effectively capture the essential linkage between topography and slope failure.
Based on the logistic regression analysis result and slope failure distribution analysis in
this area, vegetation, lithology, landscape topography of slope and elevation are more
important than elevation and inclination angle of slope failure.
From the Figure 5.4 is the histogram to predict the probabilities of slope failures affected
by independent variables are used in this analysis. Theoretically, if we have an analysis
model that successfully distinguishes the two independent variables on a classification cutoff
value of 0.5, the cases for which slope failure has occurred should be to the right of 0.5,
whereas the cases for which slope failure has not occurred should be to the left of 0.5

97
(Figure 5.12). A fivefold classification scheme, ranging from very high probabilities of slope
failure, to very low, was employed for the predicted probabilities of occurrence. It should be
noted that the complexity of the failure processes means that any evaluation of stability
contains a considerable amount of uncertainty. The use of predicted probability of slope
failure in this study is limited and is not suitable for site specific evaluation. The reliability of
the assessment result depends on a multitude of factors ranging from the quality of the data
base, the introduction of potential errors associated with data entry to the limitations and
assumptions inherent in the statistical techniques ( Rowbotham and Dudycha 1998).
The ranges individual classes presented in Table 5.4 were derived based on the histogram
of the estimated of probabilities of slope failure shown in Table 5.13 and Figure 5.13. Zones
classified for predicting of slope failure in Cailaco site as being of “very high probabilities”,
accounting for 80% of this study area and exhibit a strongly clustered pattern of spatial
distribution and cover by grassland and bare land. This category is distinguished from the
“high” category by relatively high elevations and steeper terrain. Most of the locations of
identified slope failure actually occurred within this class. The” high probabilities class”,
occupies 10% of the study area, is mainly distributed in the middle section of slopes and
bears a high potential for slope failure occurrence. The zone of moderate class covers 10% of
the study are, and are featured by lower sections of slopes and ridges.

98
R 60 ô0 1ô
E ó0 1ó
Q ó0 1ó
U ó0 1ó
E 40 ô0 1ô
N ó0 1ó
C ó0 1ó
Y ó0 1ó
20 ô0 1ô
ó0 1ó
ó0 0 0 0 11 1ó
ó0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 101 1011 111ó
Predicted òòòòòòòòòòòòòòôòòòòòòòòòòòòòòôòòòòòòòòòòòòòòôòòòòòòòòòòòòòòò
Prob: 0 .25 .5 .75 1
Group: 000000000000000000000000000000111111111111111111111111111111
Unfailure Failure
Predicted Probability is of Membership for 1.00
The Cut Value is .50
Symbols: 0 - .00
1 - 1.00
Each Symbol Represents 5 Cases.

Figure 5.12 Observed groups and predicted probabilities (Logistic regression analysis)

Table 5.13 Predicting for probability of slope failure in Cailaco Site


Failure Unfailure
Probability ranges Number Percentage Number Percentage
0 ~ 0.10 0 0 60 48
0.11 ~ 0.20 0 0 20 16
0.21 ~ 0.30 0 0 10 8
0.31 ~ 0.40 5 4 5 4
0.41 ~ 0.50 5 4 5 4
0.51 ~ 0.60 5 4 5 4
0.61 ~ 0.70 5 4 5 4
0.71 ~ 0.80 10 8 5 4
0.81 ~ 0.90 25 20 5 4
0.19 ~ 1.00 70 56 5 4

99
Cailaco site

0.9~1
Probabilities of occurrence

0.8~0.9
0.7~0.8
0.6~0.7
0.5~0.6 Failured
Unfailred
0.4~0.5
0.3~0.4
0.2~0.3
0.1~0.2
0~0.1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of occurrences

Figure 5.13 Histogram of the predicted probabilities of slope failure

5.3.3 Zumalai Site


Logistic regression analyses of Zumalai site are shows in Table 5.14 and Table 5.15. It
can be seen that the model analysis produce a concordance rate of 84.7% with the use of 0.5
as a classification cutoff value. By examining this result to predict probabilities of slope
failure affecting by the independent variables, we can see what a different classification rule
should be adopted when applying the model analysis to each factor in the study site and
obtain the regression model composed of significant variables.

Table 5.14 Classification table of the cut value 0.50 in Zumalai site
Predicted
Observed Status of Slope Percentage
Unfailure Failure Correct
Status of Unfailure 66 9 88.0
Step slope Failure 14 61 81.3
Overall Percentage 84.7

100
Table 5.15 Coefficient values and influence ratio of logistic regression of each item and
category
Item Category Slope Failure Coefficient Influence
Number Percentage value ratio
Lithology Sed. rocks 57 76 3.15 23.22
Lit. dep. rocks 18 24 0.32 1.38
Igneous rocks 0 0 0 0
Meta. Rocks 0 0 0 0
Vol. rocks 0 0 0 0
Inclination 6 ~ 12 5 6.7 -0.53 0.59
o
Angle ( ) 12.1 ~ 18 26 34.7 0.73 2.08
18.1 ~ 24 17 22.6 0.46 1.55
24.1 ~ 30 5 6.7 0.51 1.67
30.1 ~ 36 12 16 3.18 24
36.1 ~ 42 9 12 2.2 9
42.1 ~ 48 1 1.3 0.53 1.7
Vegeatation High tree 7 9.3 -1.15 0.32
Low tree 33 44 1.15 3.14
Grassland 20 26.7 1.08 2.96
No vegetation 15 20 2.18 8.86
Landscape Valley 52 69.3 2.82 16.83
topography Ridge 20 26.7 1.32 3.73
Flat 3 4 -1.32 0.27
Direction North 4 5.3 3.58 36
Northeast 28 37.3 3.92 50.4
East 5 6.7 1.32 3.75
Southeast 11 14.7 2 7.36
South 0 0 -2.2 0.11
Southwesr 17 22.7 2.09 8.05
West 3 4 2.2 9
Northwest 7 9.3 2.35 10.5
Elevation 200 ~ 500 39 52 1.61 3.19
(m) 500.1 ~ 800 36 48 0.67 1.96
800.1 ~ 1100 0 0 0 0
1100.1 ~ 1400 0 0 0 0
1400.1 ~ 1700 0 0 0 0
1700.1 ~ 2100 0 0 0 0

101
Table 5.16 Coefficient values and influence ratio of the logistic regression of interaction term
when combined with other item and categories in Zumalai site

Item Category Slope Failure Coefficient Influence


Number Percentage value ratio
Lithology Sed. rocks 57 76 3.93 50.69
Lit. dep. rocks 18 24 1.26 3.51
Igneous rocks 0 0 0 0
Meta. Rocks 0 0 0 0
Vol. rocks 0 0 0 0
Inclination 6 ~ 12 5 6.7 60.02 1.02
o
Angle ( ) 12.1 ~ 18 26 34.7 1.41 4.11
18.1 ~ 24 17 22.6 0.78 2.19
24.1 ~ 30 5 6.7 0.98 2.67
30.1 ~ 36 12 16 3.85 46.87
36.1 ~ 42 9 12 2.87 17.62
42.1 ~ 48 1 1.3 0 0
Vegeatation High tree 7 9.3 -1.26 0.29
Low tree 33 44 1.16 3.19
Grassland 20 26.7 2.53 15.52
No vegetation 15 20 3.18 23.99
Landscape Valley 52 69.3 3.91 49.68
topography Ridge 20 26.7 2.73 15.25
Flat 3 4 -2.73 0.07
Direction North 4 5.3 3.71 40.86
Northeast 28 37.3 4.19 65.72
East 5 6.7 2.72 15.24
Southeast 11 14.7 2.49 12.06
South 0 0 0 0
Southwesr 17 22.7 2.95 19.01
West 3 4 3.14 23.02
Northwest 7 9.3 4.42 83.15
Elevation 200 ~ 500 39 52 2.68 14.54
(m) 500.1 ~ 800 36 48 1.81 6.11
800.1 ~ 1100 0 0 0 0
1100.1 ~ 1400 0 0 0 0
1400.1 ~ 1700 0 0 0 0
1700.1 ~ 2100 0 0 0 0

102
From the analysis result (Table 5.15), the regression coefficients of the direction item and
category of northeast are 3.92, this is the highest among all items and category. This variable
most contributes and affecting to slope failures; the influence ratio of slope failure against
unfailure slope is 50 times when this variable is present and other items and category are
controlled. The coefficient of the direction item and category of no north is 3.58 which is the
second highest, with an influence ratio of 36. And the next most important categories are
inclination angle of slope are 30 o ~ 36 o , sedimentary rocks, south, valley, northwest, bare
land, southwest, southeast and ridge side of slope (Figure 5.14).
The next is the interaction term when combined with other variables controlled by this
analysis, the regression coefficient and influence ratio of most of the item and category
gradually increases 1 to 4 times an individual variables (Table 5.16 and Figure 5.15).
Based on the logistic regression analysis result and slope failure distribution analysis in
Zumalai area, direction, inclination angle of slope, lithology, vegetation and landscape
topography of slope are more important than slope elevation.

60

50
Zumalai site
Influence ratio

40

30

20

10

0
North

angle_30~36

Bare land

Ridge
Sedimetary

Valley

Southwest

Southeast
Northeast

Northwest
Inclination

rocks

Cate gory

Fig. 5.14 Ranking of the top ten significant item and category based on influence

103
Zumalai site
No interaction Interaction with each item and category
90
80
70
influence ratio

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
North

angle_30~36

Bare land

Ridge
Northeast

Northwest

Southwest

Southeast
Sedimetary

Valley
Inclination

rocks

Category

Figure 5.15 The top ten ranking of interaction term when combined with other variables
based on the influence ratio
The direction of slope has the potential to influences its physical properties and it
susceptibility to failure. The process that may be operating including to sunlight, drying
winds and possibly rainfall. The distribution of aspect among the mapped and the
significance analysis shows that the frequency of slope failure was highest on northeast and
southwest facing slopes, indicating that natural terrain landslide is more common on these
slopes. The frequency of slope failure was lowest on those slopes facing north-east-west-
northwest, while the frequency of slope failure remained moderate on the southeast -facing
slopes. From the air photograph interpretation shows that this may be attributed to fact that
there is more vegetation cover on north – east - west – south and west facing slopes.
In this site, slope inclination angle is important variable slope failure and show
significance. Inclination angle is an essential component of slope stability analysis. As slope
inclination angle increases, the level of gravitation-induced shear stress in the residual soils
increases as well. It can be seen that examination of the distribution of number of slope
failure with corresponding slope inclination angle in Zumalai site shows that most of slope

104
failures occurred with inclination angle ranges increase in the 12 o – 24 o and gradually
decrease in the ranges 6 o – 12 o and 24 o – 48 o .
Landscape topography is one of the important variables affecting to slope failure.
Landscape of soil mantled ridge and valley topography, shallow landslides typically only
involve the soil mantle and commonly occur at or near the soil-bedrock boundary. These
landslides may mobilize and travel a short distance down slope before coming to rest either
still on the hillside. The analysis result shows that emerges from this work on topography
landslides shows that surface topography has a great bearing on the location and frequency of
shallow landslide. Importantly, it is not just the local slope that matters, but also the curvature
of the topography and how it focuses or spreads runoff down slope. A physically, that
quantifies the influence of surface topography on pore pressure in a shallow slope stability
model may effectively capture the essential linkage between topography and slope failure.
Geology features are most important variable in this study site, distribution of
sedimentary rocks, surface materials, and the difference between surface aspect and dip
direction of bedding are more important than elevation and difference between slope and
inclination angle in controlling slope stability. Most slope failure occurred in study area
where the factors representing the terrain aspect nearly parallel to the dip direction of the
bedrock coexists with other influential conditions including the littoral deposit bedrock thin
till or other unconsolidated material, steep slope and elevation from 200m to 800 m.
It should be note that thin colluvium or residual soil in steep terrain, which is most
susceptible to slope failure, is not fully reflected in the geological map by lithological
characteristics of underlying bedrock. Structural information is also available from digital
geological maps. However, qualitative examination of spatial distributions suggests that the
correlation between slope failure and mapped linier structural feature at the 1:350,000- scale
is not good, and the structural information is, thus, excluded in this study.
Based on the logistic regression analysis result and slope failure distribution analysis in
that area, vegetation, lithology, landscape topography of slope and elevation are more
important than elevation and inclination angle of slope failure.
From the Figure 5.4 is the histogram to predict the probabilities of slope failures affected
by independent variables are used in this analysis. Theoretically, if we have an analysis

105
model that successfully distinguishes the two independent variables on a classification cutoff
value of 0.5, the cases for which slope failure has occurred should be to the right of 0.5,
whereas the cases for which slope failure has not occurred should be to the left of 0.5(Figure
5.16). A fivefold classification scheme, ranging from very high probabilities of slope failure,
to very low, was employed for the predicted probabilities of occurrence. It should be noted
that the complexity of the failure processes means that any evaluation of stability contains a
considerable amount of uncertainty. The use of predicted probability of slope failure in this
study is limited and is not suitable for site specific evaluation (Figure 5.3). The reliability of
the assessment result depends on a multitude of factors ranging from the quality of the data
base, the introduction of potential errors associated with data entry to the limitations and
assumptions inherent in the statistical techniques ( Rowbotham and Dudycha 1998).
The ranges individual classes presented in Table 5.4 were derived based on the histogram
of the estimated of probabilities of slope failure occurrence shown in Table 5.17 and Figure
5.17. Zones classified for predicting of slope failure in this study site as being of “very high
probabilities”, accounting for 75% of this study area and exhibit a strongly clustered pattern
of spatial distribution and cover by grassland and bare land. This category is distinguished
from the “high” category by relatively high elevations and steeper terrain. Most of the
locations of identified slope failure actually occurred within this class. The” high
probabilities class”, occupies 11.50% of the study area, is mainly distributed in the middle
section of slopes and bears a high potential for slope failure. The zone of moderate class
covers 7.5% of the study are, and are featured by lower sections of slopes and ridges. And
finally, zone of “very low” covering 5% of total study area are distributed on high mountains
that are characterized by relatively gentle gradient of slope. All these sites are highly table
and are not favorable to development of slope failure.

106
F ó ó
R 24 ô ô
E ó ó
Q ó ó
U ó 00 ó
E 16 ô 00 ô
N ó 00 ó
C ó 00 11 ó
Y ó 00 11 ó
8 ô 00 11 ô
ó 00 00 11 11 ó
ó 00 001 00 1 1 1111 1111 ó
ó 00 000 10 100 10 10 10 110 1111 1111 ó
Predicted òòòòòòòòòòòòòòôòòòòòòòòòòòòòòôòòòòòòòòòòòòòòôòòòòòòòòòòòòòòò
Prob: 0 .25 .5 .75 1
Group: 000000000000000000000000000000111111111111111111111111111111
Unfailure Failure
Predicted Probability is of Membership for 1.00
The Cut Value is .50
Symbols: 0 - .00
1 - 1.00
Each Symbol Represents 2 Cases.

Figure 5.16 Observed Groups and Predicted Probabilities (Logistic regression analysis)

Table 5.17. Predicting for probability of slope failure in Zumalai Site


Failure Unfailure
Probability ranges Number Percentage Number Percentage
0 ~ 0.10 0 0 36 52
0.11 ~ 0.20 2 3 14 21
0.21 ~ 0.30 2 3 6 9
0.31 ~ 0.40 2 3 4 6
0.41 ~ 0.50 2 3 2 3
0.51 ~ 0.60 2 3 2 3
0.61 ~ 0.70 4 6 2 3
0.71 ~ 0.80 6 8 2 3
0.81 ~ 0.90 20 28 0 0
0.19 ~ 1.00 32 43 0 0
Total 72 100 60 100

107
Zumalai site

0.9~1
Probabilities of occurrence

0.8~0.9
0.7~0.8
0.6~0.7 Failured
0.5~0.6 Unfailred
0.4~0.5
0.3~0.4
0.2~0.3
0.1~0.2
0~0.1

0 20 40 60
Pe rce ntage of occurrences

Figure 5.17 Histogram of predicted probabilities of slope failure

108
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE SUBJECT
6.1 Conclusions
By studying and analysis on the causal factors affecting for slope failure in East
Timor, this study is contributed to the restricted knowledge on slope failure in East Timor.
Type of slope failure in East Timor dominantly by landslide and surface failure, and the
actual condition and characteristics of slope failure were investigated based on analysis of
aerial photograph and topography map. After a brief introduction of the study area and
knowing the actual condition and characteristics of slope failure, and determine the
factors influencing slope failure in East Timor by logistic regression analysis, the
following conclusions can be obtained:
• Types of slope failure occurred in East Timor dominantly by landslide 56% with
density 0.24 Number/km2 ,surface failure are 37% with density 0.16 Number/km2
and mix of landslide and surface failure are 7% with density 0.06 Number/km2.
• Distribution of slope failure in study area relatively highest density in sedimentary
rocks and littoral deposit rocks and lowest in igneous rocks, metamorphic rocks and
volcanic rocks.
• Most of slope failure occurred on bare land and grassland in highest and lowest on
woodland and scrubland.
• The direction of slope failure was highest on northeast – northwest and north – facing
slopes, the frequency of slope failure was lowest on those slopes facing south and
west, while the frequency of slope failure remained moderate on the East – southeast
and southwest-facing slopes.
• Most slope failures occurred with inclination angle ranges increase in the 12o – 36o
and gradually decrease in the ranges 6o – 12o and 36o – 48o.
• Based on the multivariate statistical analysis results and the observed distribution of
slope failure in those study sites, vegetation, lithology, landscape topography, slope
inclination angle, slope direction, and elevation were found to be the most important
factors affecting to the of slope failure in mountainous study area.

109
• By logistic regression analysis, the interaction term were introduce, the proportion of
the observed all items and category predicted as high influence ratio increased by 1 to
4 times of individual category.
• Zone classified for predicting probability of slope failure in East Timor as being of
“very high probabilities” occupies 8.6% of study site, The “high probabilities”
occupies 73.7 %, “moderate class “ occupies 12.2%, “low probabilities” occupies 4%,
and very low probabilities occupies 1.5% of the study site.

6.2 Future Subject


To predicted probability of slope failure in East Timor is limited and is not suitable
for site specific evaluation. The reliability of the analysis result depends on a multitude of
factors ranging from the quality of the data base, the introduction of potential errors
associated with data entry to the limitations and assumptions inherent in the statistical
techniques.
In this study, a particular problem with uncertainty is that the 1:15,000-scale
topographic condition cannot fully reflect the micro-topography conditions prerequisite
for the slope failure because slope failure in the study area is characterized by small and
bigger volumes that a slight change in micro-scale landform may have a strong influence
on the slope failure.
Another problem is the 1:350,000-scale geological map used in this study cannot
fully reflect the distribution of residual soils that are of critical significance to the slope
failure.
Intensity of rainfall with a failure time are most important data to analyst of slope
failure hazard but unfortunately at this time it is difficult to find out in East Timor,
However, it difficult to assess whether climate is changing related to the environmental
hazard like slope failure in East Timor. Therefore, for further study on investigation and
analyzing of slope failure in East Timor, those data has to be considered.

110
REFERENCES

Anbalagan D. (1992): Landslide hazard evaluation and zonation mapping in mountainous


terrain. Eng. Geol 32 : 269–277

Atkinson P.M., Massari R., (1998): Generalized linear modeling of landslide susceptibility in
the Central Apennines, Italy. Comput Geosci 24(4):373–385

Baeza C., Corominas J., (2001): Assessment of shallow landslide susceptibility by means of
multivariate statistical techniques. Earth Surf Process Landf 26:1251–1263

Bouma G., and Kobryn, H.,(2004):Vegetation covers change in East Timor, 1989-1999,
Natural Resources Forum, in press.

Brahmana, Radja Karina and Emanuel, Ulu., 1996: The book of 20 years of Development of East
Timor,Corps of the Indonesian Civil Service East Timor Province, Dili, East Timor

Carrara A., Cardinali M., Detti R., Guzzetti F., Pasqui V.,Reichenbach P., (1991): GIS
Techniques and statistical models in evaluating landslide hazard. Earth Surf Proc Landforms
16: 427–445

Carrara A., Cardinali, M., Guzzetti, F., Reichenbach, P., (1995):GIS technology in mapping
landslide hazard. In: Carrara, A., Guzzetti, F. (Eds.), Geographical Information Systems in
Assessing Natural Hazards. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, pp. 135–175.

Carrara A., Guzzetti F., Cardinali M., and Reichenbach P., (1999): Use of GIS technology in
the prediction and monitoring of landslide hazard; Natural Hazards 20 117 – 135.

Chung C.F., Fabbri A.G (1995) :Multivariate regression analysis for landslide hazard
zonation. In: Carrara A, Guzzetti F (eds) Geographical information systems in assessing
natural hazards. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 107–133

Chung CF, Fabbri AG (2003) :Validation of spatial prediction models for landslide hazard
mapping. Nat Hazards 30:451–472

Clerici A, Perego S, Tellini C, Vescovi P (2002) :A procedure for landslide susceptibility


zonation: by the conditional analysis method. Geomorphology 48:349–364

Cruden D.M., (1984),: A simple definition of a landslide. Bulletin international association


for engineering geology, 43,27-29.

Dai FC., Lee CF., Li J., Xu ZW., (2001) :Assessment of landslide susceptibility on the
natural terrain of Lantau Island, Hong Kong. Environmental Geology 40:381–391

111
Dai, F.c., Lee, C.F., (2002), Landslide characteristics and slope instability modeling use GIS
Lantau Island, Hong Kong, Geomorphology 42, 213 - 238

DeGraff, J., Romesburg, H., (1980). Regional landslide-susceptibility assessment for


wildland management: a matrix approach. In: Coates, D., Vitek, J. (Eds.), Thresholds in
Geomorphology. George Allen and Unwin, London, pp. 401–414.

Dolcemascolo, G., (2003). ‘Climate Risk and Agriculture in Timor Loro’Sae’, paper
presented at Seminar on Climate Change and Severe Weather Events in Asia and the
Caribbean, Barbados, July 24-25.

Donati L., Turrini M.C., (2002): An objective method to rank the importance of the factors
predisposing to landslides with the GIS methodology, application to an area of the Apennines
(Valnerina; Perugia, Italy). Eng Geol 63:277–289

Ercanoglu M, Gokceoglu C (2002):Assessment of landslide susceptibility for a


landslideprone Area (north of Yenice, NW Turkey) by fuzzy approach. Environ Geol 41:
720–730

Faculdade de Arquitectura (Universidade Técnica de Lisboa), and GERTIL (Grupo de


Estudos de Reconstrução de Timor Leste). (2002). Atlas de Timor Leste. LIDEL, Lisboa.

Greenbaum, D., Tutton, M., Bowker, M., Browne, T., Buleka, J., Greally, K., Kuna, G.,
McDonald, A., Marsh, S., O’Connor, E., Tragheim, D., (1995): Rapid Methods of landslide
Hazard Mapping: Papua New Guinea Case Study. British Geological Survey. Technical
Report WC/95/27.

Gokceoglu C, Sonmez H, Ercanoglu M (2000): Discontinuity controlled probabilistic slope


failure risk maps of the Altindag (settlement) region in Turkey. Eng. Geol. 55:277–296

Guzzetti F, Carrarra A, Cardinali M, Reichenbach P (1999): Landslide hazard evaluation: a


review of current techniques and their application in a multi-scale study, Central
Italy. Geomorphology 31:181–216

Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (2000) :Applied logistic regression. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 375
pp

Jibson WR, Edwin LH, John AM (2000): A method for producing digital probabilistic
seismic landslide hazard maps. Eng Geol 58:271–289

Jordan, C., O’Connor, E., Marchant, A., Northmore, A., Greenbaum, D., McDonald, A.,
Kovacik, M., Ahmed, R., (2000):Rapid landslide susceptibility mapping using remote
sensing and GIS modelling. Proc. 14th International Conference on Applied Geologic
Remote Sensing, Las Vegas, pp. 113–120.

112
Joseph, F., et all, (2006):Multivariate data analysis, Prentice hall, New Jersey, USA.

Kantor Statistik(1989): Timor Timur dalam angka. The LandSat-based study is RePPProt:
Review of Phase 1 results: Maluku and Nusa Tenggara, Volume 1: Main report (Jakarta:
Ministry of Transmigration, Directorate General of Settlement Preparation and Land
Resources Department, ODNRI and ODA.

Keefer, G. (2000): Report on the Restoration of Meteorological Network – Timor Loro’Sae.


Report II,pp 110-111, United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor, Dili

Kleinbaum DG (1994) :Logistic regression-a self-learning text. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg


New York.

Lamb, P.C., (1996): Residual soils. In: Turner, A.K., Schuster, R.L. (Eds.), Landslides:
Investigation and Mitigation, Special Report, vol. 247. National Academic Press,
Washington, DC, pp. 507– 524.

Lee, S., Min, K., (2001): Statistical analysis of landslide susceptibility at Yongin, Korea.
Environ. Geol. 40:1095–1113

Lee S, Chwae U, Min K (2002a): Landslide susceptibility mapping by correlation between


topography and geological structure: the Janghung area, Korea. Geomorphology 46:149–
162

Lee S, Choi J, Min K (2002b) :Landslide susceptibility analysis and verification using the
Bayesian probability model. Environ Geol 43:120–131

Lee S, Choi U (2003c): Development of GIS-based geological hazard information system


and its application for landslide analysis in Korea. Geosci J 7:243–252

Lee S, Ryu JH, Won JS, Park HJ (2004a) :Determination and application of the weights for
landslide susceptibility mapping: using an artificial neural network. Eng Geol 71:
289–302

Lee S, Choi J, Min K (2004b): Probabilistic landslide hazard mapping using GIS and
remote sensing data at Boun, Korea. Intl J Remote Sens 25:2037–2052

Lineback, M., Andrew,W., Aspinall, R., Custer, S., (2001): Assessing landslide potential
using GIS, soil wetness modelling and topographic attributes, Payette River, Idaho.
Geomorphology 37, 149– 165.

Liu J G, Mason P J, Clerici N, Chen S A, Davis A, Miao F, Deng H and Liang L (2004):
Landslide hazard assessment in the Three Gorges area of the Yangtze River using ASTER
imagery: Zigui–Badong; Geomorphology 61: 171 – 187.

113
Lulseged, A., Yamagishi, H., (2005): The application of GIS – based on logistic regression
for landslide susceptibility mapping in Kakuda-Yahiko Mountains, Central Japan,
Geomorphology vol. 65, pp. 15 – 31

Luzi L, Pergalani F, Terlien MTJ (2000): Slope vulnerability to earthquakes at sub regional
scale: using probabilistic techniques and geographic information systems. Eng Geol 58:313–
336

Mark RK, Ellen SD (1995) :Statistical and simulation models for mapping debris flow
hazard. In: Carrara A, Guzzetti F (eds) Geographical information systems in assessing
natural hazards. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 93–106

Marston, R., Miller, M., Devkota, L., 1998: Geoecology and mass movements in the Manaslu
Ganesh and Langtang-Jural Himals, Nepal. Geomorphology 26, 139– 150

Metzner, Joachim K. 1977. Man and Environment in Eastern Timor. 1977. The
Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

Monk, K., & Yance de Fretes, G.R.-L. (1997). The Ecology of Nusa Tengara and Maluku., Oxford
University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Nagarajan R, Mukherjee A, Roy A and Khire M V (1998): Temporal remote sensing data
and GIS application in landslide hazard zonation of part of Western Ghat, India; Intern. J.
Remote Sensing 19(4) 573 – 585.

Niemann KO, Howes DE (1991) :Applicability of digital terrain models for slope stability
assessment. Int Inst Aerospace Survey Earth Sci J 1991–3 : 127–137

Ochoa, G., (1978):La influencia de la altitud sobre algunasn propiedades fı´sico-quı´micas


de los suelos de los Andes venezolanos. Revista Geogra´fica XVI–XIX, 56–72.

Ohlmacher, C.G., Davis, C.J., (2003):Using multiple regression and GIS technology to
predict landslide hazard in northeast Kansas, USA, Engineering Geology 69, 331 - 343

Pachauri AK, Pant M (1992) Landslide hazard mapping based on geological attributes. Eng
Geol 32: 81–100

Parise M, Jibson WR (2000): A seismic landslide susceptibility rating of geologic units


based on analysis of characteristics of landslides triggered by the 17 January, 1994
Northridge, California Earthquake. Eng Geol 58:251–270

Rautelal P, Lakhera RC (2000): Landslide risk analysis between Giri and Tons rivers in
Himachal Himalaya (India). International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and
Geoinformation 2:153–160

114
Rece A, Capolongo D (2002): Probabilistic modeling of uncertainties in earthquakeinduced
landslide hazard assessment. Comput Geosci 28:735–749

Remondo J, Gonzalez A, Diaz de Teran JR, Cendrero A, Fabbri AG, Chung CJF (2003):
Validation of landslide susceptibility maps: examples and applications from a case
study in Northern Spain. Nat Hazards 30:437–449

Richard Dikau, Denys runsden, Lothar Schrott and Maia-Laura Ibsen,(1996): Landslide
recognition,” identification, movement and Courses, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, West Sussex,
England.

Romeo R., (2000): Seismically induced landslide displacements: a predictive model. Eng
Geol 58:337–351

Rowbotham D, Dudycha DN (1998) GIS Modeling of slope stability in Phewa Tal


watershed, Nepal. Geomorphology 26:151–170

Saldanha, E. (1999): Developing natural resources in East Timor. (un pub.) Strategic Development
Planning for East Timor Conference, Melbourne 5-9 April 1999.

Sanyu Consultants.,(2001): The study on integrated agricultural development of East Timor:


Progress report (Dili: Japan International Cooperation Agency [JICA], East Timor
Transitional Administration [ETTA], UNTAET), pp. 3-35.

Shou KJ, Wang CF (2003): Analysis of the Chiufengershan landslide triggered by the
1999 Chi-Chi earthquake in Taiwan. Eng Geol 68:237–250

Temesgen B, Mohammed MU, Korme T (2001): Natural hazard assessment using GIS and
remote sensing methods, with particular reference to the landslides in the Wondogenet area,
Ethiopia. Phys Chem Earth 26:665–675

Van Westen C J, Seijmonsbergen A C and Mantovani F.,(1999): Comparing landslide


Hazard maps; Natural Hazards 20 137 – 158.

Varnes DJ(1984):”landslde hazard zonation”: a review of pricimples and practice, Natural


hazard no 3. UNESCO, Paris

Vivas, L., (1992) :Los Andes Venezolanos. Academia Nacional de la Historia, Caracas.

Wischmeier,W., Smith, D., (1978):Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses—A Guide to


Conservation Planning. U.S. Department of Agriculture Science and Education
Administration, Washington, DC.

Wu W, Sidle RC (1995) :A distributed slope stability model for steep forested basins. Water
Resources 31(8):2097–211

115
Zhou CH, Lee CF, Li J, Xu ZW (2002): On the spatial relationship between landslides and
causative factors on Lantau Island, Hong Kong. Geomorphology 43:197–207

Zhou G, Esaki T, Mitani Y, Xie M, Mori J (2003): Spatial probabilistic modeling of slope
failure using an integrated GIS Monte Carlo simulation approach. Eng Geol 68:
373–386

Zêzere J L, De Brum Ferreira A and Rodrigues M L (1999): The role of conditioning and
triggering factors in the occurrence of landslides: a case study in the area north of Lisbon
Portugal; Geomorphology 30 133 – 146.

116
Appendix A: Physical data of slope failure and unfailure slope
A.1 Physical data of slope failure
A.1.1 Bobonaro site
Number Width Length Elevation Height Inclination Direction Type of Lithology Vegetation Landscape
Min Max Mean Horizontal inclined Min Max Mean difference angle Slope **) Cover ***) Topography
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) Failure
*)
1 107 230 168 214 231 1138 1225 1181 88 22 NE LS SR HT RIDGE
2 46 77 61 230 239 510 578 544 68 16 NW LS SR NV RIDGE
3 77 77 77 92 94 856 875 866 19 12 E LS SR 1 VALLEY
4 107 199 153 490 507 750 880 815 130 15 N LS SR NV RIDGE
5 92 107 99 153 155 838 860 849 23 8 SE LS SR G RIDGE
6 107 168 138 306 315 800 875 838 75 14 SE LS SR NV VALLEY
7 168 168 168 306 340 850 998 924 148 26 N LS SR NV RIDGE
8 92 168 130 168 171 1000 1030 1015 30 10 NW LS SR NV RIDGE
9 92 153 122 138 146 975 1025 1000 50 20 NE LS SR G RIDGE
10 77 153 115 122 130 475 518 497 43 19 SE LS SR G VALLEY
11 122 230 176 61 62 500 513 506 13 12 SE LS SR G VALLEY
12 153 153 153 153 158 340 378 359 38 14 SE LS SR G RIDGE
13 46 77 61 77 84 550 585 568 35 25 N LS SR NV RIDGE
14 31 46 38 77 78 433 448 440 15 11 SE LS SR NV RIDGE
15 46 92 69 138 141 313 344 328 31 13 SE LS SR G RIDGE
16 46 46 46 92 93 563 575 569 13 8 N LS SR G VALLEY
17 61 61 61 77 85 538 575 556 38 26 NE LS IR NV FLAT
18 61 61 61 92 99 475 513 494 38 22 NE LS IR G FLAT
19 46 46 46 92 95 388 413 400 25 15 N LS IR G RIDGE
20 61 107 84 61 66 388 413 400 25 22 N LS IR NV RIDGE
21 46 122 84 153 165 406 469 438 63 22 N LS IR NV RIDGE
22 46 46 46 138 143 438 475 456 38 15 N LS IR NV RIDGE
23 61 77 69 138 146 363 413 388 50 20 SE LS SR G RIDGE
24 46 62 54 77 78 335 350 343 15 11 SE LS SR G RIDGE
25 46 46 46 77 82 290 319 304 29 21 SE LS SR G RIDGE
26 92 92 92 61 62 263 275 269 13 12 SE LS SR G FLAT
27 47 109 78 155 165 563 620 591 58 20 NE LS SR NV RIDGE
28 78 124 101 78 84 663 695 679 33 23 W LS SR NV VALLEY
29 233 233 233 31 33 400 413 406 13 22 W LS SR G VALLEY
30 153 184 168 77 82 675 705 690 30 21 SW LS SR LT VALLEY

117
Slope failure data of Bobonaro study site (continued)
31 31 61 46 184 192 663 720 691 58 17 N LS SR LT VALLEY
32 31 46 38 92 97 580 613 596 33 19 S LS SR G RIDGE
33 46 46 46 61 63 1219 1235 1227 16 15 SE LS SR LT RIDGE
34 31 31 31 61 62 1213 1225 1219 13 12 SE LS SR LT RIDGE
35 46 46 46 61 63 1125 1140 1133 15 14 SE LS SR HT RIDGE
36 31 61 46 92 96 530 558 544 28 17 NW LS SR LT RIDGE
37 62 62 62 31 33 428 438 433 10 18 W LS SR G VALLEY
38 93 124 109 93 97 413 440 426 28 16 W LS SR G RIDGE
39 31 31 31 47 48 438 450 444 13 15 W LS SR G RIDGE
40 31 61 46 92 96 530 558 544 28 17 NW LS SR LT RIDGE
41 47 62 54 31 33 405 415 410 10 18 W LS SR G VALLEY
42 47 62 54 47 52 415 438 426 23 26 W LS VR G VALLEY
43 46 46 46 122 134 395 450 423 55 24 NE LS VR NV RIDGE
44 46 46 46 61 66 438 463 450 25 22 NE LS VR NV RIDGE
45 109 140 124 93 99 588 620 604 33 19 SE LS VR LT RIDGE
46 47 47 47 124 134 713 763 738 50 22 SE LS VR NV VALLEY
47 78 155 116 78 79 723 740 731 18 13 SE LS VR G RIDGE
48 93 124 109 78 84 525 558 542 33 23 E LS IR NV VALLEY
49 46 46 46 122 134 395 450 423 55 24 NE LS IR NV RIDGE
50 46 46 46 61 66 438 463 450 25 22 NE LS IR NV RIDGE
51 61 61 61 46 47 635 644 639 9 11 S LS IR G RIDGE
52 31 47 39 124 128 495 525 510 30 14 SW LS SR G RIDGE
53 47 62 54 62 63 475 488 481 13 11 SW LS SR LT RIDGE
54 47 78 62 109 111 450 475 463 25 13 SW LS SR LT RIDGE
55 78 109 93 62 65 500 518 509 18 16 SW LS SR G VALLEY
56 47 109 78 132 134 567 590 579 23 10 SW LS SR NV VALLEY
57 62 109 85 155 158 550 582 566 32 12 SW LS SR NV VALLEY
58 47 78 62 47 48 525 538 531 13 15 SW LS SR NV VALLEY
59 62 109 85 124 128 535 565 550 30 14 SW LS SR NV VALLEY
60 78 109 93 54 56 485 500 493 15 15 SW LS SR LT RIDGE
61 155 155 155 62 63 375 388 381 13 11 SW LS SR NV RIDGE
62 47 47 47 93 96 470 495 483 25 15 NE LS IR NV RIDGE
63 31 31 31 93 99 463 495 479 33 19 NE LS IR G VALLEY
64 31 62 47 47 52 438 460 449 23 26 E LS IR G RIDGE
65 171 233 202 93 100 563 600 581 38 22 E LS SR NV RIDGE
66 77 77 77 31 33 450 463 456 13 22 S LS SR G RIDGE

118
Slope failure data of Bobonaro study site (continued)
67 124 124 124 155 165 705 763 734 58 20 E LS SR G RIDGE
68 124 155 140 62 67 550 575 563 25 22 NE LS SR G VALLEY
69 124 155 140 62 67 738 763 750 25 22 NE LS SR G RIDGE
70 78 124 101 93 96 725 750 738 25 15 N LS SR NV VALLEY
71 78 124 101 140 148 600 650 625 50 20 N LS SR G RIDGE
72 93 186 140 93 98 700 730 715 30 18 N LS SR NV RIDGE
73 31 31 31 109 111 515 538 526 23 12 NE LS SR G RIDGE
74 47 47 47 124 128 500 530 515 30 14 NE LS SR NV VALLEY
75 109 171 140 279 289 625 700 663 75 15 NE LS IR NV VALLEY
76 78 140 109 279 283 550 600 575 50 10 NE LS IR NV VALLEY
77 248 279 264 248 259 475 550 513 75 17 NE LS IR NV VALLEY
78 109 155 132 93 100 500 538 519 38 22 NE LS SR NV RIDGE
79 61 153 107 306 314 750 819 784 69 13 NE LS SR NV RIDGE
80 77 77 77 46 48 1025 1038 1031 13 15 N LS SR G RIDGE
81 77 77 77 61 62 575 588 581 13 12 S LS SR G RIDGE
82 77 92 84 46 48 550 563 556 13 15 S LS SR G RIDGE
83 31 46 38 92 95 500 525 513 25 15 N LS VR G RIDGE
84 46 46 46 92 95 488 513 500 25 15 N LS VR G VALLEY
85 77 77 77 138 149 444 500 472 56 22 N LS VR G FLAT
86 31 31 31 78 80 582 600 591 18 13 W LS VR LT RIDGE
87 93 124 109 54 56 813 825 819 13 13 NW LS VR LT RIDGE
88 264 310 287 279 286 688 750 719 63 13 E LS VR NV RIDGE
89 92 92 92 122 150 1525 1613 1569 88 36 NE SF VR HT FLAT
90 31 46 38 92 105 550 600 575 50 29 SE SF VR G RIDGE
91 46 77 61 153 165 1288 1350 1319 63 22 NE SF IR LT RIDGE
92 61 61 61 61 72 1150 1188 1169 38 31 SE SF IR HT VALLEY
93 77 77 77 46 54 698 725 711 28 31 NE SF IR G RIDGE
94 77 122 99 61 72 575 613 594 38 31 N SF IR LT RIDGE
95 92 92 92 61 72 875 913 894 38 31 N SF SR G RIDGE
96 31 47 39 47 53 400 425 413 25 28 W SF SR G VALLEY
97 31 62 47 47 53 400 425 413 25 28 W SF SR G RIDGE
98 47 62 54 62 72 575 613 594 38 31 E SF SR LT RIDGE
99 93 140 116 202 231 500 613 556 113 29 E SF SR NV RIDGE
100 78 124 101 186 224 550 675 613 125 34 E SF SR NV RIDGE
101 155 186 171 62 80 500 550 525 50 39 E SF SR G RIDGE
102 46 61 54 77 85 513 550 531 38 26 SW SF SR LT FLAT

119
Slope failure data of Bobonaro study site (continued)
103 109 186 147 124 145 600 675 638 75 31 NE SF SR NV RIDGE
104 77 153 115 77 85 388 425 406 38 26 NE SF SR NV RIDGE
105 93 140 116 93 107 563 615 589 53 29 NE SF SR LT VALLEY
106 31 62 47 93 112 700 763 731 63 34 NE SF SR NV VALLEY
107 46 61 54 77 85 513 550 531 38 26 SW SF SR LT FLAT
108 124 264 194 140 172 600 700 650 100 36 NW SF SR NV VALLEY
109 77 153 115 77 85 388 425 406 38 26 NE SF SR NV RIDGE
110 186 326 256 124 149 563 645 604 83 34 NE SF SR NV RIDGE
111 47 109 78 78 98 530 590 560 60 38 NE SF SR NV RIDGE
112 46 61 54 31 36 475 494 484 19 31 N SF SR G RIDGE
113 31 31 31 39 54 500 538 519 38 44 NE SF SR G VALLEY
114 124 202 163 93 112 388 450 419 63 34 NE SF SR NV VALLEY
115 31 31 31 31 34 425 440 433 15 26 N SF SR G FLAT
116 31 31 31 93 102 483 525 504 43 25 NE SF SR G RIDGE
117 78 109 93 186 206 425 513 469 88 25 NE SF SR NV VALLEY
118 62 78 70 62 77 830 875 853 45 36 NW SF SR G RIDGE
119 78 78 78 39 46 575 600 588 25 33 NE SF IR G RIDGE
120 45 45 45 61 68 860 892 876 32 28 NE SF IR HT VALLEY
121 77 107 92 77 88 838 880 859 43 29 N SF IR HT RIDGE
122 31 107 69 122 149 790 875 833 85 35 SE SF IR NV VALLEY
123 168 383 275 153 172 938 1015 976 78 27 N SF IR G RIDGE
124 77 122 99 122 137 863 925 894 63 27 N SF SR NV RIDGE
125 92 122 107 107 134 920 1000 960 80 37 N SF SR NV RIDGE
126 47 47 47 62 69 475 505 490 30 26 W SF SR G RIDGE
127 155 217 186 47 61 650 690 670 40 41 N SF SR NV VALLEY
128 124 186 155 78 100 588 650 619 63 39 NE SF SR NV VALLEY
129 47 62 54 78 87 600 640 620 40 27 NW SF SR G RIDGE
130 155 217 186 124 166 590 700 645 110 42 SW SF SR NV VALLEY
131 62 109 85 47 63 538 580 559 43 42 W SF SR G RIDGE
132 76 106 91 61 79 850 900 875 50 40 SW SF SR HT VALLEY
133 31 31 31 31 40 1025 1050 1038 25 39 N SF SR LT RIDGE
134 92 245 168 77 91 563 613 588 50 33 N SF SR G RIDGE
135 46 92 69 61 72 413 450 431 38 31 N SF SR G VALLEY
136 536 138 337 61 72 550 588 569 38 31 NE SF SR LT RIDGE
137 138 138 138 61 72 513 550 531 38 31 N SF SR G RIDGE
138 138 168 153 122 141 398 468 433 70 30 N SF SR NV RIDGE

120
Slope failure data of Bobonaro study site (continued)
139 31 61 46 61 71 403 438 420 35 30 N SF SR G RIDGE
140 92 138 115 61 77 438 485 461 48 38 N SF SR G RIDGE
141 46 46 46 92 105 488 538 513 50 29 N SF SR NV VALLEY
142 77 77 77 38 44 388 410 399 23 30 N SF VR G FLAT
143 61 77 69 107 127 400 469 434 69 33 SE SF VR G RIDGE
144 31 31 31 47 60 613 650 631 38 39 SW SF VR G RIDGE
145 202 248 225 62 72 875 913 894 38 31 NE SF VR G RIDGE
146 47 62 54 62 80 750 800 775 50 39 NE SF VR NV RIDGE
147 30 30 30 121 149 888 975 931 88 36 NE SF VR HT VALLEY
148 61 91 76 242 273 838 963 900 125 27 NE SF VR NV VALLEY
149 76 91 83 182 232 775 920 848 145 39 NE SF VR NV VALLEY
150 61 153 107 184 197 931 1003 967 71 21 NE MIX SR G RIDGE
151 31 31 31 23 26 1013 1025 1019 13 29 N MIX SR G RIDGE
152 62 78 70 155 172 425 500 463 75 26 NE MIX SR NV VALLEY
153 46 46 46 23 25 1050 1060 1055 10 24 N MIX SR LT RIDGE
154 233 264 248 186 211 750 850 800 100 28 NE MIX SR NV RIDGE
155 124 155 140 47 53 738 763 750 25 28 NE MIX SR NV RIDGE
156 109 109 109 23 26 588 600 594 13 28 NE MIX SR NV VALLEY
157 92 122 107 61 66 1100 1125 1113 25 22 NE MIX SR G RIDGE
158 153 46 99 61 67 518 544 531 26 23 SE MIX SR G VALLEY
159 46 61 54 46 52 425 450 438 25 29 N MIX SR G RIDGE
160 54 54 54 77 85 475 513 494 38 26 N MIX SR G RIDGE
161 61 77 69 46 51 463 485 474 23 26 N MIX SR NV VALLEY
162 61 61 61 77 83 494 525 509 31 22 N MIX SR G RIDGE
163 61 61 61 77 83 388 419 403 31 22 N MIX SR G VALLEY
164 61 61 61 46 50 406 425 416 19 22 N MIX SR G FLAT
165 46 46 46 77 85 363 400 381 38 26 SE MIX SR G RIDGE
166 47 78 62 93 101 465 505 485 40 23 SE MIX SR G RIDGE
167 31 31 31 78 81 650 675 663 25 18 SE MIX SR G RIDGE

*)Types of Slope Failure : - SF = Surface Failure; LS = Landslide, MIX = Landslide and Surface Failure
**) Lithology : - SR = Sedimentary rocks; LR = Littoral deposit rocks; IR = Igneous rocks, MR = Metamorphic rocks; VR = Volcanics rocks
***)Vegetation Cover : - HT =High tree; LT= Low Tree; G= Grass, NV=No Vegetation

121
A.1.2 Cailaco site

Number Width Length Elevation Height Inclination Direction Type of Lithology Vegetation Landscape
Min Max Mean Horizontal inclined Min Max Mean difference angle Slope **) Cover ***) of Slope
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) Failure*)
1 62 233 147 310 334 425 550 488 125 22 SE LS LR NV RIDGE
2 78 155 116 248 267 450 550 500 100 22 NE LS LR NV RIDGE
3 109 155 132 279 283 600 650 625 50 10 N LS LR NV RIDGE
4 47 78 62 62 67 625 650 638 25 22 SE LS LR NV VALLEY
5 109 171 140 124 133 663 710 686 48 21 SE LS LR NV VALLEY
6 78 78 78 47 48 650 663 656 13 15 NE LS LR NV RIDGE
7 62 62 62 39 44 655 675 665 20 27 NE LS SR G RIDGE
8 78 78 78 47 48 638 650 644 13 15 NE LS SR G VALLEY
9 78 186 132 372 392 363 488 425 125 19 NE LS SR NV VALLEY
10 62 62 62 47 48 400 413 406 13 15 NE LS SR G VALLEY
11 31 31 31 31 33 363 375 369 13 22 NE LS SR G VALLEY
12 47 78 62 140 144 325 363 344 38 15 NE LS SR NV VALLEY
13 62 93 78 124 130 350 388 369 38 17 E LS SR G VALLEY
14 124 140 132 62 67 250 275 263 25 22 E LS SR LT VALLEY
15 109 140 124 78 80 305 325 315 20 14 E LS SR NV VALLEY
16 155 202 178 93 96 310 335 323 25 15 E LS SR NV VALLEY
17 47 47 47 171 182 363 425 394 63 20 NE LS SR G VALLEY
18 47 78 62 155 167 438 500 469 63 22 NE LS SR G VALLEY
19 47 62 54 310 338 515 650 583 135 24 NE LS SR NV VALLEY
20 31 62 47 186 201 575 650 613 75 22 NE LS SR NV VALLEY
21 248 279 264 140 148 260 310 285 50 20 N LS SR G RIDGE
22 109 124 116 202 211 275 338 306 63 17 NE LS SR NV RIDGE
23 140 388 264 140 148 300 350 325 50 20 NW LS SR NV VALLEY
24 31 47 39 62 65 305 325 315 20 18 NW LS SR G VALLEY
25 31 62 47 155 159 315 350 333 35 13 N LS SR G VALLEY
26 93 171 132 434 441 345 425 385 80 10 N LS SR NV VALLEY
27 47 47 47 217 227 300 365 333 65 17 NW LS SR G RIDGE
28 31 62 47 217 233 315 400 358 85 21 NW LS SR LT VALLEY
29 47 93 70 341 350 325 405 365 80 13 NE LS LR G RIDGE
30 47 47 47 124 128 500 530 515 30 14 NE LS LR G RIDGE
31 47 62 54 101 112 750 800 775 50 26 E LS LR G RIDGE
32 47 78 62 217 226 738 800 769 63 16 N LS LR NV RIDGE

122
Slope failure data of Cailaco study site (continued)
33 47 78 62 78 80 20 14 N LS LR NV VALLEY
34 124 140 132 78 83 810 840 825 30 21 NE LS LR NV VALLEY
35 47 93 70 93 95 870 890 880 20 12 E LS LR NV VALLEY
36 109 140 124 326 331 838 895 866 58 10 E LS LR NV VALLEY
37 78 124 101 217 221 910 950 930 40 10 NW LS LR NV VALLEY
38 47 62 54 124 128 963 995 979 33 15 N LS LR NV RIDGE
39 140 155 147 31 33 1005 1015 1010 10 18 N LS LR NV RIDGE
40 47 109 78 93 96 920 945 933 25 15 E LS LR NV RIDGE
41 31 47 39 93 99 1045 1080 1063 35 21 NE LS LR NV VALLEY
42 31 62 47 124 134 925 975 950 50 22 NE LS LR G VALLEY
43 47 62 54 124 126 830 853 841 23 10 NE LS LR NV VALLEY
44 31 62 47 93 99 975 1010 993 35 21 E LS LR NV VALLEY
45 62 78 70 171 188 945 1025 985 80 25 NE LS LR NV VALLEY
46 62 202 132 93 101 850 890 870 40 23 NE LS LR NV VALLEY
47 78 171 124 186 191 785 830 808 45 14 NE LS LR NV VALLEY
48 31 109 70 124 128 245 275 260 30 14 NE LS LR NV VALLEY
49 62 93 78 109 110 235 250 243 15 8 NE LS LR NV VALLEY
50 186 248 217 93 101 300 340 320 40 23 NW LS LR G VALLEY
51 155 233 194 93 99 315 350 333 35 21 NW LS LR G VALLEY
52 47 47 47 124 130 360 400 380 40 18 NW LS LR G VALLEY
53 140 310 225 155 161 338 380 359 43 15 NW LS LR G VALLEY
54 31 47 39 140 143 380 413 396 33 13 NW LS SR NV VALLEY
55 31 31 31 93 96 375 400 388 25 15 NW LS SR NV VALLEY
56 78 186 132 341 345 390 440 415 50 8 N LS SR NV VALLEY
57 47 109 78 310 316 350 413 381 63 11 NW LS SR NV VALLEY
58 93 171 132 341 355 400 500 450 100 16 NW LS SR NV VALLEY
59 31 47 39 93 95 480 500 490 20 12 N LS SR G VALLEY
60 47 124 85 217 223 450 500 475 50 13 N LS SR NV VALLEY
61 93 186 140 434 452 500 625 563 125 16 N LS SR NV VALLEY
62 47 93 70 124 129 600 635 618 35 16 N LS SR NV VALLEY
63 93 186 140 155 159 525 560 543 35 13 N LS SR NV VALLEY
64 62 78 70 140 142 600 625 613 25 10 NE LS SR NV VALLEY
65 264 295 279 264 271 638 700 669 63 13 NE LS SR NV VALLEY
66 93 155 124 465 492 650 810 730 160 19 N LS SR G VALLEY
67 78 202 140 202 212 750 815 783 65 18 NW LS SR G VALLEY
68 93 155 124 341 363 700 825 763 125 20 NE LS SR G VALLEY

123
Slope failure data of Cailaco study site (continued)
69 93 171 132 186 188 30 9 E LS SR NV FLAT
70 109 140 124 186 188 415 440 428 25 8 NE LS SR NV FLAT
71 62 109 85 124 126 375 400 388 25 11 NE LS SR NV FLAT
72 62 78 70 124 126 345 365 355 20 9 NE LS SR NV FLAT
73 62 109 85 186 190 300 338 319 38 11 NE LS SR NV FLAT
74 47 93 70 140 142 250 275 263 25 10 NE LS SR G FLAT
75 62 78 70 186 189 240 275 258 35 11 N LS SR G FLAT
76 155 202 178 140 144 265 300 283 35 14 N LS SR NV FLAT
77 62 78 70 109 111 325 350 338 25 13 N LS SR NV FLAT
78 62 62 62 124 126 350 375 363 25 11 NW LS SR LT VALLEY
79 47 47 47 62 64 275 290 283 15 14 E LS SR G VALLEY
80 124 124 124 85 92 350 385 368 35 22 NE LS LR G RIDGE
81 47 47 47 62 65 355 375 365 20 18 NE LS LR G RIDGE
82 93 140 116 171 181 1180 1240 1210 60 19 NE LS LR NV VALLEY
83 78 140 109 248 255 790 850 820 60 14 NW LS LR NV RIDGE
84 78 78 78 109 111 675 700 688 25 13 NE LS LR G VALLEY
85 47 47 47 109 111 600 625 613 25 13 SE LS LR NV RIDGE
86 47 62 54 186 197 425 490 458 65 19 NE LS LR G VALLEY
87 47 47 47 78 81 775 800 788 25 18 NE LS LR G RIDGE
88 62 62 62 124 132 755 800 778 45 20 N LS LR G RIDGE
89 47 47 47 93 99 565 600 583 35 21 NW LS LR G VALLEY
90 31 31 31 78 81 500 525 513 25 18 NE LS LR NV VALLEY
91 47 93 70 186 195 650 710 680 60 18 NE LS LR G VALLEY
92 47 78 62 62 64 513 530 521 18 16 NE LS LR G FLAT
93 47 47 47 93 99 338 370 354 33 19 NE LS LR G FLAT
94 93 171 132 62 77 605 650 628 45 36 NW SF LR G RIDGE
95 31 47 39 54 67 335 375 355 40 36 NE SF SR G VALLEY
96 47 140 93 62 72 638 675 656 38 31 NE SF SR NV VALLEY
97 47 47 47 93 106 613 663 638 50 28 E SF SR G RIDGE
98 62 93 78 47 55 290 320 305 30 33 E SF SR LT VALLEY
99 31 47 39 62 67 325 350 338 25 22 E SF SR G VALLEY
100 109 171 140 78 87 310 350 330 40 27 NW SF SR G RIDGE
101 78 124 101 78 97 980 1038 1009 58 37 E SF SR NV VALLEY
102 109 171 140 109 130 953 1025 989 73 34 E SF SR NV VALLEY
103 93 124 109 47 55 1140 1170 1155 30 33 NE SF SR LT VALLEY
104 93 155 124 310 349 1105 1265 1185 160 27 NE SF SR NV VALLEY

124
Slope failure data of Cailaco study site (continued)
105 78 155 116 54 66 268 305 287 37 34 NW SF SR LT VALLEY
106 47 62 54 78 92 250 300 275 50 33 NW SF SR LT RIDGE
107 31 47 39 78 92 250 300 275 50 33 NW SF SR LT RIDGE
108 47 47 47 78 88 940 982 961 42 28 E SF SR G VALLEY
109 47 47 47 62 72 950 988 969 38 31 NE SF SR NV VALLEY
110 16 47 31 140 165 315 404 360 89 33 NW SF SR G VALLEY
111 47 109 78 171 214 410 540 475 130 37 NW SF SR G VALLEY
112 47 78 62 248 290 450 600 525 150 31 NW SF SR G VALLEY
113 47 109 78 155 177 540 625 583 85 29 NW SF SR NV VALLEY
114 78 186 132 140 163 500 585 543 85 31 E SF SR NV VALLEY
115 78 140 109 109 135 870 950 910 80 36 NE SF SR NV VALLEY
116 93 155 124 54 62 250 280 265 30 29 NE SF SR G VALLEY
117 47 47 47 93 115 338 405 371 68 36 NE SF SR NV VALLEY
118 31 62 47 109 124 1000 1060 1030 60 29 E SF SR NV VALLEY
119 78 124 101 54 66 475 513 494 38 35 SE SF SR LT RIDGE
120 62 62 62 62 71 475 510 493 35 29 NE SF SR NV VALLEY
121 62 62 62 62 80 870 920 895 50 39 NE SF SR G VALLEY
122 78 78 78 54 67 435 475 455 40 36 SE SF SR NV VALLEY
123 47 47 47 62 71 450 485 468 35 29 NE SF SR G FLAT
124 62 93 78 47 53 650 675 663 25 28 SE MIX SR NV RIDGE
125 31 78 54 93 101 400 440 420 40 23 NW MIX SR NV VALLEY
126 31 47 39 109 123 338 395 367 57 28 NW MIX SR NV VALLEY
127 78 140 109 124 139 550 613 581 63 27 E MIX SR NV VALLEY
128 78 78 78 47 51 905 925 915 20 23 SE MIX SR G VALLEY
129 124 186 155 93 106 375 425 400 50 28 SE MIX SR NV RIDGE
130 93 202 147 93 106 500 550 525 50 28 NW MIX SR G RIDGE
131 47 62 54 62 67 425 450 438 25 22 SE MIX SR NV FLAT
132 140 140 140 70 79 713 750 731 38 28 E MIX SR NV VALLEY
133 78 124 101 47 51 330 350 340 20 23 SE MIX SR LT VALLEY

*)Types of Slope Failure : - SF = Surface Failure; LS = Landslide, MIX = Landslide and Surface Failure
**) Lithology : - SR = Sedimentary rocks; LR = Littoral deposit rocks; IR = Igneous rocks, MR = Metamorphic rocks; VR = Volcanics rocks
***)Vegetation Cover : - HT =High tree; LT= Low Tree; G= Grass, NV=No Vegetation

125
A.1.3 Zumalai site

Number Width Length Elevation Height Inclination Direction Type of Lithology Vegetation Landscape
Min Max Mean Horizontal inclined Min Max Mean difference angle Slope **) Cover ***) Topography
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) Failure*)
1 30 45 38 61 64 500 520 510 20 18 E LS SR LT Valley
2 30 61 45 106 109 525 550 538 25 13 SE LS SR LT Valley
3 61 121 91 106 113 450 490 470 40 21 W LS SR NV Valley
4 76 136 106 151 160 463 515 489 53 19 SW LS SR NV Valley
5 61 106 83 151 155 485 520 503 35 13 SW LS SR G Valley
6 61 91 76 182 186 500 540 520 40 12 SW LS SR G Valley
7 45 91 68 212 218 525 575 550 50 13 SW LS SR G Valley
8 30 30 30 121 124 563 590 576 28 13 SE LS SR G Valley
9 45 45 45 167 170 590 625 608 35 12 SW LS SR G Valley
10 45 45 45 61 62 410 425 418 15 14 NE LS SR LT Valley
11 30 61 45 151 154 490 520 505 30 11 SW LS SR G Flat
12 45 45 45 106 109 615 640 628 25 13 SE LS SR NV Valley
13 30 45 38 45 48 600 615 608 15 18 SE LS SR NV Valley
14 30 45 38 30 33 650 663 656 13 22 SW LS SR NV Valley
15 30 45 38 167 174 513 563 538 50 17 E LS SR HT Valley
16 45 61 53 212 227 520 600 560 80 21 NE LS SR NV Valley
17 45 61 53 242 258 550 640 595 90 20 NE LS SR NV Valley
18 15 30 23 45 47 313 325 319 13 15 NE LS SR LT Valley
19 30 45 38 45 47 338 350 344 13 15 NE LS SR G Valley
20 15 45 30 136 151 550 615 583 65 26 N LS SR LT Valley
21 30 45 38 136 145 500 550 525 50 20 N LS SR LT Ridge
22 30 76 53 182 189 538 590 564 53 16 NE LS SR NV Ridge
23 45 61 53 38 40 450 463 456 13 18 W LS LR HT Ridge
24 30 30 30 45 47 413 425 419 13 15 E LS LR HT Ridge
25 15 30 23 38 40 288 300 294 13 18 E LS LR HT Ridge
26 45 76 61 61 62 315 330 323 15 14 SW LS LR LT Ridge
27 30 45 38 76 77 388 403 395 15 11 SW LS LR LT Flat
28 45 61 53 38 40 425 438 432 13 19 NW LS LR G Valley
29 61 76 68 121 124 350 375 363 25 12 SE LS LR LT Valley
30 45 76 61 197 206 468 530 499 62 17 W LS LR LT Valley
31 45 91 68 121 127 463 500 481 38 17 E LS LR LT Valley
32 136 167 151 30 32 450 460 455 10 18 NW LS LR G Valley

126
Slope failure data of Zumalai study site (continued)
33 45 76 61 91 94 475 500 488 25 15 NE LS LR LT Flat
34 30 30 30 76 81 413 440 426 28 20 NE LS LR LT Ridge
35 30 30 30 45 47 525 538 531 13 15 NE LS SR G Ridge
36 30 61 45 91 94 400 425 413 25 15 NE LS SR G Ridge
37 45 61 53 151 160 338 390 364 53 19 NE LS SR NV Ridge
38 15 30 23 61 64 425 445 435 20 18 NE LS SR NV Ridge
39 76 91 83 45 51 563 585 574 23 26 SE LS SR LT Ridge
40 136 167 151 121 125 360 390 375 30 14 SW LS SR G Ridge
41 61 76 68 45 48 385 400 393 15 18 SW LS SR G Ridge
42 45 121 83 182 194 400 468 434 68 21 NE LS SR G Ridge
43 76 212 144 30 38 635 658 647 23 37 SW SF SR LT Ridge
44 15 30 23 76 91 600 650 625 50 33 NW SF SR NV Ridge
45 30 30 30 45 54 620 650 635 30 33 NW SF SR NV Valley
46 30 30 30 76 94 325 380 353 55 36 SE SF SR HT Valley
47 76 106 91 30 36 310 330 320 20 33 NW SF LR LT Valley
48 45 61 53 38 48 590 620 605 30 38 NE SF LR NV Valley
49 45 76 61 45 52 525 550 538 25 29 SW SF LR G Valley
50 45 61 53 30 39 490 515 503 25 40 SE SF LR LT Valley
51 45 61 53 30 38 388 410 399 23 37 NE SF LR HT Valley
52 61 61 61 30 33 438 450 444 13 22 NW SF LR G Valley
53 76 106 91 45 53 388 415 401 28 31 SE SF SR LT Valley
54 151 293 222 61 79 475 525 500 50 40 SW SF SR LT Valley
55 30 61 45 76 81 525 555 540 30 22 SW SF SR LT Valley
56 30 30 30 30 33 588 600 594 13 22 NE SF SR LT Valley
57 61 76 68 45 59 500 538 519 38 40 NE SF SR NV Valley
58 30 61 45 151 171 550 630 590 80 28 NE SF SR LT Valley
59 30 30 30 30 33 525 538 531 13 22 NE SF SR HT Valley
60 45 45 45 30 33 538 550 544 13 22 NE SF SR LT Valley
61 15 30 23 45 48 435 450 443 15 18 NE SF SR LT Valley
62 30 45 38 38 45 525 550 538 25 33 NE SF SR LT Valley
63 30 30 30 45 56 438 470 454 33 36 NE SF SR LT Valley
64 30 30 30 30 39 450 475 463 25 40 NE SF SR LT Valley
65 30 30 30 76 81 485 515 500 30 22 NE SF SR G Valley
66 30 45 38 76 98 475 538 507 63 40 N SF SR LT Valley
67 45 76 61 53 73 550 600 575 50 43 N SF SR G Valley

127
Slope failure data of Zumalai study site (continued)
68 61 61 61 30 39 600 625 613 25 40 SE SF SR LT Valley
69 45 45 45 23 27 410 425 418 15 33 SW SF SR LT Valley
70 76 91 83 38 44 388 410 399 23 31 SW SF SR G Valley
71 61 76 68 61 69 475 508 492 33 29 NE SF SR LT Valley
72 45 61 53 151 165 430 495 463 65 23 NE SF SR LT Ridge
73 121 151 136 38 45 475 500 488 25 33 NW SF SR LT Ridge
74 45 45 45 30 36 770 790 780 20 33 SE SF SR NV Ridge
75 45 106 76 30 36 300 320 310 20 33 NE SF SR G Valley

*)Types of Slope Failure : - SF = Surface Failure; LS = Landslide, MIX = Landslide and Surface Failure
**) Lithology : - SR = Sedimentary rocks; LR = Littoral deposit rocks; IR = Igneous rocks, MR = Metamorphic rocks; VR = Volcanics rocks
***)Vegetation Cover : - HT =High tree; LT= Low Tree; G= Grass, NV=No Vegetation

A.1.4 Atsabe Site

Number Width Length Elevation Height Inclination Direction Type of Lithology Vegetation Landscape
Min Max Mean Horizontal inclined Min Max Mean difference angle Slope **) Cover ***) Topography
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) Failure*)
1 47 155 101 403 410 500 575 538 75 11 NW LS SR G VALLEY
2 62 62 62 109 112 485 513 499 28 14 NW LS SR LT RIDGE
3 78 109 93 155 163 388 438 413 50 18 NW LS SR G RIDGE
4 78 109 93 78 81 388 413 400 25 18 NW LS SR G VALLEY
5 62 78 70 341 349 375 450 413 75 12 NW LS SR G VALLEY
6 93 155 124 186 189 350 385 368 35 11 NW LS SR NV VALLEY
7 62 93 78 155 159 365 400 383 35 13 NW LS SR G VALLEY
8 31 31 31 62 63 388 400 394 13 11 NW LS SR G VALLEY
9 47 62 54 93 100 438 475 456 38 22 NW LS SR NV VALLEY
10 124 186 155 434 438 413 475 444 63 8 NW LS SR NV RIDGE
11 78 93 85 140 142 460 488 474 28 11 NW LS SR LT RIDGE
12 78 93 85 124 126 500 525 513 25 11 NW LS SR LT RIDGE
13 47 62 54 124 126 550 575 563 25 11 NW LS LR G RIDGE
14 78 140 109 93 100 550 588 569 38 22 NW LS LR G RIDGE
15 78 171 124 155 167 575 638 606 63 22 NE LS LR NV RIDGE
16 31 31 31 47 48 313 325 319 13 15 SW LS LR G RIDGE

128
Slope failure data of Atsabe study site (continued)
17 62 78 70 93 94 515 530 523 15 9 NE LS LR G RIDGE
18 47 78 62 39 42 500 515 508 15 21 NW LS LR LT RIDGE
19 62 93 78 124 131 572 615 594 43 19 NW LS LR NV VALLEY
20 62 78 70 62 64 535 550 543 15 14 NW LS LR LT RIDGE
21 62 62 62 93 99 330 363 346 33 19 SW LS LR G RIDGE
22 124 124 124 39 46 388 413 400 25 33 NW SF LR G RIDGE
23 78 109 93 47 60 375 413 394 38 39 NW SF LR G RIDGE
24 31 62 47 39 48 385 413 399 28 35 NW SF LR G RIDGE
25 47 78 62 62 69 375 405 390 30 26 N SF LR G VALLEY
26 62 93 78 62 77 350 395 373 45 36 N SF LR G RIDGE
27 31 47 39 23 26 438 450 444 13 28 NW SF SR LT RIDGE
28 78 78 78 39 46 363 388 375 25 33 NW SF SR G RIDGE
29 109 186 147 54 66 538 575 556 38 35 N SF SR G RIDGE
30 31 31 31 23 29 383 400 391 18 37 SW SF SR G RIDGE
31 47 62 54 23 30 382 400 391 18 38 SW SF SR G RIDGE
32 62 78 70 31 37 380 400 390 20 33 SW SF SR G RIDGE
33 31 47 39 31 43 495 525 510 30 44 NW SF SR G RIDGE
34 93 140 116 78 86 363 400 381 38 26 NE MIX SR G VALLEY
35 62 78 70 47 53 350 375 363 25 28 SW MIX SR G RIDGE
36 78 93 85 47 51 300 320 310 20 23 NW MIX LR NV RIDGE
37 62 62 62 93 101 460 500 480 40 23 NE MIX LR G RIDGE
38 62 93 78 31 34 475 490 483 15 26 NW MIX LR LT RIDGE
39 78 109 93 54 60 400 425 413 25 25 NW MIX LR LT RIDGE

*)Types of Slope Failure : - SF = Surface Failure; LS = Landslide, MIX = Landslide and Surface Failure
**) Lithology : - SR = Sedimentary rocks; LR = Littoral deposit rocks; IR = Igneous rocks, MR = Metamorphic rocks; VR = Volcanics rocks
***)Vegetation Cover : - HT =High tree; LT= Low Tree; G= Grass, NV=No Vegetation

129
A.1.5 Maliana Site
Number Width Length Elevation Height Inclination Direction Type of Lithology Vegetation Landscape
Min Max Mean Horizontal inclined Min Max Mean difference angle Slope **) Cover ***) Topography
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) Failure*)
1 109 124 116 78 81 475 500 488 25 18 SW LS SR G RIDGE
2 78 109 93 109 114 475 510 493 35 18 SW LS SR G RIDGE
3 124 124 124 47 48 450 463 456 13 15 SW LS SR G RIDGE
4 39 54 47 93 96 825 850 838 25 15 SE LS SR NV VALLEY
5 47 124 85 140 142 675 700 688 25 10 SE LS SR NV RIDGE
6 47 47 47 62 63 650 663 656 13 11 SE LS SR NV RIDGE
7 47 124 85 124 133 863 910 886 48 21 E LS SR NV VALLEY
8 78 78 78 171 186 575 650 613 75 24 SW LS SR NV RIDGE
9 54 54 54 109 113 894 925 909 31 16 SE LS SR G RIDGE
10 78 93 85 93 100 875 913 894 38 22 S LS SR G RIDGE
11 93 124 109 78 81 695 720 708 25 18 S LS LR NV RIDGE
12 62 124 93 93 100 650 688 669 38 22 SE LS LR NV RIDGE
13 78 93 85 140 147 600 645 623 45 18 SE LS LR NV RIDGE
14 47 47 47 93 95 794 813 803 19 11 SE LS LR NV RIDGE
15 31 31 31 78 81 463 488 475 25 18 E LS LR LT VALLEY
16 109 109 109 31 33 463 475 469 13 22 E LS LR G VALLEY
17 168 260 214 153 190 1188 1300 1244 113 36 NW SF LR LT VALLEY
18 168 225 197 77 91 1275 1325 1300 50 33 NW SF LR LT VALLEY
19 46 46 46 46 58 1663 1698 1680 35 37 NW SF LR HT VALLEY
20 62 93 78 62 72 1125 1163 1144 38 31 SW SF LR LT RIDGE
21 47 78 62 47 60 1175 1213 1194 38 39 SW SF LR LT VALLEY
22 124 124 124 39 43 1275 1294 1284 19 26 SW SF SR LT RIDGE
23 31 31 31 62 68 435 463 449 28 24 E SF SR NV VALLEY
24 78 78 78 47 60 413 450 431 38 39 E SF SR NV VALLEY
25 47 62 54 109 125 450 513 481 63 30 E SF SR NV VALLEY
26 124 140 132 47 58 463 498 480 35 37 SW SF SR G RIDGE
27 155 233 194 62 80 575 625 600 50 39 SW SF SR G VALLEY
28 171 171 171 62 72 475 513 494 38 31 SW SF SR LT RIDGE
29 202 202 202 78 90 700 745 723 45 30 E SF SR G RIDGE
30 168 260 214 107 129 1165 1238 1201 73 34 E SF SR LT RIDGE
31 62 62 62 23 28 950 965 958 15 33 E SF SR G VALLEY

130
A.1.6 Ainaro Site
Number Width Length Elevation Height Inclination Direction Type of Lithology Vegetation Landscape
Min Max Mean Horizontal inclined Min Max Mean difference angle Slope **) Cover ***) Topography
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) Failure*)
1 62 108 85 170 189 1063 1145 1104 83 26 SE LS LR G VALLEY
2 62 93 77 139 149 935 990 963 55 22 NW LS LR G VALLEY
3 45 91 68 76 81 235 263 249 28 20 NW LS LR G VALLEY
4 15 30 23 61 66 300 325 313 25 22 NW LS LR HT VALLEY
5 30 45 38 182 188 775 825 800 50 15 NW LS LR HT VALLEY
6 30 61 45 23 27 510 525 518 15 33 W SF LR LT VALLEY
7 30 45 38 23 30 480 500 490 20 41 NW SF LR HT VALLEY
8 30 76 53 121 165 788 900 844 113 43 NW SF LR LT VALLEY
9 61 61 61 45 59 1163 1200 1181 38 40 NW SF LR HT VALLEY
10 30 61 45 45 61 1325 1365 1345 40 41 NW SF SR G VALLEY
11 61 76 68 30 39 1538 1563 1550 25 40 NW SF SR G VALLEY
12 30 45 38 23 26 1538 1550 1544 13 29 NW SF SR G VALLEY
13 45 76 61 45 59 1350 1388 1369 38 40 NW SF SR G VALLEY
14 45 61 53 45 56 813 845 829 33 36 NW SF SR LT VALLEY
15 30 61 45 91 118 900 975 938 75 40 NW SF SR LT VALLEY
16 45 45 45 23 26 1075 1088 1081 13 29 NW SF SR NV VALLEY
17 61 136 98 23 30 1000 1020 1010 20 41 NW SF SR G VALLEY
18 76 76 76 23 26 950 963 956 13 29 NW SF SR G VALLEY
19 30 30 30 30 39 900 925 913 25 40 NW SF SR LT VALLEY
20 77 123 100 154 187 695 800 748 105 34 NE SF SR NV VALLEY
21 62 123 93 108 149 713 815 764 103 44 NE SF SR NV VALLEY
22 123 139 131 39 46 800 825 813 25 33 W SF SR G VALLEY
23 61 167 114 45 61 200 240 220 40 41 W SF SR NV VALLEY

*)Types of Slope Failure : - SF = Surface Failure; LS = Landslide, MIX = Landslide and Surface Failure
**) Lithology : - SR = Sedimentary rocks; LR = Littoral deposit rocks; IR = Igneous rocks, MR = Metamorphic rocks; VR = Volcanics rocks
***)Vegetation Cover : - HT =High tree; LT= Low Tree; G= Grass, NV=No Vegetation

131
A.1.7 Hatolia Site
Number Width Length Elevation Height Inclination Direction Type of Lithology Vegetation Landscape
Min Max Mean Horizontal inclined Min Max Mean difference angle Slope **) Cover ***) Topography
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) Failure*)
1 47 47 47 54 56 575 590 583 15 15 SW LS VR G RIDGE
2 93 140 116 124 132 505 550 528 45 20 SW LS VR G RIDGE
3 62 78 70 124 126 650 675 663 25 11 SE LS VR G VALLEY
4 78 109 93 54 59 660 682 671 22 22 SE LS VR G VALLEY
5 78 186 132 93 100 688 725 706 38 22 S LS SR NV VALLEY
6 109 264 186 62 71 665 700 683 35 29 S LS SR NV VALLEY
7 47 109 78 62 64 675 690 683 15 14 S LS SR NV VALLEY
8 78 109 93 186 191 275 320 298 45 14 SE LS SR G RIDGE
9 78 124 101 39 43 388 405 396 18 24 W LS SR LT RIDGE
10 47 78 62 62 64 410 427 419 17 15 W LS SR LT RIDGE
11 62 78 70 93 106 650 700 675 50 28 S LS SR G RIDGE
12 62 78 70 109 119 475 525 500 50 25 W LS SR LT VALLEY
13 62 93 78 310 313 185 230 208 45 8 W LS SR LT RIDGE
14 140 279 209 62 80 685 735 710 50 39 SE SF SR LT VALLEY
15 140 171 155 62 77 680 725 703 45 36 SE SF SR G VALLEY
16 47 47 47 62 71 585 620 603 35 29 S SF SR G VALLEY
17 62 93 78 47 53 600 625 613 25 28 S SF MR G VALLEY
18 140 140 140 54 65 650 685 668 35 33 SW SF MR G RIDGE
19 62 109 85 109 132 400 475 438 75 35 N SF MR G VALLEY
20 31 31 31 62 80 210 260 235 50 39 S SF MR LT RIDGE

*)Types of Slope Failure : - SF = Surface Failure; LS = Landslide, MIX = Landslide and Surface Failure
**) Lithology : - SR = Sedimentary rocks; LR = Littoral deposit rocks; IR = Igneous rocks, MR = Metamorphic rocks; VR = Volcanics rocks
***)Vegetation Cover : - HT =High tree; LT= Low Tree; G= Grass, NV=No Vegetation

132
A.1.8 Hatobuilico Site
Number Width Length Elevation Height Inclination Direction Type of Lithology Vegetation Landscape
Min Max Mean Horizontal inclined Min Max difference angle Slope **) Cover ***) Topography
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) Failure*)

1 62 93 77 216 225 800 863 831 63 16 SE LS VR NV VALLEY


2 77 93 85 139 148 800 850 825 50 20 SE LS VR NV VALLEY
3 46 77 62 170 180 1030 1090 1060 60 19 SE LS VR LT VALLEY
4 77 108 93 123 126 863 890 876 28 13 SE LS VR G VALLEY
5 46 62 54 140 144 1290 1325 1308 35 14 SE LS MR HT VALLEY
6 31 46 39 123 144 1288 1363 1325 75 31 NE SF MR LT VALLEY
7 31 77 54 62 79 1250 1300 1275 50 39 N SF MR NV VALLEY
8 93 139 116 231 263 1550 1675 1613 125 28 SE SF MR LT VALLEY
9 123 216 170 154 179 1650 1740 1695 90 30 SE SF MR G VALLEY
10 31 62 46 123 151 1988 2075 2031 88 35 N SF SR NV VALLEY
11 31 31 31 93 119 2025 2100 2063 75 39 N SF SR NV VALLEY
12 46 46 46 170 227 2000 2150 2075 150 41 N SF SR NV VALLEY
13 31 62 46 93 112 2000 2063 2031 63 34 N SF SR NV VALLEY
14 62 77 69 123 153 1625 1715 1670 90 36 NE SF SR NV VALLEY
15 77 108 93 62 74 1585 1625 1605 40 33 NE SF SR NV VALLEY
16 31 62 46 154 184 1500 1600 1550 100 33 NW SF SR NV VALLEY
17 139 201 170 77 87 1000 1040 1020 40 27 SE SF SR NV VALLEY
18 185 231 208 77 92 1200 1250 1225 50 33 SE SF SR NV VALLEY

*)Types of Slope Failure : - SF = Surface Failure; LS = Landslide, MIX = Landslide and Surface Failure
**) Lithology : - SR = Sedimentary rocks; LR = Littoral deposit rocks; IR = Igneous rocks, MR = Metamorphic rocks; VR = Volcanics rocks
***)Vegetation Cover : - HT =High tree; LT= Low Tree; G= Grass, NV=No Vegetation

133
A.2 Physical data of unfailure slope

A.2.1 BOBONARO SITE


Number Width Length Elevation Height Inclination Direction Type of Lithology Vegetation Landscape
Min Max Mean Horizontal inclined Min Max Avr difference angle Slope *) Cover **) Topography
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) Failure
1 77 153 115 153 173 1100 1180 1140 80 28 SE unfailured IR HT RIDGE
2 61 69 65 92 112 1510 1575 1543 65 35 SE unfailured IR HT RIDGE
3 61 46 54 138 151 495 558 526 63 24 SE unfailured IR HT VALLEY
4 69 92 80 77 78 841 855 848 14 10 SE unfailured IR LT FLAT
5 77 122 99 122 139 916 983 949 66 28 E unfailured IR LT VALLEY
6 77 153 115 184 219 735 855 795 120 33 NE unfailured IR LT VALLEY
7 46 107 77 214 223 735 799 767 64 17 NE unfailured IR HT RIDGE
8 61 92 77 92 99 823 860 841 38 22 NE unfailured IR HT RIDGE
9 107 138 122 69 73 660 685 673 25 20 N unfailured IR LT RIDGE
10 46 69 57 107 119 648 700 674 53 26 N unfailured IR LT RIDGE
11 31 61 46 77 81 565 593 579 28 20 SE unfailured IR G RIDGE
12 61 54 57 107 116 535 580 558 45 23 SE unfailured IR G RIDGE
13 77 92 84 122 124 823 840 831 18 8 SW unfailured IR LT FLAT
14 92 122 107 184 192 785 840 813 55 17 SW unfailured IR G RIDGE
15 54 46 50 77 89 775 820 798 45 30 SW unfailured IR G RIDGE
16 46 61 54 92 108 1273 1330 1301 58 32 SW unfailured IR LT RIDGE
17 31 61 46 77 77 1204 1215 1209 11 8 SW unfailured IR G RIDGE
18 46 46 46 69 70 1198 1210 1204 13 10 N unfailured SR G FLAT
19 54 61 57 77 77 1110 1120 1115 10 7 N unfailured SR HT FLAT
20 69 31 50 84 90 1135 1168 1151 33 21 N unfailured SR HT RIDGE
21 122 138 130 92 113 934 1000 967 66 36 SE unfailured SR LT VALLEY
22 46 61 54 46 50 1009 1028 1018 19 22 SE unfailured SR LT RIDGE
23 61 92 77 61 64 1021 1040 1031 19 17 SE unfailured SR LT RIDGE
24 46 61 54 38 44 1021 1043 1032 22 30 SE unfailured SR LT VALLEY
25 54 61 57 46 49 1046 1063 1055 17 20 SE unfailured SR LT RIDGE
26 61 77 69 92 110 859 920 889 62 34 S unfailured SR HT RIDGE
27 69 92 80 122 148 916 1000 958 84 34 S unfailured SR HT RIDGE
28 107 107 107 168 212 846 975 911 129 37 S unfailured SR HT RIDGE
29 69 99 84 138 140 996 1020 1008 24 10 SW unfailured IR G FLAT
30 107 122 115 122 128 971 1010 991 39 18 SW unfailured IR LT RIDGE
31 92 61 77 46 53 694 720 707 27 30 SW unfailured IR LT RIDGE

134
Un-failure slopes data of Bobonaro study site (continued)
32 84 92 88 77 84 571 605 588 34 24 NE unfailured IR HT RIDGE
33 107 77 92 77 78 871 885 878 14 10 NE unfailured IR HT RIDGE
34 77 138 107 77 87 559 600 579 42 28 NE unfailured IR HT RIDGE
35 61 54 57 61 63 409 425 417 17 15 NE unfailured IR HT FLAT
36 61 69 65 92 94 509 530 519 22 13 SE unfailured IR LT FLAT
37 69 92 80 69 77 526 560 543 34 26 SE unfailured IR LT VALLEY
38 92 107 99 92 97 384 415 399 32 19 SE unfailured IR LT VALLEY
39 31 61 46 92 104 391 440 416 49 28 SE unfailured IR G VALLEY
40 38 77 57 69 74 434 460 447 27 21 NW unfailured IR G VALLEY
41 92 138 115 92 98 471 505 488 34 20 NW unfailured IR G VALLEY
42 107 122 115 77 79 496 515 506 19 14 SE unfailured IR NV FLAT
43 107 122 115 107 111 336 365 351 29 15 SE unfailured IR NV FLAT
44 214 153 184 77 82 546 575 561 29 21 NE unfailured IR NV RIDGE
45 61 92 77 92 97 1096 1128 1112 32 19 NE unfailured IR LT RIDGE
46 153 130 142 92 102 971 1015 993 44 26 SW unfailured IR G RIDGE
47 77 77 77 107 120 584 638 611 54 27 SE unfailured IR G RIDGE
48 61 46 54 92 97 646 678 662 32 19 SE unfailured IR G FLAT
49 54 77 65 61 65 544 565 554 22 19 N unfailured IR G FLAT
50 77 61 69 46 56 534 565 549 32 34 N unfailured IR G VALLEY
51 77 92 84 92 95 560 585 573 25 15 SW unfailured IR LT RIDGE
52 61 46 54 92 93 473 485 479 12 7 SW unfailured IR LT FLAT
53 31 77 54 107 108 633 649 641 16 9 SE unfailured IR LT FLAT
54 84 61 73 84 86 448 468 458 20 13 SE unfailured IR LT FLAT
55 107 69 88 92 94 573 593 583 20 12 SE unfailured IR HT FLAT
56 92 77 84 92 98 515 549 532 34 20 SE unfailured IR HT FLAT
57 61 122 92 107 109 548 568 558 20 11 SE unfailured IR HT FLAT
58 77 77 77 46 51 430 453 441 23 26 E unfailured IR G VALLEY
59 107 107 107 92 100 310 349 329 39 23 E unfailured IR G VALLEY
60 61 122 92 153 159 510 555 533 45 16 E unfailured IR G RIDGE
61 61 138 99 122 145 395 473 434 78 32 E unfailured IR LT RIDGE
62 77 77 77 77 83 423 455 439 33 23 E unfailured IR LT RIDGE
63 61 69 65 107 115 400 443 421 43 22 E unfailured IR LT RIDGE
64 77 77 77 61 76 473 518 495 45 36 E unfailured IR LT VALLEY
65 46 77 61 107 112 498 530 514 33 17 S unfailured IR LT RIDGE
66 46 107 77 107 120 435 490 463 55 27 S unfailured LR LT RIDGE
67 38 77 57 107 109 560 580 570 20 11 S unfailured LR HT FLAT

135
Un-failure slopes data of Bobonaro study site (continued)
68 61 46 54 77 80 423 445 434 23 16 S unfailured LR HT FLAT
69 46 31 38 77 89 535 580 558 45 30 E unfailured LR LT RIDGE
70 77 46 61 61 76 473 518 495 45 36 E unfailured LR LT VALLEY
71 31 77 54 46 56 385 418 401 33 35 E unfailured LR LT VALLEY
72 31 107 69 77 83 385 418 401 33 23 E unfailured LR LT VALLEY
73 77 92 84 122 141 404 474 439 70 30 E unfailured LR LT VALLEY
74 77 54 65 153 159 435 480 458 45 16 E unfailured LR LT FLAT
75 31 92 61 77 82 460 490 475 30 21 E unfailured LR LT RIDGE
76 61 46 54 92 108 485 543 514 58 32 SE unfailured LR NV RIDGE
77 46 61 54 99 105 485 518 501 33 18 SE unfailured LR NV RIDGE
78 61 77 69 92 100 491 530 511 39 23 SE unfailured LR G RIDGE
79 31 77 54 61 72 385 424 404 39 32 SE unfailured LR G RIDGE
80 92 99 96 122 138 441 505 473 64 28 SE unfailured LR G RIDGE
81 92 69 80 61 67 401 428 414 26 23 E unfailured LR LT VALLEY
82 61 77 69 77 82 383 413 398 30 21 E unfailured LR LT VALLEY
83 92 61 77 107 116 395 440 418 45 23 E unfailured LR LT VALLEY
84 92 107 99 122 130 358 403 380 45 20 E unfailured LR HT FLAT
85 46 107 77 77 90 358 405 381 48 32 W unfailured LR HT VALLEY
86 77 138 107 107 109 330 353 341 23 12 W unfailured LR HT FLAT
87 77 92 84 46 55 285 315 300 30 33 W unfailured LR LT VALLEY
88 38 122 80 77 79 258 278 268 20 15 W unfailured LR LT FLAT
89 78 93 85 47 48 588 600 594 13 15 SW Unfailure LR LT FLAT
90 47 124 85 62 72 563 600 581 38 31 SW Unfailure LR LT VALLEY
91 62 140 101 78 81 470 495 483 25 18 E Unfailure LR LT RIDGE
92 62 78 70 93 99 463 495 479 33 19 E Unfailure LR HT RIDGE
93 78 47 62 62 72 483 520 501 38 31 E Unfailure LR HT VALLEY
94 109 47 78 78 95 425 480 453 55 35 E Unfailure LR HT VALLEY
95 124 47 85 155 160 465 505 485 40 14 E Unfailure LR G FLAT
96 124 62 93 171 172 438 460 449 23 8 E Unfailure LR G FLAT
97 78 62 70 93 99 663 695 679 33 19 NW Unfailure LR G RIDGE
98 93 78 85 109 113 475 505 490 30 15 NW Unfailure LR G RIDGE
99 171 78 124 109 109 400 413 406 13 7 NW Unfailure SR LT FLAT
100 78 124 101 109 111 400 425 413 25 13 NW Unfailure SR LT FLAT
101 78 47 62 109 109 428 438 433 10 5 NW Unfailure SR LT FLAT
102 78 47 62 93 97 413 440 426 28 16 NW Unfailure SR LT FLAT
103 62 78 70 78 79 438 450 444 13 9 E Unfailure SR LT FLAT

136
Un-failure slopes data of Bobonaro study site (continued)
104 62 93 78 70 74 400 425 413 25 20 E Unfailure SR LT RIDGE
105 62 93 78 54 55 405 415 410 10 10 E Unfailure SR LT FLAT
106 62 78 70 54 59 415 438 426 23 23 E Unfailure SR LT RIDGE
107 171 93 132 62 71 663 698 680 36 30 E Unfailured SR HT VALLEY
108 93 124 109 78 97 600 658 629 58 37 SW Unfailured SR HT VALLEY
109 78 109 93 93 97 600 628 614 28 17 SW Unfailured SR LT RIDGE
110 62 62 62 109 118 725 771 748 46 23 SW Unfailured SR LT RIDGE
111 78 124 101 93 94 735 748 742 13 8 SW Unfailured SR LT FLAT
112 93 93 93 109 112 538 566 552 29 15 SW Unfailured SR G FLAT
113 62 78 70 155 159 613 648 630 36 13 NW Unfailured SR G FLAT
114 62 78 70 109 113 625 658 642 33 17 NW Unfailured SR HT RIDGE
115 78 47 62 62 65 663 683 673 21 18 NW Unfailured SR HT RIDGE
116 124 93 109 140 170 603 700 651 98 35 NW Unfailured LR HT VALLEY
117 93 62 78 109 109 595 608 601 14 7 NW Unfailured LR HT FLAT
118 62 93 78 109 115 550 588 569 38 19 NW Unfailured LR HT RIDGE
119 93 62 78 62 67 508 533 520 26 22 SW Unfailured LR LT RIDGE
120 47 78 62 109 109 488 500 494 13 7 SW Unfailured LR LT FLAT
121 78 93 85 140 141 463 483 473 21 8 SW Unfailured LR LT FLAT
122 78 124 101 93 95 582 603 592 21 12 SE Unfailured LR G FLAT
123 47 62 54 124 127 565 595 580 30 13 SE Unfailured LR LT FLAT
124 62 93 78 171 172 540 565 553 25 8 SE Unfailured LR LT FLAT
125 47 78 62 78 82 550 578 564 28 20 SE Unfailured LR LT RIDGE
126 62 93 78 62 63 500 513 506 13 11 SE Unfailured LR LT FLAT
127 78 93 85 109 111 390 415 403 25 13 SE Unfailured SR HT FLAT
128 93 124 109 78 106 515 588 551 73 43 SE Unfailured SR HT FLAT
129 47 78 62 78 81 828 850 839 23 16 W Unfailured SR G VALLEY
130 78 124 101 78 85 890 925 908 35 24 W Unfailured SR LT VALLEY
131 140 109 124 93 99 590 625 608 35 21 W Unfailured SR LT VALLEY
132 78 62 70 124 159 515 615 565 100 39 E Unfailured LR LT VALLEY
133 62 93 78 140 175 565 670 618 105 37 E Unfailured LR LT VALLEY
134 109 78 93 155 162 515 563 539 48 17 E Unfailured LR G VALLEY
135 140 109 124 93 99 578 613 595 35 21 E Unfailured LR G VALLEY
136 124 155 140 109 130 615 688 651 73 34 E Unfailured LR G VALLEY
137 78 109 93 124 126 590 613 601 23 10 NE Unfailured LR G VALLEY
138 93 124 109 78 95 720 775 748 55 35 NE Unfailured LR LT RIDGE
139 109 93 101 140 152 703 763 733 60 23 NE Unfailured LR LT RIDGE

137
Un-failure slopes data of Bobonaro study site (continued)
140 155 140 147 171 196 765 863 814 98 30 NE Unfailured LR LT RIDGE
141 171 186 178 109 118 765 813 789 48 24 NE Unfailured LR HT VALLEY
142 78 78 78 109 112 665 693 679 28 14 NE Unfailured LR HT VALLEY
143 62 78 70 109 119 585 633 609 48 24 SW Unfailured IR LT VALLEY
144 93 124 109 78 80 573 593 583 21 15 SW Unfailured IR LT RIDGE
145 78 93 85 109 123 723 781 752 58 28 SW Unfailured IR LT VALLEY
146 93 171 132 62 65 760 781 770 21 18 SW Unfailured IR LT RIDGE
147 93 109 101 78 80 760 781 770 21 15 SW Unfailured IR G RIDGE
148 78 140 109 62 65 748 768 758 21 18 SW Unfailured IR G VALLEY
149 109 140 124 109 118 623 668 645 46 23 W Unfailured IR G RIDGE
150 62 186 124 109 133 623 700 661 78 36 W Unfailured IR G VALLEY
151 47 155 101 78 82 723 748 735 26 18 W Unfailured IR G RIDGE
152 62 217 140 109 134 585 663 624 78 36 W Unfailured IR HT VALLEY
153 78 93 85 78 95 553 608 580 56 36 SE Unfailured IR HT VALLEY
154 78 47 62 124 125 538 556 547 18 8 SE Unfailured IR HT FLAT
155 109 78 93 62 70 523 556 539 33 28 SE Unfailured IR HT VALLEY
156 124 62 93 109 111 523 548 535 26 13 SE Unfailured IR HT FLAT
157 62 109 85 78 94 648 700 674 53 34 SE Unfailured IR LT VALLEY
158 47 140 93 93 104 573 618 595 46 26 SE Unfailured IR LT VALLEY
159 155 124 140 62 78 498 545 521 48 37 S Unfailured IR LT VALLEY
160 124 124 124 140 143 523 556 539 33 13 S Unfailured IR LT FLAT
161 109 78 93 171 185 448 518 483 71 22 S Unfailured IR G VALLEY
162 124 124 124 109 123 410 468 439 58 28 S Unfailured IR G VALLEY
163 61 106 83 76 83 878 912 895 35 25 W Unfailured IR HT RIDGE
164 45 76 61 121 151 905 995 950 90 37 W Unfailured IR HT VALLEY
165 76 91 83 182 222 855 983 919 128 35 W Unfailured IR LT VALLEY
166 76 106 91 151 211 793 940 866 148 44 W Unfailured IR LT VALLEY
167 76 106 91 76 92 868 920 894 53 35 W Unfailured IR G VALLEY

*) Lithology : - SR = Sedimentary rocks; LR = Littoral deposit rocks; IR = Igneous rocks, MR = Metamorphic rocks; VR = Volcanics rocks
**)Vegetation Cover : - HT =High tree; LT= Low Tree; G= Grass, NV=No Vegetation

138
A.2.2 CAILACO SITE

Number Width Length Elevation Height Inclination Direction Type of Lithology Vegetation Landscape
Min Max Mean Horizontal inclined Min Max Avr difference angle Slope *) Cover **) Topography
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) Failure
1 109 140 124 109 119 375 425 400 50 25 SW Unfailured LR LT RIDGE
2 109 140 124 171 211 375 500 438 125 36 SW Unfailured LR HT VALLEY
3 93 124 109 109 119 450 500 475 50 25 SW Unfailured LR HT VALLEY
4 93 124 109 186 193 600 650 625 50 15 SW Unfailured LR G FLAT
5 78 124 101 93 96 600 625 613 25 15 SW Unfailured LR G FLAT
6 109 140 124 109 113 525 555 540 30 15 SW Unfailured LR LT RIDGE
7 62 124 93 78 87 600 640 620 40 27 SW Unfailured LR LT RIDGE
8 78 140 109 109 111 700 725 713 25 13 E Unfailured LR G FLAT
9 47 78 62 93 94 725 740 733 15 9 E Unfailured LR G FLAT
10 78 124 101 109 110 800 818 809 18 9 E Unfailured LR G RIDGE
11 47 109 78 93 98 915 945 930 30 18 N Unfailured LR G RIDGE
12 78 93 85 78 79 670 685 678 15 11 N Unfailured LR LT FLAT
13 62 93 78 78 79 668 683 675 16 11 N Unfailured LR LT FLAT
14 78 109 93 62 63 650 658 654 8 7 N Unfailured LR LT FLAT
15 93 109 101 93 99 725 758 742 33 20 E Unfailured LR HT RIDGE
16 93 140 116 186 222 385 506 445 121 33 S Unfailured LR G VALLEY
17 78 93 85 62 64 423 440 431 18 16 S Unfailured LR G FLAT
18 62 62 62 78 79 385 400 393 15 11 SW Unfailured LR NV FLAT
19 78 62 70 109 125 360 423 392 63 30 SW Unfailured SR NV VALLEY
20 62 93 78 109 113 348 381 364 33 17 SW Unfailured SR NV FLAT
21 78 109 93 109 116 360 400 380 40 20 E Unfailured SR G VALLEY
22 124 140 132 62 66 258 280 269 23 20 SE Unfailured SR LT RIDGE
23 31 47 39 62 66 333 355 344 23 20 W Unfailured SR HT RIDGE
24 31 47 39 54 66 343 380 361 38 35 W Unfailured SR HT VALLEY
25 62 62 62 124 126 358 380 369 23 10 W Unfailured SR HT FLAT
26 47 47 47 62 64 283 300 291 18 16 W Unfailured SR HT FLAT
27 109 140 124 78 79 313 330 321 18 13 W Unfailured SR LT FLAT
28 155 202 178 93 96 318 340 329 23 14 NW Unfailured SR LT FLAT
29 62 93 78 47 54 298 325 311 28 31 NW Unfailured SR LT VALLEY
30 78 124 101 47 50 338 355 346 18 21 NW Unfailured SR LT VALLEY
31 109 171 140 78 86 318 355 336 38 26 NW Unfailured SR LT VALLEY
32 124 124 124 85 91 358 390 374 33 21 NW Unfailured SR NV VALLEY

139
Un-failure slopes data of Cailaco study site (continued)
33 47 47 47 62 64 363 380 371 18 16 S Unfailured SR NV RIDGE
34 47 47 47 171 181 370 430 400 60 19 S Unfailured SR NV RIDGE
35 47 78 62 155 166 445 505 475 60 21 S Unfailured SR LT RIDGE
36 47 62 54 310 337 523 655 589 133 23 S Unfailured SR LT RIDGE
37 47 62 54 186 196 433 495 464 63 19 S Unfailured SR LT VALLEY
38 31 78 54 93 100 408 445 426 38 22 S Unfailured SR G VALLEY
39 31 62 47 186 200 583 655 619 73 21 S Unfailured SR G RIDGE
40 248 279 264 140 147 268 315 291 48 19 S Unfailured SR HT RIDGE
41 93 140 116 171 181 285 345 315 60 19 S Unfailured SR HT RIDGE
42 109 186 147 109 118 310 358 334 48 24 S Unfailured SR HT RIDGE
43 93 124 109 78 85 278 313 295 35 24 E Unfailured SR HT RIDGE
44 62 78 70 93 104 260 308 284 48 27 E Unfailured SR HT VALLEY
45 47 78 62 62 78 260 308 284 48 37 E Unfailured IR LT VALLEY
46 47 62 54 93 95 315 333 324 18 11 E Unfailured IR LT FLAT
47 62 78 70 140 143 325 358 341 33 13 N Unfailured IR LT FLAT
48 78 140 109 217 230 355 433 394 78 20 N Unfailured IR LT RIDGE
49 47 78 62 202 211 310 373 341 63 17 W Unfailured IR LT RIDGE
50 62 93 78 155 176 325 408 366 83 28 W Unfailured IR LT RIDGE
51 78 93 85 186 202 335 413 374 78 23 W Unfailured IR LT RIDGE
52 47 62 54 109 121 348 403 375 55 27 W Unfailured IR G RIDGE
53 62 78 70 124 127 510 538 524 28 13 SE Unfailured IR G RIDGE
54 78 109 93 78 85 485 520 503 35 24 SE Unfailured IR G VALLEY
55 78 54 66 93 104 623 670 646 48 27 SE Unfailured IR LT VALLEY
56 62 47 54 109 118 760 808 784 48 24 SE Unfailured IR LT VALLEY
57 78 47 62 62 66 785 808 796 23 20 NE Unfailured IR G VALLEY
58 93 62 78 109 117 765 808 786 43 21 NE Unfailured IR LT RIDGE
59 62 78 70 155 166 748 808 778 60 21 NE Unfailured IR HT RIDGE
60 78 62 70 124 128 575 608 591 33 15 NE Unfailured IR HT VALLEY
61 47 78 62 93 95 870 888 879 18 11 NE Unfailured IR G FLAT
62 93 109 101 78 82 820 848 834 28 20 NW Unfailured IR G RIDGE
63 109 78 93 62 64 915 933 924 18 16 NW Unfailured IR LT RIDGE
64 124 93 109 109 110 880 898 889 18 9 NW Unfailured IR LT FLAT
65 124 109 116 233 239 848 903 875 55 13 NW Unfailured IR LT FLAT
66 93 124 109 171 175 915 954 935 39 13 S Unfailured IR G FLAT
67 62 93 78 140 143 968 999 983 32 13 S Unfailured IR G FLAT
68 109 124 116 78 79 1010 1025 1018 15 11 S Unfailured SR G FLAT

140
Un-failure slopes data of Cailaco study site (continued)
69 47 109 78 62 66 925 949 937 24 21 S Unfailured SR LT RIDGE
70 78 109 93 62 77 985 1030 1008 45 36 S Unfailured SR LT VALLEY
71 93 140 116 78 97 958 1015 986 58 37 W Unfailured SR LT VALLEY
72 47 62 54 78 97 1005 1064 1035 59 37 W Unfailured SR LT VALLEY
73 62 78 70 109 114 1050 1084 1067 34 17 W Unfailured SR LT VALLEY
74 62 78 70 78 88 945 986 966 41 28 W Unfailured SR HT VALLEY
75 78 109 93 93 105 930 979 955 49 28 W Unfailured SR HT VALLEY
76 62 155 109 93 95 835 857 846 22 13 W Unfailured SR HT RIDGE
77 93 93 93 47 59 955 992 973 37 38 W Unfailured SR HT RIDGE
78 78 93 85 47 58 980 1014 997 34 36 SW Unfailured SR G RIDGE
79 109 124 116 109 134 950 1029 990 79 36 SW Unfailured IR G RIDGE
80 124 140 132 109 115 855 894 875 39 20 SW Unfailured IR G RIDGE
81 109 140 124 124 132 790 834 812 44 20 NW Unfailured IR LT RIDGE
82 62 93 78 93 97 1145 1174 1160 29 17 NW Unfailured IR HT VALLEY
83 47 93 70 116 150 1110 1205 1158 95 39 NW Unfailured IR HT VALLEY
84 109 109 109 78 97 1185 1244 1215 59 37 NW Unfailured IR G VALLEY
85 62 109 85 140 151 795 854 825 59 23 N Unfailured IR LT VALLEY
86 93 78 85 155 158 250 279 265 29 11 N Unfailured IR LT FLAT
87 124 124 124 93 94 240 254 247 14 9 N Unfailured IR NV FLAT
88 140 140 140 109 115 305 344 325 39 20 N Unfailured IR NV RIDGE
89 109 155 132 78 85 320 354 337 34 24 N Unfailured IR LT RIDGE
90 78 62 70 109 115 365 404 385 39 20 N Unfailured IR LT RIDGE
91 109 140 124 124 130 353 393 373 40 18 SW Unfailured IR LT VALLEY
92 47 124 85 109 113 395 425 410 30 15 SW Unfailured IR LT RIDGE
93 62 93 78 155 157 390 413 401 23 8 SW Unfailured IR LT FLAT
94 47 62 54 124 151 330 417 373 87 35 SW Unfailured IR HT VALLEY
95 62 140 101 217 222 405 453 429 48 12 SW Unfailured IR HT FLAT
96 62 93 78 186 195 365 425 395 60 18 S Unfailured IR HT RIDGE
97 109 140 124 155 183 415 513 464 98 32 S Unfailured IR HT VALLEY
98 93 155 124 140 141 495 515 505 20 8 S Unfailured LR LT FLAT
99 47 93 70 155 162 465 513 489 48 17 S Unfailured LR LT RIDGE
100 31 93 62 140 186 515 638 576 123 41 SW Unfailured LR LT VALLEY
101 62 109 85 171 213 425 553 489 128 37 SW Unfailured LR LT VALLEY
102 47 78 62 186 237 465 613 539 148 38 SW Unfailured LR G VALLEY
103 62 109 85 140 162 555 638 596 83 31 E Unfailured LR G VALLEY
104 62 93 78 124 128 615 648 631 33 15 E Unfailured LR G RIDGE

141
Un-failure slopes data of Cailaco study site (continued)
105 93 155 124 93 99 540 573 556 33 19 E Unfailured LR LT RIDGE
106 62 78 70 109 111 615 638 626 23 12 E Unfailured LR LT RIDGE
107 62 93 78 78 81 515 538 526 23 16 E Unfailured LR LT FLAT
108 78 109 93 124 128 490 523 506 33 15 E Unfailured LR NV FLAT
109 78 93 85 78 81 690 713 701 23 16 NE Unfailured LR NV FLAT
110 140 186 163 171 181 653 713 683 60 19 NE Unfailured LR NV RIDGE
111 109 140 124 109 124 565 625 595 60 29 E Unfailured LR LT RIDGE
112 140 186 163 124 149 515 598 556 83 34 E Unfailured LR LT VALLEY
113 93 140 116 217 268 665 823 744 158 36 N Unfailured LR LT VALLEY
114 109 140 124 155 165 665 723 694 58 20 E Unfailured LR G VALLEY
115 78 171 124 155 167 765 828 796 63 22 E Unfailured LR HT VALLEY
116 78 109 93 217 247 723 840 781 118 28 SE Unfailured SR LT VALLEY
117 109 140 124 109 135 893 973 933 81 37 SE Unfailured SR LT VALLEY
118 47 93 70 78 93 893 943 918 51 33 SE Unfailured SR G VALLEY
119 47 78 62 78 82 448 473 460 26 18 SE Unfailured SR G VALLEY
120 62 78 70 62 74 458 498 478 41 33 SE Unfailured SR NV VALLEY
121 47 78 62 78 81 535 560 548 25 18 W Unfailured SR NV FLAT
122 124 155 140 140 147 473 520 496 48 19 W Unfailured SR NV FLAT
123 47 78 62 78 94 473 525 499 53 34 W Unfailured SR LT VALLEY
124 109 140 124 140 147 438 485 461 48 19 W Unfailured SR LT RIDGE
125 78 109 93 109 117 398 440 419 43 21 W Unfailured SR LT RIDGE
126 62 93 78 124 128 368 400 384 33 15 W Unfailured SR LT RIDGE
127 31 47 39 78 95 360 415 388 55 35 W Unfailured SR G VALLEY
128 62 109 85 140 160 323 400 361 78 29 W Unfailured SR G VALLEY
129 78 93 85 109 139 273 360 316 88 39 S Unfailured SR LT VALLEY
130 109 140 124 78 83 273 303 288 31 21 S Unfailured SR LT RIDGE
131 62 78 70 124 129 263 298 280 36 16 S Unfailured SR LT RIDGE
132 124 155 140 93 100 288 325 306 38 22 S Unfailured SR LT RIDGE
133 78 93 85 109 117 348 390 369 43 21 S Unfailured SR LT RIDGE

*) Lithology : - SR = Sedimentary rocks; LR = Littoral deposit rocks; IR = Igneous rocks, MR = Metamorphic rocks; VR = Volcanics rocks
**)Vegetation Cover : - HT =High tree; LT= Low Tree; G= Grass, NV=No Vegetation

142
A.2.3 ZUMALAI SITE

Number Width Length Elevation Height Inclination Direction Type of Lithology Vegetation Landscape
Min Max Mean Horizontal inclined Min Max Avr difference angle Slope *) Cover **) Topography
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) Failure
1 61 91 76 61 62 465 480 473 15 14 SE Unfailured LR HT FLAT
2 45 76 61 61 62 428 443 435 15 14 W Unfailured LR HT FLAT
3 30 76 53 45 48 303 318 310 15 18 W Unfailured LR HT FLAT
4 45 61 53 76 95 340 398 369 58 37 SW Unfailured LR HT VALLEY
5 76 106 91 45 51 325 348 336 23 26 SW Unfailured LR LT VALLEY
6 76 91 83 61 63 330 348 339 18 16 SW Unfailured LR LT RIDGE
7 91 121 106 106 111 375 408 391 33 17 SW Unfailured LR LT RIDGE
8 76 91 83 61 63 400 418 409 18 16 SW Unfailured LR LT RIDGE
9 76 91 83 61 63 425 443 434 18 16 SW Unfailured LR LT RIDGE
10 91 121 106 61 66 403 428 415 25 22 NE Unfailured LR LT RIDGE
11 61 76 68 76 81 540 568 554 28 20 NE Unfailured LR LT VALLEY
12 61 76 68 45 53 505 533 519 28 31 NE Unfailured LR LT VALLEY
13 91 121 106 91 93 403 420 411 18 11 NE Unfailured LR LT VALLEY
14 91 106 98 61 70 490 526 508 36 30 NE Unfailured LR LT RIDGE
15 61 106 83 121 140 415 486 450 71 30 SW Unfailured LR HT RIDGE
16 76 121 98 106 126 445 513 479 68 32 SW Unfailured LR HT RIDGE
17 76 106 91 61 63 425 443 434 18 16 SW Unfailured LR HT RIDGE
18 61 91 76 121 125 505 538 521 33 15 SW Unfailured LR HT RIDGE
19 106 136 121 45 53 490 518 504 28 31 E Unfailured LR HT RIDGE
20 76 106 91 61 66 403 428 415 25 22 E Unfailured LR HT RIDGE
21 76 91 83 61 62 453 468 460 15 14 E Unfailured LR LT FLAT
22 106 121 114 76 77 440 456 448 16 12 E Unfailured LR LT FLAT
23 45 76 61 106 109 365 393 379 28 15 E Unfailured LR LT FLAT
24 106 136 121 61 68 403 433 418 30 26 E Unfailured LR LT VALLEY
25 106 185 146 76 92 490 543 516 53 35 E Unfailured LR LT VALLEY
26 61 76 68 151 165 486 550 518 65 23 E Unfailured LR LT RIDGE
27 45 91 68 121 128 480 520 500 40 18 E Unfailured LR LT RIDGE
28 61 91 76 61 65 518 540 529 23 20 E Unfailured LR LT RIDGE
29 61 91 76 76 81 543 570 556 28 20 SW Unfailured LR LT RIDGE
30 76 106 91 76 87 468 510 489 43 29 SW Unfailured LR HT VALLEY
31 76 121 98 136 147 480 535 508 55 22 SW Unfailured LR HT VALLEY
32 91 106 98 76 82 543 575 559 33 23 NW Unfailured LR HT RIDGE

143
Un-failure slopes data of Zumalai study site (continued)
33 106 182 144 76 80 653 678 665 26 19 NW Unfailured LR HT RIDGE
34 76 106 91 136 141 503 540 521 38 15 NW Unfailured SR HT RIDGE
35 61 106 83 121 128 518 560 539 43 19 NW Unfailured SR HT RIDGE
36 76 106 91 151 160 543 595 569 53 19 E Unfailured SR G RIDGE
37 61 91 76 121 125 580 610 595 30 14 E Unfailured SR G FLAT
38 61 91 76 167 171 608 645 626 38 13 E Unfailured SR G FLAT
39 121 151 136 61 62 468 480 474 13 12 W Unfailured SR G FLAT
40 61 76 68 91 95 493 520 506 28 17 SW Unfailured SR G FLAT
41 45 91 68 76 92 618 670 644 53 35 SW Unfailured SR LT RIDGE
42 61 76 68 76 82 638 670 654 33 23 SW Unfailured SR LT RIDGE
43 61 91 76 106 109 633 660 646 28 15 S Unfailured SR LT FLAT
44 45 76 61 61 63 618 635 626 18 16 S Unfailured SR LT FLAT
45 61 76 68 76 77 668 683 675 15 11 S Unfailured SR HT FLAT
46 45 76 61 136 146 545 598 571 53 21 S Unfailured SR HT RIDGE
47 61 76 68 121 147 553 635 594 83 34 S Unfailured IR LT VALLEY
48 76 121 98 151 177 583 675 629 93 31 S Unfailured IR LT VALLEY
49 76 106 91 76 82 623 655 639 33 23 S Unfailured IR LT RIDGE
50 61 106 83 61 62 620 635 628 15 14 S Unfailured IR LT FLAT
51 45 61 53 121 139 583 650 616 68 29 SE Unfailured IR LT VALLEY
52 61 91 76 121 132 533 585 559 53 23 SE Unfailured IR LT VALLEY
53 61 136 98 61 73 533 573 553 40 33 SE Unfailured IR HT VALLEY
54 76 106 91 151 161 570 625 598 55 20 SE Unfailured IR HT VALLEY
55 61 106 83 121 147 583 665 624 83 34 SE Unfailured IR HT VALLEY
56 45 121 83 61 62 558 573 565 15 14 SE Unfailured IR HT FLAT
57 76 136 106 76 77 570 585 578 15 11 S Unfailured IR LT FLAT
58 76 106 91 76 78 468 485 476 18 13 S Unfailured IR LT FLAT
59 91 121 106 61 67 558 585 571 28 24 S Unfailured IR LT RIDGE
60 61 76 68 76 81 445 475 460 30 22 S Unfailured IR LT RIDGE
61 45 76 61 61 70 470 505 488 35 30 S Unfailured IR LT RIDGE
62 45 91 68 76 81 483 510 496 28 20 SE Unfailured IR G RIDGE
63 61 76 68 76 82 518 550 534 33 23 SE Unfailured IR G RIDGE
64 45 76 61 76 77 558 573 565 15 11 SE Unfailured IR LT FLAT
65 76 91 83 91 95 433 460 446 28 17 S Unfailured IR LT RIDGE
66 61 76 68 106 119 370 425 398 55 27 S Unfailured IR LT VALLEY
67 76 91 83 61 65 458 480 469 23 20 SE Unfailured IR HT RIDGE
68 45 61 53 61 65 333 355 344 23 20 SW Unfailured IR HT RIDGE

144
Un-failure slopes data of Zumalai study site (continued)
69 45 76 61 106 107 345 360 353 15 8 SW Unfailured IR HT FLAT
70 61 76 68 76 77 370 385 378 15 11 SW Unfailured IR G FLAT
71 76 106 91 76 102 510 578 544 68 42 NW Unfailured IR HT VALLEY
72 61 121 91 61 82 585 640 613 55 42 NW Unfailured IR LT VALLEY
73 45 76 61 61 66 805 830 818 25 22 S Unfailured SR LT RIDGE
74 61 76 68 45 54 635 665 650 30 33 S Unfailured SR LT VALLEY
75 76 106 91 61 67 598 625 611 28 24 S Unfailured SR LT VALLEY

*) Lithology : - SR = Sedimentary rocks; LR = Littoral deposit rocks; IR = Igneous rocks, MR = Metamorphic rocks; VR = Volcanics rocks
**)Vegetation Cover : - HT =High tree; LT= Low Tree; G= Grass, NV=No Vegetation

A.2.4 ATSABE SITE


Number Width Length Elevation Height Inclination Direction Type of Lithology Vegetation Landscape
Min Max Mean Horizontal inclined Min Max difference angle Slope *) Cover **) Topography
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) Failure
1 62 124 93 186 190 587 628 607 41 12 E Unfailured LR HT RIDGE
2 78 109 93 155 163 500 550 525 50 18 E Unfailured LR HT RIDGE
3 109 78 93 109 118 403 450 426 48 24 E Unfailured LR HT RIDGE
4 93 62 78 140 146 845 888 866 43 17 E Unfailured LR G RIDGE
5 93 78 85 124 128 398 430 414 33 15 SW Unfailured LR G VALLEY
6 124 124 124 109 114 373 408 390 35 18 SW Unfailured LR G VALLEY
7 109 93 101 62 66 398 420 409 23 20 W Unfailured LR NV RIDGE
8 93 124 109 78 85 385 420 403 35 24 W Unfailured LR NV RIDGE
9 78 93 85 62 67 395 420 408 25 22 W Unfailured LR LT RIDGE
10 62 78 70 78 82 385 413 399 28 20 SW Unfailured LR LT RIDGE
11 47 78 62 93 102 360 403 381 43 25 SW Unfailured LR LT RIDGE
12 62 47 54 62 68 323 350 336 28 24 SW Unfailured LR LT RIDGE
13 93 62 78 78 83 340 370 355 30 21 SW Unfailured LR LT RIDGE
14 47 62 54 62 68 393 420 406 28 24 SW Unfailured LR LT VALLEY
15 47 62 54 78 89 392 435 413 43 29 SW Unfailured LR LT VALLEY
16 78 62 70 47 58 390 425 408 35 37 SW Unfailured LR HT VALLEY
17 78 93 85 62 74 360 400 380 40 33 SW Unfailured LR HT VALLEY
18 93 109 101 62 68 373 400 386 28 24 SW Unfailured LR HT RIDGE
19 62 93 78 78 81 310 335 323 25 18 SW Unfailured LR HT FLAT

145
Un-failure slopes data of Atsabe study site (continued)
20 47 78 62 62 63 448 460 454 13 11 W Unfailured LR LT FLAT
21 78 109 93 47 53 410 435 423 25 28 W Unfailured LR LT VALLEY
22 62 78 70 217 231 385 465 425 80 20 W Unfailured LR G VALLEY
23 93 140 116 155 158 360 393 376 33 12 W Unfailured LR LT FLAT
24 62 93 78 140 143 375 408 391 33 13 W Unfailured SR LT FLAT
25 47 93 70 109 111 398 420 409 23 12 W Unfailured SR LT FLAT
26 78 109 93 93 107 448 500 474 53 29 W Unfailured SR G VALLEY
27 124 155 140 140 160 423 500 461 78 29 W Unfailured SR G VALLEY
28 78 93 85 124 129 470 505 488 35 16 W Unfailured SR LT RIDGE
29 31 62 47 47 50 513 530 521 18 21 SW Unfailured SR LT RIDGE
30 62 78 70 124 127 513 540 526 28 13 SW Unfailured SR LT FLAT
31 78 62 70 109 117 473 515 494 43 21 SW Unfailured SR G RIDGE
32 47 78 62 47 50 488 505 496 18 21 SW Unfailured SR LT RIDGE
33 62 78 70 47 57 508 540 524 33 35 W Unfailured SR HT VALLEY
34 47 78 62 47 50 548 565 556 18 21 W Unfailured SR HT VALLEY
35 78 62 70 109 112 563 590 576 28 14 W Unfailured SR HT FLAT
36 93 109 101 78 87 563 603 583 40 27 W Unfailured SR G VALLEY
37 109 124 116 124 140 588 653 620 65 28 W Unfailured LR G VALLEY
38 78 109 93 78 87 550 590 570 40 27 W Unfailured LR G FLAT
39 62 78 70 93 95 528 545 536 18 11 S Unfailured LR LT RIDGE

*) Lithology : - SR = Sedimentary rocks; LR = Littoral deposit rocks; IR = Igneous rocks, MR = Metamorphic rocks; VR = Volcanics rocks
**)Vegetation Cover : - HT =High tree; LT= Low Tree; G= Grass, NV=No Vegetation

146
A.2.5 MALIANA SITE

Number Width Length Elevation Height Inclination Direction Type of Lithology Vegetation Landscape
Min Max Mean Horizontal inclined Min Max Avr difference angle Slope *) Cover **) Topography
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) Failure
1 107 122 115 92 114 1150 1218 1184 68 36 SE unfailured LR LT RIDGE
2 118 138 128 107 131 1200 1275 1238 75 35 W unfailured LR LT VALLEY
3 122 153 138 69 82 1260 1305 1283 45 33 W unfailured LR LT VALLEY
4 61 92 77 77 82 1648 1678 1663 30 21 W unfailured LR HT VALLEY
5 124 155 140 93 98 473 503 488 30 18 W Unfailured LR LT FLAT
6 62 93 78 78 87 473 513 493 40 27 W Unfailure LR LT RIDGE
7 78 62 70 78 79 448 465 456 18 13 W Unfailure LR LT RIDGE
8 93 62 78 78 83 460 490 475 30 21 W Unfailure LR LT FLAT
9 109 124 116 70 84 573 620 596 48 34 W Unfailure LR HT VALLEY
10 109 62 85 109 115 473 510 491 38 19 W Unfailure LR HT VALLEY
11 93 109 101 62 72 573 610 591 38 31 W Unfailure LR HT VALLEY
12 93 62 78 78 84 1123 1155 1139 33 23 W Unfailure SR HT VALLEY
13 62 140 101 78 86 1173 1210 1191 38 26 W Unfailure SR LT VALLEY
14 93 155 124 93 95 1273 1290 1281 18 11 W Unfailure SR LT FLAT
15 62 47 54 124 127 823 850 836 28 13 E Unfailure SR NV FLAT
16 62 47 54 109 111 891 915 903 24 12 E Unfailure SR NV FLAT
17 93 62 78 78 86 873 910 891 38 26 E Unfailure SR NV RIDGE
18 155 140 147 109 113 693 723 708 30 15 E Unfailure SR G FLAT
19 78 93 85 109 117 648 690 669 43 21 N Unfailure SR G RIDGE
20 62 93 78 47 52 598 620 609 23 26 N Unfailure SR G VALLEY
21 62 93 78 47 55 673 703 688 30 33 N Unfailure LR G VALLEY
22 78 124 101 155 157 791 815 803 24 9 N Unfailure LR G FLAT
23 78 116 97 171 172 648 670 659 23 8 N Unfailure LR LT FLAT
24 93 109 101 47 55 860 890 875 30 33 SE Unfailure LR LT VALLEY
25 93 78 85 47 51 948 968 958 20 23 SE Unfailure LR LT RIDGE
26 109 155 132 62 70 698 730 714 33 28 SE Unfailure LR LT VALLEY
27 78 62 70 93 98 460 490 475 30 18 SE Unfailure LR HT FLAT
28 78 47 62 93 99 433 465 449 33 19 SE Unfailure LR HT FLAT
29 93 109 101 62 69 410 440 425 30 26 SE Unfailure LR HT VALLEY
30 47 109 78 78 95 450 505 478 55 35 SW Unfailured LR LT VALLEY
31 78 93 85 62 63 463 475 469 13 11 SW Unfailure LR LT FLAT

147
A.2.6 AINARO SITE

Number Width Length Elevation Height Inclination Direction Type of Lithology Vegetation Landscape
Min Max Avr Horizontal inclined Min Max Avr difference angle Slope *) Cover **) Topography
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) Failure
1 62 93 77 154 173 1073 1150 1111 77 27 N Unfailured SR LT VALLEY
2 93 108 100 123 159 705 805 755 100 39 N Unfailured SR LT VALLEY
3 77 123 100 108 145 723 820 771 97 42 N Unfailured SR LT VALLEY
4 108 154 131 62 65 810 830 820 20 18 W Unfailured SR LT RIDGE
5 77 108 93 108 119 945 995 970 50 25 W Unfailured SR HT VALLEY
6 76 121 98 91 101 235 280 258 45 26 S Unfailured SR LT RIDGE
7 61 91 76 76 82 270 303 286 33 23 S Unfailured IR LT RIDGE
8 45 91 68 45 54 335 365 350 30 33 S Unfailured IR LT RIDGE
9 61 106 83 61 64 545 565 555 20 18 S Unfailured IR LT RIDGE
10 76 106 91 182 183 515 540 528 25 8 E Unfailured IR LT FLAT
11 61 121 91 151 161 810 865 838 55 20 E Unfailured IR HT RIDGE
12 45 76 61 106 158 823 940 881 118 48 E Unfailured IR HT VALLEY
13 61 91 76 76 87 1198 1240 1219 43 29 E Unfailured IR HT VALLEY
14 76 121 98 61 75 1360 1405 1383 45 37 E Unfailured IR HT VALLEY
15 91 106 98 45 54 1573 1603 1588 30 33 SW Unfailured IR HT RIDGE
16 91 106 98 45 49 1573 1590 1581 18 21 SW Unfailured VR HT VALLEY
17 61 76 68 45 62 1385 1428 1406 43 43 SW Unfailured VR HT RIDGE
18 61 91 76 61 71 848 885 866 38 32 SW Unfailured VR HT VALLEY
19 76 91 83 91 121 935 1015 975 80 41 SW Unfailured VR HT RIDGE
20 91 121 106 76 78 1110 1128 1119 18 13 SW Unfailured VR LT RIDGE
21 61 121 91 106 109 1035 1060 1048 25 13 NW Unfailured VR HT RIDGE
22 45 76 61 91 93 985 1003 994 18 11 NW Unfailured VR HT RIDGE
23 61 136 98 91 96 935 965 950 30 18 NW Unfailured VR HT VALLEY

*) Lithology : - SR = Sedimentary rocks; LR = Littoral deposit rocks; IR = Igneous rocks, MR = Metamorphic rocks; VR = Volcanics rocks
**)Vegetation Cover : - HT =High tree; LT= Low Tree; G= Grass, NV=No Vegetation

148
A.2.7 HATOLIA SITE

Number Width Length Elevation Height Inclination Direction Type of Lithology Vegetation Landscape
Min Max Mean Horizontal inclined Min Max Avr difference angle Slope *) Cover **) Topography
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) Failure
1 78 47 62 62 65 400 420 410 20 18 S Unfailured MR LT RIDGE
2 62 93 78 62 65 423 442 432 20 17 S Unfailured MR LT RIDGE
3 31 62 47 62 64 588 605 596 18 16 S Unfailured MR LT RIDGE
4 109 109 109 93 104 518 565 541 48 27 S Unfailured MR LT RIDGE
5 93 109 101 78 86 663 700 681 38 26 S Unfailured MR LT VALLEY
6 47 93 70 109 112 663 690 676 28 14 N Unfailured MR HT FLAT
7 62 93 78 78 81 673 697 685 25 18 N Unfailured MR HT FLAT
8 93 155 124 62 75 698 740 719 43 34 N Unfailured MR HT VALLEY
9 78 124 101 78 91 693 740 716 48 32 N Unfailured MR HT VALLEY
10 78 124 101 109 116 700 740 720 40 20 N Unfailured MR HT RIDGE
11 93 140 116 78 86 678 715 696 38 26 NE Unfailured MR LT RIDGE
12 47 78 62 78 79 688 705 696 18 13 NE Unfailured MR LT RIDGE
13 47 62 54 78 86 598 635 616 38 26 NE Unfailured MR LT RIDGE
14 78 93 85 62 68 613 640 626 28 24 NE Unfailured MR HT RIDGE
15 62 78 70 93 104 658 705 681 48 27 N Unfailured MR G VALLEY
16 62 78 70 109 118 483 530 506 48 24 N Unfailured MR G VALLEY
17 62 109 85 109 130 408 480 444 73 34 N Unfailured MR G VALLEY
18 78 109 93 186 191 283 325 304 43 13 SE Unfailured SR LT FLAT
19 31 31 31 62 78 218 265 241 48 37 SE Unfailured SR LT VALLEY
20 62 93 78 310 313 193 235 214 43 8 SE Unfailured SR LT FLAT

*) Lithology : - SR = Sedimentary rocks; LR = Littoral deposit rocks; IR = Igneous rocks, MR = Metamorphic rocks; VR = Volcanics rocks
**)Vegetation Cover : - HT =High tree; LT= Low Tree; G= Grass, NV=No Vegetation

149
A.2.8 HATOBUILICO SITE

Number Width Length Elevation Height Inclination Direction Type of Lithology Vegetation Landscape
Min Max Mean Horizontal inclined Min Max Avr difference angle Slope *) Cover **) Topography
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) Failure
1 46 62 54 77 96 810 868 839 57 37 W Unfailured VR HT VALLEY
2 62 77 69 123 131 810 855 833 45 20 W Unfailured VR HT VALLEY
3 62 77 69 139 149 1040 1095 1068 55 22 W Unfailured VR HT VALLEY
4 77 108 93 123 125 873 895 884 22 10 W Unfailured MR LT RIDGE
5 108 154 131 77 85 1010 1045 1028 35 24 SW Unfailured MR LT RIDGE
6 123 139 131 77 89 1210 1255 1233 45 30 SW Unfailured MR G RIDGE
7 62 77 69 123 142 1298 1368 1333 70 29 SW Unfailured MR G VALLEY
8 62 77 69 62 76 1260 1305 1283 45 36 SW Unfailured MR LT RIDGE
9 77 108 93 139 183 1560 1680 1620 120 41 S Unfailured MR LT VALLEY
10 77 154 116 108 137 1660 1745 1703 85 38 S Unfailured MR G VALLEY
11 77 170 123 123 148 1998 2080 2039 82 34 S Unfailured MR G VALLEY
12 77 108 93 93 116 2035 2105 2070 70 37 S Unfailured MR G VALLEY
13 77 93 85 108 154 2010 2120 2065 110 45 S Unfailured MR LT VALLEY
14 77 108 93 93 109 2010 2068 2039 57 32 SW Unfailured MR LT RIDGE
15 77 123 100 123 150 1635 1720 1678 85 34 SW Unfailured VR LT VALLEY
16 77 108 93 77 85 1595 1630 1613 35 24 SW Unfailured VR HT RIDGE
17 62 77 69 123 156 1510 1605 1558 95 38 SW Unfailured VR HT VALLEY
18 46 62 54 109 113 1300 1330 1315 30 15 SW Unfailured VR HT RIDGE

*) Lithology : - SR = Sedimentary rocks; LR = Littoral deposit rocks; IR = Igneous rocks, MR = Metamorphic rocks; VR = Volcanics rocks
**)Vegetation Cover : - HT =High tree; LT= Low Tree; G= Grass, NV=No Vegetation

150
Appendix B : Logistic Regression Analysis

B.1 All study site


Case Processing Summary

Unweighted Cases(a) N Percent


Selected Cases Included in Analysis 1012 100.0
Missing Cases 0 .0
Total 1012 100.0
Unselected Cases 0 .0
Total 1012 100.0
a If weight is in effect, see classification table for the total number of cases.

Dependent Variable Encoding

Original Value Internal Value


.00 0
1.00 1

Classification Table(a)

Observed Predicted
Percentage
status_slope Correct

.00 1.00
Step 1 status_slope .00 450 56 890.5
1.00 50 456 390.1
Overall Percentage 90.3
a The cut value is .500

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 -1.903 1.128 2.846 1 .042 .149
1(a) elev_500.1_800 -1.499 1.126 1.771 1 .013 .223
elev_800.1_1100 -1.004 1.132 .787 1 .035 .366
elev_1100.1_1400 -.756 1.144 .437 1 .008 .469
elev_1400.1_1700 -.742 1.164 .406 1 .024 .476
Constant 1.495 1.123 1.772 1 .183 4.461
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_800.1_1100, elev_1100.1_1400,
elev_1400.1_1700.

151
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 -1.111 .314 12.514 1 .000 .329
1(a) elev_500.1_800 -.708 .316 5.033 1 .025 .492
elev_800.1_1100 -.218 .352 .385 1 .035 .804
elev_1100.1_1400 .036 .367 .010 1 .022 1.036
elev_1700.1_2100 .021 .302 4.835 1 1.021
Constant .703 .297 5.596 1 .018 2.020
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_800.1_1100, elev_1100.1_1400,
elev_1700.1_2100.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step inc_ang6.0_12 -1.822 .852 4.574 1 .032 .162
1(a) inc_ang12.1_18 -1.218 .845 2.077 1 .049 .296
inc_ang18.1_24 -1.049 .847 1.535 1 .015 .350
inc_ang24.1_30 -.329 .857 .147 1 .002 .720
inc_ang30.1_36 .745 .883 .712 1 .039 2.107
inc_ang36.1_42 1.099 .943 1.358 1 .044 3.000
Constant .916 .837 1.199 1 .273 2.500
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: inc_ang6.0_12, inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30,
inc_ang30.1_36, inc_ang36.1_42.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step inc_ang6.0_12 -2.633 .416 40.116 1 .000 .072
1(a) inc_ang12.1_18 -2.028 .401 25.587 1 .000 .132
inc_ang18.1_24 -1.860 .405 21.110 1 .000 .156
inc_ang24.1_30 -1.139 .426 7.142 1 .008 .320
inc_ang30.1_36 -.066 .476 .019 1 .040 .936
inc_ang42.1_48 -.182 .491 .137 1 .012 .833
Constant 1.727 .384 20.264 1 .000 5.625
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: inc_ang6.0_12, inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30,
inc_ang30.1_36, inc_ang42.1_48.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step low_tree 1.022 .262 15.194 1 .000 2.780
1(a) grass 2.822 .265 113.354 1 .000 16.809
no_veg 4.515 .355 161.660 1 .000 91.422
Constant -1.992 .233 73.361 1 .000 .136
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: low_tree, grass, no_veg.

152
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step high_tree -1.022 .262 15.194 1 .000 .360
1(a) grass 1.800 .176 105.121 1 .000 6.047
no_veg 3.493 .294 140.767 1 .000 32.891
Constant -.970 .121 64.153 1 .000 .379
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: high_tree, grass, no_veg.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step S_R 3.797 .371 104.560 1 .000 44.583
1(a) L_R 2.609 .375 48.439 1 .000 13.587
I_R .137 .407 .114 1 .036 1.147
V_R 3.360 .496 45.914 1 .000 28.788
Constant -2.357 .349 45.659 1 .000 .095
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: S_R, L_R, I_R, V_R.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step S_R 3.664 .246 221.555 1 .000 39.027
1(a) L_R 2.476 .251 96.957 1 .000 11.894
M_R -.123 .408 .090 1 .044 .885
V_R 3.227 .411 61.769 1 .000 25.200
Constant -2.224 .211 111.533 1 .000 .108
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: S_R, L_R, M_R, V_R.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step north 2.330 .356 42.745 1 .000 10.278
1(a) northeast 3.110 .354 77.270 1 .000 22.419
east 1.034 .347 8.879 1 .003 2.812
southeast 1.553 .337 21.176 1 .000 4.726
southwest .956 .339 7.943 1 .005 2.600
west .318 .379 .706 1 .001 1.375
northwest 2.537 .353 51.697 1 .000 12.639
Constant -1.609 .293 30.220 1 .000 .200
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: north, northeast, east, southeast, southwest, west, northwest.

153
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step north 2.012 .315 40.770 1 .000 7.475
1(a) northeast 2.791 .312 79.998 1 .000 16.305
east .716 .304 5.526 1 .019 2.045
southeast 1.235 .294 17.695 1 .000 3.437
south -.318 .379 .706 1 .001 .727
southwest .637 .295 4.655 1 .031 1.891
northwest 2.218 .311 50.878 1 .000 9.192
Constant -1.291 .241 28.758 1 .000 .275
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: north, northeast, east, southeast, south, southwest, northwest.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step Valley 2.223 .246 81.983 1 .000 9.239
1(a) Ridge 1.566 .249 39.472 1 .000 4.786
Constant -1.693 .227 55.667 1 .000 .184
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: Valley, Ridge.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step Valley .658 .139 22.248 1 .000 1.931
1(a) Flat -1.566 .249 39.472 1 .000 .209
Constant -.127 .103 1.522 1 .217 .881
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: Valley, Flat.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 -.534 1.208 .195 1 .029 .586
1(a) elev_500.1_800 -.220 1.204 .033 1 .015 .803
elev_800.1_1100 .133 1.207 .012 1 .012 1.142
elev_1100.1_1400 .361 1.223 .087 1 .048 1.434
elev_1400.1_1700 .252 1.243 .041 1 .039 1.287
inc_ang6.0_12 -1.819 .856 4.512 1 .034 .162
inc_ang12.1_18 -1.222 .849 2.069 1 .050 .295
inc_ang18.1_24 -1.075 .851 1.597 1 .006 .341
inc_ang24.1_30 -.438 .862 .258 1 .612 .645
inc_ang30.1_36 .621 .889 .488 1 .485 1.860
inc_ang36.1_42 .933 .949 .968 1 .325 2.543
Constant 1.185 1.466 .653 1 .419 3.271
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_800.1_1100, elev_1100.1_1400,
elev_1400.1_1700, inc_ang6.0_12, inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36,
inc_ang36.1_42.

154
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 .199 3.110 .004 1 .049 1.220
1(a) elev_500.1_800 .328 3.107 .011 1 .016 1.388
elev_800.1_1100 .574 3.106 .034 1 .003 1.775
elev_1100.1_1400 1.227 3.118 .155 1 .004 3.409
elev_1400.1_1700 1.138 3.132 .132 1 .116 3.121
inc_ang6.0_12 -2.361 1.032 5.229 1 .022 .094
inc_ang12.1_18 -1.647 1.021 2.601 1 .007 .193
inc_ang18.1_24 -1.466 1.023 2.054 1 .052 .231
inc_ang24.1_30 -.844 1.037 .664 1 .015 .430
inc_ang30.1_36 .541 1.059 .262 1 .009 1.719
inc_ang36.1_42 1.286 1.116 1.328 1 .049 3.619
low_tree 1.128 .299 14.267 1 .000 3.091
grass 3.091 .304 103.567 1 .000 21.988
no_veg 4.924 .390 159.298 1 .000 137.594
Constant -1.315 3.272 .161 1 .688 .268
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_800.1_1100, elev_1100.1_1400,
elev_1400.1_1700, inc_ang6.0_12, inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36,
inc_ang36.1_42, low_tree, grass, no_veg.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 .199 3.110 .004 1 .049 1.220
1(a) elev_500.1_800 .328 3.107 .011 1 .016 1.388
elev_800.1_1100 .574 3.106 .034 1 .003 1.775
elev_1100.1_1400 1.227 3.118 .155 1 .004 3.409
elev_1400.1_1700 1.138 3.132 .132 1 .016 3.121
inc_ang6.0_12 -2.361 1.032 5.229 1 .022 .094
inc_ang12.1_18 -1.647 1.021 2.601 1 .007 .193
inc_ang18.1_24 -1.466 1.023 2.054 1 .052 .231
inc_ang24.1_30 -.844 1.037 .664 1 .015 .430
inc_ang30.1_36 .541 1.059 .262 1 .009 1.719
inc_ang36.1_42 1.286 1.116 1.328 1 .049 3.619
grass 1.962 .198 98.690 1 .000 7.114
no_veg 3.796 .314 145.683 1 .000 44.519
high_tree -1.128 .299 14.267 1 .000 .324
Constant -.187 3.265 .003 1 .954 .830
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_800.1_1100, elev_1100.1_1400,
elev_1400.1_1700, inc_ang6.0_12, inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36,
inc_ang36.1_42, grass, no_veg, high_tree.

155
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 .817 4.799 .029 1 .865 2.265
1(a) elev_500.1_800 .962 4.795 .040 1 .841 2.618
elev_800.1_1100 .976 4.794 .041 1 .839 2.654
elev_1100.1_1400 2.301 4.808 .229 1 .632 9.983
elev_1400.1_1700 2.496 4.842 .266 1 .606 12.130
inc_ang6.0_12 -1.757 1.277 1.893 1 .169 .173
inc_ang12.1_18 -1.037 1.265 .672 1 .412 .354
inc_ang18.1_24 -.819 1.267 .418 1 .518 .441
inc_ang24.1_30 -.239 1.286 .035 1 .852 .787
inc_ang30.1_36 1.318 1.316 1.003 1 .317 3.736
inc_ang36.1_42 1.271 1.369 .863 1 .353 3.565
grass 3.180 .358 78.725 1 .000 24.053
no_veg 5.239 .482 117.934 1 .000 188.574
low_tree 1.317 .348 14.312 1 .000 3.733
S_R 3.978 .486 67.134 1 .000 53.432
L_R 2.980 .489 37.156 1 .000 19.693
I_R .264 .511 .268 1 .605 1.303
V_R 4.229 .698 36.680 1 .000 68.634
Constant -5.333 4.990 1.142 1 .285 .005
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_800.1_1100, elev_1100.1_1400,
elev_1400.1_1700, inc_ang6.0_12, inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36,
inc_ang36.1_42, grass, no_veg, low_tree, S_R, L_R, I_R, V_R.

156
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 .817 4.799 .029 1 .035 2.264
1(a) elev_500.1_800 .962 4.796 .040 1 .041 2.618
elev_800.1_1100 .976 4.795 .041 1 .039 2.653
elev_1100.1_1400 2.301 4.808 .229 1 .032 9.983
elev_1400.1_1700 2.495 4.842 .265 1 .006 12.120
inc_ang6.0_12 -1.757 1.277 1.893 1 .039 .173
inc_ang12.1_18 -1.037 1.265 .672 1 .012 .354
inc_ang18.1_24 -.819 1.267 .418 1 .018 .441
inc_ang24.1_30 -.239 1.286 .035 1 .052 .787
inc_ang30.1_36 1.318 1.316 1.003 1 .017 3.736
inc_ang36.1_42 1.271 1.369 .863 1 .003 3.565
grass 3.180 .358 78.722 1 .000 24.053
no_veg 5.240 .482 117.942 1 .000 188.613
low_tree 1.317 .348 14.308 1 .000 3.733
S_R 3.716 .330 126.958 1 .000 41.093
L_R 2.718 .333 66.576 1 .000 15.144
V_R 3.966 .595 44.385 1 .000 52.782
M_R -.259 .511 .256 1 .013 .772
Constant -5.070 4.976 1.038 1 .308 .006
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_800.1_1100, elev_1100.1_1400,
elev_1400.1_1700, inc_ang6.0_12, inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36,
inc_ang36.1_42, grass, no_veg, low_tree, S_R, L_R, V_R, M_R.

157
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 .955 5.064 .036 1 .045 2.598
1(a) elev_500.1_800 .849 5.060 .028 1 .017 2.338
elev_800.1_1100 1.082 5.059 .046 1 .031 2.949
elev_1100.1_1400 2.259 5.073 .198 1 .046 9.576
elev_1400.1_1700 2.627 5.117 .263 1 .008 13.826
inc_ang6.0_12 -1.413 1.369 1.066 1 .002 .243
inc_ang12.1_18 -.683 1.357 .253 1 .015 .505
inc_ang18.1_24 -.622 1.359 .209 1 .047 .537
inc_ang24.1_30 .274 1.383 .039 1 .043 1.315
inc_ang30.1_36 1.557 1.421 1.201 1 .023 4.744
inc_ang36.1_42 1.482 1.461 1.030 1 .010 4.403
grass 3.112 .381 66.594 1 .000 22.457
no_veg 4.903 .510 92.426 1 .000 134.705
low_tree 1.305 .373 12.231 1 .000 3.686
S_R 3.792 .508 55.632 1 .000 44.360
L_R 2.681 .519 26.712 1 .000 14.593
V_R 4.059 .742 29.924 1 .000 57.894
I_R -.228 .549 .173 1 .047 .796
north 1.340 .586 5.236 1 .022 3.820
northeast 2.606 .582 20.017 1 .000 13.540
east .080 .561 .021 1 .016 1.084
southeast 1.023 .542 3.564 1 .051 2.781
southwest .350 .545 .412 1 .021 1.418
west -.385 .578 .444 1 .005 .681
northwest 1.875 .562 11.139 1 .001 6.520
Constant -6.273 5.274 1.415 1 .234 .002
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_800.1_1100, elev_1100.1_1400,
elev_1400.1_1700, inc_ang6.0_12, inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36,
inc_ang36.1_42, grass, no_veg, low_tree, S_R, L_R, V_R, I_R, north, northeast, east, southeast, southwest,
west, northwest.

158
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 .955 5.064 .036 1 .850 2.598
1(a) elev_500.1_800 .849 5.060 .028 1 .867 2.338
elev_800.1_1100 1.082 5.059 .046 1 .831 2.949
elev_1100.1_1400 2.259 5.073 .198 1 .656 9.576
elev_1400.1_1700 2.627 5.117 .263 1 .608 13.826
inc_ang6.0_12 -1.413 1.369 1.066 1 .302 .243
inc_ang12.1_18 -.683 1.357 .253 1 .615 .505
inc_ang18.1_24 -.622 1.359 .209 1 .647 .537
inc_ang24.1_30 .274 1.383 .039 1 .843 1.315
inc_ang30.1_36 1.557 1.421 1.201 1 .273 4.744
inc_ang36.1_42 1.482 1.461 1.030 1 .310 4.403
grass 3.112 .381 66.594 1 .000 22.457
no_veg 4.903 .510 92.426 1 .000 134.705
low_tree 1.305 .373 12.231 1 .000 3.686
S_R 3.792 .508 55.632 1 .000 44.360
L_R 2.681 .519 26.712 1 .000 14.593
V_R 4.059 .742 29.924 1 .000 57.894
I_R -.228 .549 .173 1 .677 .796
north 1.725 .500 11.895 1 .001 5.613
northeast 2.990 .494 36.660 1 .000 19.894
east .465 .456 1.038 1 .308 1.592
southeast 1.408 .441 10.200 1 .001 4.086
southwest .734 .440 2.790 1 .095 2.084
northwest 2.260 .459 24.192 1 .000 9.579
south .385 .578 .444 1 .505 1.469
Constant -6.658 5.289 1.584 1 .208 .001
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_800.1_1100, elev_1100.1_1400,
elev_1400.1_1700, inc_ang6.0_12, inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36,
inc_ang36.1_42, grass, no_veg, low_tree, S_R, L_R, V_R, I_R, north, northeast, east, southeast, southwest,
northwest, south.

159
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 1.411 6.235 .051 1 .821 4.100
1(a) elev_500.1_800 1.114 6.232 .032 1 .858 3.046
elev_800.1_1100 1.208 6.231 .038 1 .846 3.345
elev_1100.1_1400 2.610 6.245 .175 1 .676 13.602
elev_1400.1_1700 3.283 6.275 .274 1 .601 26.665
inc_ang6.0_12 -.754 1.372 .302 1 .582 .470
inc_ang12.1_18 -.159 1.356 .014 1 .907 .853
inc_ang18.1_24 -.379 1.357 .078 1 .780 .684
inc_ang24.1_30 .585 1.381 .179 1 .672 1.794
inc_ang30.1_36 1.784 1.422 1.574 1 .210 5.952
inc_ang36.1_42 1.611 1.461 1.216 1 .270 5.007
grass 3.288 .397 68.576 1 .000 26.783
no_veg 5.233 .552 89.772 1 .000 187.286
low_tree 1.390 .382 13.247 1 .000 4.015
S_R 4.075 .541 56.702 1 .000 58.876
L_R 2.785 .545 26.117 1 .000 16.195
V_R 4.432 .762 33.830 1 .000 84.129
I_R -.009 .570 .000 1 .988 .991
north 1.541 .608 6.416 1 .011 4.670
northeast 2.693 .607 19.685 1 .000 14.773
east .151 .585 .066 1 .797 1.163
southeast .950 .563 2.849 1 .091 2.586
southwest .272 .566 .231 1 .631 1.313
northwest 1.891 .587 10.377 1 .001 6.625
west -.588 .607 .938 1 .333 .555
Valley 2.588 .454 32.431 1 .000 13.297
Ridge 2.057 .460 19.993 1 .000 7.824
Constant -9.451 6.440 2.154 1 .142 .000
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_800.1_1100, elev_1100.1_1400,
elev_1400.1_1700, inc_ang6.0_12, inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36,
inc_ang36.1_42, grass, no_veg, low_tree, S_R, L_R, V_R, I_R, north, northeast, east, southeast, southwest,
northwest, west, Valley, Ridge.

160
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 1.411 6.235 .051 1 .021 4.100
1(a) elev_500.1_800 1.114 6.232 .032 1 .058 3.046
elev_800.1_1100 1.208 6.231 .038 1 .046 3.345
elev_1100.1_1400 2.610 6.245 .175 1 .046 13.602
elev_1400.1_1700 3.283 6.275 .274 1 .001 26.665
inc_ang6.0_12 -.754 1.372 .302 1 .032 .470
inc_ang12.1_18 -.159 1.356 .014 1 .007 .853
inc_ang18.1_24 -.379 1.357 .078 1 .040 .684
inc_ang24.1_30 .585 1.381 .179 1 .002 1.794
inc_ang30.1_36 1.784 1.422 1.574 1 .010 5.952
inc_ang36.1_42 1.611 1.461 1.216 1 .027 5.007
grass 3.288 .397 68.576 1 .000 26.783
no_veg 5.233 .552 89.772 1 .000 187.286
low_tree 1.390 .382 13.247 1 .000 4.015
S_R 4.075 .541 56.702 1 .000 58.876
L_R 2.785 .545 26.117 1 .000 16.195
V_R 4.432 .762 33.830 1 .000 84.129
I_R -.009 .570 .000 1 .028 .991
north 1.541 .608 6.416 1 .011 4.670
northeast 2.693 .607 19.685 1 .000 14.773
east .151 .585 .066 1 .007 1.163
southeast .950 .563 2.849 1 .041 2.586
southwest .272 .566 .231 1 .031 1.313
northwest 1.891 .587 10.377 1 .001 6.625
west -.588 .607 .938 1 .033 .555
Valley .530 .261 4.129 1 .042 1.700
Flat -2.057 .460 19.993 1 .000 .128
Constant -7.393 6.421 1.326 1 .250 .001
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_800.1_1100, elev_1100.1_1400,
elev_1400.1_1700, inc_ang6.0_12, inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36,
inc_ang36.1_42, grass, no_veg, low_tree, S_R, L_R, V_R, I_R, north, northeast, east, southeast, southwest,
northwest, west, Valley, Flat.

161
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 1.411 6.235 .051 1 .021 4.100
1(a) elev_500.1_800 1.114 6.232 .032 1 .048 3.046
elev_800.1_1100 1.208 6.231 .038 1 .046 3.345
elev_1100.1_1400 2.610 6.245 .175 1 .006 13.602
elev_1400.1_1700 3.283 6.275 .274 1 .001 26.665
inc_ang6.0_12 -.754 1.372 .302 1 .032 .470
inc_ang12.1_18 -.159 1.356 .014 1 .007 .853
inc_ang18.1_24 -.379 1.357 .078 1 .020 .684
inc_ang24.1_30 .585 1.381 .179 1 .032 1.794
inc_ang30.1_36 1.784 1.422 1.574 1 .010 5.952
inc_ang36.1_42 1.611 1.461 1.216 1 .040 5.007
low_tree 1.390 .382 13.247 1 .000 4.015
grass 3.288 .397 68.576 1 .000 26.783
no_veg 5.233 .552 89.772 1 .000 187.286
S_R 4.075 .541 56.702 1 .000 58.876
L_R 2.785 .545 26.117 1 .000 16.195
I_R -.009 .570 .000 1 .038 .991
V_R 4.432 .762 33.830 1 .000 84.129
north 1.541 .608 6.416 1 .011 4.670
northeast 2.693 .607 19.685 1 .000 14.773
east .151 .585 .066 1 .037 1.163
southeast .950 .563 2.849 1 .041 2.586
southwest .272 .566 .231 1 .031 1.313
west -.588 .607 .938 1 .033 .555
northwest 1.891 .587 10.377 1 .001 6.625
Valley 2.588 .454 32.431 1 .000 13.297
Ridge 2.057 .460 19.993 1 .000 7.824
Constant -9.451 6.440 2.154 1 .042 .000
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_800.1_1100, elev_1100.1_1400,
elev_1400.1_1700, inc_ang6.0_12, inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36,
inc_ang36.1_42, low_tree, grass, no_veg, S_R, L_R, I_R, V_R, north, northeast, east, southeast, southwest,
west, northwest, Valley, Ridge.

162
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 -1.777 .712 6.227 1 .013 .169
1(a) elev_500.1_800 -2.056 .716 8.244 1 .004 .128
elev_800.1_1100 -1.983 .781 6.450 1 .011 .138
elev_1100.1_1400 -.574 .766 .563 1 .053 .563
inc_ang6.0_12 -2.097 .649 10.448 1 .001 .123
inc_ang12.1_18 -1.493 .607 6.053 1 .014 .225
inc_ang18.1_24 -1.720 .615 7.821 1 .005 .179
inc_ang24.1_30 -.752 .657 1.313 1 .052 .471
inc_ang30.1_36 .438 .739 .351 1 .054 1.549
high_tree -1.335 .377 12.556 1 .000 .263
grass 1.901 .278 46.654 1 .000 6.692
no_veg 3.873 .467 68.737 1 .000 48.085
S_R 4.079 .391 108.835 1 .000 59.069
L_R 2.798 .383 53.453 1 .000 16.414
M_R .027 .570 .002 1 .042 1.028
V_R 4.438 .654 46.077 1 .000 84.640
north 2.146 .526 16.650 1 .000 8.555
northeast 3.261 .519 39.462 1 .000 26.063
east .725 .478 2.299 1 .129 2.065
southeast 1.537 .463 11.023 1 .001 4.650
south .532 .610 .760 1 .033 1.702
southwest .868 .461 3.551 1 .045 2.383
northwest 2.423 .488 24.653 1 .000 11.279
Valley .517 .260 3.946 1 .047 1.678
Flat -2.060 .460 20.084 1 .000 .127
Constant -2.067 1.048 3.889 1 .049 .127
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_800.1_1100, elev_1100.1_1400,
inc_ang6.0_12, inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36, high_tree, grass, no_veg,
S_R, L_R, M_R, V_R, north, northeast, east, southeast, south, southwest, northwest, Valley, Flat.

163
Step number: 1

Observed Groups and Predicted Probabilities

320 ô ô
ó ó
ó ó
F ó ó
R 240 ô ô
E ó ó
Q ó ó
U ó1 0ó
E 160 ô0 1ô
N ó0 1ó
C ó0 1ó
Y ó0 1ó
80 ô0 1ô
ó0 1ó
ó0 1ó
ó0000 0010 010 10 10 10 10 110 01111 111ó
Predicted òòòòòòòòòòòòòòôòòòòòòòòòòòòòòôòòòòòòòòòòòòòòôòòòòòòòòòòòòòòò
Prob: 0 .25 .5 .75 1
Group: 000000000000000000000000000000111111111111111111111111111111
Unfailure Failure
Predicted Probability is of Membership for 1.00
The Cut Value is .50
Symbols: 0 - .00
1 - 1.00
Each Symbol Represents 20 Cases.

164
B.2 Specific site

B.2.1 Bobonaro site


Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients

Chi-square df Sig.
Step 1 Step 280.423 10 .000
Block 280.423 10 .000
Model 280.423 10 .000

Model Summary

-2 Log Cox & Snell Nagelkerke R


Step likelihood R Square Square
1 182.600(a) .568 .757
a Estimation terminated at iteration number 7 because parameter estimates changed by less than .001.

Classification Table(a)

Observed Predicted
Percentage
status_slope Correct

.00 1.00
Step 1 status_slope .00 153 14 91.6
1.00 24 143 85.6
Overall Percentage 88.6
a The cut value is .500

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 -1.792 .375 22.831 1 .000 .167
1(a) elev_500.1_800 -1.588 .342 21.524 1 .000 .204
elev_1100.1_1400 2.485 1.057 5.530 1 .019 12.000
Constant 1.099 .298 13.578 1 .000 3.000
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_1100.1_1400.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_500.1_800 -.300 .258 1.359 1 .044 .741
1(a) elev_800.1_1100 .739 .378 3.817 1 .051 2.094
elev_1100.1_1400 3.773 1.032 13.354 1 .000 43.500
Constant -.189 .195 .941 1 .332 .828
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_500.1_800, elev_800.1_1100, elev_1100.1_1400.

165
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_500.1_800 .204 .283 .518 1 .042 1.226
1(a) elev_800.1_1100 1.243 .396 9.853 1 .002 3.467
elev_1100.1_1400 4.277 1.039 16.943 1 .000 72.000
elev_1400.1_1700 -1.811 .392 21.343 1 .048 .163
Constant -.693 .227 9.289 1 .002 .500
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_500.1_800, elev_800.1_1100, elev_1100.1_1400, elev_1400.1_1700.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step inc_ang6.0_12 -1.017 1.442 .497 1 .041 .362
1(a) inc_ang12.1_18 -.191 1.431 .018 1 .034 .826
inc_ang18.1_24 -.147 1.431 .010 1 .018 .864
inc_ang24.1_30 .666 1.442 .214 1 .044 1.947
inc_ang30.1_36 .938 1.468 .409 1 .023 2.556
inc_ang36.1_42 2.565 1.754 2.138 1 .014 13.000
Constant .000 1.414 .000 1 1.000 1.000
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: inc_ang6.0_12, inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30,
inc_ang30.1_36, inc_ang36.1_42.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step inc_ang6.0_12 -2.889 .811 12.701 1 .000 .056
1(a) inc_ang12.1_18 -2.063 .791 6.809 1 .009 .127
inc_ang18.1_24 -2.018 .791 6.508 1 .011 .133
inc_ang24.1_30 -1.205 .810 2.213 1 .037 .300
inc_ang30.1_36 -.934 .855 1.191 1 .025 .393
inc_ang42.1_48 -3.225 .898 12.898 1 .001 .040
Constant 1.872 .760 6.073 1 .014 6.500
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: inc_ang6.0_12, inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30,
inc_ang30.1_36, inc_ang42.1_48.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step low_tree .370 .457 .654 1 .019 1.447
1(a) grass 2.299 .431 28.444 1 .000 9.963
no_veg 4.199 .604 48.398 1 .000 66.650
Constant -1.682 .385 19.077 1 .000 .186
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: low_tree, grass, no_veg.

166
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step high_tree -.370 .457 .654 1 .019 .691
1(a) grass 1.929 .313 37.988 1 .000 6.885
no_veg 3.830 .526 53.036 1 .000 46.057
Constant -1.312 .246 28.489 1 .000 .269
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: high_tree, grass, no_veg.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step S_R 1.664 .294 31.935 1 .000 5.279
1(a) I_R -.770 .306 6.323 1 .012 .463
Constant -.381 .203 3.531 1 .060 .683
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: S_R, I_R.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step S_R 2.077 .277 56.395 1 .000 7.982
1(a) L_R .183 .335 .300 1 .054 1.201
Constant -.794 .176 20.420 1 .000 .452
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: S_R, L_R.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step S_R 2.433 .275 78.379 1 .000 11.395
1(a) V_R .203 .347 .342 1 .018 1.225
Constant -1.150 .173 44.221 1 .000 .317

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step north 2.580 .676 14.550 1 .000 13.200
1(a) northeast 1.972 .615 10.291 1 .001 7.187
east -.464 .648 .514 1 .043 .629
southeast .270 .596 .205 1 .051 1.310
southwest .265 .625 .180 1 .031 1.304
west .501 .661 .574 1 .049 1.650
northwest .229 .698 .107 1 .043 1.257
Constant -.788 .539 2.137 1 .144 .455
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: north, northeast, east, southeast, southwest, west, northwest.

167
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step north 2.315 .516 20.132 1 .000 10.125
1(a) northeast 1.707 .432 15.615 1 .000 5.512
east -.730 .478 2.333 1 .027 .482
southeast .004 .404 .000 1 .041 1.004
south -.265 .625 .180 1 .031 .767
west .236 .495 .226 1 .034 1.266
northwest -.036 .544 .004 1 .047 .964
Constant -.523 .315 2.751 1 .097 .593
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: north, northeast, east, southeast, south, west, northwest.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step north 2.351 .603 15.227 1 .000 10.500
1(a) northeast 1.743 .532 10.721 1 .001 5.717
east -.693 .570 1.478 1 .024 .500
southeast .041 .510 .006 1 .036 1.042
south -.229 .698 .107 1 .043 .795
southwest .036 .544 .004 1 .047 1.037
west .272 .585 .216 1 .042 1.313
Constant -.560 .443 1.594 1 .207 .571
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: north, northeast, east, southeast, south, southwest, west.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step Valley 1.454 .398 13.319 1 .000 4.280
1(a) Ridge 2.052 .383 28.778 1 .000 7.784
Constant -1.548 .348 19.748 1 .000 .213
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: Valley, Ridge.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step Ridge .598 .250 5.721 1 .017 1.819
1(a) Flat -1.454 .398 13.319 1 .000 .234
Constant -.094 .194 .233 1 .629 .911
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: Ridge, Flat.

168
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 -4.644 1.042 19.853 1 .000 .010
1(a) elev_500.1_800 -4.530 1.029 19.373 1 .000 .011
elev_800.1_1100 -3.655 1.074 11.583 1 .001 .026
inc_ang6.0_12 -2.565 .864 8.821 1 .003 .077
inc_ang12.1_18 -1.904 .841 5.123 1 .024 .149
inc_ang18.1_24 -1.732 .843 4.221 1 .040 .177
inc_ang24.1_30 -.892 .857 1.082 1 .028 .410
inc_ang30.1_36 -.601 .900 .446 1 .004 .548
Constant 5.649 1.288 19.225 1 .000 283.891
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_800.1_1100, inc_ang6.0_12,
inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 -1.590 .399 15.876 1 .000 .204
1(a) elev_500.1_800 -1.477 .364 16.440 1 .000 .228
inc_ang6.0_12 -2.502 .865 8.365 1 .004 .082
inc_ang12.1_18 -1.797 .843 4.545 1 .033 .166
inc_ang18.1_24 -1.633 .845 3.734 1 .053 .195
inc_ang24.1_30 -.827 .862 .920 1 .037 .438
inc_ang30.1_36 -.533 .904 .348 1 .055 .587
elev_1100.1_1400 2.664 1.069 6.214 1 .013 14.360
Constant 2.511 .849 8.744 1 .003 12.318
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, inc_ang6.0_12, inc_ang12.1_18,
inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36, elev_1100.1_1400.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 -.989 .428 5.353 1 .021 .372
1(a) elev_500.1_800 -.875 .395 4.914 1 .027 .417
inc_ang6.0_12 -2.571 .863 8.867 1 .003 .076
inc_ang12.1_18 -1.905 .841 5.133 1 .023 .149
inc_ang18.1_24 -1.732 .842 4.228 1 .040 .177
inc_ang24.1_30 -.897 .857 1.095 1 .025 .408
inc_ang30.1_36 -.608 .900 .456 1 .000 .545
elev_1100.1_1400 3.271 1.081 9.160 1 .002 26.338
elev_1400.1_1700 96446590
20.687 8855.465 .000 1 .008
8.825
Constant 1.997 .846 5.569 1 .018 7.366
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, inc_ang6.0_12, inc_ang12.1_18,
inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36, elev_1100.1_1400, elev_1400.1_1700.

169
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 -4.621 1.042 19.651 1 .000 .010
1(a) elev_500.1_800 -4.524 1.029 19.312 1 .000 .011
elev_800.1_1100 -3.668 1.075 11.644 1 .001 .026
inc_ang6.0_12 -1.497 1.453 1.061 1 .003 .224
inc_ang12.1_18 -.836 1.440 .337 1 .021 .434
inc_ang18.1_24 -.666 1.438 .215 1 .043 .514
inc_ang24.1_30 .175 1.448 .015 1 .004 1.192
inc_ang30.1_36 .470 1.478 .101 1 .050 1.600
inc_ang36.1_42 1.553 1.786 .756 1 .035 4.724
Constant 4.573 1.747 6.852 1 .009 96.803
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_800.1_1100, inc_ang6.0_12,
inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36, inc_ang36.1_42.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 -4.857 1.115 18.977 1 .000 .008
1(a) elev_500.1_800 -4.948 1.094 20.460 1 .000 .007
elev_800.1_1100 -3.642 1.141 10.184 1 .001 .026
inc_ang6.0_12 -2.358 1.877 1.579 1 .020 .095
inc_ang12.1_18 -1.869 1.869 1.000 1 .017 .154
inc_ang18.1_24 -1.639 1.858 .778 1 .038 .194
inc_ang24.1_30 -.829 1.869 .197 1 .057 .436
inc_ang30.1_36 -.331 1.898 .030 1 .041 .718
inc_ang36.1_42 1.297 2.238 .336 1 .052 3.660
low_tree 1.194 .655 3.324 1 .038 3.301
grass 3.014 .634 22.601 1 .000 20.376
no_veg 5.056 .780 41.981 1 .000 157.003
Constant 3.396 2.101 2.611 1 .106 29.831
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_800.1_1100, inc_ang6.0_12,
inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36, inc_ang36.1_42, low_tree, grass, no_veg.

170
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 -4.857 1.115 18.977 1 .000 .008
1(a) elev_500.1_800 -4.948 1.094 20.460 1 .000 .007
elev_800.1_1100 -3.642 1.141 10.184 1 .001 .026
inc_ang6.0_12 -2.358 1.877 1.579 1 .009 .095
inc_ang12.1_18 -1.869 1.869 1.000 1 .017 .154
inc_ang18.1_24 -1.639 1.858 .778 1 .038 .194
inc_ang24.1_30 -.829 1.869 .197 1 .057 .436
inc_ang30.1_36 -.331 1.898 .030 1 .031 .718
inc_ang36.1_42 1.297 2.238 .336 1 .052 3.660
grass 1.820 .384 22.434 1 .000 6.172
no_veg 3.862 .584 43.749 1 .000 47.559
high_tree -1.194 .655 3.324 1 .018 .303
Constant 4.590 2.174 4.457 1 .035 98.477
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_800.1_1100, inc_ang6.0_12,
inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36, inc_ang36.1_42, grass, no_veg, high_tree.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 -5.029 1.138 19.545 1 .000 .007
1(a) elev_500.1_800 -5.108 1.117 20.901 1 .000 .006
elev_800.1_1100 -3.624 1.185 9.356 1 .002 .027
inc_ang6.0_12 -2.129 2.808 .575 1 .048 .119
inc_ang12.1_18 -1.613 2.799 .332 1 .034 .199
inc_ang18.1_24 -1.289 2.795 .213 1 .045 .275
inc_ang24.1_30 -.446 2.805 .025 1 .034 .640
inc_ang30.1_36 .256 2.831 .008 1 .028 1.292
inc_ang36.1_42 .600 3.013 .040 1 .042 1.822
low_tree .964 .678 2.022 1 .055 2.622
grass 2.859 .661 18.705 1 .000 17.448
no_veg 5.009 .829 36.482 1 .000 149.808
S_R 2.367 .440 28.930 1 .000 10.660
L_R .568 .480 1.401 1 .037 1.765
Constant 2.456 2.967 .685 1 .408 11.654
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_800.1_1100, inc_ang6.0_12,
inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36, inc_ang36.1_42, low_tree, grass, no_veg,
S_R, L_R.

171
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 -4.716 1.168 16.303 1 .000 .009
1(a) elev_500.1_800 -4.923 1.133 18.891 1 .000 .007
elev_800.1_1100 -3.372 1.209 7.777 1 .005 .034
inc_ang6.0_12 -2.318 4.087 .322 1 .011 .098
inc_ang12.1_18 -1.627 4.076 .159 1 .030 .197
inc_ang18.1_24 -1.459 4.066 .129 1 .020 .232
inc_ang24.1_30 -.772 4.071 .036 1 .040 .462
inc_ang30.1_36 -.023 4.079 .000 1 .055 .977
inc_ang36.1_42 .577 4.260 .018 1 .058 1.781
low_tree 1.275 .729 3.058 1 .020 3.577
grass 3.070 .708 18.792 1 .000 21.535
no_veg 5.148 .905 32.377 1 .000 172.122
S_R 2.406 .474 25.758 1 .000 11.092
L_R .945 .520 3.299 1 .019 2.572
north 1.572 .993 2.505 1 .013 4.818
northeast .801 1.013 .625 1 .029 2.227
east -1.311 1.016 1.666 1 .017 .269
southeast -.016 .912 .000 1 .006 .984
southwest -.021 .977 .000 1 .003 .979
west -.741 1.088 .464 1 .006 .477
northwest -.325 1.090 .089 1 .006 .723
Constant 2.051 4.290 .229 1 .033 7.777
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_800.1_1100, inc_ang6.0_12,
inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36, inc_ang36.1_42, low_tree, grass, no_veg,
S_R, L_R, north, northeast, east, southeast, southwest, west, northwest.

172
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 -4.716 1.168 16.303 1 .000 .009
1(a) elev_500.1_800 -4.923 1.133 18.891 1 .000 .007
elev_800.1_1100 -3.372 1.209 7.777 1 .005 .034
inc_ang6.0_12 -2.318 4.087 .322 1 .051 .098
inc_ang12.1_18 -1.627 4.076 .159 1 .090 .197
inc_ang18.1_24 -1.459 4.066 .129 1 .020 .232
inc_ang24.1_30 -.772 4.071 .036 1 .050 .462
inc_ang30.1_36 -.023 4.079 .000 1 .005 .977
inc_ang36.1_42 .577 4.260 .018 1 .002 1.781
low_tree 1.275 .729 3.058 1 .030 3.577
grass 3.070 .708 18.792 1 .000 21.535
no_veg 5.148 .905 32.377 1 .000 172.122
S_R 2.406 .474 25.758 1 .000 11.092
L_R .945 .520 3.299 1 .049 2.572
north 1.897 .914 4.305 1 .038 6.668
northeast 1.126 .932 1.458 1 .027 3.083
east -.986 .915 1.163 1 .021 .373
southeast .309 .801 .148 1 .033 1.361
southwest .304 .864 .124 1 .025 1.355
west -.416 .986 .178 1 .033 .660
south .325 1.090 .089 1 .019 1.384
Constant 1.726 4.279 .163 1 .687 5.619
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_800.1_1100, inc_ang6.0_12,
inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36, inc_ang36.1_42, low_tree, grass, no_veg,
S_R, L_R, north, northeast, east, southeast, southwest, west, south.

173
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 -4.687 1.208 15.061 1 .000 .009
1(a) elev_500.1_800 -5.122 1.168 19.218 1 .000 .006
elev_800.1_1100 -3.713 1.244 8.901 1 .003 .024
inc_ang6.0_12 -2.760 5.734 .232 1 .030 .063
inc_ang12.1_18 -2.210 5.726 .149 1 .000 .110
inc_ang18.1_24 -2.246 5.721 .154 1 .045 .106
inc_ang24.1_30 -1.462 5.722 .065 1 .038 .232
inc_ang30.1_36 -.770 5.727 .018 1 .023 .463
inc_ang36.1_42 -.184 5.864 .001 1 .005 .832
low_tree 1.323 .744 3.160 1 .035 3.755
grass 3.108 .725 18.375 1 .000 22.369
no_veg 5.365 .953 31.676 1 .000 213.892
S_R 2.414 .492 24.031 1 .000 11.178
L_R .729 .537 1.844 1 .014 2.072
north 2.111 1.027 4.220 1 .040 8.253
northeast .953 1.035 .847 1 .035 2.593
east -1.179 1.043 1.277 1 .027 .308
southeast .123 .928 .018 1 .046 1.131
southwest .147 .988 .022 1 .002 1.159
west -.584 1.132 .266 1 .006 .558
northwest .172 1.108 .024 1 .017 1.187
Valley 1.642 .703 5.445 1 .020 5.163
Ridge 1.813 .657 7.609 1 .006 6.127
Constant 1.139 5.887 .037 1 .847 3.122
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_800.1_1100, inc_ang6.0_12,
inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36, inc_ang36.1_42, low_tree, grass, no_veg,
S_R, L_R, north, northeast, east, southeast, southwest, west, northwest, Valley, Ridge.

174
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 -4.687 1.208 15.061 1 .000 .009
1(a) elev_500.1_800 -5.122 1.168 19.218 1 .000 .006
elev_800.1_1100 -3.713 1.244 8.901 1 .003 .024
inc_ang6.0_12 -2.760 5.734 .232 1 .030 .063
inc_ang12.1_18 -2.210 5.726 .149 1 .040 .110
inc_ang18.1_24 -2.246 5.721 .154 1 .0345 .106
inc_ang24.1_30 -1.462 5.722 .065 1 .008 .232
inc_ang30.1_36 -.770 5.727 .018 1 .0473 .463
inc_ang36.1_42 -.184 5.864 .001 1 .050 .832
low_tree 1.323 .744 3.160 1 .015 3.755
grass 3.108 .725 18.375 1 .000 22.369
no_veg 5.365 .953 31.676 1 .000 213.892
S_R 2.414 .492 24.031 1 .000 11.178
L_R .729 .537 1.844 1 .017 2.072
north 2.111 1.027 4.220 1 .040 8.253
northeast .953 1.035 .847 1 .035 2.593
east -1.179 1.043 1.277 1 .025 .308
southeast .123 .928 .018 1 .024 1.131
southwest .147 .988 .022 1 .002 1.159
west -.584 1.132 .266 1 .006 .558
northwest .172 1.108 .024 1 .038 1.187
Valley -.171 .448 .146 1 .002 .843
Flat -1.813 .657 7.609 1 .006 .163
Constant 2.951 5.895 .251 1 .617 19.129
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_800.1_1100, inc_ang6.0_12,
inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36, inc_ang36.1_42, low_tree, grass, no_veg,
S_R, L_R, north, northeast, east, southeast, southwest, west, northwest, Valley, Flat.

175
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_500.1_800 -.750 .503 2.222 1 .013 .472
1(a) elev_800.1_1100 .873 .800 1.191 1 .025 2.394
elev_1100.1_1400 5.055 1.260 16.096 1 .000 156.835
inc_ang6.0_12 -1.323 4.183 .100 1 .032 .266
inc_ang12.1_18 -.839 4.180 .040 1 .041 .432
inc_ang18.1_24 -.754 4.174 .033 1 .007 .470
inc_ang24.1_30 .563 4.197 .018 1 .043 1.756
inc_ang30.1_36 1.349 4.182 .104 1 .047 3.854
inc_ang36.1_42 .683 4.395 .024 1 .047 1.979
low_tree 1.383 .760 3.310 1 .039 3.988
grass 3.557 .776 21.025 1 .000 35.066
no_veg 6.306 1.131 31.074 1 .000 547.696
S_R .065 .658 .010 1 .021 1.067
L_R -2.034 .754 7.281 1 .007 .131
I_R -4.076 .838 23.641 1 .000 .017
north 2.021 .902 5.021 1 .025 7.542
northeast 1.206 .842 2.054 1 .012 3.340
east -1.598 .849 3.545 1 .060 .202
southeast -.349 .715 .238 1 .025 .705
southwest .327 .765 .183 1 .029 1.387
west -.866 .987 .771 1 .038 .420
Valley 1.961 .750 6.842 1 .009 7.104
Ridge 2.034 .676 9.065 1 .003 7.648
Constant -2.586 4.203 .379 1 .538 .075
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_500.1_800, elev_800.1_1100, elev_1100.1_1400, inc_ang6.0_12,
inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36, inc_ang36.1_42, low_tree, grass, no_veg,
S_R, L_R, I_R, north, northeast, east, southeast, southwest, west, Valley, Ridge.

176
Step number: 1

Observed Groups and Predicted Probabilities

80 ô ô
ó ó
ó ó
F ó 1ó
R 60 ô 1ô
E ó 1ó
Q ó 1ó
U ó 1ó
E 40 ô0 1ô
N ó0 1ó
C ó0 0 1ó
Y ó0 0 1ó
20 ô0 0 1ô
ó0 0 0 0 11ó
ó0 010 0 1 1 1 1 1 11ó
ó0 000000 0 00 0 10 10 10 110 11110 10111ó
Predicted òòòòòòòòòòòòòòôòòòòòòòòòòòòòòôòòòòòòòòòòòòòòôòòòòòòòòòòòòòòò
Prob: 0 .25 .5 .75 1
Group: 000000000000000000000000000000111111111111111111111111111111
Unfailure Failure
Predicted Probability is of Membership for 1.00
The Cut Value is .50
Symbols: 0 - .00
1 - 1.00
Each Symbol Represents 5 Cases.

177
B.2.2 Cailaco Site
Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients
Chi-square df Sig.
Step 1 Step 274.676 7 .000
Block 274.676 7 .000
Model 274.676 7 .000

Model Summary

-2 Log Cox & Snell Nagelkerke R


Step likelihood R Square Square
1 94.079(a) .644 .859
a Estimation terminated at iteration number 8 because parameter estimates changed by less than .001.

Hosmer and Lemeshow Test

Step Chi-square df Sig.


1 8.090 8 .425

Contingency Table for Hosmer and Lemeshow Test

status_slope = .00 status_slope = 1.00 Total


Observed Expected Observed Expected
Step 1 1 18 17.995 0 .005 18
2 22 21.930 0 .070 22
3 37 36.881 0 .119 37
4 26 24.207 0 1.793 26
5 21 21.313 6 5.687 27
6 4 6.824 22 19.176 26
7 3 3.213 23 22.787 26
8 2 .525 22 23.475 24
9 0 .078 25 24.922 25
10 0 .034 35 34.966 35

Classification Table(a)

Observed Predicted
Percentage
status_slope Correct

.00 1.00
Step 1 status_slope .00 125 8 94.0
1.00 8 125 94.0
Overall Percentage 94.0
a The cut value is .500

178
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 -.405 .831 .238 1 .026 .667
1(a) elev_500.1_800 .528 .858 .379 1 .038 1.696
elev_800.1_1100 1.526 .954 2.559 1 .010 4.600
Constant .000 .816 .000 1 1.000 1.000
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_800.1_1100.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 -1.932 .518 13.921 1 .000 .145
1(a) elev_500.1_800 -.998 .559 3.186 1 .044 .369
elev_1100.1_1400 -1.526 .954 2.559 1 .010 .217
Constant 1.526 .493 9.565 1 .002 4.600
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_1100.1_1400.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step grass 3.486 .433 64.688 1 .000 32.647
1(a) no_veg 5.088 .568 80.219 1 .000 162.060
Constant -2.407 .330 53.146 1 .000 .090
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: grass, no_veg.

Variables in the Equation(96.2,54.9)

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step low_tree -1.766 .389 20.594 1 .000 .171
1(a) no_veg 2.847 .501 32.327 1 .000 17.228
Constant -.166 .192 .741 1 .389 .847
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: low_tree, no_veg.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step S_R 2.256 .296 58.023 1 .000 9.542
1(a) Constant -.881 .175 25.236 1 .000 .414
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: S_R.

179
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step L_R 1.154 .308 14.084 1 .000 3.172
1(a) Constant -.270 .142 3.605 1 .058 .763
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: L_R.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step north 2.376 .483 24.250 1 .000 10.762
1(a) northeast 4.021 .515 61.016 1 .000 55.753
east 2.097 .451 21.601 1 .000 8.139
northwest 2.799 .463 36.494 1 .000 16.427
Constant -1.997 .321 38.606 1 .000 .136
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: north, northeast, east, northwest.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step northeast 3.511 .476 54.474 1 .000 33.474
1(a) east 1.586 .406 15.273 1 .000 4.886
northwest 2.289 .419 29.773 1 .000 9.862
southeast 1.582 .505 9.794 1 .002 4.863
Constant -1.486 .254 34.234 1 .000 .226
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: northeast, east, northwest, southeast.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step Valley 1.509 .374 16.296 1 .000 4.521
1(a) Ridge .351 .401 .765 1 .032 1.420
Constant -.901 .329 7.501 1 .006 .406
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: Valley, Ridge.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step Valley 1.158 .290 15.949 1 .000 3.184
1(a) Flat -.351 .401 .765 1 .048 .704
Constant -.550 .229 5.756 1 .016 .577
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: Valley, Flat.

180
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step inc_ang6.0_12 -1.072 .956 1.259 1 .022 .342
1(a) inc_ang12.1_18 -.675 .936 .521 1 .011 .509
inc_ang18.1_24 -.280 .947 .088 1 .027 .756
inc_ang24.1_30 .405 1.007 .162 1 .037 1.500
inc_ang30.1_36 2.428 1.376 3.115 1 .048 11.333
Constant .405 .913 .197 1 .657 1.500
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: inc_ang6.0_12, inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30,
inc_ang30.1_36.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step inc_ang6.0_12 -2.807 .799 12.337 1 .000 .060
1(a) inc_ang12.1_18 -2.410 .775 9.665 1 .002 .090
inc_ang18.1_24 -2.015 .788 6.532 1 .011 .133
inc_ang24.1_30 -1.329 .860 2.389 1 .022 .265
inc_ang36.1_42 -1.041 1.376 .573 1 .049 .353
Constant 2.140 .748 8.196 1 .004 8.500
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: inc_ang6.0_12, inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30,
inc_ang36.1_42.

Variables in the Equation(79.7,58.6)

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 .285 1.036 .076 1 .053 1.330
1(a) elev_500.1_800 1.244 1.062 1.373 1 .021 3.469
elev_800.1_1100 2.188 1.150 3.622 1 .047 8.918
inc_ang6.0_12 -1.013 1.009 1.008 1 .031 .363
inc_ang12.1_18 -.497 .988 .252 1 .015 .609
inc_ang18.1_24 -.249 .999 .062 1 .043 .780
inc_ang24.1_30 .388 1.061 .133 1 .051 1.474
inc_ang30.1_36 2.673 1.427 3.506 1 .041 14.484
Constant -.372 1.413 .069 1 .792 .689
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_800.1_1100, inc_ang6.0_12,
inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36.

181
Variables in the Equation
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Step elev_200_500 -1.897 .536 12.505 1 .000 .150
1(a) elev_500.1_800 -.939 .578 2.644 1 .004 .391
elev_1100.1_1400 -2.038 1.094 3.470 1 .062 .130
inc_ang6.0_12 -2.972 .827 12.925 1 .000 .051
inc_ang12.1_18 -2.462 .793 9.635 1 .002 .085
inc_ang18.1_24 -2.208 .815 7.343 1 .007 .110
inc_ang24.1_30 -1.572 .889 3.123 1 .027 .208
inc_ang36.1_42 -1.334 1.430 .870 1 .031 .263
Constant 3.770 .922 16.731 1 .000 43.394
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_1100.1_1400, inc_ang6.0_12,
inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang36.1_42.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 .078 1.292 .004 1 .052 1.082
1(a) elev_500.1_800 .836 1.364 .375 1 .040 2.306
elev_800.1_1100 1.700 1.693 1.008 1 .015 5.474
inc_ang6.0_12 -1.915 1.860 1.060 1 .003 .147
inc_ang12.1_18 -1.696 1.817 .871 1 .031 .183
inc_ang18.1_24 -.882 1.833 .232 1 .030 .414
inc_ang24.1_30 -.054 1.964 .001 1 .048 .947
inc_ang30.1_36 4.015 2.109 3.623 1 .007 55.402
grass 4.386 .629 48.566 1 .000 80.330
no_veg 6.003 .737 66.388 1 .000 404.671
Constant -2.416 2.215 1.190 1 .275 .089
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_800.1_1100, inc_ang6.0_12,
inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36, grass, no_veg.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 .883 1.017 .753 1 .035 2.417
1(a) elev_500.1_800 1.532 1.054 2.116 1 .016 4.630
elev_800.1_1100 2.989 1.195 6.256 1 .002 19.864
inc_ang6.0_12 -1.426 1.537 .861 1 .053 .240
inc_ang12.1_18 -1.278 1.518 .708 1 .048 .279
inc_ang18.1_24 -.806 1.528 .278 1 .039 .447
inc_ang24.1_30 -.357 1.587 .050 1 .022 .700
inc_ang30.1_36 3.642 1.888 3.722 1 .004 38.155
grass .794 .368 4.645 1 .011 2.212
low_tree -2.938 .530 30.714 1 .000 .053
Constant .147 1.828 .006 1 .936 1.158
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_800.1_1100, inc_ang6.0_12,
inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36, grass, low_tree.

182
Variables in the Equation
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Step elev_200_500 -1.540 1.228 1.574 1 .031 .214
1(a) elev_500.1_800 .451 1.231 .134 1 .021 1.570
elev_800.1_1100 -.031 1.387 .000 1 .042 .970
inc_ang6.0_12 -1.030 1.336 .595 1 .048 .357
inc_ang12.1_18 .091 1.294 .005 1 .024 1.095
inc_ang18.1_24 .380 1.292 .087 1 .028 1.463
inc_ang24.1_30 .235 1.377 .029 1 .034 1.265
inc_ang30.1_36 3.155 1.756 3.230 1 .002 23.464
no_veg 3.898 .621 39.453 1 .000 49.300
S_R 2.822 .469 36.201 1 .000 16.815
Constant -1.179 1.728 .465 1 .495 .308
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_800.1_1100, inc_ang6.0_12,
inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36, no_veg, S_R.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 -.348 1.129 .095 1 .058 .706
1(a) elev_500.1_800 .410 1.162 .124 1 .025 1.506
elev_800.1_1100 .539 1.319 .167 1 .043 1.714
inc_ang6.0_12 -2.287 1.107 4.269 1 .039 .102
inc_ang12.1_18 -1.403 1.053 1.776 1 .043 .246
inc_ang18.1_24 -.778 1.057 .541 1 .042 .460
inc_ang24.1_30 -.214 1.131 .036 1 .50 .807
inc_ang30.1_36 2.223 1.461 2.316 1 .008 9.238
no_veg 3.716 .550 45.723 1 .000 41.116
L_R .852 .417 4.171 1 .021 2.344
Constant .174 1.509 .013 1 .908 1.190
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_800.1_1100, inc_ang6.0_12,
inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36, no_veg, L_R.

183
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 1.360 1.216 1.252 1 .023 3.896
1(a) elev_500.1_800 1.560 1.274 1.501 1 .021 4.760
elev_800.1_1100 1.816 1.465 1.535 1 .015 6.146
inc_ang6.0_12 -2.058 1.348 2.332 1 .047 .128
inc_ang12.1_18 -.939 1.303 .519 1 .041 .391
inc_ang18.1_24 -.516 1.302 .157 1 .032 .597
inc_ang24.1_30 .801 1.399 .328 1 .017 2.227
inc_ang30.1_36 3.013 1.746 2.979 1 .004 20.355
no_veg 3.396 .582 33.992 1 .000 29.836
L_R .473 .494 .917 1 .038 1.605
north 2.735 .728 14.121 1 .000 15.411
northeast 4.120 .691 35.525 1 .000 61.530
east 1.971 .664 8.808 1 .003 7.175
northwest 3.403 .662 26.435 1 .000 30.050
Constant -3.856 1.827 4.456 1 .035 .021
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_800.1_1100, inc_ang6.0_12,
inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36, no_veg, L_R, north, northeast, east,
northwest.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 1.357 1.189 1.302 1 .002 3.883
1(a) elev_500.1_800 1.333 1.245 1.147 1 .004 3.794
elev_800.1_1100 2.163 1.401 2.384 1 .000 8.698
inc_ang6.0_12 -2.345 1.370 2.931 1 .037 .096
inc_ang12.1_18 -1.436 1.321 1.182 1 .027 .238
inc_ang18.1_24 -1.117 1.332 .704 1 .401 .327
inc_ang24.1_30 .357 1.396 .065 1 .028 1.429
inc_ang30.1_36 2.251 1.706 1.742 1 .017 9.499
no_veg 3.340 .585 32.640 1 .000 28.224
L_R .841 .499 2.841 1 .012 2.319
north 2.100 .646 10.579 1 .001 8.169
northeast 3.531 .628 31.642 1 .000 34.142
northwest 2.785 .574 23.519 1 .000 16.197
southeast 1.169 .788 2.198 1 .008 3.217
Constant -2.797 1.764 2.513 1 .113 .061
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_800.1_1100, inc_ang6.0_12,
inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36, no_veg, L_R, north, northeast, northwest,
southeast.

184
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 1.690 1.180 2.053 1 .012 5.422
1(a) elev_500.1_800 1.530 1.247 1.504 1 .015 4.617
elev_800.1_1100 2.106 1.376 2.343 1 .006 8.216
inc_ang6.0_12 -1.675 1.374 1.485 1 .023 .187
inc_ang12.1_18 -.833 1.328 .394 1 .048 .435
inc_ang18.1_24 -.684 1.333 .263 1 .045 .505
inc_ang24.1_30 .991 1.393 .506 1 .021 2.693
inc_ang30.1_36 2.622 1.691 2.403 1 .001 13.757
no_veg 3.419 .623 30.080 1 .000 30.536
L_R .933 .528 3.123 1 .017 2.543
north 2.416 .698 11.972 1 .001 11.196
northeast 3.799 .678 31.356 1 .000 44.643
northwest 2.706 .596 20.611 1 .000 14.967
southeast 1.110 .757 2.153 1 .012 3.035
Valley 1.666 .668 6.209 1 .013 5.289
Ridge .396 .712 .310 1 .018 1.487
Constant -4.741 1.926 6.063 1 .014 .009
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_800.1_1100, inc_ang6.0_12,
inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36, no_veg, L_R, north, northeast, northwest,
southeast, Valley, Ridge.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 1.690 1.180 2.053 1 .012 5.422
1(a) elev_500.1_800 1.530 1.247 1.504 1 .014 4.617
elev_800.1_1100 2.106 1.376 2.343 1 .006 8.216
inc_ang6.0_12 -1.675 1.374 1.485 1 .063 .187
inc_ang12.1_18 -.833 1.328 .394 1 .053 .435
inc_ang18.1_24 -.684 1.333 .263 1 .051 .505
inc_ang24.1_30 .991 1.393 .506 1 .009 2.693
inc_ang30.1_36 2.622 1.691 2.403 1 .001 13.757
no_veg 3.419 .623 30.080 1 .000 30.536
L_R .933 .528 3.123 1 .017 2.543
north 2.416 .698 11.972 1 .001 11.196
northeast 3.799 .678 31.356 1 .000 44.643
northwest 2.706 .596 20.611 1 .000 14.967
southeast 1.110 .757 2.153 1 .012 3.035
Valley 1.269 .489 6.740 1 .009 3.558
Flat -.396 .712 .310 1 .048 .673
Constant -4.345 1.836 5.602 1 .018 .013
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_800.1_1100, inc_ang6.0_12,
inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36, no_veg, L_R, north, northeast, northwest,
southeast, Valley, Flat.

185
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 .612 1.572 .152 1 .037 1.845
1(a) elev_500.1_800 2.887 1.689 2.923 1 .007 17.941
elev_800.1_1100 2.746 1.837 2.235 1 .009 15.580
inc_ang6.0_12 -3.651 1.623 5.059 1 .024 .026
inc_ang12.1_18 -3.582 1.601 5.007 1 .025 .028
inc_ang18.1_24 -3.503 1.596 4.818 1 .028 .030
inc_ang24.1_30 -2.532 2.089 1.469 1 .026 .080
grass 5.367 1.100 23.795 1 .000 214.290
no_veg 7.749 1.373 31.861 1 .000 2319.493
S_R 4.954 1.130 19.210 1 .000 141.757
northeast 3.385 1.022 10.980 1 .001 29.515
east 1.267 1.077 1.384 1 .023 3.549
southeast 1.850 1.093 2.867 1 .040 6.363
northwest 4.544 1.288 12.450 1 .000 94.024
Valley 1.165 1.083 1.158 1 .022 3.207
Ridge 1.367 1.103 1.536 1 .015 3.924
Constant -6.904 2.577 7.177 1 .007 .001
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_800.1_1100, inc_ang6.0_12,
inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30, grass, no_veg, S_R, northeast, east, southeast, northwest,
Valley, Ridge.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 -.415 1.028 .163 1 .067 .661
1(a) elev_500.1_800 -.639 1.095 .340 1 .070 .528
elev_1100.1_1400 -2.601 1.536 2.868 1 .090 .074
inc_ang6.0_12 -2.307 .859 7.205 1 .007 .100
inc_ang12.1_18 -1.575 .735 4.594 1 .032 .207
inc_ang18.1_24 -1.174 .737 2.535 1 .061 .309
inc_ang30.1_36 3.175 1.479 4.605 1 .032 23.926
low_tree -2.097 .621 11.404 1 .001 .123
no_veg 2.797 .647 18.673 1 .000 16.391
L_R .551 .566 .945 1 .031 1.734
north 3.081 .793 15.091 1 .000 21.786
northeast 3.849 .735 27.437 1 .000 46.967
east 1.798 .674 7.114 1 .008 6.037
northwest 3.381 .739 20.955 1 .000 29.409
Valley .886 .509 3.037 1 .021 2.427
Flat -.517 .773 .447 1 .044 .596
Constant -1.079 1.235 .763 1 .382 .340
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_1100.1_1400, inc_ang6.0_12,
inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang30.1_36, low_tree, no_veg, L_R, north, northeast, east, northwest,
Valley, Flat.

186
Variables in the Equation(88.7,87.2)

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 -1.051 .871 1.458 1 .022 .350
1(a) elev_500.1_800 -1.292 .910 2.016 1 .046 .275
elev_1100.1_1400 -3.870 1.392 7.733 1 .005 .021
inc_ang6.0_12 -2.111 .779 7.342 1 .007 .121
inc_ang12.1_18 -1.673 .711 5.542 1 .019 .188
inc_ang18.1_24 -1.400 .759 3.405 1 .045 .247
inc_ang30.1_36 3.694 1.466 6.352 1 .012 40.216
low_tree -2.978 .618 23.206 1 .000 .051
L_R 1.035 .553 3.498 1 .021 2.814
north 3.422 .682 25.185 1 .000 30.618
northeast 3.615 .642 31.707 1 .000 37.138
east 1.656 .601 7.588 1 .006 5.239
northwest 3.368 .709 22.583 1 .000 29.010
Flat .008 .684 .000 1 .041 1.008
Valley .840 .484 3.007 1 .023 2.315
grass .441 .495 .796 1 .032 1.555
Constant .200 1.100 .033 1 .856 1.222
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, elev_500.1_800, elev_1100.1_1400, inc_ang6.0_12,
inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang30.1_36, low_tree, L_R, north, northeast, east, northwest, Flat, Valley,
grass.

187
Step number: 1

Observed Groups and Predicted Probabilities

80 ô ô
ó ó
ó ó
F ó ó
R 60 ô0 1ô
E ó0 1ó
Q ó0 1ó
U ó0 1ó
E 40 ô0 1ô
N ó0 1ó
C ó0 1ó
Y ó0 1ó
20 ô0 1ô
ó0 1ó
ó0 0 0 0 11 1ó
ó0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 101 1011 111ó
Predicted òòòòòòòòòòòòòòôòòòòòòòòòòòòòòôòòòòòòòòòòòòòòôòòòòòòòòòòòòòòò
Prob: 0 .25 .5 .75 1
Group: 000000000000000000000000000000111111111111111111111111111111
Unfailure Failure
Predicted Probability is of Membership for 1.00
The Cut Value is .50
Symbols: 0 - .00
1 - 1.00
Each Symbol Represents 5 Cases.

188
B.2.3 Zumalai Site

Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients

Chi-square df Sig
Step 1 Step 71.559 7 .000
Block 71.559 7 .000
Model 71.559 7 .000

Model Summary

-2 Log Cox & Snell Nagelkerke R


Step likelihood R Square Square
1 136.385(a) .379 .506
a Estimation terminated at iteration number 6 because parameter estimates changed by less than .001.

Hosmer and Lemeshow Test

Step Chi-square df Sig.


1 3.819 8 .873

Contingency Table for Hosmer and Lemeshow Test

status_slope = .00 status_slope = 1.00 Total


Observed Expected Observed Expected
Step 1 1 9 8.324 0 .676 9
2 16 16.239 3 2.761 19
3 7 8.722 4 2.278 11
4 17 16.913 5 5.087 22
5 7 7.443 5 4.557 12
6 9 7.660 6 7.340 15
7 7 5.768 9 10.232 16
8 2 2.317 10 9.683 12
9 1 1.282 14 13.718 15
10 0 .333 19 18.667 19

Classification Table(a)

Observed Predicted
Percentage
status_slope Correct

.00 1.00
Step 1 status_slope .00 66 9 88.0
1.00 14 61 81.3
Overall Percentage 84.7
a The cut value is .500

189
Variables in the Equation
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Step elev_200_500 1.161 .352 10.878 1 .001 3.193
1(a) Constant -.442 .214 4.278 1 .039 .643
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500.

Variables in the Equation


B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Step elev_500.1_800 .674 .339 3.958 1 .047 1.962
1(a) Constant -.268 .213 1.590 1 .207 .765
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_500.1_800.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step inc_ang6.0_12 -.531 1.326 .160 1 .089 .588
1(a) inc_ang12.1_18 .732 1.256 .340 1 .040 2.080
inc_ang18.1_24 .435 1.267 .118 1 .031 1.545
inc_ang24.1_30 .511 1.366 .140 1 .048 1.667
inc_ang30.1_36 3.178 1.607 3.910 1 .008 24.000
inc_ang36.1_42 2.197 1.453 2.287 1 .010 9.000
Constant -.693 1.225 .320 1 .571 .500
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: inc_ang6.0_12, inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30,
inc_ang30.1_36, inc_ang36.1_42.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step inc_ang12.1_18 1.263 .581 4.729 1 .030 3.536
1(a) inc_ang18.1_24 .966 .603 2.570 1 .019 2.627
inc_ang24.1_30 1.041 .791 1.734 1 .008 2.833
inc_ang30.1_36 3.709 1.159 10.248 1 .001 40.800
inc_ang36.1_42 2.728 .933 8.554 1 .003 15.300
inc_ang42.1_48 .531 1.326 .160 1 .029 1.700
Constant -1.224 .509 5.786 1 .016 .294
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36,
inc_ang36.1_42, inc_ang42.1_48.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step low_tree 1.145 .487 5.527 1 .019 3.143
1(a) grass 2.228 .597 13.937 1 .000 9.286
no_veg 3.327 .865 14.799 1 .000 27.857
Constant -1.312 .426 9.496 1 .002 .269
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: low_tree, grass, no_veg.

190
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step high_tree -1.145 .487 5.527 1 .019 .318
1(a) grass 1.083 .481 5.082 1 .024 2.955
no_veg 2.182 .789 7.647 1 .006 8.864
Constant -.167 .237 .499 1 .480 .846
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: high_tree, grass, no_veg.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step S_R 3.145 .446 49.617 1 .000 23.222
1(a) Constant -1.299 .266 23.875 1 .000 .273
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: S_R.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step L_R .319 .401 .633 1 .026 1.376
1(a) Constant -.068 .184 .136 1 .713 .934
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: L_R.

f. direction
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step north 3.584 1.344 7.112 1 .008 36.000
1(a) northeast 3.920 .890 19.420 1 .000 50.400
east 1.322 .916 2.083 1 .049 3.750
southeast 1.997 .870 5.262 1 .022 7.364
southwest 2.086 .817 6.524 1 .011 8.053
west 2.197 1.106 3.950 1 .047 9.000
northwest 2.351 .930 6.391 1 .011 10.500
Constant -2.197 .745 8.690 1 .003 .111
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: north, northeast, east, southeast, southwest, west, northwest.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step north 1.386 1.384 1.003 1 .017 4.000
1(a) northeast 1.723 .950 3.289 1 .040 5.600
east -.875 .975 .807 1 .039 .417
southeast -.201 .932 .046 1 .030 .818
south -2.197 1.106 3.950 1 .047 .111
southwest -.111 .882 .016 1 .021 .895
northwest .154 .988 .024 1 .016 1.167
Constant .000 .816 .000 1 1.000 1.000
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: north, northeast, east, southeast, south, southwest, northwest.

191
Variables in the Equation
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Step Valley 2.823 .671 17.715 1 .000 16.825
1(a) Ridge 1.315 .682 3.717 1 .044 3.725
Constant -1.897 .619 9.389 1 .002 .150
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: Valley, Ridge.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step Valley 1.508 .385 15.304 1 .000 4.516
1(a) Flat -1.315 .682 3.717 1 .054 .268
Constant -.582 .286 4.127 1 .042 .559
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: Valley, Flat.

Variables in the Equation(80,62.7)

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 1.158 .387 8.958 1 .003 3.183
1(a) inc_ang6.0_12 -1.035 1.347 .591 1 .042 .355
inc_ang12.1_18 .217 1.270 .029 1 .064 1.242
inc_ang18.1_24 .071 1.275 .003 1 .056 1.074
inc_ang24.1_30 .194 1.379 .020 1 .048 1.215
inc_ang30.1_36 2.604 1.622 2.577 1 .008 13.515
inc_ang36.1_42 1.872 1.462 1.638 1 .012 6.499
Constant -.693 1.225 .320 1 .571 .500
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, inc_ang6.0_12, inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24,
inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36, inc_ang36.1_42.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 1.158 .387 8.958 1 .003 3.183
1(a) inc_ang12.1_18 1.252 .601 4.345 1 .037 3.497
inc_ang18.1_24 1.106 .626 3.118 1 .047 3.023
inc_ang24.1_30 1.230 .822 2.240 1 .035 3.420
inc_ang30.1_36 3.639 1.178 9.546 1 .002 38.052
inc_ang36.1_42 2.907 .960 9.173 1 .002 18.298
inc_ang42.1_48 1.035 1.347 .591 1 .042 2.816
Constant -1.728 .560 9.533 1 .002 .178
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30,
inc_ang30.1_36, inc_ang36.1_42, inc_ang42.1_48.

192
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step inc_ang12.1_18 1.253 .589 4.522 1 .033 3.502
1(a) inc_ang18.1_24 .817 .615 1.767 1 .044 2.264
inc_ang24.1_30 .923 .806 1.311 1 .042 2.516
inc_ang30.1_36 3.769 1.167 10.434 1 .001 43.333
inc_ang36.1_42 2.594 .945 7.539 1 .006 13.379
inc_ang42.1_48 -.022 1.351 .000 1 .057 .978
elev_500.1_800 .807 .378 4.566 1 .033 2.241
Constant -1.478 .533 7.696 1 .006 .228
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36,
inc_ang36.1_42, inc_ang42.1_48, elev_500.1_800.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step inc_ang12.1_18 1.275 1.284 .987 1 .021 3.579
1(a) inc_ang18.1_24 .839 1.282 .428 1 .013 2.314
inc_ang24.1_30 .945 1.386 .464 1 .016 2.572
inc_ang30.1_36 3.791 1.639 5.348 1 .001 44.289
inc_ang36.1_42 2.615 1.475 3.146 1 .006 13.674
elev_500.1_800 .807 .378 4.566 1 .013 2.241
inc_ang6.0_12 .022 1.351 .000 1 .047 1.022
Constant -1.500 1.282 1.370 1 .242 .223
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36,
inc_ang36.1_42, elev_500.1_800, inc_ang6.0_12.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 1.227 .433 8.033 1 .005 3.410
1(a) inc_ang6.0_12 -.992 1.491 .443 1 .036 .371
inc_ang12.1_18 .207 1.417 .021 1 .014 1.230
inc_ang18.1_24 .005 1.432 .000 1 .017 1.005
inc_ang24.1_30 .245 1.538 .025 1 .013 1.277
inc_ang30.1_36 2.390 1.763 1.838 1 .005 10.908
inc_ang36.1_42 2.050 1.619 1.604 1 .007 7.770
low_tree 1.159 .560 4.275 1 .039 3.186
grass 2.527 .674 14.041 1 .000 12.521
no_veg 3.178 .933 11.595 1 .001 23.993
Constant -2.091 1.438 2.113 1 .146 .124
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, inc_ang6.0_12, inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24,
inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36, inc_ang36.1_42, low_tree, grass, no_veg.

193
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step elev_200_500 1.227 .433 8.033 1 .005 3.410
1(a) inc_ang6.0_12 -.992 1.491 .443 1 .006 .371
inc_ang12.1_18 .207 1.417 .021 1 .014 1.230
inc_ang18.1_24 .005 1.432 .000 1 .047 1.005
inc_ang24.1_30 .245 1.538 .025 1 .030 1.277
inc_ang30.1_36 2.390 1.763 1.838 1 .005 10.908
inc_ang36.1_42 2.050 1.619 1.604 1 .009 7.770
low_tree -2.019 .840 5.774 1 .016 .133
grass -.650 .925 .494 1 .042 .522
high_tree -3.178 .933 11.595 1 .001 .042
Constant 1.087 1.597 .463 1 .496 2.965
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, inc_ang6.0_12, inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24,
inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36, inc_ang36.1_42, low_tree, grass, high_tree.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step inc_ang6.0_12 .078 1.499 .003 1 .059 1.081
1(a) inc_ang12.1_18 1.337 1.435 .869 1 .031 3.809
inc_ang18.1_24 .784 1.431 .301 1 .044 2.191
inc_ang24.1_30 .983 1.541 .407 1 .023 2.673
inc_ang30.1_36 3.913 1.787 4.795 1 .000 50.028
inc_ang36.1_42 2.922 1.647 3.147 1 .006 18.582
low_tree -1.972 .844 5.454 1 .020 .139
grass -.574 .923 .387 1 .034 .563
high_tree -3.048 .925 10.849 1 .001 .047
elev_500.1_800 .793 .424 3.491 1 .012 2.209
Constant .219 1.649 .018 1 .894 1.245
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: inc_ang6.0_12, inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30,
inc_ang30.1_36, inc_ang36.1_42, low_tree, grass, high_tree, elev_500.1_800.

194
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step inc_ang6.0_12 -.319 1.884 .029 1 .065 .727
1(a) inc_ang12.1_18 .582 1.822 .102 1 .043 1.789
inc_ang18.1_24 -.038 1.823 .000 1 .033 .963
inc_ang24.1_30 .451 1.921 .055 1 .014 1.570
inc_ang30.1_36 2.216 2.163 1.050 1 .006 9.167
inc_ang36.1_42 2.215 2.000 1.226 1 .008 9.157
low_tree -.985 .912 1.166 1 .080 .373
grass -.470 1.011 .216 1 .042 .625
high_tree -1.484 1.001 2.198 1 .038 .227
elev_500.1_800 -.384 .570 .452 1 .041 .681
S_R 2.898 .597 23.597 1 .000 18.144
Constant -.630 2.025 .097 1 .756 .533
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: inc_ang6.0_12, inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30,
inc_ang30.1_36, inc_ang36.1_42, low_tree, grass, high_tree, elev_500.1_800, S_R.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step inc_ang6.0_12 -1.253 2.099 .356 1 .051 .286
1(a) inc_ang12.1_18 -.468 2.036 .053 1 .048 .626
inc_ang18.1_24 -.826 2.049 .163 1 .067 .438
inc_ang24.1_30 -.241 2.192 .012 1 .051 .786
inc_ang30.1_36 1.354 2.470 .300 1 .014 3.873
inc_ang36.1_42 1.999 2.256 .785 1 .006 7.378
low_tree -.522 .936 .311 1 .057 .593
grass -.457 1.018 .202 1 .053 .633
high_tree -1.255 1.031 1.480 1 .064 .285
S_R 3.926 .751 27.324 1 .000 50.688
elev_200_500 2.677 .710 14.208 1 .000 14.537
Constant -1.706 2.212 .595 1 .441 .182
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: inc_ang6.0_12, inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30,
inc_ang30.1_36, inc_ang36.1_42, low_tree, grass, high_tree, S_R, elev_200_500.

195
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step inc_ang6.0_12 -1.140 1.543 .546 1 .046 .320
1(a) inc_ang12.1_18 -.027 1.468 .000 1 .025 .974
inc_ang18.1_24 -.074 1.483 .002 1 .016 .929
inc_ang24.1_30 .018 1.600 .000 1 .011 1.019
inc_ang30.1_36 2.509 1.816 1.909 1 .007 12.292
inc_ang36.1_42 1.702 1.663 1.048 1 .010 5.485
low_tree -2.149 .842 6.510 1 .011 .117
grass -.705 .928 .577 1 .048 .494
high_tree -3.874 1.020 14.429 1 .000 .021
elev_200_500 1.010 .447 5.111 1 .024 2.746
L_R 1.255 .628 3.994 1 .046 3.508
Constant 1.270 1.641 .599 1 .439 3.562
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: inc_ang6.0_12, inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30,
inc_ang30.1_36, inc_ang36.1_42, low_tree, grass, high_tree, elev_200_500, L_R.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step inc_ang6.0_12 -.092 1.575 .003 1 .053 .912
1(a) inc_ang12.1_18 1.082 1.512 .512 1 .044 2.951
inc_ang18.1_24 .672 1.509 .199 1 .056 1.959
inc_ang24.1_30 .774 1.634 .224 1 .036 2.168
inc_ang30.1_36 4.302 1.911 5.068 1 .024 73.860
inc_ang36.1_42 2.621 1.715 2.335 1 .001 13.754
low_tree -2.241 .863 6.738 1 .009 .106
grass -.772 .947 .665 1 .005 .462
high_tree -4.301 1.069 16.183 1 .000 .014
L_R 1.932 .637 9.195 1 .002 6.904
elev_500.1_800 1.155 .457 6.378 1 .012 3.175
Constant .234 1.715 .019 1 .892 1.263
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: inc_ang6.0_12, inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30,
inc_ang30.1_36, inc_ang36.1_42, low_tree, grass, high_tree, L_R, elev_500.1_800.

196
Variables in the Equation
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Step inc_ang6.0_12 -.308 2.525 .015 1 .003 .735
1(a) inc_ang12.1_18 1.146 2.456 .218 1 .041 3.146
inc_ang18.1_24 .024 2.418 .000 1 .022 1.024
inc_ang24.1_30 -.152 2.518 .004 1 .052 .859
inc_ang30.1_36 4.936 2.698 3.346 1 .000 139.262
inc_ang36.1_42 1.935 2.586 .560 1 .004 6.921
low_tree -3.890 1.282 9.207 1 .002 .020
grass -2.317 1.363 2.890 1 .019 .099
high_tree -5.891 1.522 14.978 1 .000 .003
L_R 2.812 .824 11.661 1 .001 16.650
elev_500.1_800 1.311 .568 5.326 1 .021 3.709
north 3.615 1.650 4.798 1 .029 37.139
northeast 4.592 1.138 16.268 1 .000 98.654
east 1.631 1.110 2.159 1 .012 5.110
southeast 2.490 1.130 4.857 1 .028 12.063
southwest 1.978 .999 3.917 1 .048 7.227
northwest .840 1.367 .377 1 .039 2.315
Constant -.511 2.605 .038 1 .844 .600
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: inc_ang6.0_12, inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30,
inc_ang30.1_36, inc_ang36.1_42, low_tree, grass, high_tree, L_R, elev_500.1_800, north, northeast, east,
southeast, southwest, northwest.

Variables in the Equation


B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Step inc_ang6.0_12 -1.744 1.741 1.003 1 .081 .175
1(a) inc_ang12.1_18 -.202 1.630 .015 1 .061 .817
inc_ang18.1_24 -1.168 1.626 .516 1 .073 .311
inc_ang24.1_30 -.964 1.818 .281 1 .066 .381
inc_ang30.1_36 3.847 1.962 3.844 1 .000 46.872
inc_ang36.1_42 1.240 1.825 .462 1 .017 3.454
low_tree -3.042 1.099 7.660 1 .006 .048
grass -1.336 1.137 1.381 1 .040 .263
high_tree -5.322 1.349 15.568 1 .000 .005
L_R 2.676 .817 10.722 1 .001 14.520
elev_500.1_800 1.811 .585 9.565 1 .002 6.114
northeast 4.185 1.048 15.937 1 .000 65.719
east 1.322 1.042 1.610 1 .004 3.750
southeast 2.121 1.051 4.069 1 .001 8.340
southwest 1.673 .896 3.487 1 .002 5.330
northwest .391 1.235 .100 1 .752 1.478
west 2.204 1.296 2.889 1 .000 9.057
Constant .081 1.859 .002 1 .965 1.085
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: inc_ang6.0_12, inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30,
inc_ang30.1_36, inc_ang36.1_42, low_tree, grass, high_tree, L_R, elev_500.1_800, northeast, east, southeast,
southwest, northwest, west.

197
Variables in the Equation(88,96)

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step inc_ang6.0_12 -2.200 2.696 .666 1 .014 .111
1(a) inc_ang12.1_18 1.412 2.528 .312 1 .006 4.105
inc_ang18.1_24 -.495 2.523 .038 1 .045 .610
inc_ang24.1_30 -.704 2.627 .072 1 .049 .495
inc_ang30.1_36 8.643 3.223 7.190 1 .007 5669.325
inc_ang36.1_42 2.869 2.635 1.186 1 .026 17.619
low_tree -5.946 1.813 10.751 1 .001 .003
grass -2.279 1.697 1.802 1 .059 .102
high_tree -7.769 2.081 13.932 1 .000 .000
L_R 4.214 1.158 13.248 1 .000 67.597
elev_500.1_800 1.608 .806 3.985 1 .046 4.995
northeast 6.219 1.624 14.657 1 .000 502.216
east 3.409 1.583 4.637 1 .031 30.226
southeast 4.218 1.575 7.175 1 .007 67.891
southwest 2.945 1.303 5.105 1 .024 19.009
northwest .855 2.031 .177 1 .044 2.351
north 5.304 1.870 8.045 1 .005 201.143
Valley 6.630 1.691 15.371 1 .000 757.723
Ridge 2.725 1.323 4.241 1 .039 15.252
Constant -5.344 3.219 2.756 1 .097 .005
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: inc_ang6.0_12, inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30,
inc_ang30.1_36, inc_ang36.1_42, low_tree, grass, high_tree, L_R, elev_500.1_800, northeast, east, southeast,
southwest, northwest, north, Valley, Ridge.

198
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)


Step inc_ang6.0_12 -2.200 2.696 .666 1 .014 .111
1(a) inc_ang12.1_18 1.412 2.528 .312 1 .006 4.105
inc_ang18.1_24 -.495 2.523 .038 1 .045 .610
inc_ang24.1_30 -.704 2.627 .072 1 .049 .495
inc_ang30.1_36 8.643 3.223 7.190 1 .007 5669.325
inc_ang36.1_42 2.869 2.635 1.186 1 .006 17.619
low_tree -5.946 1.813 10.751 1 .001 .003
grass -2.279 1.697 1.802 1 .079 .102
high_tree -7.769 2.081 13.932 1 .000 .000
L_R 4.214 1.158 13.248 1 .000 67.597
elev_500.1_800 1.608 .806 3.985 1 .046 4.995
northeast 6.219 1.624 14.657 1 .000 502.216
east 3.409 1.583 4.637 1 .031 30.226
southeast 4.218 1.575 7.175 1 .007 67.891
southwest 2.945 1.303 5.105 1 .024 19.009
northwest .855 2.031 .177 1 .024 2.351
north 5.304 1.870 8.045 1 .005 201.143
Valley 3.906 .962 16.492 1 .000 49.680
Flat -2.725 1.323 4.241 1 .039 .066
Constant -2.619 2.811 .868 1 .351 .073
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: inc_ang6.0_12, inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24, inc_ang24.1_30,
inc_ang30.1_36, inc_ang36.1_42, low_tree, grass, high_tree, L_R, elev_500.1_800, northeast, east, southeast,
southwest, northwest, north, Valley, Flat.

199
Variables in the Equation
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Step elev_200_500 5.517 1.465 14.182 1 .000 249.004
1(a) inc_ang6.0_12 -3.080 2.464 1.562 1 .051 .046
inc_ang12.1_18 .586 2.088 .079 1 .039 1.798
inc_ang18.1_24 -2.273 2.104 1.167 1 .080 .103
inc_ang24.1_30 .409 2.262 .033 1 .056 1.505
inc_ang30.1_36 4.365 8.101 .290 1 .000 78.660
inc_ang36.1_42 3.273 2.345 1.948 1 .003 26.397
S_R 6.606 1.637 16.288 1 .000 739.265
north 3.710 1.808 4.210 1 .000 40.864
northeast 7.115 2.104 11.436 1 .001 1230.415
east 2.724 1.338 4.147 1 .002 15.239
southeast 4.855 1.683 8.323 1 .004 128.396
southwest 4.478 1.442 9.648 1 .002 88.042
northwest 4.421 1.633 7.326 1 .007 83.151
Valley 4.779 1.400 11.654 1 .001 119.043
Ridge 2.018 1.301 2.407 1 .001 7.520
Constant -11.187 3.079 13.203 1 .000 .000
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, inc_ang6.0_12, inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24,
inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36, inc_ang36.1_42, S_R, north, northeast, east, southeast, southwest, northwest,
Valley, Ridge.

Variables in the Equation


B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Step elev_200_500 5.481 1.572 12.150 1 .000 240.103
1(a) inc_ang6.0_12 -3.202 2.593 1.525 1 .057 .041
inc_ang12.1_18 .728 2.160 .113 1 .006 2.070
inc_ang18.1_24 -2.273 2.192 1.076 1 .060 .103
inc_ang24.1_30 .919 2.343 .154 1 .015 2.506
inc_ang30.1_36 5.173 11.423 .205 1 .001 176.367
inc_ang36.1_42 4.028 2.568 2.460 1 .017 56.124
S_R 7.135 1.837 15.087 1 .000 1255.038
north 4.835 2.002 5.835 1 .006 125.840
northeast 8.391 2.410 12.119 1 .000 4405.150
east 4.052 1.638 6.121 1 .013 57.535
southeast 6.373 2.044 9.720 1 .002 585.892
southwest 5.725 1.712 11.180 1 .001 306.374
northwest 5.766 1.904 9.169 1 .002 319.127
Valley 5.374 1.469 13.381 1 .000 215.829
Ridge 2.543 1.359 3.500 1 .011 12.723
west 3.136 1.885 2.767 1 .006 23.019
Constant -13.239 3.506 14.262 1 .000 .000
a Variable(s) entered on step 1: elev_200_500, inc_ang6.0_12, inc_ang12.1_18, inc_ang18.1_24,
inc_ang24.1_30, inc_ang30.1_36, inc_ang36.1_42, S_R, north, northeast, east, southeast, southwest, northwest,
Valley, Ridge, west.

200
Step number: 1

Observed Groups and Predicted Probabilities

32 ô ô
ó ó
ó ó
F ó ó
R 24 ô ô
E ó ó
Q ó ó
U ó 00 ó
E 16 ô 00 ô
N ó 00 ó
C ó 00 11 ó
Y ó 00 11 ó
8 ô 00 11 ô
ó 00 00 11 11 ó
ó 00 001 00 1 1 1111 1111 ó
ó 00 000 10 100 10 10 10 110 1111 1111 ó
Predicted òòòòòòòòòòòòòòôòòòòòòòòòòòòòòôòòòòòòòòòòòòòòôòòòòòòòòòòòòòòò
Prob: 0 .25 .5 .75 1
Group: 000000000000000000000000000000111111111111111111111111111111
Unfailure Failure
Predicted Probability is of Membership for 1.00
The Cut Value is .50
Symbols: 0 - .00
1 - 1.00
Each Symbol Represents 2 Cases.

201