Bull Eng Geol Environ (2006) 65:341–411
DOI 10.1007/s10064-006-0064-z
ORIGINAL PAPER
Engineering geology maps: landslides and geographical
information systems
J. Chacón Æ C. Irigaray Æ T. Fernández Æ
R. El Hamdouni
Received: 6 June 2005 / Accepted: 24 June 2006 / Published online: 31 October 2006

Springer-Verlag 2006
Abstract IAEG Commission No. 1—Engineering
Geological Maps—is developing a guide to hazard
maps. Scientists from 17 countries have participated.
This paper is one of a series that presents the results of
that work. It provides a general review of GIS landslide
mapping techniques and basic concepts of landslide
mapping. Three groups of maps are considered: maps
of spatial incidence of landslides, maps of spatial–
temporal incidence and forecasting of landslides and
maps of assessment of the consequences of landslides.
With the current era of powerful microcomputers and
widespread use of GIS packages, large numbers of
papers on the subject are becoming available, fre-
quently founded on different basic concepts. In order
to achieve a better understanding and comparison, the
concepts proposed by Varnes (Landslide hazard
zonation: a review of principles and practice, 1984) and
Fell (Some landslide risk zoning schemes in use in
This report is being continually updated and further references
can be seen on the IAEG website (www.iaeg.info) under
Commission No. 1.
J. Chacón (&)
C. Irigaray
R. El Hamdouni
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Granada,
Granada, Spain
e-mail: jchacon@ugr.es
C. Irigaray
e-mail: clemente@ugr.es
R. El Hamdouni
e-mail: rachidej@ugr.es
T. Fernández
Department of Photogrammetry,
Geodesy and Cartography, University of Jaen,
Jaén, Spain
e-mail: tfernan@ujaen.es
Eastern Australua and their application 1992; Land-
slide risk assessment and acceptable risk. Can Geotech
J 31:261–272, 1994) are taken as references. It is hoped
this will also add to the international usefulness of
these maps as tools for landslide prevention and miti-
gation. Six hundred and sixty one papers and books
related to the topic are included in the references,
many of which are reviewed in the text.
Keywords GIS
Landslides

IAEG Commission No. 1

Engineering geological maps
Résumé La Commission N1 de l’AIGI >Cartes de
géologie de l’ingénieur réalise un guide sur les cartes
d’aléas. Des scientifiques de 17 pays ont apporté leur
contribution. Cet article est l’un d’une série d’articles
relatant les travaux de cette Commission. Il présente
les concepts de base de la cartographie de glissements
de terrain ainsi qu’un panorama de l’apport des tech-
niques SIG (Systèmes d’Information Géographique) à
cette cartographie. Trois groupes de cartes ont été
considérés: des cartes d’occurrence spatiale de glisse-
ments de terrain, des cartes d’occurrence spatio-tem-
porelle et de prévision de glissements de terrain et des
cartes d’évaluation des conséquences de glissements de
terrain. A notre époque de développement de la micro-
informatique et des logiciels SIG, de nombreuses
publications sont produites sur ce sujet, avec différen-
tes bases conceptuelles. Afin de faciliter compréhen-
sion et comparaisons, les concepts proposés par Varnes
(Landslide hazard zonation: a review of principles and
practice, 1984) et Fell (Some landslide risk zoning
schemes in use in Eastern Australua and their appli-
123
342 J. Chacón et al.

cation 1992; Landslide risk assessment and acceptable 1. A data input sub-system which collects and/or
risk. Can Geotech J 31:261–272, 1994) sont pris comme processes spatial data derived from existing maps,
référence. On espère que le travail réalisé rendra plus remote sensors, etc.
facile l’utilisation de ces cartes comme outil de pré- 2. A data storage and retrieval sub-system which or-
vention et de limitation des effets des glissements de ganises the spatial data in a form which permits it
terrain. Six cent soixante une articles et ouvrages rel- to be quickly retrieved by the user for subsequent
atifs au sujet traité son référencés en bibliographie, analysis, as well as permitting a rapid and accurate
nombre d’entre eux étant appelés dans le texte de update and corrections to be made to the spatial
l’article. database.
3. A data manipulation and analysis sub-system
Mots clés SIG
Glissements de terrain
which performs a variety of tasks such as changing
Commission N1 de l’AIGI
the form of the data through user-defined aggre-
Cartes de géologie de l’ingénieur gation rules or producing estimates of parameters
and constraints for various space–time optimisa-
tion or simulation models.
Introduction 4. A data reporting sub-system which is capable of
displaying all or part of the original database, as
The first geographical information systems (GIS) were well as manipulated data and the output from
developed 40 years ago by governmental agencies to spatial models, in tabular or map form. The crea-
handle substantial amounts of spatial data in Canada tion of these map displays involves what is called
(Land Inventory CGIS, head manager R.G. Tomlin- digital or computer cartography. This is an area
son) and in the State agencies of Minnesota and New which represents a considerable conceptual
York (USA). In 1970 the first GIS conference, held by extension of traditional cartographic approaches as
the International Geographical Union (IGU), took well as a substantial change in the tools employed
place in Ottawa, with only 40 participants; by the late in creating the cartographic displays.
1970s the IGU inventory comprised more than 600
computer programs with about 80 full GIS systems
This definition excludes a number of computer
(Marble 1984; Tomlinson 1984), as a result of the new
programs that meet these criteria only partially and
availability of microcomputers (Table 1). Since then,
should not be considered as true GIS.
GIS training has been offered in a growing number of
university laboratories all over the world. A review of
GIS history can be found in many text books (see
Burrough 1986; Peuquet and Marble 1990; Worboys Geographical information systems and engineering
1995; Worboys and Duckham 2004, etc.). It is inter- geology maps
esting to define at the outset the basic capabilities or
components of GIS (Marble 1984): During the late 1980s, the increasing availability of new
friendly operating systems and personal computers led
to the use of GIS by an increasing number of
Table 1 Evolution of PC microprocessors and operating systems researchers interested in land-use planning and
since 1970 assessment and hence a progressively wider use of
Year Microprocessor Operating system
different commercial GIS packages. With the excep-
tion of a very few cases, most papers about GIS
1970s 8 bit Micros CP/M applications for mapping in landslide regions were
1980s 8086 DOS versions published from the beginning of the 1990s. In some
8088
80286 MS-DOS cases, the majority of the analyses and map modelling
80386 are fully achieved through a given GIS package but in
1990s 80486 WINDOWS many other cases, the use of GIS is only partial. Some
Pentium OS/DOS essential parts of the analysis and modelling are per-
K6 WINDOWS NT
Pentium II WINDOWS 95 formed using external statistical packages or additional
Pentium III WINDOWS 98 computing tools. In this sense, the landslide mapping
Athlon WINDOWS 2000 GIS methods described below will be considered as
LINUX fully or partially GIS based, depending on how they are
2000s Pentium 4 WINDOWS XP
shown by the authors in their papers.

123
Engineering geology maps: landslides and GIS
Concerning the use of geology maps in civil engi-
neering practice (Griffiths 2002), it is interesting to
note that in many countries these are still not widely
used. This observation is mentioned by Fookes (1997)
referring to British practice, and it may be extended to
many other developed countries, including when
mapping in landslide-prone areas is undertaken.
The landslide inventory map is the first step in any
mitigation program. A questionnaire was proposed by
Brabb (1993) to international experts about the avail-
ability of landslide inventory maps (as a percentage of
the areas actually mapped) to illustrate the starting
point for the International Decade of Reduction of
Natural Hazards (1991–2000). The answers obtained
showed a general lack of landslide mapping in Europe,
where most countries had from 0 to 25%, except
Austria and Hungary. In Asia there are also many
countries where only 0–25% of their total surface has
landslide maps, although some countries had a greater
coverage (above 25% in Korea, 50–60% in Taiwan and
more than 75% for Hong Kong and New Zealand). In
the Americas, only Canada and Costa Rica had more
than 25%. Few island nations had significant landslide
mapping coverage except Trinidad and Tobago or the
Windward Islands. Ten years later, in many countries
the Geological Surveys, Environmental Divisions and
other governmental agencies are developing GIS-
based landslide mapping projects (Agostoni et al. 1998;
Brabb 1993; Brabb et al. 1989; Chau and Lo 2004; Chau
et al. 2004a, b; Delmonaco et al. 2004; Giardino et al.
2004). In addition, many universities and research
institutes are offering information and training at very
different levels about geological hazards and land-
slides, as a result of the widespread use of GIS tools
and remote sensing techniques. Nevertheless, although
several hundreds of papers about the subject are cur-
rently available in journals, proceedings and books
published since the late 1980s and there are several
good examples of use by governmental services in
natural hazard assessment, there are still important
issues concerning the large number of assessment
methods and the lack of regulation of the use of these
maps in many countries.
Some basic concepts
The landslide study process, considered as a whole
from its preliminary steps to the final development, is
based on a considerable amount of knowledge after
almost a century of research and technological ad-
vances, if the Memoir on the Soils and Subsoils of the
343
London area (Woodward 1897) is considered as an
early example of geological mapping to fill the gap
between geology and engineering (Culshaw 2004).
The term ‘‘landslide’’ itself is beset by substantial
difficulties derived from the complex and variable
nature of the phenomenon, which is only crudely rep-
resented by most accepted descriptions and classifica-
tions (Cruden 1991; Cruden and Varnes 1996;
Hutchinson 1988; Varnes 1978; WP/WLI 1990, 1993a,
b, 1995, 2001, etc.) because landslides in nature may be
more complicated than is appreciated by current con-
ceptual representations. From this follows the impor-
tance of properly understanding the instability process
both from field observations and theoretical consider-
ations.
Given the wide differences in mechanical behaviour
of rock falls, slides, flows, lateral spread and complex
movements, particular attention should be paid to
inventories where different types of landslides are
combined in a final analysis to obtain a given landslide
map. In addition, information about the size, velocity,
degree of development and activity of the landslides is
important for the proper assessment of the associated
hazard and risk.
In small-scale regional landslide hazard maps
(1:50,000–1:10,000,000) the result may be acceptable
even when various types of landslides are considered
together, as the required accuracy is low and the map is
generally not used as a predictive tool. In large-scale
landslide maps (1:2,000–1:25,000) different analyses are
required depending on the landslide typology, in order
to avoid inaccuracy and lack of real meaning in the
resulting landslide hazard map.
A large body of knowledge about landslide research
is currently available. Some significant contributions
are referred to below to illustrate a first approach to
the subject:
1. Classification and identification: Varnes (1978),
Cotecchia (1978), Hansen (1984), Cruden (1991),
Flageollet (1994), Cruden and Varnes (1996), Di-
kau et al. (1996a, b), Soeters and Van Westen
(1996), Hungr (1997), WP/WLI (1991, 1993a, b,
1994, 1995, 2001), Bromhead (2004), OjedaMon-
cayo et al. (2004), Augusto Filho (2004).
2. Landslide mapping: Záruba and Mencl (1961,
1969), Anonymous (1972, 1976), Rybár (1973),
Varnes (1974, 1984), Mahr and Malgot (1978),
Méneroud (1978), Rodrı́guez Ortiz et al. (1978),
Varnes (1984), Wieczorek (1984), WP/WLI (1990),
Dearman (1991), Fookes (1997), Soeters and Van
Westen (1996), Guzzetti et al. (2000), Griffith
(2001, 2002).
123
344
3. GIS, aerial and remote sensing survey: Brabb
(1984), Soeters et al. (1991), Van Westen (1993),
Carrara and Guzzetti (1995), Soeters and Van
Westen (1996).
4. Manuals and textbooks: Schuster and Krizek
(1978), Brunsden and Prior (1984), Crozier (1986),
Dikau et al. (1996a, b), Turner and Schuster
(1996).
5. Landslide hazard and risk assessment: Varnes
(1984), Hutchinson (1992), Chowdhury (1984),
Einstein (1988), Hartlén and Viberg (1988), Leroi
(1996), Spiker and Gori (2000, 2003a, b), Chacón
and Corominas (2003), Van Westen (2004).
6. Landslide and terrain models: Pike (1991), Fookes
(1997), Brunsden (1999).
7. Landslide inventories and statistical analysis: Guz-
zetti et al. (2002, 2003b), Malamud (2003), Tur-
cotte and Malamud (2004), Malamud et al. (2004).
The three basic principles for all zonation studies
proposed by Varnes (1984) based on experience and
knowledge at that time remain useful for GIS-based
zonations:
1. The past and present are keys to the future.
2. The main conditions that cause landsliding can be
identified.
3. Degrees of hazard can be estimated.
Today, a fourth statement may be added:
4. The risk derived from landslides may also be as-
sessed and quantified.
At present, the main types of maps related to pro-
grams of landslide mitigation are considered and de-
fined as follows:
Landslide inventory map
The knowledge of the landslides in a particular area is
expressed by a landslide inventory map which shows
the locations and outlines of landslides. A landslide
inventory is a data set that may represent single or
multiple events. Small-scale maps show only landslide
locations, whereas large-scale maps may distinguish
landslide sources from deposits, classify different kinds
of landslide and show other pertinent data (Spieker
and Gori 2000, 2003a, b).
Landslide susceptibility map
The basic concept of landslide susceptibility (Radbruch
1970; Dobrovolny 1971; Brabb and Pampeyan 1972,
etc.) includes the spatial distribution of factors related
123
J. Chacón et al.
to the instability processes in order to determine zones
of landslide-prone areas without any temporal impli-
cation. This approach is useful for areas where it is
difficult to secure enough information concerning the
historical record of landslide events, meteorological
records of rainfall are lacking or scarce, and the mag-
nitude/intensity of earthquakes that have triggered
landslides is unknown. A landslide susceptibility map
ranks the slope stability of an area in categories that
range from stable to unstable. Susceptibility maps show
where landslides may occur. Many susceptibility maps
use a colour scheme that relates stronger colours (red,
orange and yellow) to unstable and marginally unsta-
ble areas and cool colours (blue and green) to more
stable areas (Spieker and Gori 2000, 2003a, b). Land-
slide susceptibility has also been considered as an
expression of relative hazard (Einstein 1988; Hartlen
and Viberg 1988), total landslide density or likely fre-
quency (Evans and King 1998; Evans et al. 1997).
Landslide hazard map
‘‘Landslide hazard’’ is a particular case of natural
hazard defined as ‘‘the probability of occurrence within
a specified period of time and within a given area of a
potentially damaging phenomenon’’ (Varnes 1984).
From the experience of the USGS, the definition of a
‘‘landslide hazard map’’ includes ‘‘zonations showing
annual probability (likelihood) of landslide occurring
throughout an area’’. Also these authors would con-
sider an ‘‘ideal landslide hazard map’’ to have zona-
tions showing ‘‘not only the chances that a landslide
may form at a particular place, but also the chances
that a landslide from farther upslope may strike that
place’’ (Spieker and Gori 2000, 2003a, b).
Landslide risk map
‘‘A landslide risk map shows the expected annual cost
of landslide damage throughout the affected area and
combines the probability information from a landslide
hazard map with an analysis of all possible conse-
quences (property damage, casualties and loss of ser-
vice’’ (Spieker and Gori 2000). It may be founded on
concepts of element at risk, vulnerability, specific and
total risk (Varnes 1984).
Elements at risk are the population, properties,
economic activities, including public services, etc. in a
given area. These exhibit a given vulnerability defined
as the degree of loss when affected by a natural phe-
nomenon such as any of type of landslide. From this, it
is clear that the given element at risk should present
Engineering geology maps: landslides and GIS 345

different values of vulnerability depending on the Table 3 Landslide probability classification (Fell 1994)
particular type of landsliding threatening its integrity. P Description Annual
In addition, the specific risk for each element at risk
would depend on the probability of occurrence of that 12 Extremely high –1
particular landslide and the corresponding vulnerabil- 8 Very high –0.2
5 High –0.05
ity value. The final total risk, for that landslide event, 3 Medium –0.01
integrates specific risks for the different elements at 2 Low –0.001
risk, as distributed in the threatened area. Therefore,
the general definitions by Varnes (1984) may be useful
for landslide risk mapping. Nevertheless, the difficul- Table 4 Landslide hazard
H Description
ties of preparing these maps multiply the actual prob- classification [Hazard
H = M · P (Fell 1994)] ‡30 Extremely high
lems in developing true landslide hazard maps. This is
‡20, <30 Very high
due to the lack of research on both the technical
‡10, <20 High
assessment of landslide damage and a vulnerability ‡7, <10 Medium
determination for the extremely varied situations that ‡3, <7 Low
may be considered in landsliding processes. ‡2 Very low
The terms ‘‘risk’’ and ‘‘hazard’’ are probably the
core of the topic which, despite the previously men-
tioned concepts articulated by Varnes, are in fact Table 5 Landslide
considered in many different ways. It has been rec- V Description
vulnerability classification
ommended that the term risk assessment should not be for property loss, not loss ‡0.9 Very high
specifically defined but should be left open such that it of life (Fell 1994) ‡0.5, <0.9 High
can encompass different meanings depending on the ‡0.1, <0.5 Medium
‡0.05, <0.01 Low
requirements of the research (Fell 1994). Fell (1992)
<0.05 Very low
pointed out some confusion derives from the hazard
assessment concept and proposed the following terms
for landslide risk assessment (Fell 1994), within a
classification system (Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, 6): Table 6 Landslide specific
Rs Description
risk classification (Fell 1994)
1. Classification of present or potential landslide
‡0.1 Very high
types in the area based on Varnes (1978). ‡0.02, <0.1 High
2. Magnitude (M) or volume in m3 of the source ‡0.005, <0.02 Medium
landslide(s). ‡0.001, <0.005 Low
‡0.0001, <0.001 Very low
3. Probability (P) that a particular landslide occurs
within a given period of time (generally a year).
4. Hazard (H) is a description of the magnitude and
bility is the probability that a particular life (the
probability of occurrence of the landslide(s) in a
element at risk) will be lost given that the landslide
broad sense, H = M · P.
occurs.
5. Vulnerability (V) is the degree of loss of a given
6. Specific risk (Rs) is defined as probability (P) times
element or set of elements within the area affected
vulnerability (V), Rs = P · V.
by the landslide(s), expressed on a scale of 0 (no
7. Element at risk (E) is all the components of the
damage) to 1 (total loss). For loss of life, vulnera-
territory as in Varnes (1978).
8. Total risk (Rt) is the product of specific risk (Rs)
Table 2 Landslide magnitude classification (Fell 1994) times the element at risk (E) so Rt = S (E · P ·
V).
M Description Volume (m3)

7 Extremely large >5,000,000

6 Very large
5 Medium-large
4 Medium
3 Small
2 Very small
1 Extremely small
The introduction by Fell (1994) of the concept of
>1,000,000, <5,000,000
>250,000, <1,000,000 probability (P) to avoid the use of hazard as meaning
> 50,000, <250,000 chance or probability, and reserve the term hazard (H)
>5,000, <50,000 in its sense of danger (H = M · P), is very useful
>500, <5,000
because it clarifies the term and avoids problems with
<500
the translations of the English terms ‘‘hazard’’ and

123
346
‘‘risk’’ into other languages. Fell (1994) also introduced
the concept of ‘‘acceptable risk’’ from landsliding.
Based on personal experience and previous papers
on the subject, he considered that the public may ac-
cept relatively high risks for natural landslides as in-
cluded in the broad concept of ‘‘voluntary risks’’.
Although admitting the need for further research to
obtain an increase in information available, he con-
cluded that for property damage the community may
accept an annual specific risk of the order of 10–2, and
that for natural landslides they may accept an annual
specific risk of loss of life of 10–3 (consistent with vol-
untary risk in the workplace).
Regarding the risks from man-made slope stability
structures, considered as ‘‘involuntary risks’’, Fell
(1994) indicated that lower rates are demanded by the
public. For instance, a dam—viewed as a slope stability
problem—would be expected by the public to generate
a risk of loss of life not greater than 10–5 to 10–6.
Another interesting contribution of Fell (1994) was
the proposal of three different vulnerabilities of the
elements of the territory. Fell (1994) followed Morgan
et al. (1992) to introduce the vulnerability equation
V ¼ VðSÞ þ VðTÞ þ VðLÞ
V(S) is the spatial vulnerability which means that an
element will be affected by the landslide given that the
landslide occurs, and therefore it represents the vul-
nerability derived from the spatial position of the ele-
ment at risk.
V(T) is the temporal vulnerability which expresses a
likelihood of temporal impact, taking into account
temporal changes of the element at risk. A house, for
instance, may or may not be occupied, depending on
the time of impact.
V(L) is the life vulnerability which expresses the
likelihood of loss of life of an individual occupant in
the impacted element, or the proportion of the value of
the impacted element which is lost.
These conceptual tools are valuable for landslide
risk assessment and also very useful for the develop-
ment of GIS landslide risk maps which in most cases
require very detailed scales, as shown below.
Einstein (1988) proposed the terms danger, hazard
and risk. Danger is a qualitative term resulting from
the mechanical or geometrical features of the natural
phenomena without any type of forecasting. He also
suggested that landslide hazard could be equated to
landslide susceptibility, which is an interesting step
towards qualitative assessment of temporal probabili-
ties from a map of spatial zonation of landslide sus-
ceptibility.
123
J. Chacón et al.
Considering the previously mentioned concepts of
landslide inventory and susceptibility maps, and of
hazard and risk, many published landslide maps do not
exactly fit these criteria because of their origins in
different traditions, conceptual approaches or practical
treatments of the problem. There are so-called land-
slide hazard maps that are closer to susceptibility maps,
and also some ‘‘slope stability maps’’ that are very
similar to the landslide susceptibility maps. Regarding
the term risk, its meaning varies with languages and its
use may be confusing, depending on the translations.
Therefore the present perspective of the matter shows,
to some extent, a confused situation; derived partly
from the use of similar terms/concepts with slight yet
important differences in different countries and partly
from different traditions in the approach to the subject.
In order to introduce a general review of landslide
mapping techniques with the emphasis on GIS ap-
proaches, three main groups of maps which have
emerged over the last 50 years have been projected
into GIS applications. The maps deal with:
1. Spatial incidence of landslides.
2. Spatial–temporal incidence and forecasting of
landslides.
3. Consequences of landslides.
Maps of spatial incidence of landslides
These are maps showing zones of similar relative
amounts of landsliding or of similar conditions for
landslide processes, without formal temporal forecasting
implications. These have been expressed over time in
very different ways, e.g. zonations of amounts of land-
slides, landslide deposits, slope instability, slope stability
conditions, landslide susceptibility, landslide hazard,
landslide susceptibility hazard, slope vulnerability, etc.
From the late 1960s, a number of maps were made in
the United States showing slope stability conditions
(Blanc and Cleveland 1968), the incidence of landslides
expressed by relative amount of landslide deposits
(Radbruch-Hall 1970; Radbruch-Hall and Crowther
1973), landslide deposits (Brabb and Pampeyan 1972)
and qualitative landslide susceptibility (Dobrovolny
1971; Scott 1972; Davies 1974a, j; Pomeroy 1974, etc.).
Landslide susceptibility is a measure of how prone
land units are to landsliding, and was quantitatively
approached by Brabb et al. (1972). The term describes
in a broad way the slope stability condition of a par-
ticular region, which may be greatly increased when
‘‘new cuts and fills and other activities of man...alter
the natural topographical and hydrologic conditions...’’
Engineering geology maps: landslides and GIS
(Varnes 1984). This concept has been adopted in the
last few decades by many authors in various papers and
projects about landslide maps, including different GIS
approaches considering both static and dynamic con-
ditions. The susceptibility assessment was firstly based
on field reconnaissance of instability factors producing
a given susceptibility level for a particular area or field
zone, with the landslides inventory being a basic step
towards analysis and mapping. The method drew on
the subjective expertise of each author. The basic
analysis was a field geology-based recognition of
instability factors around the observed landslides in
order to make a zonation of the presence of these
factors within the susceptibility zones. Indications
about levels of landslide activity were also included
(Scott 1972). Similar qualitative landslide incidence
maps have been made in different countries using the
terms zones exposed to landslide risks or slope insta-
bility, etc. (ZERMOS program by French Laboratoire
de Ponts et Chaussés, Paris: Antoine 1977; Humbert
1977; Landry 1979; Méneroud and Calvino 1976;
Méneroud 1978, etc.; Mahr and Malgot 1978 in Slo-
vakia; Kienholtz 1978 in Switzerland, Rodrı́guez Ortiz
et al. 1978; Hinojosa and Leon 1978 in Spain, etc.).
An example of the main qualitative susceptibility
maps published by the USGS (Radbruch 1970; Scott
1972; Davies 1974; Pomeroy 1974, etc.) is a map
showing landslide areas susceptible to landsliding in
the Morrison Quadrangle, Jefferson County, Colorado,
Scott (1972) which distinguished four zones:
Landslide (earth flow) deposits of at least three
generations on steep slopes—younger landslides have
formed out of older landslides on Green Mountain
showing that older slides are not necessarily stable.
Active landslide—slides were moving in 1971.
Potential rock fall—with arrows showing directions of
movement. Only those slopes that pose a potential
rock fall hazard to existing highways or structures are
shown. Other steep slopes will pose a rock fall hazard
in the future.
Area susceptible to sliding—ground that might slide if
dug into or watered too much. Dip slopes, such as the
east face of the Dakota hogback, are unstable if dug
into; sliding slabs of sandstone along the Alameda
Parkway cause a continuous removal problem.
Also semi-quantitative susceptibility, hazard or
slope instability maps based on analysis of slope angles,
lithology and relative amounts of landslip material
have been published (Blanc and Cleveland 1968;
Bowman 1972; Radbruch and Crowther 1973;
Dobrovolny and Schmoll 1974; Nilsen and Brabb 1977;
Nilsen and Wrigth 1979).
347
As an example, the landslide map of California (at a
scale 1:1,000,000) was made by Radbruch and Crow-
ther (1973) with units indicating ‘‘...only the estimated
relative amounts of area covered by landslides for each
map unit as well as can be determined within the
limitations of the present study’’. The authors indicate
that ‘‘no quantitative measurements were made and
many areas that were neither observed in the field nor
covered by published or unpublished data were as-
signed numbers on the basis of the general aspect of
similar geologic units.’’ The general criteria for the
rating were related first to slope angle below 5 and
rainfall of less than 10 in. (25.4 cm) with very little
evidence of landsliding (unit number 1) and, at the
opposite extreme, to areas heavily covered by large
amount of landslides, as in most of the Franciscan
terrain in the northern Coast Ranges (unit 6). Also the
correlation between rainfall and landslide was ap-
proached by Guidicini and Iwasa (1977).
Nilsen and Wrigth (1979) in a 1:125,000 landslide
map of the San Francisco Bay region distinguished
slope angle units of < 5, 5–15 and > 15, and lith-
ological groups of no landslide deposits, susceptible
bedrock, susceptible superficial deposits and landslide
deposits. Combining these two criteria of slope angle
and lithological groups they classified the region into
six zones: (1) stable, (2) generally stable, (3) moder-
ately stable, (4) moderately unstable, (5) unstable.
Zone 1A was defined as an area ‘‘subject to liquefac-
tion’’.
These maps, at different scales, were oriented to-
ward the classification of land units based on the evi-
dence of landsliding. As there was no attempt at
temporal forecasting, from the point of view of Varnes
(1978) they would be considered closer to landslide
inventories than to landslide hazard maps. In addition,
the use of the term ‘‘susceptible’’ to indicate the degree
of instability relates these maps to susceptibility maps
in the sense developed by Brabb et al. (1972).
Other hazard and risk maps have been based on
numerically rated or weighted slope and geological
factors with geotechnical data (Stevenson 1977). Other
significant contributions were linear risk maps of roads
(Méneroud 1978) and geotechnical stability maps
which rate soil and rock mechanics parameters such as
cohesion, friction angle or rock massif discontinuities
(Vecchia 1978). They generally propose landslide risk
zonations (Stevenson 1977; Méneroud 1978; Méneroud
and Olivier 1978) or a terrain index showing the sta-
bility of hillsides (Vecchia 1978). The first two ap-
proaches used the term ‘‘risk’’ in a sense that could be
considered similar to landslide susceptibility, although
the method of Stevenson (1977) included a land use
123
348 J. Chacón et al.

factor rated from 1 for woodland to 1.25 for land discussed in later works (Wright and Nilsen 1974;
cleared or built-on with special precautions, and 1.5 Wright et al. 1974; Pomeroy 1978; DeGraff and Canutti
(maximum) for land built-on without special precau- 1988; Collins 1987; DeGraff 1985; DeGraff 1987) and
tions. Varnes (1984) refers to Vecchia’s (1978) use of brought up to date for microcomputers and GIS for
criteria which reflect geomechanical rock mass classi- landslide spatial incidence by Bulut et al. (2000) and
fications. As the terrain index is also intended to show Valadäo et al. (2002) and for the assessment of land-
a quantitative rating of stability, it is closer to the slide spatial–temporal incidence by Coe et al. (2000).
concept of susceptibility than hazard or risk. The technique was based on a landslide inventory at a
Finally, Brabb et al. (1972) introduced a semi- 1:24,000 scale (Campbell 1973) by estimating the sur-
quantitative method consisting of a bivariate analysis face covered by landslide deposits using a number of
of landslide area percentages in slope angle intervals, contiguous circles displayed on a grid, calculating the
expressed by relative susceptibility numbers, from percentage of the surface area covered by each circle
which a susceptibility zonation was obtained. The and contouring equal percentage intervals.
susceptibility classes were I (0–1%), II (2–8%), III (9– The landslide isopleth or density contour technique
25%); IV (26–42%); V (43–53%) and VI (54–70%) was adopted to generalise and quantify the areal dis-
and L (landslide deposits, 100%). Table 7 shows the tribution of landslide deposits in a form that would
main steps of the method. combine more easily with other data when preparing
This pioneering paper offered a formal definition of derived maps (Varnes 1978). A discussion on the reli-
landslide susceptibility as an indication of how prone to ability of this method is given in Bulut et al. (2000) for
landsliding a land unit may be. It also offered a method the area of Findikli (Rize, Turkey). In 1983, these au-
to classify terrain units with a relative susceptibility thors prepared an isopleth map with three zones (<1,
number based on geological unit, slope angle and per- 1–10 and >10% landslide deposits). Some 12 years la-
centage of landslide in the unit, which was difficult to ter they made another isopleth map of the same region,
apply at that time. Twenty years later, with the power of from which they established that the new landslides
the computer and GIS, this type of analysis is easy to were concentrated in the zones with isopleth values
perform and is the foundation of many GIS develop- above 10%. They concluded that, given the high cost
ments of landslide susceptibility mapping. For instance, and time requirements of field research compared to a
Parise (2001) studied a small region (30 km2) of the detailed landslide inventory, the 1:25,000 scale is real-
Sele river (South Apennines, Italy) at a 1:20,000 scale istic for producing hazard and risk maps.
using a landslide inventory that included information Valadäo et al. (2002) made a GIS-based density
about particular types of landslide activity in given map of Sao Miguel Island in the Azores (Portugal)
areas. He discussed the concept and use of the landslide based on aerial photographs and field surveys with
inventory map, landslide activity, landslide suscepti- morphological criteria for the identification of land-
bility (relative hazard) and landslide vulnerability. He slides. A pioneering paper about using aerials photo-
referred to Hutchinson (1992) to indicate that the graphs in landslide analysis and susceptibility mapping
simplest way to obtain a landslide susceptibility map is is due to Alfoldi (1974).
by assessing the percentage of the area of each litho- With the computer revolution, Lessing et al. (1976) in
stratigraphical unit that is occupied by landslides and to West Virginia (USA), Newman et al. (1978) in the San
rank those units generally on that basis. Francisco Bay region and Carrara et al. (1977, 1978) in
Another approach to mapping landslides involves the Ferro basin (Calabria, Italy), introduced computer
landslide density or isopleth maps. Campbell (1973) techniques to analyse landsliding factors in order to
presented a nominally objective method for a statistical obtain what they called slide-prone areas, landslide
assessment of regional landslide distribution based on susceptibility or landslide hazard zonations, all of which
Schmidt and Mac Cannel (1955), which was used and lacked any temporal forecasting. The widespread
Table 7 Methodology for the susceptibility assessment for the San Mateo County (California, USA, Brabb et al. 1978)
1. The surface extent failed by landslide is measured in every geological formation considered in the region
2. Relative susceptibility numbers (RSN) are defined depending on the percentage of land failed by landsliding
% Failed area 0–1 2–8 9–25 26–42 43–53 54–70 100
RSN I II III IV V VI L
3. The different geological formations are classified into RSN
4. A slope percentage map of the region is made with the intervals 0–5, 5–15, 15–30, 30–50, 50–70 and >70%
5. Every slope percentage unit in the different geological formations is classified by RSN following point 2
6. A landslide susceptibility map is obtained showing all the RSN units for the different geological and also the landslides inventory (L)

123
Engineering geology maps: landslides and GIS
availability of computing power allowed statistically
supported landsliding zonations to be obtained, e.g.
landslide susceptibility using discriminate factors (Si-
mons et al. 1978) and landslide hazard using bivariate
(Neulands 1976) or multivariate analysis (Carrara 1983).
Over the last 35 years, many other papers have used
statistical bivariate or multivariate techniques to analyse
the relationships between the factors influencing spatial
landsliding and obtained probabilistic map zonations
which differ from the maps based on deterministically
defined factors. The deterministic and probabilistic ap-
proaches are coincident in that they have a spatial
meaning only and lack temporal or historical data.
Neulands (1976) selected 250 stable and unstable
slopes in Germany and sampled the different litho-
logical units in each slope with boreholes. He identified
31 predictor variables including morphometric vari-
ables (slope gradient, exposition and slope length);
foundation variables (depth to roots and depth of
weathered horizon); distance from the watershed to a
control point; soil mechanics properties (liquid limit,
plasticity, soil saturation, water content for saturation
of upper and lower layers); dryness of soil conditions
(plastic limit, plasticity index and shrinkage index);
soil-suction characteristics distinguishing gradients
from the upper and lower layer to every pore or suc-
tion domain with ten variables; size and structure of
the materials (stratified structure of the upper and
lower layers); upper and lower bed boundaries; clay
content of the upper and lower layers; and degree of
firmness and density. The model was based on a ran-
domly selected 150 of the 250 slopes; the remaining 100
slopes being used to test the model. The variables were
tested for normal distribution by a 5% level Kol-
mogorow–Smirnov Test. The correlation between the
31 variables was analysed by discriminant analysis and
Euclid distance procedures. The model is time invari-
ant and therefore unable to predict when a slip will
take place but is useful to establish whether a slope is
likely to slip or not. The research was original in its
wide basis of physical and mechanical soil properties,
although restricted to soil materials other than sands.
One of the really significant contributions to landslide
research comes from the pioneering work of Carrara
and Merenda (1976), Carrara (1983) and Carrara et al.
(1977, 1978). Varnes (1984) described the contributions
of Carrara et al. (1978), on the landslides in the basin of
the Calabria–Lucania border, as ‘‘one of the more ad-
vanced and accessible state-of-the-art analyses of land
attributes for production of landslide hazard maps,
utilising computer processing’’. The study area of
600 km2 was divided into 200 · 200 m cells, with 33
basic terrain attributes stored in the computer of which
349
25 were statistically analysed in order to establish their
inter-relationships. The objectives were to statistically
define slope instability by multivariate analysis and,
using a computer, to create a slope instability hazard
map and maps to relate the presence of man-made
structures and landslide hazard. The level of landslide
hazard, although derived using statistical techniques,
was still an expression of the degree of slope instability
but without any temporal forecasting. Also Baeza
(1994) largely contributed to multivariate analysis and
mapping of the incidence of shallow landslides in the
Pyrenees (Spain) using a statistical computer package.
Some authors considered it important to map not
only susceptibility zonations but also levels of exposure
to landslide movements as an intermediate step be-
tween susceptibility and hazard maps (Figs. 1, 2)
(Chacón and Irigaray 1992, 1999a, b; Chacón et al.
1992g, 1993a, b, 1994a, b, c, 1996c).
Einstein (1988) suggested the temporal projection of
susceptibility mapping based on higher probabilities of
new landslides occurring within higher susceptibility
zones. Recent validation of a susceptibility map (Irig-
aray et al. 1999, 2006) confirmed this view, when 125
new landslides occurred after heavy rainfalls in 1997 in
the Iznájar river dam area (Granada, Spain) where a
susceptibility map had been completed in 1994 (Iriga-
ray 1995) using an inventory of 833 older landslides.
Some 61.9% of the 1997 landslides plotted in the very
high susceptibility zone and 23.1% in the high sus-
ceptibility zone of the 1995 map (Figs. 2, 3). A similar
practical validation was obtained for a susceptibility
map of the southwestern Sierra Nevada (Spain) slopes
by El Hamdouni (2001) (Fig. 4) or in Torre Vedras
(Portugal) by Garcia and Zêzere 2004.
A review of zonation methods proposed prior to the
advent of GIS techniques is given in Varnes (1984).
The present paper therefore concentrates on GIS
applications.
LSZ: I III II I II III I
Reach of landslides
Fig. 1 Simple sketch of the section of a valley with horizontal
plot of landslide susceptibility zones (LSZ: I low, II moderate, III
high) and pathway of landslide through these zones. The
landslide hazard in the low susceptibility zone will depend on
the return period and the magnitude of landslides from zones
with higher susceptibility
123
350 J. Chacón et al.

Fig. 2 Practical verification

of a susceptibility map
obtained by the GIS matrix
approach (Irigaray 1995)
showing new landslides
triggered by rainfall in winter
1996 and spring 1997 (Irigaray
et al. 1999). Inventories of
800 landslides mapped by
1994 (shadowed) and 125 new
landslides

inventory maps, stereoscopic interpretation of 1:20,000

Relative freq. (%)

80 61,9
60
scale panchromatic aerial photographs and field map-
ping of new evidence. Zones of stable, relatively stable
40 23,1
and unstable areas were differentiated; the latter cov-
20 10,1
2,8 2,1 ering 10% of the study region and mainly in Palaeo-
0 gene flysch and Mesozoic carbonate rock formations.
VL L M H VH
Evans et al. (1997) and Evans and King (1998) made
SUSCEPTIBILITY CLASSES an excellent landslide study of terrain in Hong Kong
Fig. 3 Histogram of percentages of 125 new landslides against
threatened by different types of shallow landslides,
previously mapped landslide susceptibility zones (modified from particularly debris flow and avalanche. They derived a
Irigaray et al. 1999) landslide hazard map, defining susceptibility on the basis
of landslide density or frequency. Also in urban areas of
Zonations based on geological or geomorphological Hong Kong Island Franks et al. (1998) prepared ten
units or regions detailed 1:1000 thematic maps in a GIS application to
slope stability assessment based on geological similarity
A relative susceptibility map of 1,100 km2 in the West with two areas threatened by fatal landslides.
Carpathian mountains of the Tatras region (Slovak Lee et al. (2002a, b, c), in a study of the Janghung
Republic) was prepared by Kovácik and Paudits (1998) area of South Korea, created a landslide susceptibility
based on geological, geomorphological and landslide index (LSI) taking into account the frequency of

123
Engineering geology maps: landslides and GIS 351

Slides
Susceptibility map

Debri sfl ows

Susceptibility map
Lecrin valley; Southwestern Sierra Nevada, Granada, Spain
Earth and mud flows
Rockfall
Susceptibility map
Susceptibility map

Typologies Susceptibility class

Very Low Moderate High Very

low high
Slides 1,36% 1,42% 9,4% 25,67% 62,15%

Earth flows 0,03% 6,78% 7,57% 18,93% 66,69%

Debris flows 0,2% 4,13% 10,82% 26,2% 58,65%

Rockfall 0,43% 4,93% 25,9% 27.62% 41,12%

Complex landslides 0,09% 3,72% 10,94% 28,57% 56,68%

All inventory 2,93% 3,66% 11,7% 26% 55,8%

80
Grado de ajuste de las zonas de ruptura (%)

Deslizamientos
70
Flujos de tierra

-> 68 % of the new landslides plotted in the 60

Corrientes de derrubios

susceptibility classes high and very high and Desprendimientos

7 % only were in low and very low classes 50 Movimientos complejos

Ruptura total

40

-A fairly high number of rockfalls plotted in 30

the moderate susceptibility class owing to a large
MDT´s pixel size for small slopes. 20

10

0
Muy baja Baja Moderada Alta Muyalta
Clases de susceptibilidad

Fig. 4 Sixty-nine new landslides triggered by rainfall in 1996 and 1997 with the susceptibility zones of maps previously available (El
Hamdouni 2001)

123
352 J. Chacón et al.

landslides related to slope aspect and slope angle. The
analysis was made by a bifactorial bivariate statistical
method.
Fall and Azzam (1998) used GIS to prepare a map
indicating natural risk in the coastal areas of Dakar,
Senegal. Geological, hydrogeological and geotechnical
surveys at a scale of 1:500, and topographical maps
from 1953, 1961, 1977 and 1981 at scales of 1:1,000 to
1:5,000 were all digitised and a GIS analysis was made
in Arc/Info and Arc View (ESRI). Two different dig-
ital elevation models (DEM) from 1953 and 1981 were
compared in order to analyse the evolution of relief
related to coastal landsliding and erosion. After iden-
tifying the lithological units and areas more affected by
landslides, GIS layers were superimposed and analysed
to obtain a natural risk map based on three groups of
instability factors: hydrogeology, coastal erosion and
geotechnical parameters. This map revealed six zones
of coastal slope dynamics, with a zone affected by
instability processes and symbols showing different
risks as active scarps and landslides, earth flows, rock
fall, etc. As in ZERMOS mapping, they used the term
‘‘natural risk’’ to mean natural hazard, with no attempt
made at temporal forecasting or relating damage to
loss assessment. Also another risk assessment ap-
proaches were proposed by Kawakami and Saito
(1984), Lee et al. (2001b). The presence or absence of
instability processes and hazard was proposed as a tool
for better land-use planning of a coastal area affected
by rapid urban development. Also interesting contri-
butions concerning land-use planning and landslide
management are found in Brabb (1987), Erley and
Köckelman (1981), HMSO (1996), Lee et al. (1987),
Lekkas et al. (1995, 1998), Marker (1998).
Computer or GIS applications to the analysis of slope
erosional features which are closely related to landslide
instability or susceptibility are presented by Thornes
and Alcántara- Ayala (1998), Sfar Felfoul et al. (1999),
Marchi and Dalla Fontana (2000), Fransen et al. (2001),
Rafaelli et al. (2001), Martı́nez-Casasnovas (2003).
Moreiras (2004) proposed landslide incidence or
susceptibility (Moreiras 2005) zonation for a 1,600 km2
area west of Mendoza city, in the Cordillera Frontal
Ranges and Precordillera of Argentina, based on air-
photo interpretation, digital analysis of satellite spot
and Landsat images and field control. They presented
the percentage of the area covered by landslide
deposits in an overlapping 200 · 200 m grid identifying
four categories of incidence: very high (>50%), high
(15–50%), moderate (1.5–15%) and low (<1.5%). The
lithological groups are mainly represented by (1)
igneous rocks, (2) Palaeozoic (3) and sedimentary
rocks with Tertiary sedimentary deposits and Triassic
volcanics. Landslides triggered by summer rainstorms
predominated but the authors also comment on other
factors associated with landsliding, including earth-
quakes and the presence of active and inactive land-
slides. The degrees of relative susceptibility were
assigned from GIS analysis of every 200 · 200 m unit
taking into account both lithology and slope angle and
a landslide inventory. Their table of conditions for
qualitative assessment of relative susceptibility
(Moreiras 2005) is shown in Table 8.
Wachal and Hudak (2000) used GIS techniques to
assess landsliding in a 1,500–2,000 km2 area in Travis
County (USA), based on four factors: slope angle,
geology, vegetation and distance to faults. Four classes
of relative susceptibility were derived weighting these
factors (0–1) according to their contribution to insta-
bility processes. The map resolution was about
30 · 30 m. Also landslide units were introduced in
geomophological mapping in the Dolomites, Italy, by
Pasuto and Soldati (1999).
A very interesting new GIS methodology was pro-
posed by Parise and Jibson (2000) to obtain a landslide
seismic susceptibility rating. An inventory of landslides
that occurred during the Northridge earthquake (1994,
M: 6,7, California, USA) in the Santa Susana quad-
rangle was made. Distances to the epicentre fault zone
and data about the dynamic intensity were expressed

Table 8 Factors conditions

Slope Lithological Landslide Landslide Susceptibility
for relative susceptibility
angle () group presence activity
assessment (Moreiras 2005)
>30 1 – – High
>30 2, 3 Yes Inactive High
>30 2, 3 – – Moderate
>15 1, 2, 3 Yes Active High
>15 1 Yes Inactive High
15–30 1 – – Moderate
15–30 2, 3 Yes Inactive Moderate
15–30 2, 3 – – Low
<15 1, 2, 3 Yes Active Moderate
<15 1, 2, 3 Yes Inactive Low
<15 1, 2, 3 – – Very low

123
Engineering geology maps: landslides and GIS
as Arias intensities (Arias 1970). These were consid-
ered as a basis for a LSI (the ratio in % of the area
covered by landslides in each geological unit to the
total area of the outcrops of that unit) and landslide
frequency index (number of landslide per km2). A
zonation of four relative susceptibility classes was ob-
tained with a resolution of 10 · 10 m at a scale of
1:24,000: very high (>2.5% landslide area or >30 ls/
km2), high (1.0–2.5% landslide area or 10–30 ls/km2),
moderate (0.5–1.0% landslide area or 3–10 ls/km2) and
low (<0.5% landslide area and <3 ls/km2).
Ayala-Carcedo et al. (2003) analysed a rock fall front
in the Sierra de la Cabrera (Madrid, Spain) by a heu-
ristic approach using Arc Info (ESRI). The analysis
considered topographical and field data from an inven-
tory of fallen blocks, in terms of reach angle (angle of a
line taken from the block scar to its final position) and
run-out distance (linear distance from the base of the
rock fall front to the final block position). The resulting
maps of maximum run-out, absolute maximum run-out
and minimum reach angle were plotted at a scale
1:5,000. From a GIS analysis and modelling of these
data a dynamic susceptibility map was obtained showing
four zones: very high susceptibility (direct exposure, use
not recommended), high susceptibility (use not recom-
mended, exposure to rebound pathways), medium sus-
ceptibility (energy <4,700 kJ, use with scarp stabilisation
and double dynamic fence), low susceptibility equiva-
lent to the safety zone of other maps (use with single
fence of 2,350 kJ or storage trench). Also GIS rockfall
hazard assessment and analysis was accomplished by
Baillifard et al. (2004), Menéndez-Duarte and Marquı́-
nez (2002) while GIS avalanche hazard was assessed by
Barbolini et al. (2002), Brabec et al. (2001), Evans et al.
(2001), McClung (2002a, b) and case studies on debris
fall GIS mapping by Bathurst et al. (2003) , He et al.
(2003), Hofmeister and Miller (2003), Nakagawa and
Takahashi (1997).
Zonations based on expert identification, weighting
factors and certainty analysis
One of the first papers in the United States on a wholly
GIS assessment of landslide susceptibility, hazard and
risk (Mejı́a-Navarro et al. 1994) used weighted factors
in algorithms, relating debris flow susceptibility and
determinant factors. Made in Arc/Info (ESRI) and
GRASS GIS, the research was a pilot project to test
the usefulness of GIS in an integrated planning deci-
sion support model evaluating different geological
hazards (H—subsidence, rock fall, debris flows
and flows) in an area of 6,500 ha around the city of
Glenwood Springs, Garfield County, Colorado. The
353
base maps were at scales of between 1:4,000 and
1:25,000. The area was zoned into 14 land-use suit-
ability classes incorporating hazard, vulnerability and
risk parameters. Vulnerability (V) was defined as ‘‘the
intrinsic predisposition of any element to be at risk of a
mental or economic loss upon the occurrence of a
hazardous event of intensity i’’. It included ecosystem
sensitivity, economic vulnerability and social structure
vulnerability. Risk (R) was defined as the probability
that a loss affecting an element ‘‘e’’ would occur as a
consequence of an event of intensity equal to or
greater than ‘‘i’’. Risk was thus a function of geological
hazard and vulnerability. These definitions differ from
those proposed by Varnes (1984) and Fell (1992, 1994).
Debris flow hazard susceptibility, at a scale 1:24,000,
was derived from an algorithm which modelled the
influence of factors such as slope angle (slopedf); slope
orientation (aspect); unified soil classification, clay con-
tent and its geotechnical or erosive properties in the
debris (usc-casag; shrwell; erosK); availability of
unconsolidated debris (sgmdf); vegetation (veg); hydro-
logic characteristic of soils (hgdf); low frequency, high
intensity rainfalls (isohaa); land-use features (lusess);
distance to stream network reclassified by segments or-
der (wsbuf); cross tabulation and reclassification of
superficial geology-debris flow maps with historical re-
cords (femahist); and isohyets of average annual pre-
cipitation (isohaa). The proposed algorithm was:
Sdf ¼ slopedf  ðaspect  7 þ usc-casag  4 þ sgmdf
 9 þ veg  8 þ hgdf  5 þ shrwell  2 þ erosK
 7 þ lusess  3 þ wsbuf  8 þ femahist
 10 þ isohaa  4Þ=67
which integrates a first variable of slope angle (slopedf)
multiplied by the summation of the products of 11
different factor variables and weighting numbers.
Seismic and climatic triggering of debris flows was
modelled by an algorithm which expressed weighted
relationships with (1) isoseismals (a reclassification or
cross tabulation of magnitudes 4 and 5 epicentres,
faults and geological units likely to amplify seismic
waves) and (2) probable maximum precipitation
(PMP), with the equation:
Trigger  ps ¼ ðisoseismal  3 þ PMP  5Þ=8:
The debris flow hazard algorithm (Hdf = Sdf ·
Trigger-ps) results from the product of Sdf and Trig-
ger-ps, which was then normalised to a scale of 1–10.
Daily precipitation prior to and during the July 1977
debris flow event was analysed. From the analysis of
regional rainfall data, the maximum rainfall in a 1-h
123
354
period to be expected in the town in a 100-year period
was established as 40.1 mm. As the catastrophic 1977
debris flow in Glenwood Spring occurred during a
precipitation intensity with a 50-year return period,
Mejı́a-Navarro et al. (1994) assigned an annual prob-
ability of 2% to such flows.
Pachauri and Pant (1992) and Pachauri et al. (1998)
published 1:50,000 maps made without GIS support
using topographical bases to derive landslide suscepti-
bility. Landslide inventory maps were also used to-
gether with maps of nine factors considered to
influence the observed landslides. The final maps were
created by overlaying the weighted information.
Another example of a weighting factor procedure
was used by Temesgen et al. (2001) in a study of the
Wondogenet area in the eastern margin of the Ethio-
pian rift in a raster GIS. Estimates were made of the
frequencies of landslide occurrence considering lithol-
ogy, drainage network, geology, slope angle, slope as-
pect and vegetation cover. Priority weightings were
assigned on the basis of observed landslide densities for
each class and the resultant maps were overlain to
produce susceptibility maps. From an analysis of the
relationships between the landslide inventory and the
derived maps, a further reclassification was under-
taken. The final integration was made using pixel
attributes, algebraic calculations and arithmetic means.
The landslide hazard map was derived from the inte-
gration of all the susceptibility maps; the value of each
grid cell in the overlays being summed and divided by
the total number of event-controlling parameters using
the following formula:
Risk map ¼ ½ðI1=max slopeÞ þ ð1  ABSð270  I2Þ=270Þ
þ ððI3 þ 1Þ=2Þ þ ðI4=maxð14ÞÞ
þ ðI5=maxðI5ÞÞ þ ðI6=maxðI6ÞÞ=6
where I1, I2, I3, I4, I5, I6 are slope angle, slope aspect,
vegetation biomass, geological structures, watercourses
and lithology-related landslide risk susceptibility maps,
respectively.
Barredo et al. (2000) undertook research in the
Barrack de Trojan (Grand Canary Island, Spain),
where 28 significant landslides were recorded. They
adopted an heuristic or expert-driven approach in
which a geomorphological expert decided on the type
and degree of hazard for each area, using either direct
or indirect hazard mapping. The advantage of this
method is that each individual polygon outlined on the
map can be evaluated separately, based on its unique
set of conditions. It is, however, a time-consuming
method that depends largely on the expertise of the
123
J. Chacón et al.
geomorphologist. One of the main characteristics used
to determine the level of hazard presented by a par-
ticular landslide unit was the activity of denudation
processes, classified into three categories (active, par-
tially active and inactive) based on direct observation
in the field. A hazard class was assigned to each poly-
gon in the attribute table. The most important char-
acteristics taken into account to determine the degree
of hazard in each unit were evidence of recent activity
(such as bare scarps, cracks, fresh rock fall deposits,
etc.), geomorphological setting of the unit, type and
condition of the materials, slope angle and proximity to
adjacent at-risk units. Historical records, the presence
of damaged infrastructure, the presence of stabilisation
works and information from the literature were also
taken into account.
On the basis of these criteria, each polygon was
evaluated and assigned one of four hazard classes: very
low hazard (no destructive phenomena expected to
occur in the foreseeable future); low hazard (no
destructive phenomena are expected to occur in the
foreseeable future, assuming that land use remains the
same—inadequate construction of infrastructure or
buildings may lead to problems); moderate hazard (a
moderate probability that destructive phenomena
could damage infrastructure or buildings in the fore-
seeable future, although such damage would be ex-
pected to be localised and could be prevented by
relatively simple and inexpensive stabilisation mea-
sures) and high hazard (a high probability that
destructive phenomena will occur within the foresee-
able future, such that construction of new infrastruc-
ture or buildings is not advisable until a detailed study
has been undertaken).
In view of the temporal references, this is an
example of a qualitative landslide hazard map. It can
be related to a landslide susceptibility map insofar as
when the susceptibility class increases, the possibility of
the generation of new landslides also increases [see
Einstein (1988) and the verification of a landslide sus-
ceptibility map in a study area of the Betic Cordillera
reported by Irigaray et al. (1999)].
Atkinson and Massari (1998) studied a region of the
Apennines in Central Italy using a 1:10,000 scale map
divided into a grid of 20 · 20 m squares. They devel-
oped a linear hierarchy model (generalised linear
modelling, GLM), similar to multiple regression mod-
els but using continuous variables because of the need
to transform qualitative variables for the analysis of
factors and their relationships to landslides. GLM is a
powerful quantitative technique which allows variables
to be either continuous or categorical (ordinal or
nominal), or any combination of both types. Hence it
Engineering geology maps: landslides and GIS
was possible to model the terrain conditions which
would have existed prior to the recorded landslides.
The factors considered were geology, slope orientation,
slope angle, vegetation, soil thickness, horizontal and
vertical curvature, local relief and roughness. The
inventory was used first to consider all the landslides
and then active movements only. A qualitative vali-
dation of the method was also included.
Naagarajan et al. (2000) researched some 500 land-
slides (mainly debris flows and rock falls) within an
area of about 200 km2 in the Konkan region on the
western coast of India. They used a statistical treat-
ment (but not a GIS) for weighting and superimposing
maps of 11 different factors (vegetation, drainage
network density, slope angle, relief, layering, disconti-
nuities, weathering, soil types, rainfall and depth to the
soil/rock boundary).
Van Westen et al. (2003) evaluated the importance
of expert geomorphological knowledge in the produc-
tion of landslide susceptibility maps using GIS sup-
ported indirect bivariate statistical analysis. Database
processing software (ILWIS) and a cartographic pack-
age (ACE) were used to obtain an excellent 1:10,000
map. The test area was a mountain zone of 20.8 km2
with carbonate and flysch sediments in the Alpago ba-
sin (Italy). The data set was obtained at a 1:5,000 scale
with a pixel resolution of 3 · 3 m. Detailed geomor-
phological mapping was undertaken and data on
lithology, structural geology, superficial materials, slope
classes, land use and distances from streams, roads and
houses were collected. As in Barredo et al. (2000), di-
rect and indirect landslide susceptibility mapping was
undertaken. Direct mapping was performed after digi-
tising the geomorphological units assessed on the basis
of susceptibility attributes determined directly from
field observations. This provided 195 polygons with
unique identifiers and attributes tables containing
information about the type of landslide expected and
the degree of susceptibility at three levels.
Indirect landslide susceptibility mapping was ob-
tained from a statistical analysis of the result of over-
laying the factor and inventory maps. The density of
landslides in the area occupied by each factor, com-
pared with the density of landslides in the entire area,
was considered to be an expression of the importance
of each factor in the instability process. Then, using the
weights of evidence method (Bonham-Carter 1994),
indirect landslide susceptibility mapping was per-
formed using the GIS. For this purpose, six different
combinations of factors were tested against the results
of the direct susceptibility mapping. The use of de-
tailed geomorphological information in a bivariate
analysis raised the overall accuracy of the final sus-
355
ceptibility map considerably. The authors concluded
that the ‘‘actual generation of the susceptibility maps
are best done by knowledge-driven methods, such as
multiclass index overlaying or fuzzy logic methods’’.
Ayalew et al. (2004) mapped the Tsugawa area of
the Agano River, Japan, plotting 791 landslide events
in the 407 km2 area at a scale of 1:20,000 with a pixel
resolution of 10 · 10 m. Following layering and the
assignment of six weighted factors using the linear
combination method, a GIS model was developed
which took account of both landslide frequencies and
expert knowledge of the factors that influence slope
instability in the area.
IDRISI was used by Ayalew and Yamagishi (2005)
to design a landslide susceptibility map of a 105 km2
area in the Kakuda-Yahiko Mountains of Japan by the
logical regression method combined with bivariate
statistical analyses. An inventory of 87 landslides
plotted at a scale 1:20,000 was introduced into an
application with a pixel resolution of 10 · 10 m at a
scale 1:25,000. As can be seen from Fig. 5, the pre-
sentation of the map obtained is excellent.
Ayenew and Barbieri (2005) studied an area near the
town of Dessie (northern Ethiopia) at a scale 1:10,000
to 1:50,000. The factors considered were geology, water
table, geotechnical properties, slope angle and land-use
units. The analysis was performed by overlaying and
assigning weightings to the contributory factors. The
inventory distinguished different types of movements
(debris flows, earth and soil slumps, debris and rock
falls, topples and complex landslides) but the analysis
considered all slope movements. Also an interesting
contribution to rank landslides weighted factors in a
GIS application to an area in the Apennines (Italy) is
presented by Donati and Turrini (2002).
Statistical multivariate probabilistic analysis
using GIS
Following the pioneering papers by Carrara and Mer-
enda (1976), Carrara et al. (1977, 1978), Carrara
(1983), it became clear that multivariate analysis and
GIS were particularly suitable for landslide mapping,
although external statistical packages were usually re-
quired for part of the data analysis (Chung 1995; Baeza
and Corominas 1996; Luzi and Pergalani 1996a, b;
Chung and Fabri 1999; Baeza and Corominas 2001;
Lee and Min 2001; Marzorati 2002; Park and Chi 2003;
Ercanoglu et al. 2004; Süzen and Doyuran 2004b; Xie
et al. 2004; Carrara and Guzzetti 1995; Carrara et al.
1991a, b, 1992, 1995, 2003; Guzzetti et al. 1999, 2000,
2004, etc.). Some approaches adopted a probabilistic
treatment of data for slope instability, such as the
123
356 J. Chacón et al.

Fig. 5 Landslide susceptibility mapping in the Kaluda-Yahiko Mountains, Central Jaan (Ayalew and Yamagishi 2005) made by GIS-
based logistic regression: a inventory of 87 landslides, b landslide probability and c landslide susceptibility map

123
Engineering geology maps: landslides and GIS
Monte Carlo method (Zhou et al. 2003). These meth-
ods have also been combined with uncertainty ap-
proaches (e.g. Remondo et al. 2003). Many published
papers use statistical techniques including weighting
factors, expert assessment techniques, fuzzy logic or
neural networks in slope stability maps based on
probabilistic reliability index methods.
Hong Kong has been one of the most important
sources of contributions to landslide forecasting maps
and techniques. Good examples of GIS (Arc View,
ESRI) applications to landslide susceptibility mapping
are those authored by Dai et al. (2000), and Dai and
Lee (2001, 2002a, b) for Lantau Island, which is fre-
quently threatened by landslide events. Their meth-
odology is based on an Arc View (ESRI) and SPSS
(statistical package) multivariate logistic regression of
presence–absence of dependent variables relating
Fig. 6 Landslide
susceptibility map of the
Yongin study area (Korea)
using a probabilistic method
(Lee and Min 2001)
357
landslides and various contributory factors (lithology,
slope angle, slope aspect, elevation, soil cover, distance
to river channels). An analysis of multiple correspon-
dence (MCA) of linear combinations between land-
slides and factors was made, after a measure of
frequency of landslides in relation to each of the fac-
tors. The scale used was 1:20,000 with a resolution of
20 · 20 m. The degree of adjustment between inven-
tory and factors was 82% (Dai et al. 2000), 77.1% with
all the inventory events, 82.5% considering the most
recent landslides only (Dai and Lee 2001) and 82.8%
with an inventory of 800 landslides (Dai et al. 2001).
Further refinements were introduced by selecting sig-
nificant factors (slope angle, lithology, elevation, as-
pect, land use) from less significant factors such as
morphology and distance to drainage network (Dai
and Lee 2002a, b).
123
358
Baeza and Corominas (2001) studied an area of the
eastern Pyrenees (Spain) affected by shallow landslides
using a statistical package instead of a GIS. They
performed an analysis of discriminant function be-
tween factors such as height, orientation, slope angle,
drainage sub-basin, vegetation, soil width and land use
units, taking account of up to eight quantitative and
five qualitative variables. The scale of the work was
1:10,000 and a validation area was included.
In the South of Korea, the Yongin area was mapped
by Lee and Min (2001) using bivariate and multivariate
analysis and ArcInfo (ESRI) GIS. They used 14 dif-
ferent factors and the pixel resolution was 10 · 10 m.
Internal validation was undertaken by checking the
correlation between landslides and susceptibility clas-
ses in both statistical methods. This demonstrated good
results but the bivariate analysis was much easier to
perform (Fig. 6).
Santacana et al. (2003) studied part of La Pobla de
Lillet village (Pyrenees, Spain) by statistical multivari-
ate and discriminant analysis using Arc Info (ESRI).
Seven different factors were integrated. Spatial valida-
tion was undertaken by comparing a data set of land-
slides from a part of the study region with the factors
derived in other parts of the region and checking the
result against the original susceptibility zonation.
Marquı́nez et al. (2003) studied a 500 km2 rock fall
front in the Cantabrian Mountains (Asturias, North
Spain) with a pixel resolution of 25 · 25 m in Arc Info
(ESRI) and the SPSS statistical package. They defined
a ‘‘rock fall basin’’ unit using topographical criteria.
This basic unit was used to measure the number of
recent rock falls and establish both activity indicators
and the ratio between areas of recent talus scree and
the rocky slopes which act as source areas. A suscep-
tibility statistical model based on five different factors
was used in a multivariate and logical regression
analysis. Spatial validation was included.
Süzen and Doyuran (2004a) studied an area of
200 km2 in the Asarsuyu basin (Turkey) at a scale
1:25,000, using GIS and two methods of statistical
analysis: bivariate (with the overlay of factor maps and
use of weighting) and multivariate multiple regression.
The first method was quicker but less accurate while
the second, more complex, method provided a better
correspondence between the factor analysis and land-
slides. Thirteen factors were considered and analysed
for their relationship with an inventory of 49 landslides
of different types, mostly earth flow and shallow
translational slides. The zonation was validated by
comparing the zonation with previous landslide activ-
ity. These authors (Süzen and Doyuran 2004b) re-
ported new results in the Asaryuzu basin, from later
123
J. Chacón et al.
statistical bivariate analysis using SIG and remote
sensing. The density or frequency of landslides was
calculated and classified on a percentage basis. Thir-
teen factor maps were overlain, weightings were as-
signed and statistical criteria adopted. Temporal
validation was undertaken using a sample of landslides
which occurred during and after an earthquake. One
hundred percent of the landslides occurred in areas
assigned to the high and very high susceptibility classes.
An interesting aspect of this research was the analysis
made of the landslide environments in order to estab-
lish antecedent slope and mass parameters.
Ercanoglu et al. (2004) made a landslide suscepti-
bility map of 64 km2 of the Yenice region of Turkey
using GIS to overlay factors weighted by statistical
multivariate and factorial analysis techniques. Spatial
validation was undertaken by relating the 57 recorded
landslides to the susceptibility zones.
Lee (2004) made a landslide susceptibility map of
the Janghung area (South Korea) using bivariate and
multivariate statistical methods and a pixel size of
10 · 10 m. Most of the landslides in the 41 km2 study
were superficial movements. The bivariate method
analysed the probability relationship (landslide fre-
quency) in each of 13 classes of contributory factors.
Multivariate logistic regression, although a complex
and time consuming process, resulted in a better cor-
respondence of recorded landslides with defined sus-
ceptibility levels. Also Dias and Zuquette (2004)
presented an interesting probabilistic landslide sus-
ceptibility mapping in Ouro Preto, Brazil and Ohlm-
acher and Davis (2003) a logistic regression method to
landslide hazard mapping in Kansas, USA.
Matrix approach
The matrix-assessment approach (DeGraff and Rom-
esburg 1980) is an objective and quantitative method
for establishing an index of instability over an area and
evaluating landslide susceptibility. It is based on mea-
sured attributes of the bedrock, slope and aspect from
aerial photo interpretation and field work and a land-
slide inventory. The total areas covered by landslides
were placed in each appropriate cell and the amount of
landslide terrain with the same particular combinations
of bedrock, slope or aspect units was identified. A
management unit matrix was constructed from all
bedrock, slope and aspect combinations for landslide
locations, giving rise to different management units
within the matrix.
The landslide-susceptibility matrix has a cell corre-
sponding to every cell in the management unit matrix
and each cell in the management unit matrix is divided
Engineering geology maps: landslides and GIS
Fig. 7 Susceptibility
flowchart for the GIS matrix
approach (Irigaray 1995) A:
landslide matrix lithology,
slope, aspect; B: Study region
matrix lithology, slope,
aspect. Dividing A and B and
multiplying by 100 gives C:
landslide susceptibility matrix
lithology, slope, aspect; D:
Susceptibility classes in every
pixel: low, moderate, high. (1)
Lithology D, Slope N; Aspect
Z; (2) Lithology E; Slope R;
Aspect Z
into the corresponding cell in the landslide matrix. The
surface covered by landslides for each combination of
attributes of bedrock, slope and aspect is divided by the
total surface area where these attributes are observed
to give a value of between 1 and 0—the LSI for that
particular set of attributes. Based on this method a
quantitative landslide susceptibility zonation was ob-
tained by grouping all the susceptibility values into
classes. A non-hierarchical clustering method (Ander-
berg 1973) using a W function, by minimising the sum
of squared deviations about the three equally distrib-
uted groups, was adopted to obtain susceptibility
classes for the final landslide susceptibility classifica-
tion (DeGraff and Romesburg 1980). As all of the
attributes considered in the method may be easily
measured from field research and aerial interpretation,
little room is left for personal judgement, hence this is
a quantitative assessment. The method was designed
for large areas of wild lands. No consideration was
given to differences in behaviour between landslide
types, probably because of the small scale of the
resulting maps. In further extensions of the method,
DeGraff et al. (1991) used permanent factors such as
bedrock, slope steepness and an optional hydrologic
factor (together with the landslide inventory) to obtain
a landslide hazard zonation. The use of the GIS matrix
method (Fig. 7) has been made possible by the devel-
opment of microcomputers and software over the last
359
two decades. More powerful computing has become
available at decreasing prices allowing new GIS matrix
methods (Irigaray 1990, 1995) to deal with increasing
numbers of attributes.
In the Betic Cordillera (Southern Spain), a region of
about 15,000 km2 has been covered by landslide sus-
ceptibility maps using the GIS matrix method (Chacón
1994; Chacón and Irigaray 1992, 1999a, b; Chacón et al.
1992a, b, 1993a, b, 1994a, b, c, 1996a, b, c, 1998, 2003;
El Hamdouni 2001; El Hamdouni et al. 1996a, b,
1997a, b, 2000, 2001, 2003; Fernández 2001; Fernández
et al. 1994, 1996a, b, c, d, 1997a, b, c, 1998, 2000, 2003,
2004a, b; Irigaray 1990, 1995; Irigaray et al. 1994,
1996a, b, c, d, 1997a, b, 1998a, b, 1999, 2000, 2003).
Using Spans Gis (Tydac-Intera), Arc/Info and ArcGIS
(ESRI), maps at scales from 1:2,000 to 1:50,000 have
been prepared depending on the research objectives.
The main conclusions obtained from these initiatives
may be summarised as follows:
1. The density of landslides per square kilometre in
the whole region is close to 1.8.
2. Small magnitude landslides predominate, although
there are a limited number of large landslides in
mountains formed of metamorphic rocks in the
inner part of the Cordillera which also shows a
higher susceptibility to landsliding than other parts
of the region.
123
360
3. Landsliding areas in some small basins close to the
Mediterranean border may occupy 40% of the
total surface area.
4. Debris flows and rock falls predominate in the
mountain areas, followed in number by planar
slides, rotational slides and complex landslides.
5. In Tertiary post-orogenic basins, where most of the
main cities are located, earth and mud flows, planar
slides and complex landslides predominate with a
few cases of rotational slides.
6. In the whole region studied, flows of all types
constitute 52% of all landslides, planar and rota-
tional slides 23% and rock falls 16%. Complex
landslides account for the other 9%.
The following recommendations were made:
1. A landslide scar inventory and mapping are basic
tools for landslide susceptibility assessment while a
landslide mass inventory is useful for obtaining
data about reach, slope angle and distance from
the landslide head and therefore for the assessment
of the element’s exposure to landsliding.
2. The use of traditional landslide inventories with
scars and masses taken together may introduce
considerable errors in the final landslide suscepti-
bilty assessment and should be avoided.
From GIS analysis of a large number of factors
determining landslide distribution, it was clear that
lithology was the most important factor in all regions
and materials. The analysis of the relationships of
factors and landslides indicated that landslide suscep-
tibility maps should be made separately for each
landslide type, given the differences observed in for-
mative factors.
In the central Betic Cordillera, typical landslides are
generally at an incipient, initial, dormant, or recently
active stage of development. The key triggering factor
is usually the rainfall during Mediterranean storms but
sometimes medium to large magnitude earthquakes
with an undetermined return period (probably in ex-
cess of 200 years) trigger movements. Long term slope
stability is also determined by active tectonic and
geomorphic processes expressed by regional uplift and
river excavation. These have given rise to a number of
deep seated landslides and widespread unstable slopes
in the Mediterranean coastal ranges (Chacón 1999;
Chacón et al. 2001; Garcı́a et al. 2001, 2004). Digitised
maps of geomorphological indices of active tectonic
movements (as determinant factors) have proved to be
very useful in landslide susceptibility mapping in these
mountain areas (El Hamdouni 2001; El Hamdouni
et al. 1996b, 2000, 2001, 2003). The resulting landslide
123
J. Chacón et al.
susceptibility maps were validated using statistical
techniques to check the relationships of the landslide
inventories and the zonations. The results were
remarkably good (Irigaray 1995; Fernández 2001; El
Hamdouni 2001). Further practical validation of the
method was possible using new landslides associated
with the regional heavy rainfall between the autumn of
1996 and the summer of 1997. It was possible to
establish a very good correlation of the new landslides
with the previously obtained landslide susceptibility
maps (El Hamdouni 2001; El Hamdouni et al. 1997a;
Fernández 2001; Fernández et al. 1997a, 1998; Irigaray
et al. 1997a, 1998a, b, 1999, 2000, 2003, 2006). An
example is shown in Fig. 3 (see also Figs. 2, 4).
A good example of statistical analysis of the corre-
lation between influencing factors and a landslide
inventory which distinguishes different landslide ty-
pologies was made following the matrix method by
Maharaj (1993) for the Upper St. Andrew River Valley
in Jamaica. He considered slope angle and some geo-
technical properties as landslide-influencing factors.
The resulting map covered 15 km2 at a scale of
1:10,000, with five classes of relative susceptibility
which corresponded well with the landslide inventory.
Cross (1998, 2002) studied a part of Derbyshire
(UK) by the matrix assessment approach (MAP) based
on the work of DeGraff and Romesburg (1988). A LSI
was calculated as the percentage of landslides in each
class (factor combination). The GIS packages PAN-
ACE, DERIVATIVE and MIRAGE were used to
analyse lithology, superficial deposits, slope angle,
slope orientation, relief, height and soil type. An
inventory was developed at a scale of 1:10,000, and the
method was validated by applying it to a nearby area
and comparing the resulting susceptibility map with the
distribution of landslides in that area.
Clerici et al. (2002) made a landslide susceptibility
map of 332 km2 of the Parma river valley using
GRASS GIS with a pixel resolution of 5 · 5 m. The
conditional analysis of six factors and a landslide
inventory were used to identify 2,131 factor combina-
tions in relation to different densities of landsliding.
The method was similar to the matrix method de-
scribed above.
GIS susceptibility or hazard maps by artificial
neural networks
The theory of neural networks was first developed by
McCulloch and Pitts (1943) for the simulation of the
nervous activity process through biological networks.
Afterwards a system for the treatment of data by means
Engineering geology maps: landslides and GIS
of artificial neural networks (ANNs) was developed.
The ANNs are organised in nodes and links in a layer of
data with a number of entry nodes, a hidden layer with
nodes where the information is processed by oriented
rules (expert system) and an exit layer with nodes
where the results of the data processing are obtained.
The data acquired or processed in the nodes are sub-
mitted though the links. The use of ANNs supports the
management of databases with information of variable
nature (quantitative or qualitative) by using the rules
‘‘if/then’’ in order to infer results. Entry nodes may
receive qualitative or quantitative, direct or reclassified
data; for instance determinant factor data or densities
of different types of landslides in the study area. The
hidden layer nodes process the data; for example fol-
lowing weighting rules depending on the considered
importance (Lipmann 1987; Zell 1994).
The ANNs method has been applied mainly to
shallow landslides, debris flows and shallow soil col-
lapses as in Basma and Kallas (2004). For instance,
Fernández-Steeger et al. (2002) made a map of stable
and unstable zones in the Eastern Alps of Bad Ischl
(Austria). Lee et al. (2002a; 2004a) developed a
method of landslide susceptibility mapping using a GIS
in which they applied a LSI by overlaying and
weighting factors with a Bayesian probabilistic ap-
proach, or by bivariate weighting of evidence. The
method was applied at a scale of 1:5,000 and a pixel
resolution of 10 · 10 m.
Lee et al. (2002b) used a neural network to overlay
and weight factors to provide a LSI in the Yongin area
(South Korea). They used a combination of Arc Info
(ESRI) and a mathematical package (MATLAB) to
analyse seven factors (slope, curvature, soil texture,
drainage network, soil width, type and diameter of
trees). The inventory was based on recent landslide
mapping at a scale of 1:20,000. The topographical data
in the digital elevation model (DEM) was at a scale of
1:5,000 with a pixel resolution of 10 · 10 m, while
information on influencing factors was obtained at a
scale of 1:25,000. The LSI was estimated in two dif-
ferent ways: from the importance of each factor class in
frequencies assessed by a probabilistic method, and by
using an ANN. The adjustment between the suscepti-
bility classes and the records of previous landslides was
calculated with and without weighted factors, leading
to the conclusion that a better result was obtained by
using weighted factors.
Lee et al. (2003) undertook a landslide susceptibility
map for 68 km2 of the Boun Region (South Korea)
using GIS techniques and ANNs. The MATLAB
(Mathworks Inc) package was used for the statistical
external treatment of the data; the pixel resolution was
361
5 · 5 m. Validation was performed using records of
landslides from the Yongin area. The degree of
adjustment between the susceptibility I index and the
landslides inventory distributions was observed to be
better using weighted factors. Similarly, Gómez and
Kavzoglu (2005) prepared a shallow landslide suscep-
tibility map in the Jabonosa river basin of Venezuela
using Arc View (ESRI) and other complementary
software. Rumelhart et al. (1986) and Binaghi et al.
(2004) provide examples of GIS landslide mapping
using ANN methods.
Finally, Ermini et al. (2005) present an interesting
ANN application to the landslide susceptibility
assessment of a 17 km2 area of the Riomaggiore
catchment in the Northern Apennines, Italy (Fig. 8).
They used two different models, both developed by the
Trajan 6.0 Professional—Neural Network Simulator
(Trajan Software 2001). A high proportion of the
landslide inventory was correctly identified by the two
ANN models and the authors considered the results
‘‘comparable with the same figures relative to other
prediction and classification methods (Carrara and
Guzzetti 1995)’’. They suggest that although ‘‘not
suitable for exportation to very different geomorpho-
logical settings, (they) could be usefully applied in a
large part of the Northern Apennines, in which geo-
logical and geomorphological conditions are very
similar to those of the test site’’.
The main advantage of using ANN methods is that
there is no need for any statistical variables in the
process. The ANN methods allow the target classes to
be defined in relation to their distribution in each
source data set, facilitating the integration of data
emerging from remote sensing, GIS, etc. Further, the
time involved is shorter than required for most statis-
tical techniques and calculation pixel by pixel is pos-
sible. The method allows incomplete or imperfect data
to be managed as well as the analysis of interactions
between non-linear or complex variables (Lee et al.
2003). Nevertheless, different authors have drawn
attention to the difficulty of following the internal
process within the hidden layers and the amount of
computing time needed for changes in data format for
use in the GIS. The ANN method is applied mainly to
shallow landslides, debris flows and shallow soil col-
lapses, as in Basma and Kallas (2004). Also neural
methods are applied by Neaupane and Achet (2004).
Fuzzy logic and grey systems
‘‘Fuzzy logic (Zadeh 1965) is a superset of conven-
tional (Boolean) logic that has been extended to han-
dle the concept of partial truth values between
123
362 J. Chacón et al.

Fig. 8 Landslide
susceptibility mapping of the
Riomaggiore catchment,
Apennines, Italy (Ermini
et al. (2005). a Cumulative
distributions of the ANN
outputs for the two models as
a whole and for the subsets
relative to the mapped
landslide areas. The
highlighted thresholds relate
to ‘‘points of inflexion’’ in the
landslide-subset curves and
used for the subsequent
landslide susceptibility
mapping. L: low susceptibility;
M: medium susceptibility;
H: high susceptibility; VH:
very high susceptibility.
b Landslide susceptibility map
using MLP techniques and
c landslide susceptibility map
using PNN techniques

‘completely true’ and ‘completely false’’’ (Gorsevski
et al. 2003). Fuzzy logic has been widely used in many
different fields including, for instance, soils and land
evaluation (Burrough 1989; Burrrough et al. 2000,
2001). Fuzzy logic relationships are applied in order to
avoid subjectivity in parameter selection when using a
large number of landslide factors (Zadeh 1978).
Binaghi et al. (1998) discussed the limitations of
GIS for an adequate treatment of the different layers
of significant data for landslide mapping/modelling.
They indicated that current research in data inte-
gration focuses on ‘soft’ computing approaches (such
as knowledge-based system fuzzy set theory, neural
networks, probabilistic and evidential approaches,
genetic algorithms) that can be successfully applied
to the problem of multisource data analysis and
classification, especially when conditions of hetero-
geneity and uncertainty co-exist among the data.
Their paper gives an excellent comparative study of
certainty factor (CF) and fuzzy Dempster–Shafer
(FDS) models in the specific field of slope instability
zonation. The CF is one of the favourability func-
tions (FF) proposed by Chung and Fabbri (1993) to
solve the problem of combining heterogeneous data
also applied to landslide hazard zonation in the
Fabriano Area by Luzi (1995b). The favourability
function fk is defined as

A ! ½mink ; maxk  ! ½a; b
fk
A ! ½1; 2; 3 . . . nk  ! ½a; b

123
Engineering geology maps: landslides and GIS
A being the study area, with continuous values be-
tween a minimum and a maximum, non-continuous
values 1 to n, and a to b as the range of the FF. It is a
process of transformation which gives a common
interval [a, b] to the different types of data which may
then be combined in pairs. In the GIS, the smallest
land unit is a pixel, representing a square cell with
dimensions depending on the specific case. In common
with other methods, it is assumed that a statistical
relationship exists between past landslides (the inven-
tory) and the different factors which influence the
slope stability conditions (represented by spatial data
sets of geology, slope, morphology, soil cover, vegeta-
tion, etc). Binaghi et al. (1988), and many other au-
thors, considered the statistical relationships between
past landslides and the spatial data sets of factors ex-
press the degree of landslide hazard, although without
any temporal significance hence limiting the under-
standing of the level of exposure or potential danger.
The CF, originally proposed by Shortliffe and Bucha-
nan (1975) and later modified by Heckerman (1986), is
defined ‘‘as the change in certainty that a proposition
(i.e. an area is landslide prone) is true’’. It is expressed
by the relations:

ðcpa  cps Þ=ðcpa ð1  cps ÞÞ if cpa  cps
CF
ðcpa  cps Þ=ðcps ð1  cpa ÞÞ if cpa \cps
where cpa is the conditional probability of having a
number of landslide events occurring in class ‘a’ and
cps is the prior probability of having the total number
of landslide events occurring in the study area ‘A’. The
range of CF is [ – 1, 1], i.e. from a positive value
meaning the increasing certainty of landslide occur-
rence to a negative value when the certainty of land-
slide occurrence is decreasing. The values approach 0
when the prior probability is very close to the condi-
tional one and hence any indication as to the certainty
of the landslide occurrence is very difficult to establish.
The Dempster–Shafer theory of evidence is a way of
overcoming some of the limitations of the Bayesian
theory by a generalisation concerning the assignation
of high levels of belief from limited evidence. It was
introduced by Shafer (1976) based on the rule of
combination of Dempster (1968), which provides a
method for changing beliefs in the light of new evi-
dence. It is based on collecting the available total evi-
dence and considering it in terms of for and against a
given probability.
From the previously mentioned basic concepts of
Varnes (1984) about hazard and risk, they applied both
models to the 1:50,000 scale ‘Fabriano’ geological map
sheet, published by the Italian Geological Survey. The
363
study area is in the Umbria-Marche Apennines. The
research was based on sets of aerial photographs taken
in 1955 and 1971 at a scale 1:30,000. A number of
factor maps were prepared at scales of 1:25,000 and
1:50,000. From the analysis of inventories of current
landslides and the aerial photographs, they proposed
two objectives:
1. Testing the prediction capability of the models in
time and space. The prediction is performed using
the earth flows that took place before 1955; the
capability test is then performed comparing the
predictions with occurrences after 1955.
2. To assess a prediction for the future based on the
earth flows data set updated to 1992.
In this way, they obtained landslide hazard catego-
ries. They concluded that in the CF approach the level
of confidence in the assessed hazard mainly depends on
the appropriate selection of thematic layers, their
classification for hazard zonation purposes and the
accuracy of the landslide inventory. This requires a
good knowledge of the phenomena in the study area.
FDS allows expert knowledge to supply the incom-
pleteness and inconsistency of the available data. On
the other hand, the adequacy of the training data,
created during the elicitation of sample cases, can be
quantified. A general criterion for the method selection
is to identify the best fits of the available data and the
expected achievements. An integrated use of these two
complementary methods in an hybrid framework,
particularly for classification studies dealing with
complex and partially unknown domains, was finally
recommended.
Borselli et al. (1998) applied fuzzy mathematics for
assessing the hill slope instability hazard over a
1,200 km2 area in Abruzzo, Central Apennines, Italy.
The concept of hazard in this research was not derived
from any temporal set of data but from an identifica-
tion of factors which determine the hill slope instabil-
ity, hence it may be correlated with methods of
landslide susceptibility mapping. A comparison of the
obtained zonation using fuzzy logic with a determin-
istic zonation in that area was included, as well as an
internal validation of the method. For the validation,
203 squares of 1 km2 were scattered within 50% of the
sample area to check the consistency between the
landslide ‘‘hazard’’ level (HC) and landslide occur-
rence classes (LC). This showed that 63% of the
squares over-estimated the hazard level (HC>LC),
29% of squares were equivalent and only 8% under-
estimated the hazard level (HC<LC).
Remondo et al. (2003a) mapped landslide suscepti-
bility using GIS in a sector of 140 km2 in the Deba
123
364
river valley, Guipúzcoa, Spain, by multivariate analysis
of five combinations of 17 different factors and an
inventory of 2,000 landslides. They applied conditional
probability, certainty and fuzzy membership functions
in quantitative values by means of a bivariant analysis
of frequency of landslides in each factor class, using a
favourability value. A retrospective temporal valida-
tion of the susceptibility map was undertaken from
seven sets of aerial photographs, spanning 43 years.
Gorsevski et al. (2003) integrated a fuzzy k-means
classification and a Bayesian approach for the spatial
prediction of landslide hazard in a case study of the
Clearwater National Forest (CNF) in central Idaho
(USA) which is heavily affected by landslides. The
fuzzy k-means clustering approaches, clearly described
in the paper, are similar to a cluster analysis to group
patterns of data that in some sense belong together and
have similar characteristics, by a repetitive procedure
of selection of a set of random cluster points and
building clusters around each seed. This technique has
been applied to various fields of research including
disciplines such as geology and soil-landscape model-
ling. The Bayes theorem is a method used to aid
decision making under uncertainty, based on a frame-
work for combining subjective probability (of being
true or false) with conditional probability (of being
true or false). Subjective probability is an expression of
the degree of belief in an event occurring based on a
person’s experience, prejudices, optimism, etc. (Mal-
czewski 1999). Conditional probability is the knowl-
edge about the likelihood of the hypothesis being true,
given a piece of evidence (De Aráujo et al. 2004, Favre
et al. 2000). For example, one cannot be certain whe-
ther landslides always occur in areas of topographic
convergence. The knowledge might be expressed as the
user being 90% certain (i.e., probability=0.9) that
landslides will occur in areas of topographic conver-
gence (Gorsevski et al. 2003). A training area of
111.8 km2 located in the northwest of the Lochsa Basin
was used for classification because of the high landslide
density following landslide events in November 1995
and February 1996 and the similarity of the topo-
graphic attribute distributions with the overall CNF.
A landslide inventory of 865 events recorded in
November 1995 and February 1996 was assessed from
aerial reconnaissance flights and field work. Fifty-five
percent of the landslides were related to the forest road
(RR); the remaining being referred to as NRR (not
related to roads). Using a 30-m grid, the presence/ab-
sence of landslide data was represented with values of
1 or 0. The RR and NRR grid coverages were sepa-
rated so that data from one area (sub-watershed) were
used to develop quantitative models and data from the
123
J. Chacón et al.
other to test these. Six environmental attributes [ele-
vation, slope, profile curvature, tangent curvature,
compound topographic index (CTI), and solar radia-
tion] were derived from 30 m DEMs using specific
software. The continuous fuzzy k-means landform
classification was performed using these six environ-
mental attributes as the input to FuzME (a PC Win-
dows-based program) while the Bayesian modelling
was implemented using an Arc View (ESRI) extension
that employed the correlations between the derived
fuzzy k-means landform classes and the landslide
occurrence datasets.
One of the objectives of the research was to test the
models derived from fuzzy k-means classification and a
Bayesian approach, against the results obtained from
previous models such as Fsmet (McClelland et al.
1997) and SHALSTAB (Dietrich and Montgomery
1998). The first was specifically developed for the
Clearwater National Forest (CNF) in north central
Idaho and used a heuristic rule that defines high hazard
areas as those locations with slopes greater than 60%
and with parent materials of schist or granites at ele-
vations below 1,400 m. The SHALSTAB is a physically
based model combining the infinite slope equation of
the Mohr–Coulomb failure law and a hydrological
component based on steady-state shallow subsurface
flow (O’Loughlin 1986). The results obtained by Gor-
sevski et al. (2003) from this integration of GIS, fuzzy
k-means and Bayesian theory were extremely inter-
esting, suggesting a strong potential for use in landslide
hazard mapping.
Ercanoglu and Gokceoglu (2004) provided a very
detailed description and excellent presentation of a
method of using fuzzy relations and multivariate sta-
tistical analysis in landslide susceptibility mapping in a
part of the West Black Sea region of Turkey. The scale
was 1:25,000, with a pixel size of 25 · 25 m in IDRISI
GIS. The 266 landslides in the 275.4 km2 study area
consisted mainly of rotational slides with some earth
flows and translational slides. Ten factors were
grouped in three sets of parameters: geological, topo-
graphical and environmental. The consistency between
the final susceptibility map and the landslide inventory
map was checked using two parameters: the strength of
the relation (rij) and the root mean square error
(RMSE). The authors considered the calculated values
of 0.867 and 0.284, respectively, showed ‘‘the produced
landslide susceptibility map in the present study has a
sufficient reliability’’.
Also Tangestani (2004) undertook landslide sus-
ceptibility mapping using the fuzzy gamma approach in
a GIS in the Kahan catchment area, southwest Iran.
This was done using the gamma operator, one of the
Engineering geology maps: landslides and GIS
most common aggregation operators available for the
calculation of the fulfillment of a fuzzy rule, based on
given individual premises (An et al. 1991; Bonham-
Carter 1994; Zimmermann 1996).
Fuzzy cognitive maps (FCM, Liu 2003) ‘‘are graphs
that provide a powerful and flexible framework for
knowledge representation. Unlike traditional repre-
sentational systems, FCMs are able to represent causal
reasoning process with fuzzy degrees consistent with
that of the human. Consequently, FCMs can be used to
build practical functional systems’’. Combined with
GIS which ‘‘is essentially a representation of the data
with little or no intelligence built into the system, the
human expert is ultimately responsible for the inter-
pretation of the data. Recognising the constraints
associated with using a GIS for decision support the
FCM is an inference system’’.
Lu and Rosenbaum (2003) detail, with examples, the
range of maps of stability conditions using fuzzy logic
and grey systems (Den 1982). This is an analytical
technique for systems with both known and unknown
parameters or features and is particularly useful when
only a limited amount of data is available. Other
interesting contributions are found in Chi et al.
(2002b), Chung and Fabbri (2001), Saboya et al. (2004)
and a wider treatment in Hines (1997).
Probabilistic analysis of the slope safety factor
by the reliability index
In recent years, GIS mapping has also been undertaken
using a probabilistic treatment of the factor of safety
calculations. The reliability analysis has been devel-
oped from capacity-demand models, assessed by the b
reliability index, where the uncertainty is associated
with the performance of given structures or slope sta-
bility systems, with no temporal implications. Weibull
(1951) discusses failure probability in any given time
period with exponential distributions that are useful for
tensile strength distribution models.
The capacity-demand model in geotechnics is used
to assess the failure probability associated with a given
load or stress condition. The b reliability index is
defined as the ratio between the expected value of the
safety margin (difference between capacity and
demand) and its standard deviation. The calculation
requires a deterministic model for selecting a perfor-
mance function, to define a limit equilibrium stage, and
finally to calculate the average and standard deviation
for the limit equilibrium. In slope stability analysis, a
factor of safety model (FS) is commonly used. The
performance function (T) is that of an infinite slope
365
under planar failure and the average and standard
deviation values are obtained from geotechnical
parameters such as material specific weight, cohesion
and friction angle. A definition of a limit equilibrium
state is FS=1 or its natural logarithm equal to 0
(ln(FS)=0). If the relationship between capacity and
demand expresses the safety factor FS, then ln(FS) =
(ln C – ln D) and given a normal distribution of ln(FS)
the reliability index b is
b ¼ ½averaged(ln(FS))=standard deviation (ln(FS)):
The better known methods for calculating the
averaged value and standard deviation of FS are the
Taylor series method, the point estimation method and
the Monte Carlo simulation. The Taylor series method
retains only the linear terms (first order) of the series
for the calculation of the two first moments (the
average and the standard deviations) hence is also
known as the FOSM method (first-order second-mo-
ment). The Monte Carlo simulation allows the assess-
ment of the performance function (FS) from huge
amounts of possible values randomly selected from the
population of real geotechnical data introduced into
the software. The term Monte Carlo was adopted by
the United States experimental group dealing with the
design of the atomic bomb in 1942, alluding to the
selection of random numbers in the famous casino. A
number of software packages are currently available
for that purpose such as @RISK (Palisade Inc.), Crystal
Ball Professional (Decisioneering Inc.), DecisionPro
(Vanguard Soft. Corp.), XLSlim (AnalyCorp Inc.), etc.
The reliability index b represents the number of
values of the standard deviation giving rise to a log-
normally averaged performance function (ln(FS)) va-
lue higher than 0. The projection of the results offers a
graphical way to assess the slope stability as the
probability of a FS value higher than 1 (or any other
projected value). An example of a geotechnical appli-
cation is shown in Hoek (2002, Chap. 8, http://
www.rocscience.com). Developments of the subject for
geotechnical applications are also available from the
US Army Corps of Engineering (1995, 1999) in http://
www.usace.army.mil/.
A number of GIS maps based on Monte Carlo
simulation or FOSM approaches require external use
of software packages in order to provide basic analyt-
ical data to the GIS application. A good example is a
slope vulnerability map of the upper valley of the
Serchio River (Toscana, Italy) made in Arc/Info
(ESRI) by Luzi et al. (2000). This used geological,
geomorphological and hydrological data, comple-
mented with geotechnical data provided by the local
123
366
administration. The data were analysed statistically in
order to obtain probability distributions of cohesion,
friction angle and specific weights. These were used in
the calculation of the reliability index for plane failure
in an infinite slope model, including data about critical
horizontal accelerations. The contribution of the pore
water pressure to the slope instability had to be directly
assessed from shallow hydrological data as no hydro-
geological data from deeper aquifers were available. A
weighted evidence Bayesian method was used to ob-
tain a map showing probabilities of water outflow.
Landslide susceptibility was assessed by both the
Monte Carlo simulation and the FOSM methods. Re-
sults were compared and errors were assessed. The
authors concluded that there were no significant dif-
ferences between the results obtained from these two
methods although the Monte Carlo simulation was
easier to use. They also remarked on the usefulness of
the failure probability results in comparing costs de-
rived from safe design of civil works, and in defining
priorities for management of remedial works for dif-
ferent areas.
Other interesting GIS maps using similar probabi-
listic methods may be found in Esaki et al. (2001),
Zhou et al. (2003), Xie et al. (2003a, b; 2004a). There is
an interesting discussion concerning the uncertainty
inherent to the geotechnical and geometrical parame-
ters necessary for the slope stability calculations, for
instance in the method of analysis and calculation of
factor of safety. A method to obtain the minimum
reliability index of a given slope is in Bhattacharya
et al. (2003) and different contributions on the GIS
regionalisation of data may be found in Davis and
Keller (1997a, b) and Giasi et al. (2003).
Fundamentals of the probabilistic concept of risk in
geotechnical engineering are found in Alonso (1976).
An interesting case study of landslide risk in geotech-
nical engineering is found in Babu and Mukesh (2003).
Corominas and Santacana (2003) developed a GIS
method to map the distribution and variability of slope
stability safety factor in a landslide mass using geo-
technical data and considering different water pressure
conditions.
Fractal analysis and landslide map modelling
The ‘‘fractal’’ concept comes from the observation of
self-similarity of natural features—the latin term
‘‘fractus’’ means fragmented. This expresses the state
of a set of fragments resulting from an irregularly
shaped body (Mandelbrot 1983) such as a coastline
(Mandelbrot 1967) or many other natural forms Family
123
J. Chacón et al.
and Vicsek (1991). In these, lengths increase as an
exponential function of the decreasing diameter of a
hypothetical wheel used to measure a given linear
pathway. The power of the exponential function de-
fines the fractal dimension D of the given feature. The
basic fractal equation is given by
NðRÞ ¼ C=RD
where N(R) is the number of objects with linear
dimension R, C is a constant and D is the fractal
dimension.
Since Gutenberg and Richter (1954), fractals have
been widely used in seismic studies of earthquake
magnitude distributions and have proved useful in
work on distribution and frequency of landslides from
inventories. There is a very interesting potential
application to landslide mapping as well. Haigh et al.
(1988), measuring and analysing volumes of rockfalls in
a Himalayan road, pointed out the self-organisation
and entropic properties of landslides. Sasaki et al.
(1991), studying relationships between size and fre-
quency of landslides in Japan, used fractal analysis to
derive a general fractal dimension, D = 3.3, for the
study region, although with variations depending on
more localised lithology and vegetation. They sug-
gested that fractal dimension values might have value
for forecasting future landslides and demonstrated that
the ratio between size and length increases with the
scale of the landslide. Hiura and Fukuoka (1993, 1996)
studied 11,000 landslides in the Hokkaido island (Ja-
pan). They determined fractal dimensions D of 1.42
and 1.6 depending on the calculation method (counting
box or correlation integral). They also found D values
of 1.44 and 1.77 for shallow landslides. Using Weibull
distribution functions, they derived an equation of the
fractal dimension D as a function of the total landslide
area (a) and the total basin area (A):
D ¼ 5:9ða=AÞ þ 1:44
Kubota (1996) also analysed the fractal dimension of
the topography of the landslides from the scarp pro-
jections and showed that since these forms follow a
self-similarity model it is possible to derive its fractal
dimension. He obtained a D value of 1–1.5 depending
on the lithological group. He suggested that the ob-
tained fractal dimension D is a measure of the slope
failure probability and the terrain susceptibility to
landsliding. Also Goltz (1996) analysed landslides in
Hokkaido and Tohoku (Japan) to demonstrate multi-
fractal character after a review of models and numer-
ical results.
Engineering geology maps: landslides and GIS
Czirók et al. (1997) analysed the geomorphological
evolution of mountain ranges from the point of view of
fractal dimensions of erosional surfaces. They related
the landslide distribution to the evolution of the sur-
face roughness, described in terms of the parameters of
temporal (a) and spatial (b) scaling. Based on dynamic
scaling theory (Family and Vicsek 1991), a surface h(x,
t) is expressed by its average standard deviation w(L, t)
over an interval of linear extent L, and for t fi ¥, the
rough surface is expressed as
D¼da
where D is the fractal dimension and d is the
embedded dimension. During the early stages of the
landscape evolution the roughness increases as
wðL; tÞ  tb :
Czirók et al. (1997), following this theoretical ap-
proach, secured experimental data from an initially
smooth ridge made of a mixture of silica sand and soil
which was exposed to erosion by water. The structure
eroded in a manner analogous to actual mountain
profiles with self-similarity. Values of a = 0.78 ± 0.05
and b = 0.8 ± 0.06 obtained from this experimental
model were in very good agreement with actual transect
profiles where a = 0.8 ± 0.1. Data from published re-
search in areas of the Japanese Alps and the European
Dolomites showed how a morphological system evolves
into a critical state at which surface roughening takes
place as a result of power-law distributed landslides.
Yi and Sun (1997) analysed the Nielamu area of
Tibet. They related landslide distributions and activity
from a fractal point of view and showed changes on
fractal dimension values in gully systems depending on
the landslide activity. This suggested that evolving
values of fractal features could be used in spatial and
temporal prediction of landslides.
Pelletier et al. (1997) analysed changes in soil
moisture in the Washita experimental basin (Chicka-
sha, Oklahoma, USA) (http://www.hydrolab.ars-
usda.gov/washita92/wash92.htm) using microwave
remote-sensing data from scales of 100 m to 10 km.
They established power spectrum S(k) behaviour of
soil moisture. There was an approximate power law
dependence on wave number k with the exponential
– 1.8. Further studies of the cumulative frequency and
sizes of landslides triggered by rainfall in Japan and of
landslides in the Northridge quadrangle (California,
USA) induced by the 1994 earthquake demonstrated
that resulting large landslides show a power law
dependence on area with the exponent ranging from
367
– 1.5 to – 1. They derived a model of soil moisture-
slope stability in which a critical threshold was
dependent directly upon a critical shear stress condi-
tion. This was controlled by given values of cohesion,
pore pressure, internal friction angle and slope angle,
which can also be expressed in terms of soil moisture
and slope angle. Applying their soil moisture distri-
bution-slope stability model, they demonstrated that
the cumulative frequency–size distribution of domains
of shear stress above the critical threshold value obeys
a power law which is a function of area. This had an
exponent of – 1.8 for large landslides. This work
potentially opens the way towards quantitative land-
slide hazard assessment based on remote sensing and
soil moisture analysis.
Venkatachalam et al. (2002) also used remote sens-
ing, slope stability calculations based on the planar
failure of an infinite slope model and fractal analysis in
GIS risk evaluation of landslides in the Western Ghats
of the Indian Himalayas where monsoon season rainfall
triggered considerable landslide activity. A case study
considered the village of Parmachi which was affected
by a landslide on 28 June 1994. They defined ‘‘risk’’ as
the product of the probability of occurrence of critical
rainfall, the probability of slope failure and the conse-
quences of that failure. Using a case study in western
Montana (USA), the 17 August 1959, Madison Canyon
Landslide, they validated a model relating the deposi-
tion pattern with distance of run-out and deposition
profiles, in terms of fractal dimension of the terrain.
The computer techniques used were based on a digital
elevation model (DEM) shortest path analysis in a
raster GIS. The results agreed with observed values.
Distributions of slope angles and size frequencies of
landslides were analysed by Iwahashi et al. (2003) in
the Higashikubiki area of Honshu Island (Japan). The
landslide types in their inventories were slumping,
sliding and creeping on sedimentary rocks. They used
Arc/Info (ESRI) to analyse the digitised inventory on a
DEM with 25 · 25 m resolution and a scale of
1:25,000, showing about 10,000 landslides. Using INFO
tables and the SLOPE command they obtained slope
angles and sizes for landslides in the study area. The
mapped landslide attributes were scarps, mass and fis-
sures cracks. Mean slope angle frequency distributions
for 100 significant landslides were calculated. These
approximated to a normal distribution but a skew to-
ward the lower angle was observed. Landslides in dif-
ferent geological units were similarly plotted on a
graph of mean slope angle (degrees) versus frequency.
The curves were interpreted as resulting from related
slope processes. After testing the curves with several
123
368
different distributions, it was found that the Weibull
exponential distribution was the most appropriate.
They analysed the meaning of this adjustment and
obtained a hazard function
bðx  cÞb1
HðxÞ ¼
gb
where g, b and c are the scale, shape and location
parameters, respectively.
They concluded that the probability of slope failure
increases by a power law with the increase of the
slope angle. The exponent depends on geological
features. The calculated shape parameters (b) of
around 3 showed no relation to any geological feature
and were therefore interpreted as expressing similarity
of landslide processes and mechanisms. The observed
location parameter (c) was also unrelated to geologi-
cal features, but the scale parameter (g) showed a
large decrease with decreasing grain size of the geo-
logical unit. Size–frequency distributions approxi-
mated to power law distributions. D and dependencies
of unstable clusters indicated a critical state within the
system, between stable and unstable, of selected
landslides of each type. A variation in the fractal
dimension D from 2.1 to 2.24, although without a
clear statistical significance, was considered as proba-
bly expressing that the finer the geological features,
the larger the power coefficient.
Roaui and Jaaidi (2003) undertook an interesting
analysis of an inventory of 759 landslides in the Rif
Mountains of northern Morocco at a scale 1:200,000
although without mentioning the types of landslides
involved. They verified the multifractal distribution of
the inventory following the box counting method in
which a map is divided in Nn boxes of size en where the
subscript n indicate a nth generation scale. The prob-
ability of finding a landslide in a cell number i (=1 to N)
is obtained from the ratio between the number of
landslides in the cell and the total number of land-
slides. Therefore, the available inventory portrayed the
bi-dimensional landslide probability distribution. The
multifractal scaling was analysed as a generation power
law function v(q,e) of the cell size en with a negative
mass exponent – s(q), where q is a real parameter,
given by v(q) = e–s(q)n , and calculated as an integral
between i = 1 to N of probability Piq. The multifractal
spectrum was defined by its dimension D(q) = – s(q)/
(q – 1). They concluded that landslide distribution in
the study area corresponds to a heterogeneous fractal
system. Selecting a particular sample of landslides, they
analysed the scale distribution of landslide size–fre-
quency showing that natural landslides in the area may
123
J. Chacón et al.
be considered as self-organised critical (SOC) phe-
nomena.
Bak et al. (1988) used the behaviour of a sand pile
model to explain landsliding, an approach also referred
to by Somfai et al. (1994), Goltz (1996), Yokoi et al.
(1995), Turcotte (1999a, b, 2001), Gomez et al. (2002)
and Hergarten (2003) or, for snow avalanches, by
Birkeland and Landry (2002). SOC behaviour has been
researched by Guzzetti et al. (2000) in studies of land-
slide inventories in Italy. Turcotte et al. (2002), Tur-
cotte and Malamud (2004), Malamud et al. (2003, 2004)
studied the size–frequency distribution of landslides in
Italy, Guatemala and USA, triggered by different
rainfall events or earthquakes. They demonstrated that
a good adjustment between cumulative landslide areas
and sizes can be expressed by a three parameter gam-
ma-inverse distribution. They established, using natural
logarithm functions, a scale of landslide magnitude in
term of number of triggered landslides. The universal
probability distribution of landslide events for small
landslides was found to have an exponential ‘‘roll-over’’
and, for medium and large landslides, followed a power
law tail with a slope of 2.40. The mean area of landslide
in the distribution was AL = 3,070 m2, independent of
both the total number NLT and total area ALT of all
landslides triggered by the event. They also proposed a
landslide event magnitude scale ML = log NLT.
The main applications of these researches to land-
slide mapping are first to assess the extent in which a
given landslide inventory may be considered signifi-
cant, compared to the expected total number of land-
slides. This may be estimated by the power law relating
event magnitude and number of landslides. Secondly,
given the number of landslides triggered by an event of
known magnitude, it is possible to estimate the return
period of the event as a basis for hazard assessment.
Finally, the fractal dimension of landslides in given
geological units provides a means for the assessment of
susceptibility to shallow landslides in soft soils, usually
where the soils are rapidly eroded. The severity of the
landslide events could also be assessed using the power
law relationships. Further theoretical developments
and concepts on this topic may be found in Turcotte
(1999) and Pike (2000).
More interesting contributions to spatial analysis of
landslide susceptibility or landsliding prone slopes
mapping or zonations may be found in Aniya (1985),
Brabb (1982), Brass et al.(1991), Luzi (1995a), Codebo
et al. (2000), Coe et al. (2004), Day and Lee (2001),
Foxx (1984), Giafferi (1998), Gokceoglu and Aksoy
(1996), Gostelow and Gibson (1995), Griffiths et al.
(2002), Günther et al. (2002, 2004), Jaboyedoff et al.
(2004b), Lee et al. (2000, 2001a, b), Liener et al. (1996),
Engineering geology maps: landslides and GIS
Paudits and Bednarik (2002), Perotto-Baldiviezo et al.
(2004), Thein et al. (1995), Thierry and Vinet (2002),
Ward et al. (1982). A variety of methods to obtain
landslide hazard maps and assessment, although
mainly concerning spatial hazard, are also found in
Baldwin et al. (1986), Bandeira et al. (2004), Bernardos
and Kaliampakos (2004), Bobrosky et al. (1998), Ca-
sale et al. (1994), Chowdhury and Flentje (1998),
Collotta and Saggio (2004), Dhakal et al. (1999, 2000b),
Dobrev and Boykova (1998), Evans et al. (1998),
Fabbri and Chung (1996), Forlati et al. (2004), Franciss
(2004), Glade T (2002), Harp et al. (2004), Hayne and
Gordon (2001), Hroch et al. (2002), Jaboyedoff et al.
(2004a, c), Jibson and Baum (1999), Kumar and Shima
(1998), Lee and Choi (2001, 2003), Mayer et al. (2002),
Mehrotra et al. (1996), Miller (1995), Omar
et al.(2004), Sarkar et al. (1995), Turrini and Visin-
tainer (1998), Uromeihy and Mahdavifar (2000), Van
Westen et al. (2000).
Maps of spatial–temporal incidence and forecasting
of landslides
This section considers the spatial distribution of land-
slide processes and their temporal implications in a
more or less detailed or quantitative way. Basic defi-
nitions are associated with the concept of Natural
Hazard (Varnes 1984) which ‘‘means the probability of
occurrence within a specified period of time and within
a given area of a potentially damaging phenomenon’’.
This requires a measure of temporal and spatial event
distribution. Also the definition of landslide hazard
zonation of Spieker and Gori (2000, 2003a, b) indicates
the ‘‘need of adding some kind of annual probability,
likelihood or chance that a landslide process occurred
including assessment of incidence of landslides coming
into a low susceptibility site from farther upslope
higher susceptibility areas’’.
An excellent review of concepts and methods of
landslide hazard assessment may be found in Aleotti
and Chowdhury (1999). Also interesting contributions
were made by Fabbri and Chung (2003) and Glade
(2001). The main issue to identify in landslide hazard
research is the future distribution of landslides in a
given area. While susceptibility maps provide zona-
tions of areas with similar instability or similar condi-
tions that generate landslides, a true landslide hazard
map should offer a zonation of areas with similar
probabilities of landslides in a given period of time,
based on quantitative analysis of data. In the following
paragraphs some examples of different approaches to
landslide hazard mapping are presented.
369
The triggering effect of timber harvesting on spatial
and temporal landslide occurrence was analysed by
Siddle and Wu (2001).
Landslide hazard maps with coupled slope physical
or stability models, and slope hydrological models
related to rainfall probability assessment
Terlien et al. (1995) and Terlien (1996, 1997) modelled
temporal and spatial variations in rainfall-triggered
landslides, based on remarkably detailed research
using field instrumentation and a large number of
geotechnical tests. The main steps were identification
of the triggering mechanism of landslides, selection of
appropriate hydrological models, selection of slope
stability models for input data on established triggering
mechanisms, determination of the spatial distribution
of input data, determination of pore water fluctuations
and maximum pore water pressure on potential slip
surfaces and the preparation of the landslide hazard
map including the distribution of failure probabilities
for different triggering mechanisms. The maps were
tested by checking locations of recent landslides and
observed landslide frequencies. Terlien (1996) dis-
cussed in detail the difficulties of obtaining, and rela-
tive importance of, the input parameters. He indicated
great difficulty in assessing spatial distribution of fac-
tors important for landslide mapping, such as pore
water pressure, the relations between soil moisture and
pressure head and the relation between unsaturated
hydraulic conductivity and soil moisture. For ground-
water-triggered landslides, it is difficult to assess
important parameters such as soil cohesion, soil angle
of friction, leakage into bedrock and effective porosity.
The results of hazard assessments of landslides
undertaken for both shallow and deep landslides trig-
gered by rainfall or groundwater in Manizales
(Colombia) (Terlien 1996, 1997) were observed to be
very conservative. The model for the considered period
of time identified potential landsliding areas 5–10 times
larger than the actual areas affected by observed
landslides. This was believed to result from inaccurate
assessment of the landslide frequency and the poor
quality of input data. Nevertheless, despite the appar-
ent failure of the temporal spatial assessment, the total
assessment of areas susceptible to landsliding corre-
sponded reasonably well to the distribution of new
landslides. This suggested a reasonable understanding
of the hydrological triggering mechanisms and gener-
ally correct assumptions and simplifications in the
model.
Following the previously mentioned use of landslide
isopleth maps (Campbell 1973), Coe et al. (2000) pre-
123
370 J. Chacón et al.

Fig. 9 USGS map of landslide densities, Seattle, Washington, USA (Coe et al. 2000)

123
Engineering geology maps: landslides and GIS
Table 9 Explanation of the USGS map of landslide densities of
Seattle (Washington, USA) (Coe et al. 2000)
Landslide density Mean recurrence Annual exceedance
contour (number interval (years) probability (percent
of landslides/4 ha chance of one or
in counting circle) more landslide in
any given year)
2 44.20 2.24
6 14.73 6.56
10 8.84 10.70
14 6.31 14.65
18 4.91 18.42
22 4.02 22.03
26 3.40 25.48
Table showing mean recurrence interval and annual exceedance
probability values for each landslide density contour
pared a map of the city of Seattle (Washington, USA)
based on a landslide database. Records spanned the
period from 1897 to March 1998, with information on
dates from November 1909 (Fig. 9). This 88.4 year
record was converted into a density map, using a
moving count circle on a grid of 25 · 25 m (625 m2
cell), by means of software developed by the authors.
A count circle covering an area of 4 ha (200 · 200 m
cell) was digitally placed at the centre of each cell. The
number of landslides within each 4 ha counting circle
was then assigned to the 625 m2 cell at the centre of
each circle. The map was made using Arc/Info (ESRI)
GIS. The base information comprised slopes, roads and
railroads, and the Esperance/Lawton contact zone (a
landslide susceptible zone in the contact area between
advance outwash deposits of sand and gravel underly-
ing transitional beds of fine-grained clayey silt). Slopes
were computed from a 10 m cell (100 m2) digital ele-
vation model (USGS DEM’s). Roads and railroads
were extracted from the USGS 1:24,000 scale digital
line graph database. The density or isopleth map was
contoured and smoothed in Arc Info. The historic
mean recurrence interval for each landslide density
value was calculated by dividing the period covered by
the database record (88.4 years) by the landslide count
of the numerator in the density value (Crovelli 2000).
For instance, a density of two landslides each 4 ha
would have a mean recurrence interval of 44.2 years,
whereas a density of 16 landslides each 4 ha would
have a mean recurrence of 5.5 years. The next step was
the calculation of the exceedance probability of land-
slides considering a time range of 1–100 years and an
area of 625 m2 per cell in a landslide density grid using
a Poisson probability model. This is a model for the
occurrence of random point events in ordinary time
which is, naturally, continuous (Crovelli 2000). The
model considers landslides as point events occurring in
371
an independent way, with the probability of occurrence
proportional to the time interval and with probability
distributions remaining equal for all time intervals.
Although these are unrealistic assumptions for natural
landslides, the model was considered a best first-
approximation as a more accurate model might be
extremely complex and mathematically intractable
(Crovelli 2000). The model was expressed by PN(t)‡
1 = 1 – e –t/l where l is the future mean recurrence
interval estimated by the historic mean recurrence
interval, and t is a period of time in the future for the
exceedance probability calculated for 1, 5, 10, 25, 50
and 100 years periods (Table 9).
The authors mentioned that continuing research was
being undertaken to integrate the map with landslide
susceptibility models and maps of Seattle (USGS). If
susceptibility values could be calibrated with excee-
dance probabilities determined from historic data in
well-documented areas, then these values could be
estimated directly from susceptibility values (Coe et al.
2000).
An excellent basic paper, founded on theoretical
considerations and a practical case study, was that of
Borga et al. (2002) who presented a ‘‘distributed,
physically based slope stability model for shallow land-
sliding’’ which ‘‘ uses a ‘quasi-dynamic’ wetness index to
predict the spatial distribution of soil saturation in re-
sponse to a rainfall of specified duration, and allows to
account for both topographic and climatic control on
slope failure’’. The paper included a comprehensive
review of the origin and current state of physically based
slope models. The test area was the Rı́o Cordon
catchment (Eastern Italian Alps). The 5 km2 area is
composed mainly of volcaniclastic coarse conglomerates
and marly sediments with carbonate rocks. Steep cliffs
and highly dissected hill slopes are bordered by
unconsolidated rock debris. There is very little human
activity, thin soil and a widespread herbaceous cover in
this ‘‘field laboratory’’. A quasidynamic wetness index,
defined by a simple algebraic expression of the coupled
subsurface flow and slope stability model, was proposed
for a better understanding of the relationships between
topography and rainfall variability. Its influence on
shallow landsliding offered significant improvements
over steady-state models. From this model, it proved
possible to derive the probability of failure initiation as
a function of topography and climate. The authors
concluded that the success of their methodology de-
pended on the quality of the database. They also men-
tioned the need for consistent procedures for
measurement and recording of landslide activity. Other
example of wetness index application is presented by
Gritzner et al. (2001).
123
372 J. Chacón et al.

123
 Engineering geology maps: landslides and GIS 373

b Fig. 10 Landslide hazard spatial analysis and prediction using
GIS in the Xiaojiang watershed, Yunnan, China (Lan et al.
2004): a Landslide inventory in the Xiaojiang watershed. b
Spatial distribution of landslide hazards (high instability and
moderate instability) with precipitation of 20 mm/day. c Spatial
distribution of landslide hazards (high instability and moderate
instability) with precipitation of 120 mm/day. d Hazard model of
the Jiangjiagou sub-watershed. Areas A and B are classified as
high instability
Carrasco et al. (2003) made a susceptibility map of a
sector of the Jerte valley (Central System, Spain) af-
fected by torrential flooding. They used statistical
methods with a Bayesian approach and two indices: a
LSI and a surface percentage index (SPI). Five differ-
ent factors were used to analyse an inventory of 830
landslides produced during recent heavy rainfall. The
scale was 1:25,000 and the pixel size 25 · 25 m. A
hazard map was also derived from relationships be-
tween landslide susceptibility areas and a rainfall
probabilistic temporal assessment of the basin.
Corominas et al. (2003) undertook a GIS integrated
landslide susceptibility analysis and hazard assessment
at a scale of 1:5,000 in the Principality of Andorra in
the inner Pyrenees Mountains. A landslide inventory
of rockfall, slides and flows, lithological map and
landslide activity map were introduced into a GIS and
supplemented with a statistical analysis of temporal
data on landslide events and rainfall series. Suscepti-
bility was assessed from analysis of lithology and slope
thresholds for each landslide type, coupled with
numerical models of the run-out zone related to the
magnitude of the landslides. The hazard analysis was
based on the susceptibility zoning and additional data
on landslide magnitude and frequency, related to the
database of temporal data on landslide and rainfall
events. A map showing high, medium, low and very
low landslide hazard zones was produced and is a basic
document in the building codes of Andorra. Also
an interesting assessment of landslide activity using
dendrogeomorphological techniques is proposed by
Corominas et al. (2004).
Lan et al. (2004) mapped landslide hazard in the
Xiaojiang watershed (Yunnan Province of Southwest
China). Spatial analysis and prediction of relationships
between rainfall during heavy storms and landslides
was undertaken using Arc/Info (ESRI) (Fig. 10). A
certainty factor model (CFM) was used. This is a
probability function originally developed by Shortlife
and Buchanan (1975) and modified by Heckerman
(1986), introduced in GIS landslide research by various
authors (Chung and Fabbri 1993, 1998; Binaghi et al.
1998; Luzi and Pergalani 1999). Lan et al. (2004) used
favourability values (ppa, pps) from the landslide
inventory to calculate landslide frequency. A positive
CF means an increasing probability of landslide
occurrence, while a 0 value indicates difficulty of
assessing landslide occurrence with any certainty. The
factors analysed were lithological groups, structure,
distance to major faults and geomorphology (slope
angle, slope aspect and elevation). The analysis of the
different factor layers and the relationships of these to
the landslide inventory provided a hazard classification
by CF value (Table 10, taken from Lan et al. 2004).
Spatial prediction, performed using SINMAP (Sta-
bility Index MAPping) after Pack et al. (1998), was
based on limit equilibrium failure analysis using an
infinite slope stability model and a steady-state
hydrological model (TOPMODEL) as described by
Beven and Kirkby (1979) and Connell et al. (2001).
The stability index (SI) was defined as probability of
slope stability [SI = Prob(Fs>1)] over the distribution
of uncertain parameters (cohesion C, friction angle /,
effective rainfall q, and soil transmissivity T). The
stability index was employed to define six hazard
classes from high stability (SI>1.5) to low stability
(SI=0). The parameters were obtained from a DEM
and geotechnical field investigations. Several different
landslide stability maps were produced from SINMAP
for different precipitation conditions showing increas-
ing instability area as percentages: 35% for 10 mm/day,
50% for 35 mm/day, 79% for 105 mm/day and 86% for
145 mm/day. Since most of the landslides in the
Xiaojiang watershed are rainfall triggered, the result-
ing maps were considered by the authors to be helpful
for citizens, land use planners and engineers, to reduce
losses by means of prevention, mitigation and avoid-
ance.

Table 10 Hazard
classification by CF value
(Lan et al. 2004)
Code Range Description Hazard class
1 –1, –0.5 Very low certainty of landslide occurrence High stability
2 –0.5, –0.05 Low certainty of landslide occurrence Medium stability
3 –0.05, 0.05 Uncertainty. CF value within the range close to zero Uncertainty
represent the interval in which no landsliding
certainty can be expressed
4 0.005, 0.3 Low certainty of landslide occurrence Low instability
5 0.3, 0.8 Medium certainty of landslide occurrence Medium instability
6 0.8, 1.0 High certainty of landslide occurrence High instability

123
374 J. Chacón et al.

Fig. 11 A time–space based approach for mapping rainfall-induced shallow landslide hazard (Xie et al. 2004b). a Safety factor over
time; b time distribution for a safety factor <1; c distribution of slip depth (or the wetting front depth) for a safety factor <1

Frattini et al. (2004) also used physically based
models to simulate transient hydrological and geo-
technical processes on the slopes of Sarno (Southern
Italy) affected by a May 1998 earthquake. They used
an infinite slope stability analysis coupled with two
simple hydrological models: a quasi-dynamic model to
compute the contribution of lateral inflow to slope
instability by simulating the time-dependent evolution
of the water table; and a diffusion model used to
consider the influence of water pore pressure devel-

123
Engineering geology maps: landslides and GIS
Fig. 12 a Static factor of safety map of part of the Oat Mountain
quadrangle; b landslides triggered by the Northridge earthquake;
c map showing susceptibility to seismically triggered landslides in
oped from vertical infiltration during heavy rain-
storms. The latter model succeeded in predicting
correctly the triggering time of more than 70% of the
landslides in an unstable area representing only 7.3%
of the total catchment. The quasi-dynamic model was
able to predict correctly slope instability in zero-order
basins where the failures developed into large debris
flows. The results confirmed the author’s view of the
influence of both vertical and lateral water fluxes in
the triggering of landslides during the Sarno earth-
quake.
Xie et al. (2004b) developed an excellent GIS
application for landslide time-hazard assessment based
on coupled infiltration and slope stability models that
took account of increasing rainfall-induced pore water
pressure using ArcGIS (ESRI). The case study area
was about 3.4 km2 around Harabun, in the northern
part of the Sasebo district, Kyushu (southwestern Ja-
pan) where a representative landslide occurred in July
1997. Slope stability calculations were based on limit
equilibrium plane failure, taking account also of time–
space changes in geotechnical conditions with depth of
the wetting front over time. Maps showing the evolu-
375
terms of critical acceleration (ac); d map showing probability of
failure (after Jibson et al. 2000)
tion of slope safety factor with time and the triggered
landslide areas are shown in Fig. 11.
Also physical model analysis in a regional context of
land-use changes is introduced by Van Beek and Van
Asch (2004), and for deep-seated or large landslides by
Miller (1995), Miller and Sı́as (1998).
Landslide hazard maps with coupled slope physical
or stability models, and slope dynamic behaviour
models related to earthquake probability
assessment
Probabilistic methods have also been used for assessing
maps of landslides triggered by earthquakes. Jibson
et al. (1998) presented a method for producing digital
probabilistic seismic landslide hazard maps with an
example (Fig. 12) from the Los Angeles, California,
area (USA). The research was undertaken in Arc/Info
(ESRI). Data sets from the 1994 Northridge earth-
quake, including landslides, motion records of the main
shock, geological map units, extensive data on the
engineering properties of the geological units and a
high-resolution DEM, were combined. Theoretical
123
376
displacements based on the Newmark (1965) sliding-
block model were evaluated. This model considers the
seismic behaviour of a rigid block that slides on an
inclined plane when a known critical acceleration ac
overcomes shear resistance and sliding is initiated. The
analysis calculates the cumulative permanent dis-
placement of the block relative to its base as it is
subjected to the effects of an earthquake acceleration-
time history and gives the expected value of the critical
acceleration as a function of g (gravitational accelera-
tion) in terms of the slope safety factor and the slope
angle a as
ac ¼ ðFS  1Þg sin a
Then they compared the results with the landslide
inventory to obtain a probability function relating
predicted displacement (Dn) and probability of failure
(P(f)) expressed by the equation P(f) = 0.274[1 –
exp( – 0.052 D1.663
n )] with a high correlation of
R2 = 95.9%. As the resulting hazard map was prepared
by back analysis of the Northridge earthquake, the
authors proposed the following steps to construct
hazard (probability) maps for other scenarios:
1. Specify the ground-shaking conditions (maximum
expected level) in terms of Arias intensity (Ia) for a
given return period.
2. Combine the shaking intensities with the critical
acceleration (ac) grid using estimated Newmark
displacements from the equation log
Dn = 1.521Ia – 1.993 log ac – 1.546 (Jibson et al.
1998).
3. Estimate failure probabilities from the Newmark
displacement from the equation of P(f) mentioned
above.
True landslide hazard for seismic areas may be ob-
tained from this method depending on the reliability of
estimated earthquake return periods for the study re-
gion.
Refice and Capolongo (2002) carried out an
interesting review of the general background to
probabilistic applications of Newmark’s model for
seismically induced landslide hazard assessment, fol-
lowing Jibson (1993) and other authors. They applied
the method to a landslide test site in Sele Valley
(Italy) using a GIS environment and a Matlab
software package. Newmark’s model (Newmark 1965;
Jibson 1993) regards the slope which is under stress
as a uniform block sliding over an infinite inclined
surface and uses the known equation of safety factor
of an infinite slope for a planar slide at the limit of
equilibrium:
123
J. Chacón et al.
c0 þ ½ðc  mcw Þz cos2 atan /0
FSstat ¼
cz sin a cos a
where c¢ is the effective cohesion, /¢ the effective
friction angle, c the material unit weight, cw the unit
weight of water, m represents the fractional depth of
the water table with respect to the total slide depth, z
stands for the slope-normal thickness of the sliding
mass, and a is the slope angle. After obtaining
probabilistic values for geotechnical parameters,
various probability density functions were simulated
through Monte Carlo techniques on a pixel-by-pixel
basis. The simulated samples were retained through all
the computing steps, to finally obtain probabilistic
hazard maps. The calculation of seismical generated
Newmark displacements (Dn) assumed that slope
failure and movement would be initiated if the
critical acceleration of the slope ac is exceeded (i.e.
the acceleration required to overcome the frictional
resistance of the slope material and to initiate sliding).
It was calculated by the equation:
ac ¼ ðFSstat  1Þg sin a0
where g is the Earth’s gravity acceleration and a¢ is
the thrust angle of the landslide block equated to the
slope angle a¢ only for shallow landslides. Dn (Jibson
et al. 1998, 2000) was then calculated using the
empirical logarithmic regression equation mentioned
earlier. The Arias intensity is often modelled through
another empirical logarithmic relation as a function of
the earthquake magnitude M and the site distance
from the seismogenic fault R; derived in Wilson and
Keefer (1985)
log IA ¼ M  2 log R  4:1
where IA is expressed in m{s, M is the earthquake
magnitude in the Richter scale, and R is in m.
The method was applied to the Selle valley
(Southern Italy) where landslides had been triggered
by the 23 November 1980 Irpinian earthquake. Data
input in the GIS were a lithological map, raster map
and geotechnical and slope parameters, including dis-
tances to faults. Several Monte Carlo simulations were
then undertaken. Statistically, randomised samples
were obtained for each particular set of values from
common distributions such as the Gaussian, simple
triangular or bPERT probability density function
(Vose 1996). The outputs plotted on maps included
histograms or data by pixel. The maps obtained by this
probabilistic approach show much better results for the
landslide distribution in the slopes around the source
Engineering geology maps: landslides and GIS
fault than those produced by deterministic methods.
The maps obtained from probabilistic methods,
Gaussian hypothesis and bPERT probability density
functions, exhibited consistent levels of estimated
hazard on the eastern side of the valley, and a con-
siderably lesser one on the western side. However that
contrasts with the actual situation, in which the western
flank of the valley has a higher density of landslides.
The authors considered this was ‘‘due to the simple
modelling of the lithology and geotechnical features of
the area’’. The best result was obtained using bPERT
because this method allows ‘‘the statistical distribution
to model uncertainties in a non-symmetrical, and thus
more realistic, way’’.
Maps of consequences of landslides
Landslides lead to gravitational re-adjustments of
slopes at stages and speeds which are particular to each
landslide. The geomorphological features of each re-
gion determine the type of landscape evolution and the
role of mass wasting as one of the most powerful tools
in the relief modelling. During the stages of active
development of a landslide, magnitude and speed de-
fine its destructive capability. The consequences of a
landslide, with a given destructive capability, depend
on the vulnerability of the elements of the territory
threatened by the whole mass, and the tension cracks
at the back scar, lateral boundaries and within the
displaced mass. Where vulnerable elements are pres-
ent, the consequences of the landslides are assessed as
landslide risk (Rodrı́guez Ortı́z et al. 1978; Varnes
1984; WP/WLI 1993a, 1995; Fell 1992, 1994; Guzzetti
2000; Spieker and Gori 2000, 2001, 2003a; Guzzetti and
Tonelli 2004; Ojeda-Moncayo et al. 2004 and many
other authors). Patt and Schrag (2003) presented a
general discussion on the meaning of risk and proba-
bility.
Landslide risk assessment
Widespread interest in landslide risk assessment and
mapping is reflected in a number of excellent reviews
and general papers published during the last 20 years
(Brabb 1984; Einstein 1988; Chowdhury 1996; Leone
et al. 1996a; Leroi 1996, 1997; Highland 1997 in United
States; Fell and Hartford 1997; Baynes and Lee 1998;
Leroueil and Locat 1998; Guzzetti 2000; Dai et al.
2002; Sorriso-Valvo 2002; Spiker and Gori 2003a in
United States and Van Westen 2004).
Several methods of risk assessment are available in
the literature. An early attempt was a quantitative
377
land-capability analysis by Laird et al. (1979) with
examples from the San Francisco Bay region, Califor-
nia. The aim was to make earth science information
more useful to planners by making it easier to incor-
porate into the planning process. This measured the
ability of land to support different types of develop-
ment with a given level of geological and hydrological
costs. Total social costs were chosen to rank the rela-
tive importance of various geological and hydrological
conditions. The land costs and all the expenses derived
from the correction or control of the different natural
hazards affecting the lot including hazards, constraints
and resources (in US dollars) were totalled. The pro-
ject was made using a variety of software packages
within a conventional stepwise GIS approach:
1. Basic data maps collecting basic earth science
information on the land.
2. Interpretative maps compiling each geological
constraint.
3. Cost indices, assigning a numerical dollar value to
the various categories of each resulting map to
indicate the relative importance of that constraint
or resource for each land use considered.
4. Total cost assessment by adding the cost indices for
all the conditions found for each land use.
5. Capability maps obtained dividing these cost
numbers into categories to be mapped for different
land uses. Lighter shades represented lower cost
and higher relative capability.
Five categories, from stable to landslide areas, were
distinguished, from an analysis of slope angle intervals,
stability of materials and landslide percentages. The
study cost was assessed from the contribution of geo-
technical investigations and engineering and construc-
tion practices necessary to prevent damage from slope
failure. Thirteen geotechnical firms were interviewed
and the building cost and cost of mitigation measures
estimated. The final formula to estimate landslide costs
was as follows:
Cost in dollar/acre
¼ (costs of levels 1; 2 and 3 of investigation per acre)
þ (cost of special engineering measures
in dollar per acre)
this second term resulting from the product of the
percentage of building cost and the value of buildings
in dollars per acre.
Probabilistic methods were also developed by
Carrara et al. (1992) and Rezig et al. (1996). Chow-
dhury and Flentje (2003) approached slope reliability
123
378 J. Chacón et al.

Fig. 13 A GIS example of a INVENTORY SUSCEPTIBILITY EXPOSED ZONES

qualitative risk assessment of
the Periana area, Malaga, rockfalls high high
Spain based on Varnes (1984) Slides and flows
method from Chacon et al. middle middle
(1992a, b, c, 1993a, b, 1994a,
b, c, 1996b)
low low

High Middle Low Middle

Susceptibility

Landslide
slope profile

High M Low
Exposed zones

Range of at rest slope angles

: run out maximum distance

ELEMENT VULNERABILITY SPECIFIC RISK TOTAL RISK

AT RISK
very high
high
high high high
middle
moderate middle middle
poor
low low low
very poor
very low very low very low

analysis to landslide risk, and Remondo et al. (2004) et al. (1988) derived an economic evaluation from a
assessed landslide hazard and risk mapping on the basis probabilistic landslide hazard map in Cincinnati (Ohio,
of past damage using historical data. Also Bernknopf USA).
Risk assessment case studies of debris flows were
V E L O C I T Y (estimated)
published by Morgan et al. (1992) as mentioned by Fell
M =f
= f(Volume,
(Volume, Velocity) Fast moving Slow moving (1994), and new mapping methods with GIS by Mejı́a-
Rock fall Debris flow Slide Navarro (1994) and Liu et al. (2002, 2003). Method-
< 0.001 Slight ologies and study cases about risk derived from rock
V < 0.5 Moderate falls are given in Abbot et al. (1998a, b) and Guzzetti
O
> 0.5 High et al. (2003b). After the classical method of linear
L
< 500 High Slight mapping by Menéroud and Olivier (1978) rockfall in
U
M 500 - 10,000 High Moderate Slight linear risk mapping for railways was considered by
E 10,000 - 500,000 Very High High Moderate
Abbot et al. (1998b), and transport corridors in general
> 500,000 Very High High
by Abbot et al. (1998a), Guzzetti et al. (2004) and
m3
>> 500,000
Prina et al. (2004). Other remarkable examples con-
Very High
cerning linear landslides mapping along roads, high-
Fig. 14 Example of intensity of landslides record (reprinted with ways, pipes or corridors, usually supported by GIS, are
permission of P. Reichenbach) found in Al-Homoud and Masanat (1998), Atkinson

123
Engineering geology maps: landslides and GIS 379

123
 380
b Fig. 15 Quantitative risk analysis for landslides. Examples from
Bildurdalur, N W Iceland (Bell sunamb Glade 2004): a method-
ology; b rock fall risk map—risk to life (individual); c rock fall
risk map—risk to life (object)
et al. (1998), Baldelli et al. (1996), Augusto Filho and
Magalhaies (2004), Irigaray et al. (2003), Cevik and
Topal (2003), Cook et al. (1998), Drennon and Schle-
ining (1975), Fransen et al. (2001), Jhingran and
Mukherjee (1996), Omar et al. (2004), Sadek et al.
(2000). Some of these GIS approaches are based on
rock mass classification systems (RMR , Bieniawski
1979, 1993, or SMR, Romana 1985, 1993), see Irigaray
et al. (2003) or Ronzani et al. (1999).
A number of GIS case studies of landslide risk
mapping are now available including: Aleotti et al.
(2000) on hydrogeological risks in the Po river (Italy);
Bardinet and Bournay (1999) for a water supply pro-
ject in Kathmandu; Canuti et al. (2000) at some
archaeological sites in Italy; Rautela and Lakhera
(2000) in Himachal Himalaya (India); Lee et al. (2001)
in the urban area of Ulsan city (Korea); Michel-Leiba
et al. (2003) in Cairn community (Australia); Agili
et al. (2004) in the Arno river basin (Italy); and
Amaral and Furtado (2004) in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil).
A qualitative GIS approach based directly on Var-
nes’ (1984) concepts is in Chacón and Irigaray (1992,
1999a) and Chacón et al. (1992a, b, c, 1993a, b, 1994a,
b, c, 1996b) (Fig. 13). This is based on the assesment of
landslide hazard for the different landslide types and
the suggestion by Einstein (1988) regarding the hazard
significance of susceptibility zones. The vulnerable
element is assessed qualitatively depending on its value
and the degree of expected losses under landslide
threat. Chacon et al. (1996c), Cardinali et al. (2002)
and Corominas et al. (2003) proposed better integra-
tion of data on landslide type and activity to improve
landslide hazard assessment.
There has been increasing interest in quantitative
methods, thus Fell and Hartford (1997) proposed a
quantitative assessment of risk (R(DI)) to an individ-
ual, as the annual probability of loss of life, based on
Morgan et al. (1992), and expressed by the equation:
R(DI) = P(H) · P(S/H) · P(T/S) · V(L/T) where
P(H) is the annual probability of the landslide, P(S/H)
is the probability of spatial impact or probability of the
landslide impacting a building, P(T/S) is the probabil-
ity of temporal impact or probability of the building
being occupied and V(L/T) is the vulnerability of the
individual (probability of loss of life of the individual
given impact).
Cardinali et al. (2002) developed a new methodo-
logical approach for hazard assessment based on data
on landslide classification (type, age, activity, depth
123
J. Chacón et al.
and velocity), landslide frequency (based on historical
information or in four classes ranging from 1 to more
than 3 observed events) and intensity (a measure of the
destructiveness of the landslide as a function of its
volume and expected velocity). A landslide hazard
assessment was then obtained as a function of fre-
quency and intensity. Figure 14 shows a table of
intensity of landslides following Cardinali el al. (2002)
but slightly modified in intensity terms.
More recent examples of other risk assessment
methods have been published by Wu et al. (2004) and
Xie and Xia (2004). The northern areas of the city of
Yuci (Shanxi, China) were affected by widespread
fractures which damaged buildings and other urban
structures. Wu et al. (2004) developed a ‘‘three map’’
method which includes ‘‘intrinsic vulnerability’’, ‘‘spe-
cific vulnerability’’ and ‘‘hazard maps’’. The intrinsic
vulnerability is obtained from the assessment of vari-
ous natural factors by coupling SIG with an ANN
technique. The specific vulnerability is generated by
coupling GIS and an analytical hierarchy process
(AHP). Using a spatial-operation function in the GIS
the hazard map is obtained by overlaying the intrinsic
and specific vulnerabilities. The resulting hazard map
takes account of human activities and the importance
of the area to be assessed.
Xie and Xia (2004) proposed a systems theory for
risk evaluation of landslide hazard reminiscent of
Varnes’ (1984) concepts. Given the lack of a unified
definition of landslide risk and the absence of any
widely accepted method of risk evaluation, a risk
evaluation system was set up. They defined risk as
‘‘probability of landslide of different intensity and
probable loss caused by landslide’’ and divided this
into ‘‘pure risk’’, when there is only ‘‘loss without re-
turns’’ and ‘‘speculative risk’’ when chances of loss and
return stand side by side. As ‘‘the returns of the land-
slide hazard are negligible compared with the loss the
landslide hazard risk is pure risk. In order to evaluate
the risk of landslide hazard, the occurrence possibility
and following loss need to be analysed. The assessment
system of landslide hazard risk includes three elements:
the hazard evaluation of landslide, the evaluation of
vulnerability and the evaluation of loss caused by
landslide’’. Different approaches to hazard-risk map-
ping or analysis are found in Chowdhury and Flentje
(1996), Ferrier and Emdad Haque (2003), Leroi (1996),
Rocha (2004), Spizzichino et al. (2004), Vaunat and
Leroueil (2002) and Zerger (2002).
Bell and Glade (2004) undertook a quantitative risk
analysis for landslides with examples from Bı́ldudalur
(Iceland) and considered risk assessment as a holistic
concept including risk analysis, risk evaluation and risk
Engineering geology maps: landslides and GIS
assessment (Fig. 15). This was a raster-based approach
where all vector data were transferred using a resolu-
tion of 1 · 1 m. All specific attribute data were as-
signed to grid cells distributed in different specific
raster data layers. While basically following Varnes’
(1984) and Fell’s (2000) concepts they undertook
interesting developments through study of an area
threatened by debris flows and rock falls. The landslide
risk (R) was defined as a function of the probability of
the hazardous event or natural hazard (H) and its
consequences (C) on the elements at risk (E):
R¼HCE
with a new parameter of consequences (C) defined as
the potential outcomes arising from the occurrence of a
natural phenomena (including vulnerability and the
probability of temporal and spatial impact, as well as
the probability of seasonal occurrence)
C ¼ Ps  Pt  Vp  Vpe  Pso ;
where P is probability and refers to space (s) or time (t)
values and V is vulnerability of buildings (p) and people
(pe), while Pso is the probability of seasonal occurrence,
for instance snow avalanches only happen in winter.
From these equations the individual risk to people
Ripe was derived from Ripe = H · C · Eipe and the
object risk to people in buildings Rpe was obtained from
Rpe = H · C · Epe, with vulnerabilities referring to
people and people in buildings, respectively. Methods
to calculate the different parameters are proposed and
applied to the 1:5,000 risk maps of the area.
Hollenstein (2005), based on natural hazards in
Switzerland, proposed a simple definition of risk:
R = F · N, where F is frequency of an event and N the
damage.
For natural hazards he extended the risk definition
to R = P · I · E · V, where P is probability (re-
ciprocal of the return period), I is intensity, E is the
exposure or spatio-temporal distribution of the target
objects and V is the vulnerability.
Several factors including wind, earthquake and flood
were considered and further developments were
undertaken to apply the method to pilot case studies in
regions where traditional hazard maps were available,
to compare the results. His aim was to contribute to a
standardisation of the output of hazard assessments.
Vulnerability of the element at risks
In the Varnes (1984) or Fell (1992, 1994) methods of
assessing landslide risk, it was necessary to accurately
381
classify the elements at risk and to calculate the ex-
pected damage to each element for different types of
landslides, given the magnitude and velocity of the
mass. This needs more development as it is difficult to
propose a definitive approach because of a general lack
of information about relationships between technically
well described elements of the landscape and data on
landslide type, volume or magnitude, effects of water,
ice or snow, velocity of the mass and run out distance
before the final impact.
Nevertheless, a number of papers include a more or
less simple vulnerability assessment. Papers on the
Periana study area (Málaga, Spain) mentioned earlier
included a simple classification into four elements of
the territory: unproductive land, extensively cultivated
land and intensively cultivated land with constructions
(roads and urban areas). The vulnerability assessment
was based on the fact that with an increasing element
value the damage resulting from landsliding also in-
creases (Chacón et al. 1992a, b, c, 1993a, b, 1994a, b, c,
1996b) (Fig. 13). While this is a qualitative and simple
way to approach risk assessment, it is not useful for a
real economic evaluation.
Fell (1994) following Morgan et al. (1992) consid-
ered three types of component of the vulnerability
assessment:
V ¼ VðSÞ þ VðTÞ þ VðLÞ
V(S) is the spatial vulnerability which represents the
vulnerability derived from the spatial position of the
element at risk.
V(T) is the temporal vulnerability which expresses a
likelihood of temporal impact, taking into account
temporal changes of the element at risk. A house, for
instance, may or may not be occupied, depending on
the time of impact.
V(L) is the life vulnerability which expresses the
likelihood of loss of life of an individual occupant in
the impacted element, or the proportion of the value of
the impacted element which is lost.
Leone et al. (1996a) also took account of three
components:
1. A structural damage function for material assets,
which depends on the intensity of the phenomenon
and the resistance of the structure.
2. Corporal damage to people which also depends on
the intensity of the phenomena plus the intrinsic
(level of danger perception, knowledge of how to
protect oneself and mobility factors) and extrinsic
(physical protection and technical and functional
123
382 J. Chacón et al.

circumstances including warning and emergency
systems).
3. An operational damage function for the various
activities and functions which depends on the
damage level of the material assets (technical fac-
tors), the people (human factor) and the secondary
functions to ensure the activity (functional factor)
as well as the ability of the disaster-struck society
to restore this activity (social, economic and insti-
tutional factors).
These authors produced a table of types and levels
of damage, showing elements in six groups: building
(five types), network (road, pipe lines, lines, railways
and channels), natural surfaces (terrain, rivers, dams or
lakes), sub-element (internal or external to the build-
ing as animal population, vegetal population and
vehicles and furniture) and product stock. These were
set against the damaging factor rates affecting the
various elements with the rate D ranging from 0 to 1.
For instance, a road may be degraded (D=0.05–0.3),
slightly deformed (D= 0.3–0.6); obstructed (D = 0.4–
0.9) or affected by platform failure (D=0.8–1).
Also they prepared damage matrices to correlate the
rate of loss of the exposed element under the effects of

Fig. 16 Vulnerability
Buildings and
assessment (reprinted Infrastructure Human lives
V = f(Er, M, Lt) Structures
with permission of
P. Reichenbach) ED ER EP EA VP VS VI Homeless Death
SLIGHT RF L L L L L L L NO NO
DF L L L L L M M NO NO
M SL L L L L L M H NO NO
A MODERATE RF M M M M M M M YES YES
G DF M M M M M M M YES YES
N
SL L L M M M H H NO NO
I
HIGH RF H H H H H H H YES YES
T
U DF H H H H H H H YES YES
D SL H H H H H H H YES NO
E VERY HIGH RF H H H H H H H YES YES
DF H H H H H H H YES YES
SL H H H H H H H YES NO

L = LOW M = MEDIUM H = HIGH

Fig. 17 Specific risk map of SPECIFIC LANDSLIDE RISK

two areas, Rotecarlo,
Cumbria, Italy) (reprinted
RISK M12
with permission of
Secondary roads
P. Reichenbach)
FREQUENCY 10
MAGNITUDE 2
HAZARD 12

ROA VULNERABILITY M

D HOMELESS NO Specific Risk

FATALITIES NO Index

VULNERABILITY
H
RISK H33 M12
A
High density settlement
FREQUENCY 30 Z
MAGNITUDE 3 A
H33
HAZARD 33 R
VILL VULNERABILITY H D
AGE HOMELESS YES

H33 FATALITIES YES

123
Engineering geology maps: landslides and GIS 383

the damaging phenomena. All were associated with
assignments of values between an element at risk and a
damaging process.
The proposal was intended ‘‘be applied to a suffi-
cient number of representative cases for validation and
further improvements’’. An example of graphical
application for two landslides in the Trièves area
(France) was included. In these, circular plots with four
axes were made—relative capital loss, loss of income,
functional loss and individual loss—representing
consequences of landslides.
A semi-automatic procedure, based on GIS tech-
nology and statistical analysis, to locate exposed ele-
ments and to identify homogeneous vulnerable zones
was proposed by Maquaire et al. (2004). This was ap-
plied to a catchment in Southeastern France. The
method had two steps. First, each element was placed
into an homogeneous vulnerability zone determined
automatically on the basis of a statistical analysis of
geometrical and contextual characteristics. Expert
knowledge was used to validate this classification. In
the second step, three classes of vulnerability were

Fig. 18 a) Synthetic map of risk to the Aigle-L’Etivaz road, Canton de Vaud, Switzerland, with risk levels for each 250 m. Risk level
varies between 0 (negligible risk, grey) and 4 (high risk, red); b) description of risk classes (Prina et al. 2004)

123
384
Physical
10 0 %
100% 0% 100%
Environmental
100%
Economic
Fig. 19 Projection of values of vulnerability factors (Leone et al.
1996; Prina et al. 2004)
specified (low, medium and high) by expert weighting
based on specific criteria (people, type of activities,
etc.). The method was tested in a ski resort with a
specific built-up environment. The authors suggested
the need for a comparison with results from other sites.
Chardon (1999) adopted a geographical approach to
global vulnerability in the urban area of Manizales,
Colombian Andes, threatened by frequent landslides,
earthquake and some floods. While this research about
territorial vulnerability is remote from traditional
engineering techniques, it is interesting as a contribu-
tion to a better understanding of the complexity of the
vulnerability concept. The author assessed the vulner-
ability from an analysis of a very complex range of
factors emerging from very different fields: natural
factors, socio-economic factors, technical factors, cir-
cumstantial factors and functional factors. Using sta-
tistical tools and Berlin matrices, a classification and a
hierarchy of the city neighbourhoods was obtained in
terms of types and levels of vulnerability. The resulting
map showed a strong relationship between slope,
morphology and overall vulnerability.
Rauthela and Lakhera (2000), assessing landslide
risk in Himachal Himalaya (India), classified the dis-
tribution of the population into five classes (from
sparsely to very highly populated) and correlated these
with landslide hazard classes (four classes: least, low,
moderate and high hazard). Low, moderate, high and
very high vulnerability classes were then identified in
the form of a table which, using ILWIS 2,3, led to a
landslide risk map.
Castelli et al. (2002, 2004) and Bonnard et al. (2004)
described the objectives of the IMIRILAND Project
(EEC). This was a multidisciplinary landslide risk
assessment based on Varnes’s (1984) concepts but
using a different approach. They considered that
123
J. Chacón et al.
quantitative risk assessment could not be applied to
large landslides because the uncertainty of parameters
was too great for the application of a formal mechan-
ical-probabilistic method. They proposed a ‘‘direct
evaluation on the basis of the effects on the element at
risk or on the basis of the process intensity’’. A quan-
titative risk analysis was carried out for three separate
Social
scenarios threatened by rock fall and rock avalanche.
They developed run-out models for the three cases and
estimated an energy zonation (J/kg) per unit mass,
according to rockfall velocity. From this, and taking as
reference a given rockfall mass, they estimated impact
energy at different values for each physical, economic,
environmental and social vulnerability (50, 75 or
100%). In the case of rock avalanches, the presumed
destruction was total. The consequences of landslides
were obtained by multiplying vulnerability percentages
for the value of the element at risk, taking account of
relative value indices for the different elements. The
results showed relative consequences in a hierarchical
scale of values from 0 to 4. Finally, a landslide risk
assessment was derived as the product between con-
sequences and probability of the event occurrence. GIS
risk maps for the three scenarios were prepared.
Cardinali et al. (2002) assessed the vulnerability of
the elements with a classification of vulnerability de-
grees in terms of: A: minor damage, F: functional or
minor damage, S: structural or total damage. A table for
vulnerability is shown in Fig. 17. The consequences for
the population were indicated at three levels: direct,
where casualties are expected; indirect, where only so-
cio-economic damage is expected and temporary or
permanent loss of private houses resulting in evacuees
and homelessness. From this, a specific risk assessment
was made following Varnes’ (1984) concept. Sixteen
levels of landslide hazard were permutated with three
levels of expected damage (vulnerability) to obtain
levels of specific landslide risk. Examples of landslide-
specific risk maps for a major road, two secondary
roads, a low density and a high density settlement were
included from a project in Rotecastello (Central Um-
bria, Italy). In the 79 study locations of this project, 980
landslide hazard zones were identified. The specific risk
assessment was identified for 21.4% of the total cov-
erage, due to funding and time constraints (Figs. 16,
17). This is probably one of the most advanced exam-
ples of GIS landslide-specific risk mapping published to
date. It shows that there is wide scope for future
improvement or extension of the methodology for land
use planning, insurance assessment, hazard mitigation
and vulnerability resilience.
Bell and Glade (2004), in the previously mentioned
landslide risk map in Iceland, considered the vulnera-
Engineering geology maps: landslides and GIS
bility of people, buildings and people in buildings, in
terms of specific processes of given magnitudes. They
assessed vulnerability with values from 0.1 for debris
fall and rockfall affecting people up to a highest value
of 0.5 for people and buildings under threat from
debris flows and rockfall. They established these values
after reviewing and analysing the available literature,
adapting the findings to Icelandic conditions, and
reviewing papers on avalanche risks in Iceland.
Prina et al. (2004) assessed landslide risk for a
mountain road between the towns of Aigle and
L’Etivaz (Switzerland) threatened by the known slides
of La Frasse and La Lécherette, and frequent rockfall,
avalanche and debris flow events (Fig. 18). Following
Varnes’ (1984) definition of vulnerability, they took
account of four factors: physical, social, environmental
and economical vulnerability. These factors were as-
sessed for each given element, in this case of the road,
in a graphical form following Leone et al. (1996b).
Figure 19 shows the four values.
Each of the four components varies between 0 (no
impact) and 100% (total destruction). For such an
assessment to be successful, it is essential that there is
considerable knowledge of the interactions between
landsliding and its consequences for the exposed ele-
ments. The authors suggested the following principles:
1. As far as physical damage is concerned, it must be
assessed in terms of structural failure, but also in
terms of operational failure, for instance when the
tilting of a house or a road exceeds an acceptable
value, even though no cracks are reported. It also
depends on the building material used and the
maintenance of the structures.
2. Social vulnerability can also be conditioned by the
capacity of the population to anticipate the
threatening phenomenon and its ability to prevent
any excessive exposure (spontaneous evacuation,
preventive measures carried out).
3. Two main aspects of the environmental vulnera-
bility depend on one hand on the presence of
protective forest against rockfall which may induce
major damage if they are affected by the move-
ment of the slide and on the other hand on the
possibility of damming a stream which may then
induce flooding upstream and downstream, if the
natural dam caused by the slide breaks. This last
situation may also be called secondary vulnerabil-
ity, and requires to be extended the investigated
zone much further than the zone strictly exposed to
the original landslide.
Four risk classes were mapped by the authors,
describing qualitative risk levels from 0 to 4, depicted in
385
colours from grey (0, no assessed risk) to red (4, pro-
hibition zone requiring immediate protection works).
Hollestein (2005) proposed a conceptual extension
of new and existing models based on a standardisation
of the output of hazard assessment in order to fill the
large gaps in knowledge about vulnerability. This was
made by defining stages of the target objects (ele-
ments) which depend on the impact and, at the same
time, affect the performance characteristics of the ob-
ject. He defined the hazard by a probability P (or its
reciprocal, the return period) as a function of the
intensity, I, which comprises a description of the im-
pact together with its spatio-temporal distribution. The
risk R was defined by the product between the fre-
quency of an event and the resulting damage N.
Therefore, he estimated the risk as: R = F · N = P ·
I · E · V, being P probability, I, intensity, E, spatio-
temporal distribution of the target objects, and V,
vulnerability.
He described four different types of definition of the
term vulnerability as: a Boolean variable, a semi-
quantitative variable, a fully quantitative variable and
an interpolated variable. Also in cases of vulnerability
to gravitational hazards, such as landslides, debris flow
and snow avalanches, he noticed a smaller number of
references in the literature compared to studies of
vulnerability to earthquake or wind events. He sug-
gested that this situation derived from the fact that, in
the past, this issue of vulnerability was ‘‘simply not
addressed on a systematic level for these ‘minor’ haz-
ards’’. The model proposed by Hollenstein (2004) was
based on the definition of the given target object as a
vector S composed of a number (n) of performance
characteristic si, where i = 1 to n, which are selected
according to purpose. Initially a fully functional and
structurally undamaged reference state was defined by
SND = (s1 = 1, s2 = 1, s3 = 3,... ,sn = 1) and the total
loss of performance by STD =
(s1 = 0, s2 = 0, s3 = 0, ... ,sn = 0). For the assessment,
causal chains consisting of impact-state performance
were identified and a description of the hazard’s im-
pact, I, was obtained using a limited set of components
of I. The author proposed a partial differential equa-
tion, expressing the relative change in performance
that results from a change in the impact, to obtain the
vulnerability of the given target object and a process
for the estimation of the impact with some conceptual
applications.
Msilimba and Holmes (2005) proposed a vulnera-
bility appraisal procedure for landslide (particularly
debris flow) hazard assessment in Vunguvungu (Banga
catchment), Northern Malawi. This area was threa-
tened by landslides causing damage to vegetation and
123
386 J. Chacón et al.

Fig. 20 Sketch of GIS steps

in landslide mapping and Type, Thematic layers: geology, water
assessment to analyse the INVENTORY Magnitude, ,morphology, soils, geotechnics, etc
D.E.M.
different types of landslides OF Activity or Frecuency
included in the inventory LANDSLIDES Degree of

REMOTE development, FACTORS

Velocity,
SENSING ANALYSIS
Reach angle,
Run out distance

SUSCEPTIBILITY
(Landslide prone zones) Destructive
Capability

ELEMENT
VULNERABILITY

TEMPORAL

PROBABILITY HAZARD

RISK

crops, the Banga River, water irrigation channels and a. Maps of spatial incidence of landslides
roads. This is a rural area with cultivation, roads and
– • Qualitative susceptibility maps
trackways and scattered urban areas. From aerial pho-
– • Semi-quantitative susceptibility maps using
tography and field survey, including sampling and lab-
weighted factors
oratory analyses of selected physical and mechanical
– • Semi-quantitative susceptibility maps based on
soil properties, they analysed determinant factors and
susceptibility numbers or indices
mapped eight example sites, to obtain vulnerability
– • Semi-quantitative maps of instability zones
scores and indices. The vulnerability scoring was based
based on geological or geomorphological data
on eight empirical variables: slope (three intervals),
– • Hazard qualitative maps without any temporal
disturbance of land surface (undisturbed, moderate and
assessment
high); vegetation (three classes), percentage of sand
– • Risk maps (risk as spatial hazard) on qualitative
(three intervals), porosity index (three intervals), plas-
or semi-quantitative analysis
ticity index (three intervals) and bulk density (three
– • Spatial maps based on certainty analysis, logical
intervals). Values of 1–3 were given to the contribution
regression and expert opinions
of each factor to the vulnerability for each class. The
– • Spatial maps based on statistical multivariate
average of the eight factors was taken as the vulnera-
probabilistic analysis
bility index from which the stability conditions were
– • Spatial maps based on the matrix or GIS matrix
assessed as stable (vulnerability index £ 1.5), poten-
approaches
tially unstable (1.5–2) and unstable (>2). Four of the
– • Spatial maps based on ANNs
eight example sites were classified as unstable, three
– • Spatial maps based on fuzzy logic
potentially unstable and one as stable. The method at-
– • Spatial maps based on slope safety factor analysis
tempted to ascertain the mechanisms for landsliding, to
– • Spatial maps based on slope reliability index
recognise exacerbating factors and to identify areas
b. Maps of landslides with spatial–temporal incidence
which are potentially at risk from landslides.
and forecasting
– • Maps obtained using coupled slope stability and
Conclusions, recommendations and further
slope hydrological models with rainfall proba-
developments
bility assessment
1. In this review the following groups of maps – • Maps obtained using coupled models of slope
related to landslide assessment have been con- stability and slope dynamic behaviour related to
sidered: earthquake probability assessment

123
Engineering geology maps: landslides and GIS
c. Maps of consequences of landslides
– • Risk assessment
– • Vulnerability assesment
2. Many of the adopted methods were internally
validated using statistical analysis of correlations
between samples of landslides with a whole
inventory. In a very few cases, the validation was
accomplished by monitoring the usefulness of the
map in forecasting subsequent landslides, for in-
stance Irigaray et al. (1998a, 1999, 2006), Miles
et al. (2000), Lee et al. (2002a, b, c), Santacana and
Corominas (2002), Chung and Fabbri (2003), Re-
mondo et al. (2003b), Lee and Ryu (2004; see also
Van Westen et al. 1999).
3. Since GIS has become available (Fig. 20) suscep-
tibility maps have become dominant over landslide
maps showing spatial incidence. Widespread use of
software packages outside GIS is observed, par-
ticularly for statistical treatment of data in bivari-
ate, multivariate and other methods requiring
mathematical assessment. Extensive use of GIS
has led to improvement of factor analyses includ-
ing enhancement of former methods such as den-
sity contouring, qualitative and semi-quantitative
methods based on geological and geomorphologi-
cal parameters, the matrix method or bivariate and
multivariate correlations. A number of new meth-
ods have been developed including logistic
regression, uncertainty analysis, neural networks,
fuzzy logic, reliability analysis, fractal analysis, etc.
4. The method of hazard and risk assessment pro-
posed by Varnes (1984), with some additional
contributions from Fell (1992), Morgan et al.
(1992) and Fell (1994), has been followed in the
majority of published GIS papers, although other
approaches, some of which use similar terminology
but with different meanings, are available.
5. GIS maps depicting the spatial–temporal incidence
of landslides are usually based on temporal data
from triggering rainfall periods. These are used to
obtain landslide annual probabilities in the defined
hazard zones. Also return periods for earthquakes
of given magnitudes have been used for landslide
hazard mapping. A coupled physical or stability
model, in both static and dynamic conditions,
usually corresponds to the limit of equilibrium of
failure along a planar slide on infinite slopes, and
can be used for modelling shallow landslides. Dif-
ferent additional contributions to the analysis and
mapping of shallow landslides related to rainfall
are found in Alcántara-Ayala (2004), Aleotti
(2004), Borga et al. (1997), Burton et al. (1998),
387
Burton and Bathurst (1998), Calcaterra et al.
(2004), Chleborad (2000), Dai and Lee (2003), Dai
et al. (2003), Dymon et al. (1999), Garland and
Olivier (1993), Glade et al. (2000), Savage et al.
(2003). Also shallow landslides triggered by
earthquakes are analysed by Aiello et al. (2004),
Capolongo et al. (2002), Del Gaudio and Wasow-
ski (2004), Ho and Miles (1997), Jakob and
Weatherly (2003), Lin and Tung (2003), Luzi and
Pergalani (1999, 2000), Miles and Ho (1999), Moon
and Blackstock (2004), Wasowski et al. (2002).
6. Historical information about landslides, with a
more or less precise indication of slopes affected by
instability and the dates of the active stages of the
landslides, is important for an accurate temporal
assessment relating data on triggering rainfall or on
earthquakes to the resulting landslides. In many
countries, historical data about most landslides in-
cluded in inventories are scarce or simply lacking.
Although it is possible to observe relationships
between current landslides and rainfall or earth-
quakes, the numbers of landslides for which tem-
poral information is available may be so few that it
is impossible to undertake a quantitative landslide
hazard assessment. In such cases, which are more
frequent in semi-arid or arid countries, a good
alternative is provided by landslide susceptibility
maps based on qualitative or semi-quantitative
factor analysis using the GIS matrix method or
some ‘‘factor weighted with uncertainty’’ analysis.
Integrating data about the destructive capability of
known and predicted landslides with qualitative
information on return periods of the different type
of landslide makes it is possible to prepare a qual-
itative hazard map as an alternative to a quantita-
tive hazard map. Although a probabilistic landslide
hazard map is far more accurate than any qualita-
tive hazard map, the limitations in underdeveloped
or recently developed countries, where temporal
data are lacking, may justify the use of qualitative
hazard maps as a preliminary step towards a pro-
gram of landslide control and mitigation.
7. Several methods to assess hazard have been de-
scribed. These use both temporal spatial data on
landsliding and data on magnitude, velocity and
run-out distance. Information about the rate of
development of the landslide should be integrated
in the assessment as serious damage may arise
during the early stages of landsliding. For instance,
the propagation of the tension cracks and forma-
tion of head scarp structures can seriously damage
roads or buildings, etc. in the affected areas. On
many occasions, landslide activity stops at this
123
388
early stage, remaining in a dormant condition for
some time, until a new rainfall event or earthquake
leads to it being resumed. Models considering
landsliding activity from the early stage to the final
development therefore may not be representative
of actual processes in many areas around the
world. Hazard assessment should thus integrate all
the available data about parameters including
landslide intensity (magnitude, velocity and run-
out distance) but also temporal data about land-
slide activity periods and the degree of develop-
ment of the landslide. GIS systems for
management, control and mitigation of regional or
local landslides, and other natural hazards, are
suitable tools for this task. Any landslide hazard
map is only a snapshot representation of a given
hazard condition with limited validity for a par-
ticular period of time which should be determined.
8. There is a lack of internationally accepted classi-
fications and conventions for maps of spatial and
spatial–temporal incidence of landslides. A com-
mon standard would be highly valuable for com-
paring maps, and also to classify the landslide areas
all around the world in a manner similar to that
used in, for example, seismic areas. A simple
classification of landslide susceptibility is the
averaged percentage of landslide failure areas per
total area of the region, by lithological or geolog-
ical units, as proposed in the relative susceptibility
numbers of Brabb et al. (1972). This can give a
simple scale as shown, for instance, in Fig. 21. Fell
(1994) also proposed a classification of landslide
hazard (Table 4), which could be internationally
acceptable, expressed as a colour chart. An
example is shown in Fig. 22. Of course in this case
the approach to hazard assessment should be used
only for probabilistic methods employing detailed
temporal data on landslide triggering rainfall or/
and earthquakes. Nevertheless, the colour chart
could be used internationally and the legend of the
map should provide information to define the real
meaning of the particular hazard assessment.
% Failed area: 0-1 2-8
RSN I II
Negligible Low
Fig. 21 Classification and colour chart for relative susceptibility: 0–1% negligible; 2–8% low; 9–25% high; 43–53% very high; 54–70%
extremely high and 100% landslide, following intervals proposed by Brabb et al. (1972)
123
J. Chacón et al.
H Description
≥ 30 Extremely high
≥ 20,<30 Very high
≥ 10,<20 High
≥ 7,<10 Medium
≥ 3,<7 Low
≥2 Very low
Fig. 22 Hazard level colour chart and intervals following Fell
(1994)
9. Maps of spatial and spatial–temporal incidence of
landslides have been markedly improved using
GIS and have increased greatly the number of
researchers, countries and papers on the topic. It
has also been instrumental in introducing new
methods of factor analyses. However, the maps
identifying the consequences of landsliding are still
in a more basic stage of development. Methods
based on Varnes (1984) are clearly predominant
but the important differences in physical, envi-
ronmental, social and economic factors around the
world significantly affect approaches to assessing
risk and vulnerability. The results obtained to date
from GIS mapping of landslide risk are varied and
range from small-scale qualitative maps in rural
areas of underdeveloped countries to large-scale
semi-quantitative maps in urban areas in devel-
oped countries. A common method for the
assessment of vulnerability in landslide risk map-
ping is still not available, although interesting re-
sults and methods have been obtained from alpine
or mountain regions in a number of developed
countries.
10. A basic constraint on landslide research is the
process of identification, mapping and compilation
of an inventory of landslides. Deep landslides are
usually, but not always, more easily distinguished
than shallow landslides, particularly those affect-
ing soft soils and weathered rock massifs as debris
and earth flows or complex landslides including
9-25 26-42 43-53 54-70 100
III IV V VI L
Middle High Very high Ext. High Landslide
Engineering geology maps: landslides and GIS
plastic behaviour. This fact is well known to
experienced professionals and researchers. It is a
basic constraint on the quality of the resulting
map. The GIS capability for the presentation of
the maps, including successful internal validation
of the particular method of analysis and model-
ling, may tempt inexperienced researchers to for-
get this basic constraint. An unusual paper by
Guzzetti et al. (2000) presents the results of the
Tiber River Basin (Central Italy) experiment. This
consisted of comparing two landslides inventories
made in the same area by different persons. One
inventory was a reconnaissance map made in the
late 1980s and early 1990s on 1:33,000 scale aerial
photography and field survey, showing about 4,000
landslides and covering some 270 km2 (7% of the
total area). The second showed a new inventory
obtained by reinterpreting the former aerial pho-
tography survey using 1:13,000 scale colour aerial
photography and detailed field checks in six pilot
areas in or close to the basin. This second inven-
tory showed 17,600 slope failures covering some
514 km2 and 12.5% of the total area. The esti-
mated mismatch between both inventories of the
same area was about 71% and was not evenly
distributed. The authors concluded that ‘‘errors
and uncertainties associated with the inventory
process can be large and need to be quantified’’. A
similar experience with similar results was made
Fig. 23 Landslide hazard
map of the Badong-Zigui
region using ASTER imagery
(Liu et al. 2004)
389
by the US Geological Survey in California (Dr.
E.E. Brabb personal communication; Brabb
1993). The question was also considered by Ar-
dizzone et al. (2002); Chung and Fabbri (2003)
who suggested, with Guzzetti et al. (2000), that
the use of multivariate statistical techniques may
help to reduce the effects of inaccuracy of the
basic information. The proper use of new GIS
interfaces for landslide mapping requires high
quality field results to support the otherwise
apparently successful maps obtained though the
computer.
11. High resolution remote sensing images, multi-
temporal satellite images with ASTER (Fig. 23,
Liu et al. 2004), LIDAR and Radar images, using
GPS, and ground based or satellite images based
on permanent or scattered differential interfer-
ometry (SAR and DinSAR), etc. are now avail-
able. A number of researchers in different
countries are accumulating a considerable body of
experience on landslide applications which may
help a better compilation of basic landslide
inventories and also obtaining a more accurate
assessment of the landslide activity; see, for in-
stance, Saunchyn and Trench (1978), Zebker and
Goldstein (1986), McKean et al. (1991), Leroi
et al. (1992), Rengers et al. (1992), Hervás and
Rosin (1996), Hervás et al. (1996), Astaras et al.
(1997), Eyers et al. (1998), Mason et al. (1998),
123
390 J. Chacón et al.

Nagarajan et al. (1998), Davis et al. (2000), Gó-
mez et al. (2000), Kimura and Yamaguchi (2000),
Malkawi et al. (2000), Refice et al. (2000, 2001),
Rizzo and Tesauro (2000), Tarchi et al. (2000),
Vietmeier et al. (2000), Buchroithner (2002), 12.
Canuti et al. (2002), Casagli et al. (2002), Chi
et al. (2002a), De la Ville et al. (2002), Kaäb
(2002), Malet et al. (2000, 2002), Mason and Ro-
– •
senbaum (2002), Nagler et al. (2002), Rizzo
(2002), Rodriguez et al. (2002), Singhroy et al.
– •
(2002), Antonello et al. (2003), Casagli et al.
(2003), Mora et al. (2003), Paganini et al. (2003),
– •
Schiavon et al. (2003), Berardino et al. (2003),
Colesanti et al. (2003), Squarzoni et al. (2003),
– •
Tarchi et al. (2003a , b), Canuti et al. (2004), Chen
– •
et al. (2004b), Lee et al. (2004b), Luzi et al.
(2004), McKean and Roering (2004), Sarkar and
Kanungo (2004), Singhroy and Molch (2004), Ye
et al. (2004), Zhou et al. (2004), Catani et al.
(2005).‘‘ Growing experience will improve land-
slides mapping techniques in the next few years.
Site hazard and risk maps on slope instability are
now based upon huge amounts of spatial and
temporal data including:
Geotechnical data and slope hydrological mod-
els
Temporal data on failure and mass activity,
magnitude and velocity
Spatial and temporal data on stages of devel-
opment
Rainfall and seismic events
Slope stability analysis based on probabilistic
reliability index assessment

Table 11 Classification of current landslide maps considering the basic data used in the different GIS methods of analysis, their
denominations and actual meaning
Basic data and usual denominations Type of information

Spatial incidence Temporal incidence

I. Landslide density or isopleths Landslide density No

II. Qualitative relationships—inventory/determinant factors: slope, Landslide susceptibility No
lithology, others. Landslide hazard, landslide susceptibility, slope or stability conditions
stability map
IV. Quantitative and qualitative relationships. Landslide susceptibility, Landslide susceptibility No
slope stability, landslide hazard. or stability conditions
V. Quantitative and qualitative relationships—inventory/ factors Landslide susceptibility No
including landslide pathways. Landslide hazard or stability conditions
VI. Quantitative and qualitative relationships inventory/ factors with Landslide spatial hazard No
landslide pathway, magnitude and velocity. Landslide hazard.
VII. Geotechnical data for slope stability assessment of safety factor, Landslide spatial hazard No
reliability index, etc. Slope stability map or slope safety factor
VIII. Data from geomechanical classifications (RMR, SMR) Landslide Landslide susceptibility, No
susceptibility or slope stability map spatial hazard or slope
safety factor
IX. Quantitative and qualitative relationships—inventory with Landslide susceptibility Slope susceptibility
temporal data series of rainfall or earthquakes. Landslide hazard or slope stability map hazard
X. Slope failure model coupled with temporal data series of rainfall or Slope stability map Slope failure hazard
earthquake. Landslide hazard
XI. Types IX or X with landslide pathways (Landslide hazard, middle Landslide susceptibility Landslide hazard
to large scales) or slope stability map
XII. Types IX or X with landslide pathways and landslide magnitude Landslide susceptibility Landslide hazard
and velocity (landslide hazard, middle to large scales) or slope stability and
spatial hazard
XIII. Types II, III, IV+ elements of territory + vulnerability assessment Landslide susceptibility Partial landslide risk
(landslide risk) and/or spatialhazard
XIV. Types IX, X + elements of the territory + vulnerability assessment Landslide susceptibility Partial landslide risk
(landslide risk) or slope stability map at failure zones
XV. Type XI + elements of the territory + vulnerability assessment Landslide spatial hazard Partial landslide
(landslide risk) or slope stability risk zonation
XVI. Type XII + elements of the territory + vulnerability assessment Landslide spatial hazard Landslide risk zonation
(landslide risk) with destructive
potential and element’s
vulnerability

123
Engineering geology maps: landslides and GIS
In all, 16 different types of landslide maps are found
in the current literature if the basic data necessary
for the analysis are taken in account. Table 11 re-
views these, taking in account the following basic
data: landslide inventory density or isopleths; qual-
itative relationships between landslide inventory
and determinant factors; quantitative relationships
between landslide inventory and determinant fac-
tors; quantitative and qualitative relationships be-
tween landslide inventory and determinant factors;
slope stability models; geomechanical classifica-
tions; landslide pathways; landslide activity, magni-
tude and velocity; temporal series of data of rainfall
and/or earthquake; territorial distribution and vul-
nerability.
As shown earlier, spatial or spatial–temporal maps
are produced from these basic data using different
GIS analytical approaches. These are usually
termed–more or less vaguely–landslide suscepti-
bility or hazard maps, maps of slope stability
conditions, etc. In Table 11, names are proposed
to discriminate the real meaning of the informa-
tion included in each type of map. A proper
landslide hazard map should include not only a
spatial but also a temporal assessment, using series
of data on rainfall or earthquakes depending on
the likely triggering mechanism, as well as data
about the landslide pathway to account for the
consequences of the ground movement. Without
this, only the slope failure process would be
assessed.
Information on the destructive capability of the
landslide (activity, velocity, magnitude) is required
for a full assessment of the hazard. A proper land-
slide risk map should be based on a landslide hazard
map (including landslide pathway and destructive
capability data) coupled with an assessment of the
vulnerability of the element of territory that is being
considered to the destructive capability of the
landslide. Without this, a spatial risk map or quali-
tative risk map would be obtained. The information
about landslide field data today may be transferred
on line in real time using current web facilities and
mobile GIS technology (Kim et al. 2004, Chang and
Park 2004).
Table 11 highlights the current complexity and
confusion of terminology of so-called landslide
susceptibility, hazard or risk maps and other related
terms which have been described in this paper.
There is a clear need for an international standard
regarding the aims of and methods for the different
types of landslide maps as powerful computing
391
power and GIS availability is leading to a very quick
increase in the number of different approaches to
this subject.
13. The limitations of two-dimensional GIS may be
overcome using three-dimensional GIS, particu-
larly in cases of rotational slides and deep land-
slides with planar or rotational failure
mechanisms or deep complex failures (Esaki et al.
2001; Li et al. 2004, Vähäaho (1998), Wang et al.
2002, 2003; Xie et al. 2003Xie et al. 2003a, b, c,
2004a, d; Zhou et al. 2004). The use of three-
dimensional GIS for large scale, detailed hazard
or risk maps will be one of the significant devel-
opments in the near future.
14. The widespread use of GIS has significantly im-
proved our analysis and mapping capabilities,
helping to provide better regional treatment of
data, but at the same time introducing tempta-
tions to adopt more sophisticated methods and, to
some extent, overshadowing the need for a dee-
per knowledge of landsliding processes, through
from field geological, geomorphological and
engineering research to the computer desk.
15. Even now, well after the Decade for Mitigation of
Natural Hazards and despite the huge number of
papers and new research on landslide mapping,
the wise conclusion of Brabb (1996) in his paper
‘‘Hazards maps are not enough’’ still applies: ‘‘The
preparation of hazard maps does not guarantee
that they will be used. Earth scientists need to
target a different audience for hazard maps, if we
want acceptance and utilisation of our work. We
must first make certain that the language on pro-
totype maps is simple, direct and easily under-
stood, and that ‘stoplight’ colours convey red as
the most hazardous areas, green as the safest, and
yellow as intermediate in hazard. We must then
‘sell’ these maps to planners, politicians, emer-
gency response staff, bankers, mortgage lenders,
and insurance agents early in the life of a project
so that these people feel they have impact on
development of the data and the map, and so that
they are likely to use the final product’’.
Acknowledgments This review has been funded by project
REN2002-03366 on Landslides and active tectonics in the Gua-
dalfeo river basin (Granada, Spain), CICYT- I+D, Spanish
Ministery of Education and Science and by the Research Group
on Environment: Natural Hazards and Terrain Engineering
(RNM 121) Andalusian Plan of Research, Seville (Spain). The
encouraging support of B. Marker, who kindly reviewed the final
English version, M. Culshaw, Earl E. Brabb and F. Olóriz is
acknowledged. P. Reichenbach is thanked for kind permission to
123
392
use Figs. 14, 16 and 17 and the papers, maps, comments and
information received from C. Bonnard, N.C. Evans, B. Marker,
J. Marquı́nez, P. Gori and G. Tosatti, are acknowledged, as well
as a preliminary English reviewing by R. Jiménez.
References
Abbot B, Bruce I, Savigny W, Keegan T, Oboni F (1998a) A
methodology for the assessment of rockfall hazard and risk
along linear transportation corridors. In: Moore D, Hungr O
(eds) Proceedings of the 8th IAEG Congress, Vancouver,
A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 1195–1200
Abbot B, Bruce I, Savigny W, Keegan T, Oboni F (1998b)
Application of a new methodology for the management of
rockfall risk along a railway. In: Moore D, Hungr O (eds)
Proceedings of the 8th IAEG Congress, Vancouver, A.A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 1195–1200
Agili F, Bartolomei A, Casagli N, Canuti P, Catani F, Ermini L,
Farina P, Kukavicic M, Mirannalti M, Righini G (2004)
Coupling traditional methods and new technology contri-
butions to landslide risk assessment in the Arno river basin.
In: Lacerda WA, Ehrlich M, Fontoura SAB, Sayao ASF
(eds) Landslides: evaluation and stabilization. Balkema,
Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp 151–155
Agostoni S, Laffi R, Mazzocola D, Scieza E, Presbitero M (1998)
Landslide inventory data base for an Alpine area, Lombar-
dia, Italy. In: Moore D, Hungr O (eds) Proceedings of the
8th IAEG Congress, Vancouver, A.A. Balkema, Rotter-
dam, pp 919–924
Aiello V, Barile A, Silvestri F, Pescatore TS, Pinto F (2004) An
application of a GIS based methodology for the seismic
zonation of slope stability. In: Lacerda WA, Ehrlich M,
Fontoura SAB, Sayao ASF (eds) Landslides: evaluation and
stabilization. Balkema, Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp
327–335
Alcántara-Ayala I (2002) Geomorphology, natural hazards,
vulnerability and prevention of natural disasters in devel-
oping countries. Geomorphology 47:107–124
Alcántara-Ayala I (2004) Hazard assessment of rainfall-induced
landsliding in Mexico. Geomorphology 61:19–40
Aleotti P (2004) A warning system for rainfall-induced shallow
failures. Eng Geol 73:247–265
Aleotti P, Chowdhury (1998) Landslide hazard assessment:
summary review and new perspectives. Bull Eng Geol
Environ 58:21–44
Aleotti P, Baldelli P, Polloni G (2000) Hydrogeological risk
assessment of the Po River Basin (Italy). In: Landslides in
research, theory and practice. Thomas Telford, London, pp
13–18
Alfoldi TT (1974) Landslide analysis and susceptibility mapping.
In: Symposium on remote sensing and photo interpretation,
7th, Banff, Alberta, Proceedings of the International Society
for Photogrammetry, Ontario, Canada, vol 1, pp 379–388
Al-Homoud AS, Masanat Y (1998) A classification system for
the assessment of slope stability of terrain along highway
routes in Jordan. Environ Geol 34(1):59–69
Alonso EE (1976) Risk analysis of slopes and its application to
slopes in Canadian sensitive clays. Géotechnique 26(3):453–
472
Amaral C, Furtado A (2004) Largescale quantitative landslide
risk mapping at Favela da Formiga, Rio de Janeiro. In:
Lacerda WA, Ehrlich M, Fontoura SAB, Sayao ASF (eds)
Landslides: evaluation and stabilization. Balkema, Taylor &
Francis Group, London, pp 293–296
123
J. Chacón et al.
An P, Moon WM, Rencz A (1991) Application of fuzzy set
theory for integration of geological, geophysical and remote
sensing data. Can J Explor Geophys 27:1–11
Anderberg MR (1973) Cluster analysis for applications. Aca-
demic, New York, p 359
Aniya M (1985) Landslide susceptibility mapping in the Amah-
ata river basin, Japan. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 75(1):102–114
Anonymous (1972) The preparation of maps and plans in terms
of engineering geology. Quart J Eng Geol 5:297–397
Anonymous (1976) Engineering geology maps: a guide to their
preparation. The UNESCO Press, Paris
Antoine P (1977) Refléxions sur la cartographie ZERMOS et
bilan de expériences en cours.Bull Bur Rech geol min Sec.
III (1-2), 9–20
Antonello G, Casagli N, Farina P, Fortuny J, Leva D, Nico G,
Sieber AJ, Tarchi D (2003) A ground-based interferometer
for the safety monitoring of landslides and structural
deformations. In: International Geoscience Remote Sensing
Symposium (IGARSS) 1:218–220
Ardizzone F, Cardinali M, Carrara A, Guzzetti F, Reichenbach P
(2002) Impact of mapping errors on the reliability of
landslide hazard maps. Natural Hazards Earth Syst Sci
2:3–14
Arias A (1970) A measure of earthquake intensity. In: Hansen
RJ (ed) Seismic design for nuclear power plants. Massa-
chusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, pp 438–
483
Astaras T, Kalathas A, Oikonomidis D, Lambrinos N, Soula-
kellis N (1997) Delineation of landslides using GIS and
digital image procesing techniques on multitemporal Land-
sat 5 TM images: a case study from the Pindus mountain,
Greece. In: Spiteri A (ed) Remote Sensing ’96-integrated
applications for risk assessment and disaster prevention for
the Mediterranean, vol 215. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam
Atkinson PM, Massari R (1998) Generalised linear modelling of
susceptibility to landsliding in the Central Apennines, Italy.
Comput Geosci 24(4):373–385
Atkinson P, Jiskoot H, Massari R, Murray T (1998) Generalized
linear modelling in geomorphology. Earth Surf Processes
Landforms 23:1185–1195
Augusto Filho O (2004) Mass movements identification, model-
ing, analysis and mapping: some experiences in the southern
of Brazil, Sao Paulo state. In: Lacerda WA, Ehrlich M,
Fontoura SAB, Sayao ASF (eds) Landslides: evaluation and
stabilization. Balkema, Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp
57–68
Augusto Filho O, Magalhaies FS (2004) Identification of slope
instability hazard areas in the Anchietalmigrantes Highway
System, located in the Serra do Mar mountain range, Sao
Paulo state, Brazil. In: Lacerda WA, Ehrlich M, Fontoura
SAB, Sayao ASF (eds) Landslides: evaluation and stabil-
ization. Balkema, Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp 273–
280
Ayala-Carcedo FJ, Cubillo-Nielsen S, Alvarez A, Domı́nguez
MJ, Laı́n L, Laı́n R, Ortı́z G (2003) Large scales rock fall
reach susceptibility maps in La Cabrera Sierra (Madrid)
performed with GIS and dynamic analysis at 1:5.000. In:
Chacon J, Corominas J (eds) Special issue on Landslides
and GIS. Nat Hazards 30(3):341–360
Ayalew L, Yamagishi H (2005) The application of GIS-based
logistic regression for landslide susceptibility mapping in the
Kakuda-Yahiko Mountains, Central Japan. Geomorphology
65:15–31
Ayalew L, Yamagishi H, Ugawa N (2004) Landslide suscepti-
bility mapping using GIS-based weighted linear combina-
Engineering geology maps: landslides and GIS
tion, the case in Tsugawa area of Agano river, Niigata
Prefecture, Japan. Landslide 1:73–81
Ayenew T, Barbieri G (2005) Inventory of landslides and
susceptibility mapping in the Dessie area, northern Ethio-
pia. Eng Geol 77(1–2):1–15
Babu GLS, Mukesh MD (2003) Risk analyse of landslides—a
case study. Geotech Geol Eng 21:113–127
Baeza C (1994). Evaluación de las condiciones de rotura y la
movilidad de los deslizamientos superficiales mediante el
uso de técnicas de análisis multivariante. PhD thesis,
Department Ingenierı́a del Terreno y Cartográfica, UPC,
Barcelona, Spain
Baeza C, Corominas J (1996) Assessment of shallow landslide
susceptibility by means of statistical techniques. In: Kaare
Senneset (ed) Proceedings of the VIth I.S.L., Trondheim,
Norway, vol 1. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 147–152
Baeza C, Corominas J (2001) Assessment of shallow landslide
susceptibility by means of multivariate statistical techniques.
Earth Surf Processes Landforms 26:1251–1263
Baillifard F, Jaboyedov M, Rouiller D, Robichaud GR, Locat P,
Locat J, Couture R, Hamel G (2004) Towards a GIS-based
rockfall hazard assessment along the Quebec City Promon-
tory, Quebec, Canada. In: Lacerda WA, Ehrlich M, Fonto-
ura SAB, Sayao ASF (eds) Landslides: evaluation and
stabilization. Balkema, Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp
207–214
Bak P, Tang C, Wiesenfeld K (1988) Self-organized criticality.
Phys Rev A 38:364–374
Baldelli P, Aleotti P, Polloni G (1996) Landslide susceptibility
numerical mapping at the Messina Straits crossing site, Italy.
In: Senneset K (ed) Proceedings of the VIth I.S.L., Trond-
heim, Norway, vol 1. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 153–158
Baldwin JE II, Wright-Baldwin RJ, Benton DC (1986) Mapping
slope hazard susceptibility in Aldercroft Heights following
the July 1985 Lexington Reservoir fire, Santa Clara County,
Calfornia [abs.]. In: Proceedings of the Association of
Engineering Geologists, 29th annual meeting, San Fran-
cisco, 1986, abstracts and program, p 43
Bandeira APN, Coutinho RQ, Alheiros MM (2004) Landslide
hazard map in an area of Camaragibe city, Pernambuco,
Brazil. In: Lacerda WA, Ehrlich M, Fontoura SAB, Sayao
ASF (eds) Landslides: evaluation and stabilization. Balk-
ema, Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp 303–310
Barbolini M, Natale L, Savi F (2002) Effects of release
conditions uncertainty on avalanche hazard mapping. Nat
Hazards 25:225–244
Bardinet C, Bournay E (1999) The use of 3-D mapping in
geological research and risks analysis: evaluation of a water
supply project in the Kathmandu-Melamchi Area. Geo-
Journal 49:159–163
Barredo JI, Benavides A, Hervás J, Van Westen CJ (2000)
Comparing heuristic landslide hazard assessment techniques
using GIS in the Tirajana basin, Gran Canaria Island, Spain.
JAG 2(1):9–23
Basma AA, Kallas N (2004) Modeling soil collapse by artificial
neural networks. Geotech Geol Eng 22:427–438
Bathurst JC, Crosta GB, Garcı́a-Ruiz JM, Guzzetti F, Lenzi MA,
Aragues SR (2003) DAMOCLES: debris-fall assessment in
mountains catchments for local end-users. In: Rickenman D,
Chen C (eds) Debris-flow hazard mitigation, prediction and
assessment. MillPress Science, Rotterdam, pp 1073–1083
Baynes FJ, Lee EM (1998) Geomorphology in landslide risk
analysis, an interim report. In: Moore D, Hungr O (eds)
Proceedings of the 8th IAEG Congress, Vancouver. A.A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 1129–1136
393
Bell R, Glade T (2004) Quantitative risk analysis for land-
slides—examples from Bildurdalur, NW Iceland. Nat Haz-
ards Earth Syst Sci 4(1):117–131
Berardino P, Costantini M, Franceschetti G, Iodice A, Pietra-
nera L, Rizzo V (2003) Use of differential SAR interfer-
ometry in monitoring and modelling large slope instability
at Maratea (Basilicata, Italy). Eng Geol 68(1–2):31–51
Bernardos AG, Kaliampakos DC (2004) A methodology for
assessing geotechnical hazards for TBM tunnelling—illus-
trated by the Athens Metro, Greece. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci 41:987–999
Bernknopf F, Campbell RH, Brookshire DS, Shapiro CD (1988)
A probabilistic approach to landslide hazard mapping in
Cincinnati, Ohio, with applications for economic evaluation.
Bull AEG, XXV 1:39–56
Beven KJ, Kirkby MJ (1979) A physically based, variable
contributing area model of basin hydrology. Hydrol Sci Bull
24:43–69
Bhattacharya G, Jana D, Ojha S, Chakraborty S (2003) Direct
search for minimum reliability index of earth slopes.
Comput Geotechn 30:455–462
Bieniawski ZT (1979) The geomechanical classification in rock
engineering applications. In: Proceedings of the 4th Inter-
national Congress Rock Mechanics, Montreux, Balkema,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands, vol 2, pp 41–48
Bieniawski ZT (1993) Classification of rock masses for engi-
neering: the R.M.R. system and future trends. In: Hudson,
Brown, Fairhurst, Hoek (eds) Comprehensive rock engi-
neering. Pergamon Press, UK
Binaghi E, Luzi L, Madella P, Pergalani F, Rampini A (1998)
Slope instability zonation: a comparison between certainty
factor and fuzzy Dempster–Shafer approaches. Nat Hazards
17:77–97
Binaghi E, Boschetti M, Brivio PA, Gallo I, Pergalani F,
Rampini A (2004) Prediction of displacements in unstable
areas using a neural model. Nat Hazards 32:135–154
Birkeland KW, Landry CC (2002) Power-laws and snow
avalanches. Geophys Res Lett 29(11):49-1–49-3
Blanc RP, Cleveland GB (1968) Natural slope stability as related
to geology, San Clemente Area, Orange and San Diego
Counties, California. California Division of Mines and
Geology Special Report 98, 19 pp
Bobrosky PT, Chung CJ, Garson D, Guthrie R (1998) Quanti-
tative landslide hazard mapping on Northern Vancouver
Island, BC, Canada. In: Moore D, Hungr O (eds) Proceed-
ings of the 8th IAEG Congress, Vancouver. A.A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, pp 2031–2037
Bonham-Carter GF (1994) Geographic information systems for
geoscientists. Love Printing Service Ltd., Ontario
Bonnard C, Forlati F, Scavia C (eds) (2004) Identification and
mitigation of large landslide risks in Europe. Adv Risk
Assess 336
Borga M, Dalla Fontana G, Da Ros D, Marchi L (1997) Shallow
landslide hazard assessment using a physically based model
and digital elevation data. Environ Geol 35(2/3):81–88
Borga M, Dalla Fontana G, Cazorzi F (2002) Análisis of
topographic and climatic control on rainfall-triggered shal-
low landsliding using a quasi-dynamic wetness index. J
Hydrol 268:56–71
Borselli L, Magaldi D, Tallini M (1998) Assessment of hillslope
instability hazard based on fuzzy mathematics. In: Moore D,
Hungr O (eds) Proceedings of the 8th IAEG Congress,
Vancouver. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 891–898
Bowman HN (1972) Natural Slope Stability in the City of
Greater Woolongong. N.S.W.Geol Surv Recs 14(2):159–222
123
394
Brabb EE (1982) Preparation and use of a landslide susceptibil-
ity map for a county near San Francisco, California, USA.
In: Sheko A (ed) Landslides and mudflows. Reports of
Alma-Ata, International Seminar UNESCO/UNEP, Centre
of International Projects, GKNT, Moscow, URSS, pp 407–
415
Brabb EE (1984) Innovative approaches to landslide hazard and
risk mapping. In: Proceedings of the IVth ISL, Toronto, vol
1, pp 307–324
Brabb EE (1987) Analyzing and portraying geologic and
cartographic information for land-use planning, emergency
response, and decision making in San Mateo County,
California. In: Proceedings of the GIS’87 San Francisco
IInd annual international conference GIS, ASPRS, VA,
USA, pp 362–374
Brabb EE (1993) Priorities for landslide during the international
decade of hazard reduction. In: Wagner P, Novosad S (eds)
Landslides: seventh international conference and Field
workshop. P. 7–14. Balkema, Rotterdam, 320 pp
Brabb EE (1996) Hazard map are not enough. In: Chacón J,
Irigaray C (eds) Proceedings of the Sexto Congreso
Nacional y Conferencia Internacional sobre Riesgos Natu-
rales, Ordenación del Territorio y Medio Ambiente 1,
S.E.G.A.O.T. Granada, Spain
Brabb EE, Pampeyan EH (1972) Preliminary map of landslide
deposits in San Mateo County, California. US Geological
Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies, Map MF-344, scale
1:62,500
Brabb EE, Pampeyan EH, Bonilla MG (1972) Landslide
susceptibility in San Mateo County, California. US Geolog-
ical Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies, Map MF-360, scale
1:62,500 (reprinted in 1978)
Brabb EE, Guzzetti M, Mark RK, Simpson RW Jr (1989) The
extent of landsliding in northern New Mexico and similar
semi-arid and arid regions. In: Sadler PM, Morton DM (eds)
Landslide in a semi-arid environment. Inlan Geological
Society, Riverside, pp 163–173
Brabec B, Meister R, Stöckli U, Stoffel A, Stucki T (2001)
RAIFoS: regional avalanche information and forecasting
system. Cold Regions Sci Technol 33:303–311
Brass A, Wadge G, Reading AJ (1991) Designing a geographical
information system for the prediction of landsliding
potential in the West Indies. In: Jones M, Cosgrove J
(eds) Neotectonics and resources. Belhaven, London
Bromhead EN (2004) Landslide slip surfaces: their origins,
behaviour and geometry. In: Lacerda WA, Ehrlich M,
Fontoura SAB, Sayao ASF (eds) Landslides: evaluation and
stabilization. Balkema, Taylor & Francis Group, London.
Brunsden D, Prior DB (eds) Slope instability. Wiley,
Chichester, pp 523–602
Brunsden D (1999) Some geomorphological considerations for
the future development of landslide models. Geomorphol-
ogy 30:13–24
Brunsden D, Prior DB (eds) (1984) Slope instability. Wiley,
Chichester, 620 p
Buchroithner MF (2002) Metereological and earth observation
remote sensing data for mass movements preparedness. Adv
Space Res 29(1):5–16
Bulut F, Boynukalin S, Tarhan F, Ataoglu E (2000) Reliability of
isopleth maps. Bull Eng Geol Environ 58:95–98
Burrough PA (1986) Principles of geographical information
systems for land resource assessment. Oxford Universty
Press, Oxford
Burrough PA (1989) Fuzzy mathematical methods for soil survey
and land evaluation. J Soil Sci 40:477–492
123
J. Chacón et al.
Burrough PA, van Gaans PFM, MacMillan RA (2000) High-
resolution landform classification using fuzzy k-means.
Fuzzy Sets Syst 113:37–52
Burrough PA, Wilson JP, van Gaans PFM, Hansen AJ (2001)
Fuzzy k-means classification of topo-climatic data as an aid
to forest mapping in the Greater Yellowstone Area, USA.
Landscape Ecol 16:523–546
Burton A, Bathurst JC (1998) Physically based modelling of
shallow landslide sediment yield at a catchment scale.
Environ Geol 35(2/3):89–99
Burton A, Arkell TJ, Bathurst JC (1998) Field variability of
landslide model parameters. Environ Geol 35(2–3):100–114
Calcaterra D, de Luca Tupputi Schinosa F, Fenelli GB (2004a)
Rockfall hazard assessment at Mt. San Costanzo (Sorrento
Peninsula, Italy). In: Lacerda WA, Ehrlich M, Fontoura
SAB, Sayao ASF (eds) Landslides: evaluation and stabiliza-
tion. Balkema, Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp 265–272
Calcaterra D, de Riso R, Di Martire D (2004b) Assessing
shallow debris slide hazard in the Agnano Plain (Naples,
Italy) using SINMAP, a physically based slopestability
model. In: Lacerda WA, Ehrlich M, Fontoura SAB, Sayao
ASF (eds) Landslides: evaluation and stabilization. Balk-
ema, Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp 177–186
Campbell RH (1973) Isopleth map of landslide deposits. Point
Duma Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California: an
experiment in generalizing and quantifying areal distribu-
tion of landslides. US Geological Survey Misc. Field
Investigation Map MF-535. USGS, California
Canuti P, Casagli N, Moretti S, Leva D, Sieber AJ, Tarchi D
(2002) Landslide monitoring by using ground-based radar
differential interferometry. In: Rybár Stemberk, Wagner
(eds) Proceedings of the 1st European conference on
landslides, Prague, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 523–528
Canuti P, Casagli N, Ermini L, Fanti R, Farina P (2004)
Landslide activity as a geoindicator in Italy: significance and
new perspectives from remote sensing. Environ Geol
45(7):907–919
Canutti P, Casagli N, Catani F, Fanti R (2000) Hydrogeological
hazard and risk in archaeological sites: some case studies in
Italy. J Cult Herit 1:117–125
Capolongo D, Refice A, Mankelow J (2002) Evaluating earth-
quake-triggered landslide hazard at the basin scale through
GIS in the Upper Sele river valley. Surv Geophys 23:595–
625
Cardinali M, Reichenbach P, Guzzetti F, Ardizzone F, Antonini
G, Galli M, Cacciano M, Castellani M, Salvati P (2002) A
geomorphological approach to the estimation of landslide
hazards and risks in Umbria, Central Italy. Nat Hazards
Earth Syst Sci 2:57–72
Carrara A (1983) Multivariate methods for landslide hazard
evaluation. Math Geol 15:403–426
Carrara A, Guzzetti F (eds) (1995) Geographical information
systems in assessing natural hazards. Kluwer, Dordrecht
Carrara A, Merenda L (1976) Landslides inventory in northern
Calabria, southern Italy. Geol Soc Am Bull 87:1229–1246
Carrara A, Pugliese E, Merenda L (1977) Computer-based data
bank and statistical analysis of slope instability phenomena.
Z Geomorph NF 21(2):187–222
Carrara A, Catalano E, Sorriso-Valvo M, Really C, Osso I (1978)
Digital terrain analysis for land evaluation. Geologia
Applicata e Idrogeologia 13:69–127
Carrara A, Cardinali M, Detti R, Guzzetti F, Pasqui M,
Reichenbach P (1991a) GIS techniques and statistical
models in evaluation landslide hazard. Earth Surf Processes
Landforms 16:427–445
Engineering geology maps: landslides and GIS
Carrara A, Cardinali M, Detti R, Guzzeti F, Pasqui V,
Reichenbach P (1991b) GIS techniques and statistical
models in evaluating landslide hazard. Earth Surf Processes
Landforms 16:427–445. In: Carrara A, Guzzetti F (eds)
Geographical information system in assessing natural haz-
ards. Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards
Research, vol 5. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 57–77
Carrara A, Cardinali M, Guzzetti F (1992) Uncertainty in
assessing landslide hazard and risk. ITC J 2:172–183
Carrara A, Cardinali M, Guzzetti F, Reichenbach P (1995) GIS
technology in mapping landslide hazard. In: Carrara A,
Guzzetti F (eds) Geographical information system in
assessing natural hazards. Advances in Natural and Tech-
nological Hazards Research, vol 5. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp
135-175
Carrara A, Crosta G, Frattini P (2003) Geomorphological and
historical data in assessing landslide hazard. Earth Surf
Processes Landforms 28(10):1125–1142
Carrasco RM, Pedraza J, Martı́n-Duque JF, Mattera M, Sanz,
MA, Bodoque JM (2003) Hazard zoning connected to
torrential floods in the Jerte valley (Spain) by using GIS
techniques. In: Chacon J, Corominas J (eds) Special issue on
Landslides and GIS. Nat Hazards 30(3):361–381
Casagli N, Farina P, Leva D, Nico G, Tarchi D (2002)
Monitoring the Tessina landslide by a ground-based SAR
interferometer and assessment of the system accuracy. In:
International Geoscience Remote Sensing Symposium
(IGARSS) 5:2915–2917
Casagli N, Farina P, Leva D, Nico G, Tarchi D (2003) Ground-
based SAR interferometry as a tool for landslide monitoring
during emergencies. In: International Geoscience Remote
Sensing Symposium (IGARSS) 4:2924–2926
Casale R, Fantechi R, Flageollet JC (eds) (1994). Temporal
occurrence and forecasting of landslides in the European
Community. Final Report, vol 1, 559 pp, vol 2, pp 565–955,
EUR 15805 EN, Programme EPOCH Contract 90 0025,
Brussels, Belgium
Castelli M, Bonnard C, Durville JL, Forlati F, Poisel R, Polino
R, Prat P, Scavia C (2002) The IMIRILAND pro-
ject—impact of large landslides in the mountain environ-
ment: identification and mitigation of risk. In: Instability-
planning and management. Thomas Telford, London
Castelli M, Amatruda G, Scavia C, Paro L, Forlati E (2004)
The IMIRILAND methodology: a proposal for a multi-
disciplinary risk assessment procedure wlth respect to
large landslide. In: Lacerda WA, Ehrlich M, Fontoura
SAB, Sayao ASF (eds) Landslides: evaluation and stabil-
ization. Balkema, Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp
229–236
Catani F, Farina P, Moretti S, Nico G, Strozzi T (2005) On the
application of SAR interferometry to geomorphological
studies: estimation of landform attributes and mass move-
ments. Geomorphology 66(1–4 special issue):119–131
Cevik E, Topal T (2003) GIS-based landslide susceptibility
mapping for a problematic segment of the natural gas
pipeline, Hendek (Turkey). Environ Geol 44(8):949–962
Chacón J (1994) Zonificación de Riesgos Geodinámicos: Estado
del Arte. I Simposio Panamericano de Deslizamientos de
tierra (first Panamerican symposium on landslides). Con-
ferencia Relator Sesión 3. Guayaquil, Ecuador
Chacón J (1999) Riesgos Naturales en el borde suroriental de la
depresión de Granada. In: Rivas P, Gomez-Caminero R
(eds) Ciclos Naturales y Desarrollo Sostenido. Grupo
Editorial Universitario, Granada, pp 71–134
Chacón J, Corominas J (eds) (2003) Special issue on Landslides
and GIS. Nat Hazards 30(3):263–512
395
Chacón J, Irigaray C (1992) Metodologı́a para la elaboración de
mapas de riesgos de movimientos de ladera. In: III Congreso
Geológico de España. Simposios, tomo Salamanca (Spain)
vol 2, pp 620–627
Chacón J, Irigaray C (1999a) Landslides: from hazard identifi-
cation to mitigation of risks. In: Jon Ingleton (ed) Natural
disaster management. A presentation to commemorate the
international decade for natural disaster reduction. Páginas
61–64. Tudor Rose Holdings Limited, UK, p 320
Chacón J, Irigaray C (1999b) Previsión espacial de movimientos
de ladera mediante S.I.G. Los Luis Laı́n Huerta (ed)
Sistemas de Información Geográfica en los Riesgos Natu-
rales y en el Medio Ambiente. ITGE, Madrid, pp 111–123
Chacón J, Irigaray C, Fernández T (1992a) Análisis regional de
movimientos de ladera y riesgos derivados mediante sist-
emas de información geográfica. I Congreso: Los sistemas
de información geográfica en la gestión territorial. Aso-
ciación Española de Sistemas de Información Geográfica y
Territorial, Madrid, pp 355–360
Chacón J, Irigaray C, Fernández T (1992b) Metodologı́a para la
cartografı́a regional de movimientos de ladera y riesgos
asociados mediante un Sistema de Información Geográfica.
III Simposio Nacional sobre taludes y laderas inestables, La
Coruña, vol I, pp 121–133
Chacón J, Méneroud J-P, Irigaray C, Boussouf S, Calvino A
(1992c) Análisis comparativo de metodologı́as para la
elaboración de cartografı́as de exposición a los movimientos
de ladera: aplicación al sector de Menton (Francia). III
Simposio Nacional sobre taludes y laderas inestables, La
Coruña, Spain, vol I, pp 95–106
Chacón J, Irigaray C, Fernández T (1993a) Methodology for
large scale landslide hazard mapping in a G.I.S. In: Wagner,
Novosad (ed) Landslides. Seventh international conference
and field workshop on landslides, Bratislava, Slovakia. In:
Landslides. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 77–82
Chacón J, Irigaray C, Fernández T (1993b) Análisis y cartografı́a
a gran escala de factores condicionantes de movimientos de
ladera mediante un S.I.G. V Reunión Nacional de Geologı́a
Ambiental y Ordenación del Territorio. Tomo II, Murcia,
Spain, pp 585–594
Chacón J, Irigaray C, Fernández T (1994a) Large to middle scale
landslides inventory, analysis and mapping with modelling
and assessment of derived susceptibility, hazards and risks in
a GIS 7th International IAEG Congress, Lisboa, Portugal,
vol VI, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 4669–4678
Chacón J, Irigaray C, Fernández T (1994b) Metodologı́a para el
análisis y cartografı́a de movimientos de ladera y riesgos
asociados mediante un SIG. III Congreso AESIG, III-4,
Madrid, Spain, pp 1–15
Chacón J, Irigaray C, Fernández T, Boussouf S (1994c) Análisis y
cartografı́a a escalas mediana y grande de movimientos de
ladera y riesgos asociados mediante un S.I.G. I Simposio
Panamericano de Deslizamientos de tierra (first Panamer-
ican symposium on landslides), Guayaquil, Ecuador, vol I,
pp 77–82
Chacón J, Irigaray C, Fernández T (eds) (1996a) Landslides. In:
Eight international conference and field workshop on
landslides, Granada–Barcelona–Madrid, Spain. Balkema,
Rotterdam, p 393
Chacón J, Irigaray C, El Hamdouni R, Fernández T (1996b) From
the inventory to the risk analysis: improvements to a large
scale G.I.S. method. In: Chacón J, Irigaray C, Fernández T
(eds) Landslides. Balkema, Rótterdam, pp 335–342
Chacón J, Irigaray C, El Hamdouni R, y Fernández T (1996c)
Consideraciones sobre los riesgos derivados de los movim-
ientos del terreno, su variada naturaleza y las dificultades de
123
396
su evaluación. In: Chacón J, Irigaray C (eds) VI Congreso
Nacional y Conferencia Internacional de Geologı́a Ambi-
ental y Ordenación del Territorio, vol I, Granada, Spain, pp
407–418
Chacón J, Irigaray C, Fernández T, El Hamdouni R, Lamas F
(1998) Previsión de zonas inestables en las Cordilleras
Béticas: factores determinantes y activadores, inventario de
movimientos y análisis de susceptibilidad, peligrosidad y
riesgo. I Congreso Andaluz de Carreteras, 10–13, vol II,
Granada, Spain, pp 1817–1822
Chacón J, El Hamdouni R, Irigaray C, Delgado A, Reyes E,
Fernández T, Garcı́a AF, Sanz de Galdeano C, y Keller EA
(2001) Valores de encajamiento de la red fluvial deducidos a
partir del estudio de travertinos del valle de Lecrı́n y curso
bajo del Guadalfeo (SO de Sierra Nevada, Granada). In:
Sanz de galdeano C, Peláez A, López AC (eds) La cuenca
de Granada: Estructura, Tectónica Activa, Sismicidad,
Geomorfologı́a y dataciones existentes. CSIC—Universidad
de Granada, Spain, pp 29–39
Chacón J, Irigaray C, Fernández T, El Hamdouni R (2003)
Susceptibilidad a los movimientos de ladera en el sector
central de la Cordillera Bética. In: Ayala-Carcedo FJ,
Corominas J (eds) Mapas de susceptibilidad a los movim-
ientos de ladera con técnicas SIG, pp 21–36. Instituto
Geológico y Minero de España, Madrid, Spain, serie Medio
Ambiente, no. 4, pp 83–96
Chang YS, Park HD (2004) Development of a web-based
geographic information system for the management of
borehole and geological data. Comput Geosci 30:887–897
Chardon AC (1999) A geographic approach of the global
vulnerability in urban area: case of Manizales, Colombian
Andes. GeoJournal 49:197–212
Chau KT, Lo KH (2004) Hazard assessment of debris flows for
Leung King Estate of Hong Kong incorporating GIS with
numerical simulation. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 4(1):103–
116
Chau KT, Tang YF, Wong RHC (2004a) GIS based rockfall
hazard map for Hong Kong. Paper 3B13 SINOROCK2004
Symposium. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41(3), CD-ROM
Chau KT, Sze YL, Fung MK, Wong WY, Fong EL, Chan LCP
(2004b) Landslide hazard analysis for Hong Kong using
landslide inventory and GIS. Comput Geosci 30:429–443
Chen C-Y, Chen T-C, Yu F-C, Hung F-Y (2004a) A landslide
dam breach induced debris flow—a case study on down-
stream hazard areas delineation. Environ Geol:20, DOI
10.1007/s00254-004-1137-6
Chen KS, Wei C, Chang SC (2004b) Locating landslide
using multi-temporal satellite images. Adv Space Res
33:296–301
Chi KH, Park NW, Lee K (2002a) Identification of landslide area
using remote sensing data and quantitative assessment of
landslide hazard. In: IGARSS2002: IEEE International
Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium and 24th
Canadian Symposium on Remote Sensing: integrating our
view of the planet, New York, USA, pp 2856–2858
Chi KH, Park NW, Chung CF (2002b) Fuzzy logic integration for
landslide hazard mapping using spatial data from Boeun,
Korea. In: Symposium of geospatial theory, processing and
applications, Ottawa, 6 pp
Chleborad AF (2000) Preliminary method for anticipating the
occurrence of precipitation-induced landslides in Seattle,
Washington. US Geological Survey Open File Report 00-
469, Department of Interior, USA, p 29
Chowdhury RN (1984) Recent developments in landslide stud-
ies: probabilistic methods-state-of-art-report. In: Proceed-
ings of the IVth ISL, Toronto, vol 1, pp 209–228
123
J. Chacón et al.
Chowdhury RN (1996) Aspects of risk assessment for landslides.
In: Kaare Senneset (ed) Proceedings of the VIth I.S.L.,
Trondheim, Norway, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, vol 1, pp
183–189
Chowdhury R, Flentje P (1996) Geological and lands instability
mapping using G.I.S. package as a building block for the
development of a risk assessment procedure, vol 1, pp 177–
182. In: Kaare Senneset (ed) Proceedings of the VIth I.S.L.,
Trondheim, Norway, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, vol 1, pp
263–269
Chowdhury R, Flentje P (1998) Effective urban landslide hazard
assessment. In: Moore D, Hungr O (eds) Proceedings of the
8th IAEG Congress, Vancouver. A.A. Balkema, Rotter-
dam, pp 871–877
Chowdhury R, Flentje P (2003) Role of slope reliability analysis
in landslide risk management. Bull Eng Geol Environ
62:41–46
Chung CF, Fabbri AG (1993) Representation of geoscience data
for information integration. J Non-Renewable Resour
2(2):122–139
Chung CF, Fabbri AG (1998) Three Bayesian prediction models
for landslide hazard. In: Buscianti (ed) Proceedings of the
International Association of Mathematical Geology, Ischia,
Italy, pp 204–211
Chung CF, Fabbri AG (1999) Probabilistic prediction models for
landslide hazard mapping. Photogrammetric Eng Remote
Sen 65(12):1388–1399
Chung CF, Fabbri AG (2001) Prediction models for landslide
hazard using fuzzi set approach. In: Marchetti M, Rivas V
(eds) Geomorphology and environmental impact assess-
ment. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 31–47
Chung CF, Fabbri AG (2003) Validation of spatial prediction
models for landslide hazard mapping. In: Chacon J,
Corominas J (eds) Special issue on Landslides and GIS.
Nat Hazards 30(3):451–472
Chung CF, Fabbri AG, van Westen CJ (1995) Multivariate
regression analysis for landslide hazard zonation. In: Carr-
ara A, Guzzetti F (eds) Geographical information systems in
assessing natural hazards. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 135–175
Clerici A, Perego S, Tellini C, Vescovi P (2002) A procedure for
landslide susceptibility zonation by the conditional analysis
method. Geomorphology 48:349–364
Codebo L, Enea CR, Del Monaco G, Margottini C (2000)
Landslide susceptibility in the Cardoso Slope (Versilla-
Italy). Consequences of the flash flood of 19th June 1996. In:
Landslides in research, theory and practice. Thomas Tel-
ford, London, pp 293–298
Coe JA, Michael JA, Crovelli RA, Zavage WA (2000)
Preliminary map showing landslides densities, mean recur-
rence intervals, and exceedance probabilities as determined
from historic records, Seattle, Washington. USGS Open-
File report 00-303 on line edition, 12 pp, 2 tables, 10 figures
and 1 map. US Department of Interior, USA
Coe JA, Godt JW, Baum RL, Bucknam RC, Michael A (2004)
Landslide susceptibility from topography in Guatemala. In:
Lacerda WA, Ehrlich M, Fontoura SAB, Sayao ASF (eds)
Landslides: evaluation and stabilization. Balkema, Taylor &
Francis Group, London, pp 69–78
Colesanti C, Ferretti A, Prati C, Rocca F (2003) Monitoring
landslides and tectonic motions with the permanent scatter-
ers technique. Eng Geol 68(1–2):3–14
Collins TK (1987) Discussion to DeGraff JV (1985) Using
isopleth maps on landslide deposits as a tool in timber sale
planning. Bull Assoc Eng Geol 24(1):117–120
Collotta T, Saggio G (2004) Landslides hazard curves method:
practical suggestions. In: Lacerda WA, Ehrlich M, Fontoura
Engineering geology maps: landslides and GIS
SAB, Sayao ASF (eds) Landslides: evaluation and stabil-
ization. Balkema, Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp 185–
190
Connell LD, Jayatilaka CJ, Nathan R (2001) Modelling flow and
transport irrigation catchments, spatial application of sub-
catchment model. Water Resour Res 37(4):965–977
Cook JR, McGown A, Hurley G, Choy LE (1998) The role of
engineering geology in the hazard zonation of a Malaysian
highway. In: Maund JG, Eddleston M (eds) Geohazards in
engineering geology. Geological Society, London, Engi-
neering Geology Special Publication 15, pp 221–229
Corominas J, Santacana N (2003) Stability analysis of
the Vallcebre translational slide, Eastern Pyrenees
(Spain) by means of a GIS. In: Chacon J, Corominas J
(eds) Special issue on Landslides and GIS. Nat Hazards
30(3):473–485
Corominas J, Copons R, Vilaplana JM, Altimir J, Amigó J
(2003) Integrated landslide susceptibility analysis and haz-
ard assessment in the principality of Andorra. In: Chacon J,
Corominas J (eds) Special issue on Landslides and GIS. Nat
Hazards 30(3):421–435
Corominas J, Moya J, Masachs I, Baeza C, Hurlimann M (2004)
Reconstructing recent activity of Pyrenean landslides by
means of dendrogeomorphological techniques. In: Lacerda
WA, Ehrlich M, Fontoura SAB, Sayao ASF (eds) Land-
slides: evaluation and stabilization. Balkema, Taylor &
Francis Group, London, pp 363–371
Cotecchia V (1978) Systematic reconnaissance, mapping and
registration of slope movements. Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol
17:5–37
Cross M (1998) Landslide susceptibility mapping using the
matrix assessment approach: a Derbyshire case study. In
Maund JG, Eddlestonb M (eds) Geohazards in engineering
geology. The Geological Society, London, Engineering
Geology Special Publications 15, pp 247–261
Cross M (2002) Landslide susceptibility maps using the matrix
assessment approach: a Derbyshire case study. In Griffiths
JS (ed) Mapping in Engineering Geology. The Geological
Society London, Key Issues in Earth Sciences 1:267–282
Crovelli RA (2000) Probability models for estimation of number
and costs of landslides. USGS Open-File Report 00-249, US
Department of Interior, USGS, 18 pp
Crozier MJ (1986) Landslides: causes, consequences and envi-
ronment. Surry Hills, Croom Helm Pub, London, p 192
Cruden DM (1991) A simple definition of a landslide. Bull Int
Assoc Eng Geol 43:27–29
Cruden DM, Varnes DJ (1996) Landslide types and processes.
In: Turner AK, Schuster RL (eds) Landslides—investigation
and mitigation. Special Report 247. Transportation Re-
search Board, Washington, pp 36–75
Culshaw M (2004) The first engineering geological publication in
the UK? Quart J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 37:227–231
Czirók A, Somfai KE, Vicsek T (1997) Fractal scaling and
power-law landslide distribution in a micromodel of geo-
morphological evolution. Geol Rundsch 86:525–530
Dai FC, Lee CF (2001) Frequency–volume relation and predic-
tion of rainfall-induced landslides. Eng Geol 59(3/4):253–
266
Dai FC, Lee CF (2002a) Landslide characteristics and slope
instability modelling using GIS, Lantau Island, Hong Kong.
Geomorphology 42(3–4):213–228
Dai FC, Lee CF (2002b) Landslide on natural terrain—physical
characteristics and susceptibility mapping in Hong Kong. Mt
Res Dev 22(1):40–47
Dai FC, Lee CF (2003) A spatiotemporal probabilistic modelling
of storm-induced shallow landsliding using aerial photo-
397
graphs and logistic regression. Earth Surf Processes Land-
forms 28:527–545
Dai FC, Lee CF, Li J, Xu ZW (2000) Assessment of landslide
susceptibility on the natural terrain of Lantau Island, Hong
Kong. Environ Geol 40(3):381–391
Dai FC, Lee CF, Ngai YY (2002) Landslide risk assessment and
management: an overview. Eng Geol 64(1):65–87
Dai FC, Lee CF, Wang SJ (2003) Characterisation of rainfall-
induced landslides. Int J Remote Sens 24(23):4817–4834
Davies WE (1974a) Landslide susceptibility map of part of the
Bridgeville 7-1/2 minute quadrangle, Allegheny County and
vicinity, Pennsylvania. US Geological Survey Open-File
Report 74-274, scale 1:24,000, 8 pp
Davies WE (1974b) Landslide susceptibility map of part of the
Canonsburg 7-1/2 minute quadrangle, Allegheny County
and vicinity, Pennsylvania. US Geological Survey Open-File
Report 74-276, scale 1:24,000, 8 pp
Davies WE (1974c) Landslide susceptibility map of part of the
Donora 7-1/2 minute quadrangle, Allegheny County and
vicinity, Pennsylvania. US Geological Survey Open-File
Report 74-277, scale 1:24,000, 8 pp
Davies WE (1974d) Landslide susceptibility map of part of the
Freeport 7-1/2 minute quadrangle, Allegheny County and
vicinity, Pennsylvania. US Geological Survey Open-File
Report 74-278, scale 1:24,000, 8 pp
Davies WE (1974e) Landslide susceptibility map of the McKees-
port 7-1/2 minute quadrangle, Allegheny County and
vicinity, Pennsylvania. US Geological Survey Open-File
Report 74-280, scale 1:24,000, 8 pp
Davies WE (1974f) Landslide susceptibility map of the Mono-
ngahela 7-1/2 minute quadrangle, Allegheny County and
vicinity, Pennsylvania. US Geological Survey Open-File
Report 74-281, scale 1:24,000, 8 pp
Davies WE (1974g) Landslide susceptibility map of part of the
New Kensington East 7-1/2 minute quadrangle, Allegheny
County and vicinity, Pennsylvania. US Geological Survey
Open-File Report 74-283, scale 1:24,000, 8 pp
Davies WE (1974h) Landslide susceptibility map of part of the
New Kensington West 7-1/2 minute quadrangle, Allegheny
County and vicinity. US Geological Survey Open-File
Report 74-284, scale 1:24,0000, 8 pp
Davies WE (1974i) Landslide susceptibility map of the Braddock
7-1/2 minute quadrangle, Allegheny County and vicinity,
Pennsylvania. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 74-
273, scale 1:24,000, 8 pp
Davies WE (1974j) Landslide susceptibility map of part of the
Curtisville 7-1/2 minute quadrangle, Allegheny County and
vicinity, Pennsylvania. US Geological Survey Open-File
Report 74-276, scale 1:24,000, 8 pp
Davis TJ, Keller CP (1997a) Modelling and visualizing multiple
spatial uncertainties. Comput Geosci 23(4):397–408
Davis TJ, Keller CP (1997b) Modelling uncertainty in natural
resource analysis using fuzzy sets and Monte Carlo simula-
tion: slope stability prediction. Int J Geograph Inf Sys
11(5):409–434
Davis AM, Mason PJ, Mc Moore JM (2000) Three dimensional
visualisation of landslides in SE Spain using a digital
elevation model (DEM) and orthophotography. In: Land-
slides in research, theory and practice. Thomas Telford,
London, pp 403–408
Day FC, Lee CF (2001) Terrain-based mapping of landslide
susceptibility using a geographical information system: a
case study. Can Geotech J 38(5):911–923
De Araújo PC, Riedel PS, Santoro J, Vedovello R, Tominaga
LK, Brollo MJ, Tavares R (2004) Analysis of susceptibility
to gravitational mass flows based on conditional probability.
123
398
In: Lacerda WA, Ehrlich M, Fontoura SAB, Sayao ASF
(eds) Landslides: evaluation and stabilization. Balkema,
Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp 251–256
Dearman WR (1991) Engineering geological mapping. Butter-
worth-Heinemann, Oxford
DeGraff JV (1985) Using isopleth maps of landslide deposits as a
tool in timber sale planning. Bull Assoc Eng Geol XXII
4:445–453
DeGraff JV (1987) Reply to Collins TK (1987) Discussion Bull
Assoc Eng Geol 24(1):121–124
DeGraff JV, Canuti P (1988) Using isopleth mapping to evaluate
landslide activity in relation to agricultural practice. Bull Int
Assoc Eng Geol 38:61–71
DeGraff JV, Romesburg HC (1980) Regional landslide—
susceptibility assessment for wildland management: a matrix
approach. In: Coates DR, Vitek JD (eds) Chap. 19, pp 401–
414
DeGraff J, Brabb EE, King AP (1991) Landslide hazard
assessment. In: Primer on natural hazards management in
integrated regional development planning. Department of
Regional Development and Environment. General Secre-
tariat, OAS, Washington, DC, Chap. 10, 32 pp
De la Ville N, Chumaceiro Diaz A, Ramirez D (2002) Remote
sensing and GIS technologies as tools to support sustainable
management of areas devastated by landslides. Environ Dev
Sustain 4:221–229
Del Gaudio V, Wasowski J (2004) Time probabilistic evaluation
of seismically induced landslide hazard in Irpinia (Southern
Italy). Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 24:915–928
Delmonaco G, Margottini C, Marhni G, Paolini S, Puglisi C,
Falconi V, Spizzichino D (2004) Slope dynamics acting on
Villa del Casale (Piazza Armerina, Sicily). In: Lacerda WA,
Ehrlich M, Fontoura SAB, Sayao ASF (eds) Landslides:
evaluation and stabilization. Balkema, Taylor & Francis
Group, London, pp 357–362
Dempster A (1968) A generalization of Bayesian inference. J
Roy Stat Soc, Ser B 30:205–247
Den J (1982) Control problems of grey systems. System and
Control Letters 1(4):228–294
Dhakal AS, Amada T, Aniya M (1999) Landslide hazard
mapping and the application of GIS in the Kulekhani
watershed, Nepal. Mt Res Dev 19(1):3–16
Dhakal AS, Amada T, Aniya M (2000a) Landslide hazard
mapping and its evaluation using GIS: an investigation of
sampling schemes for a grid-cell based quantitative method.
Photogrammetric Eng Remote Sens 66(8):981–989
Dhakal AS, Amada T, Aniya M (2000b) Databases and
geographic information systems for medium scale landslide
hazard evaluation: an example from typical mountain
watershed in Nepal. In: Landslide in research, theory and
practice. Thomas Telford, London, pp 457–462
Dias EC, Zuquette LV (2004) Methodology adopted for prob-
abilistic assessment of landslides in Ouro Preto, Brazil. In:
Lacerda WA, Ehrlich M, Fontoura SAB, Sayao ASF (eds)
Landslides: evaluation and stabilization. Balkema, Taylor &
Francis Group, London, pp 287–292
Dietrich WE,Montgomery DR (1998) A digital terrain model for
mapping shallow landslide potential. Technical report
NCASI. Downloads from http://socrates. berkeley.edu/
~geomorph/shalstab/
Dikau R, Brunsden D, Schrott L, Ibsen ML (1996a) Landslide
recognition, identification, movement and causes. Wiley,
Chichester
Dikau R, Cavallin A, Jager S (1996b) Databases and GIS for
landslide research in Europe. Geomorphology 15(3–4):227–
239
123
J. Chacón et al.
Dobrev ND, Boykova AD (1998) Landslide hazard assessment
in tectonic active grabens. In: Moore D, Hungr O (eds)
Proceedings of the 8th IAEG Congress, Vancouver. A.A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 2107–2112
Dobrovolny E (1971) Landslide susceptibility in and near
anchorage as interpreted from topographic and geologic
maps, in The great Alaska earthquake of 1964–Geology
volume. Publication 1603. U.S. Geological Survey Open-
File Report 86-329, National Research Council, Committee
on the Alaska Earthquake, National Academy of Sciences,
USA, pp 735–745
Donati L, Turrini MC (2002) An objective method to rank the
importance of the factors predisposing to landslides with the
GIS methodology: application to an area of the Appenines
(Valnerina; Perugia, Italy). Eng Geol 63:277–289
Drennon CB, Schleining WG (1975) Landslide hazard mapping
in a shoestring. J Surv Mapping Div—ASCE 101(1):107–114
Dymon JR, Jessen MR, Lovell LR (1999) Computer simulation
of shallow landsliding in New Zealand hill country. IAG
1(2):122–131
Einstein HH (1988) Special lecture: landslide risk assessment
procedure. In: Proceedings of the Vth ISL Lausanne, vol 2,
pp 1075–1090
El Hamdouni R (2001) Estudio de movimientos de ladera en la
cuenca del rı́o Ízbor mediante un SIG: contribución al
conocimiento de la relación entre tectónic activa e inesta-
bilidad de vertientes. 429 pp and 10 maps 1:25.000, Unpub-
lished PhD thesis. Department of Civil Engineering.
University of Granada, Spain
El Hamdouni R, Irigaray C, Chacón T, y Fernández T (1996a)
Los movimientos de ladera de la cuenca del rı́o Albuñuelas
(Granada, España). In: Chacón J, Irigaray C (eds) VI
Congreso Nacional y Conferencia Internacional de Geolog-
ı́a Ambiental y Ordenación del Territorio, Granada. Spain,
vol I, pp 443–453
El Hamdouni R, Irigaray C, Chacón J, Fernández T (1996b)
Landslides inventory and determining factors in the Albu-
ñuelas river basin (Granada, Spain). In: Chacón J, Irigaray
C, Fernández T (eds) Landslides. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp
21–30
El Hamdouni R, Irigaray C, Pérez J, Fernández T, Chacón J
(1997a) Exposición a riesgos derivados de los movimientos
de ladera en el entorno de Albuñuelas (Granada): inciden-
cia de las lluvias de Noviembre a Enero de 1996/97. In:
Alonso E, Corominas J, Chacón J, Oteo C, y Pérez J (eds)
IV Simposio Nacional sobre taludes y laderas inestables,
Granada. Spain, vol I, pp 15–26
El Hamdouni R, Irigaray C, Pérez J, Fernández T, Sanz de
Galdeano C, Chacón J (1997b) Inventario de movimientos
de ladera en el entorno del embalse de Béznar (Granada. In:
Alonso E, Corominas J, Chacón J, Oteo C, y Pérez J (eds)
IV Simposio Nacional sobre taludes y laderas inestables,
Granada. Spain, vol II, pp 731–740
El Hamdouni R, Irigaray C, Chacón J, Sanz de Galdeano C,
Fernández T (2001) Movimientos de ladera y tectónica
activa en la cuenca del rı́o Izbor (Granada). V Simposio
nacional sobre taludes y laderas inestables, Madrid, Spain,
vol III, pp 1231–1240
El Hamdouni R, Irigaray C, Fernández T, Sanz de Galdeano C,
Chacón J (2003) Susceptibilidad a los movimientos de
ladera en el borde S.O. de Sierra Nevada (España):
Implicación de la tectónica activa como factor determinante.
In: Ayala-Carcedo FJ, Corominas J (eds) Mapas de suscep-
tibilidad a los movimientos de ladera con técnicas SIG, pp
21–36. Instituto Geológico y Minero de España, Madrid,
Spain, pp 155–168. serie Medio Ambiente, No. 4
Engineering geology maps: landslides and GIS
El Hamdouni, Irigaray C, Fernández T, Sanz de Galdeano C,
Chacón J (2000) Slope movements and active tectonics in
the Izbor River basin (Granada, Spain). In: Bromhead E,
Dixon N, Ibson ML (eds) Landslides in research, theory and
practice, vol I, Thomas Telford, London, pp. 501–506
Ercanoglu M, Gokceoglu C (2004) Use of fuzzi relations to
produce landslide susceptibility map of a landslide prone
area (West Black Sea Region, Turkey). Eng Geol 75:229–
250
Ercanoglu M, Gokceoglu C, Van Asch THWJ (2004) Landslide
susceptibility Zoning North of Yenice (NW Turkey) by
multivariate statistical techniques. Nat Hazards 32:1–23
Erley D, Köckelman WJ (1981) Reducing landslide hazards: a
guide for planners. Planning Advisory Report 359. Amer-
ican Planning Association, Chicago, USA, 29 pp
Ermini L, Catani F, Casagli N (2005) Artificial neural networks
applied to landslide susceptibility assessment. Geomorphol-
ogy 66:327–343
Esaki T, Xie MW, Zhou GY, Mitani Y (2001) Monte Carlo
method for locating and evaluating 3D critical slope slip
based on GIS Database. In: Sijing W, Bingjunm F, Zhongkui
L (eds) Frontiers on rock mechanics and sustainable devel-
opment in 21st century. AA Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 17–21
Evans NC, King JP (1998) The natural terrain landslide study:
debris avalanche susceptibility. Technical Note TN 1/98.
Planning Division, Geotechnical Engineering Office, Civil
Engineering Department, Hong Kong, 96 pp
Evans NC, Huang SW, King JP (1997) The natural terrain
landslide study phases I and II. Special Project Report, SPR
5/97. Planning Division, Geotechnical Engineering Office,
Civil Engineering Department, Hong Kong, 119 pp
Evans NC, King JP, Woods NW (1998) Natural terrain landslide
hazards in Hong Kong. In: Moore D, Hungr O (eds)
Proceedings of the 8th IAEG Congress, Vancouver, Can-
ada. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 1003–1010
Evans SG, Hungr O, Clague JJ (2001) Dynamics of the 1984 rock
avalanche and associated distal debris flow on Mount
Cayley, British Columbia, Canada; implications for land-
slide hazard assessment on dissected volcanoes. Eng Geol
61(1):29–51
Eyers R, Moore J, Hervás J, Liu JG (1998) Integrated use of
Landsat TM and SPOT panchromatic imagery for landslide
mapping: case histories from southeast Spain. In: Maund JG,
Eddleston M (eds) Geohazards in engineering geology.
Engineering Geology Special Publication 15. Geological
Society, London, pp 133–140
Fabbri AG, Chung CJ (1996) Predictive spatial data analysis in
the geosciences. In: Unwinn D, Fisher M, Scholten HJ (eds)
Spatial analytical perspectives on GIS. Taylor & Francis
Group, London, 271 pp
Fabbri AG, Chung CJ (2003) Is prediction of future landslides
possible with a GIS? In: Chacon J, Corominas J (eds)
Special issue on Landslides and GIS. Nat Hazards
30(3):487–499
Fall M, Azzam R (1998) Application de la géologie de
l’ingenieur et de SIG à l’étude de la stabilité des versants
côtier, Dakar, Senegal. In: Moore D, Hungr O (eds)
Proceedings of the 8th IAEG Congress, Vancouver. A.A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 1011–1018
Family F, Vicsek T (eds) (1991) Dynamic of fractal surfaces.
World Scientific, Singapore
Favre JL, Resig S, Leroi E (2000) Conditional landslide hazard
mapping. In: Melchers RE, Stewart MG (eds) Applications
of statistics and probability—civil engineering and risk
analysis. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 255–262
399
Fell R (1992) Some landslide risk zoning schemes in use in
Eastern Australua and their application. In: Proceedings of
the VIth Australian–New Zealand conference on geome-
chanics society, Christchurch, NZ, pp 505–512
Fell R (1994) Landslide risk assessment and acceptable risk. Can
Geotech J 31:261–272
Fell R, Hartford D (1997) Landslide risk assessment. In: Cruden
D, Fell R (eds) Landslide risk assessment. Proceedings of
the international workshop on landslide risk assessment,
Honolulú. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 51–110
Fell R (2000) Landslide risk management concepts and guide-
lines—Australian Geomechanics Society Sub-Committee on
Landslide Risk Management In: Landslides, International
Union of Geological Sciences, pp. 51–93
Fernández T (2001) Cartografı́a, análisis y modelado de la
susceptibilidad a los movimientos de ladera en macizos
rocosos mediante SIG: aplicación a diversos sectores del Sur
de la provincia de Granada. 648 pp, 9 maps. Unpublished
PhD Thesis. University of Granada, Spain
Fernández T, Irigaray C, Chacón J (1994) Large scale analysis
and mapping of determinant factors of landsliding affecting
rock massifs in the eastern Costa del Sol (Granada, Spain) in
a GIS. In: Oliveira, Rodriguez, Coelho, Cunha (eds) 7th
International IAEG Congress, Lisboa, Portugal, vol VI.
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 4649–4658
Fernández T, Irigaray C, y Chacón J (1996a) Inventory and
analysis of landslides determinant factors in Los Guajares
Mountains, Granada (Southern Spain). In: Senneset (ed)
Landslides, ISL’96, Trondheim, Norway, vol 3. Balkema,
Rótterdam, pp 1891–1896
Fernández T, Irigaray C, y Chacón J (1996b) G.I.S. Analysis and
mapping of landslides determinant factors in the Contra-
viesa area (Granada, Southern Spain). In: Chacón J, Irigaray
C, Fernández T (eds) Landslides. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp
141–151
Fernández T, Irigaray C, y Chacón J (1996c) Inventario de
movimientos de ladera en la vertiente Norte de la Contra-
viesa (Granada) mediante un S.I.G. In: Chacón J, y Rosúa
JL (eds) 1a Conferencia internacional: Sierra Nevada
Conservación y Desarrollo Sostenible, Granada, Spain, vol
I, pp 297–317
Fernández T, Irigaray C, y Chacón J (1996d) Inventario de
movimientos de ladera en el borde Noreste de la Sierra de
los Guájares (Granada) mediante un S.I.G. In: Chacón J,
Irigaray C (eds) VI Congreso Nacional y Conferencia
Internacional de Geologı́a Ambiental y Ordenación del
Territorio, Granada, Spain, vol I, pp 419–441
Fernández T, Irigaray C, El Hamdouni R, Chacón J (1997a)
Validación de un método de cartografı́a de movimientos de
ladera y susceptibilidad mediante un S.I.G. en un sector de
las cuencas de los rı́os Guadalfeo e Izbor (Granada). In:
Alonso E, Corominas J, Chacón J, Oteo C, y Pérez J (eds)
IV Simposio Nacional sobre taludes y laderas inestables,
Granada, Spain, vol I, pp 51–63
Fernández T, Irigaray C, y Chacón J (1997b) Aplicación de un
Sistema de Información Geográfica a la cartografı́a, análisis
y modelización de movimientos de ladera, Madrid. Spain.
Mapping no. 35, pp 44–49
Fernández T, Brabb E, Delgado F, Martin-Algarra A, Irigaray C,
Estévez A, Chacón Montero J (1997c) Rasgos geológicos y
movimientos de ladera en el sector Izbor-Velez Benaudalla
de la cuenca del rı́o Guadalfeo (Granada). In: Alonso E,
Corominas J, Chacón J, Oteo, C, y Pérez J (eds) IV
Simposio Nacional sobre taludes y laderas inestables,
Granada, Spain, vol II, pp 795–808
123
400
Fernández T, Irigaray C, El Hamdouni R, Martı́nez, C, Quesada
D, Chacón J (1998) Previsión de los movimientos de ladera
asociados a las lluvias del invierno 1996–97 en el sector de
Izbor-Vélez de Benaudalla (Granada) en relación con la
susceptibilidad del terreno. I Congreso Andaluz de Carre-
teras 10–13, Granada, Spain, vol II, pp 1823–1828
Fernández T, Irigaray C, El Hamdouni R, Chacón J (2000)
Metodologı́a para la elaboración de cartografı́a de suscep-
tibilidad a los movimientos de ladera mediante SIG’’. VI
Congreso Nacional de Topografı́a y Cartografı́a TOPCART
2000, Madrid, Spain, pp 610–620
Fernández T, Irigaray C, El Hamdouni R, Chacón J (2003)
Methodology for landslide susceptibility mapping by means
of a GIS: application to the Contraviesa Area (Granada,
Spain). In: Chacón J, Corominas J (eds) Special issue on
Landslides and GIS. Nat Hazards 30(3):297–308
Fernández T, Irigaray C, El Hamdouni R, y Chacón J (2004a)
Diseño gráfico de un mapa de susceptibilidad a los movim-
ientos de ladera. Actas TopCart 2004: VIII Congreso
Nacional de Topografı́a y Cartografı́a. Madrid Edición
CD, 12 pp
Fernández T, Irigaray C, El Hamdouni R, y Chacón J (2004b)
Las pendientes naturales de los macizos rocosos del Sur de
la provincia de Granada. Actas XI Congreso deMétodos
Cuantitativos, Sistemas de Información Geográfica y Tele-
detección. Murcia, Spain
Fernández-Steeger TM, Rohn J, Czurda K (2002) Identification
of landslide areas with neural nets for hazard analysis. In:
Rybár, Stemberk, Wagner (eds) Proceedings of the 1st
European conference on landslides, Prague. Balkema,
Rotterdam, pp 163–168
Ferrier N, Emdad Haque C (2003) Hazards risk management
methodology for emergency managers: a standardized
framework for application. Nat Hazards 28:271–290
Flageollet JC (1994) The time dimension in the mapping of earth
movements. In: Casale R, Fantechi R, Flageollet JC (eds)
Temporal occurrence and forecasting of landslides in the
European community. Final Report, EUR 15805 EN,
Programme EPOCH Contract 90 0025, Brussels, Belgium,
vol 1, pp 7–70
Fookes PG (1997) Geology for engineers: the geological model,
prediction and performance. Quart J Eng Geol 30:293–424
Forlati F, Ramasco M, Susella GF (2004) Landslide hazard
management in a densely populated Alpine region. In:
Lacerda WA, Ehrlich M, Fontoura SAB, Sayao ASF (eds)
Landslides: evaluation and stabilization. Balkema, Taylor &
Francis Group, London, pp 215–220
Foxx M (1984) Slope failures in the Felton quadrangle, 1981–
1983 and analysis of factors that control slope failure
susceptibility of the Monterey Formation. Santa Cruz,
University of California, Masters thesis
Franciss FO (2004) Landslide hazard assessment on hilly terrain.
In: Lacerda WA, Ehrlich M, Fontoura SAB, Sayao ASF
(eds) Landslides: evaluation and stabilization. Balkema,
Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp 143–150
Franks CAM, Koor NP, Campbell SDG (1998) An integrated
approach to the assessment of slope stability in urban areas
in Hong Kong using thematic maps. In: Moore D, Hungr O
(eds) Proceedings of the 8th IAEG Congress, Vancouver.
A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 1103–1111
Fransen PJB, Phillips CJ, Fahey BD (2001) Forest road erosion
in New Zealand: overview. Earth Surf Processes Landforms
26(2):165–174
Frattini P, Crosta GB, Fusi N, Dal Negro P (2004) Shallow
landslides in pyroclastic soils: a distributed modelling
approach for hazard assessment. Eng Geol 73(3–4):277–295
123
J. Chacón et al.
Garcia RAC, Zêzere JL (2004) Abadia Basin (Torres Vedras,
Portugal) a case study of landslide susceptibility assessment
and validation. In: Lacerda WA, Ehrlich M, Fontoura SAB,
Sayao ASF (eds) Landslides: evaluation and stabilization.
Balkema, Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp 137–146
Garcı́a AF, Zhu Z, Ku TL, Sanz de Galdeano C, Chadwick OA,
Chacón J (2003) Tectonically driven landscape development
within the eastern Alpujarran Corridor, Betic Cordillera, SE
Spain (Almerı́a). Geomorphology 50:83–110
Garcı́a AF, Zhu Z, Ku TL, Chadwick OA, Chacón (2004) An
incision wave in the geologic record, Alpujarran Corridor,
southern Spain (Almerı́a). Geomorphology 60(2004):37–72
Garland GG, Olivier MJ (1993) Predicting landslides from rainfall
in a humid, subtropical region. Geomorphology 8:165–173
Giafferi JL (1998) L’aléa movement de terrain dans les études de
dangers des barrages. In: Moore D, Hungr O (eds)
Proceedings of the 8th IAEG Congress, Vancouver, A.A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 1079–1087
Giardino M, Giordan D, Ambroglio S (2004) GIS technologies
for data collection, management and visualization of large
slope instabilities: two application in the Western Alps. Nat
Hazards Earth Syst Sci 4(2):197–211
Giasi CI, Masi P, Cherubini C (2003) Probabilistic and fuzzy
reliability analysis of a sampleslope near Aliano. Eng Geol,
67: 391–402
Glade T (2001) Landslide hazard assessment and historical
landslide data—an inseparable couple? In: Glade T, Albini
P, Frances F (eds) Use of historic data in natural hazard
assessments: advances in natural and technological hazards
research 17:153–168
Glade T (2002) Ranging scales in spatial landslide hazard and
risk analysis. In: Brebbia CA (ed) Risk analysis III,
management information systems, vol 5. WIT Press, As-
hurst, pp 719–728
Glade T, Crozier M, Smith P (2000) Applying probability
determination to refine landslide-triggering rainfall thresh-
olds using an empirical ‘‘antecedent daily rainfall model’’.
Pure Appl Geophys 157:1059–1079
Gokceoglu C, Aksoy H (1996) Landslide susceptibility mapping
of the slopes in the residual soils of the Mengen region
(Turkey) by deterministic stability analyses and image
processing techniques. Eng Geol 44(1–4):147–161
Goltz C (1996) Multifractal and entropic properties of landslides
in Japan. Geol Rundschau (Hist Arch IJ Earth Sci)
85(1):71–84
Gómez H, Kavzoglu T (2005) Assessment of shallow landslide
susceptibility using artificial neural networks in Jabonosa
River Basin, Venezuela. Eng Geol 78:11–27
Gómez H, Bradshaw RP, Mather PM (2000) Monitoring the
distribution of shallow landslide-prone areas using remote
sensing, DTM and GIS: a case study from the tropical
Andes of Venezuela. In: Casonova JL (ed) Remote sensing
in the 21st century: economic and environmental applica-
tions, Valladolid, Spain. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam
Gomez B, Page M, Bak P, Trustum N (2002) Self-organized
criticality in layered, lacustrine sediments formed by land-
sliding. Geol Soc Am Bull 30(6):519–522
Gorsevski PV, Gessler PE, Jankowski P (2003) Integrating a
fuzzi k-means classification and a Bayesian approach for
spatial prediction of landslide hazard. J Geograph Syst
5:223–251
Gostelow TP, Gibson JR (1995) CORINE land cover data: its
application to regional landslide susceptibility mapping in
Basilicata, Italy, using GIS. In: Proceedings of the confer-
ence on vegetation and slopes: stabilisation, protection and
ecology, Oxford, pp 222–237
Engineering geology maps: landslides and GIS
Griffith JS (compiler) (2001) Land surface evaluation for
engineering practice. Engineering Geology Special Publica-
tion 18. The Geological Society, London
Griffith JS (compiler) (2002) Mapping in engineering geology.
Key issues in earth sciences, vol 1. The Geological Society,
London, 287 pp
Griffiths JS, Matherm AE, Hart AB (2002) Landslide suscepti-
bility in the Rios Aguas catchment, SE Spain. Quart J Eng
Geol Hydrogeol 35(1):9–17
Gritzner ML, Marcus WA, Aspinall R, Custer SG (2001)
Assessing landslide potential using GIS, soil wetness mod-
eling and topographic attributes, Payette River, Idaho.
Geomorphology 37(1–2):149–165
Guidicini G, Iwasa OY (1977) Tentative correlation between
rainfall and landslide in a humid, tropical environment. Bull
Int Assoc Eng Geol 16:13–18
Günther A, Carstensen A, Pohl W (2002) GIS application in
slope stability assessment. In: Rybár, Stemberk, Wagner
(eds) Proceedings of the 1st European conference on
landslides, Prague. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 175–187
Günther A, Carstensen A, Pohl W (2004) Automated sliding
susceptibility mapping of rock slopes. Nat Hazard Earth
Syst Sci 4:95–102
Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1954) Seismicity of the Earth and
associated phenomenon.Princenton University Press, USA
Guzzetti F (2000) Landslide fatalities and the evaluation of
landslide risk in Italy. Eng Geol 58:89–107
Guzzetti F, Tonelli G (2004) Information system on hydrological
and geomorphological catastrophes in Italy (SICI): a tool
for managing landslide and flood hazards. Nat Hazards
Earth Syst Sci 4(2):213–232
Guzzetti F, Carrara 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
Guzzetti F, Cardinali M, Reinchenbach P, Carrara A (2000)
Comparing landslide maps: a case study in the Upper River
Basin, Central Italy. Environ Manage 25(3):247–263
Guzzetti F, Malamud BD, Turcotte DL, Reichenbach P (2002)
Power-law correlations of landslide areas in central Italy.
Earth Planet Sci Lett 195:169–183
Guzzetti F, Reichenbach P, Cardinali M, Ardizzone F, Galli M
(2003a) The impact of landslides in the Umbria region,
central Italy. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 3:469–486
Guzzetti F, Reichenbach P, Wieczorek GF (2003b) Rockfall
hazard and risk assessment in the Yosemite Valley, Cali-
fornia, USA. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 3:491–503
Guzzetti F, Reichenbach P, Ghigi S (2004) Rockfall hazard and
risk assessment along a transportation corridor in the Nera
Valley, Central Italy. Environ Manage 34(2):191–208
Haigh MJ, Rawat JS, Bartarya SK (1988) Entropy minimizing
landslide systems. Curr Sci 57(18):1000–1002
Hansen A (1984) Landslide hazard analysis. In: Brunsden D,
Prior DB (eds) Slope instability. Wiley, Chichester, pp 523–
602
Harp EL, Reid ME, Michael JA (2004) Hazard analysis of
landslides triggered by Typhoon Chata’an on July 2, 2002, in
Chuuk State, Federated States of Micronesia. US Geolog-
ical Survey Open-File Report 2004-1348. US Department of
Interior, Science for a Changing World, USGS, 22 pp
Hartlen J, Viberg L (1988) General report: evaluation of
landslide hazard. In: Proceedings of the Vth ISL, Lausanne,
vol 2, pp 1037–1057
Hayne MC, Gordon D (2001) Regional landslide hazard
estimation, a GIS/decision tree analysis: Southeast Queens-
land, Australia. In: Ho KKS, Li KS (eds) Geotechnical
401
engineering meeting society’s needs, proceedings, Hong
Kong, China, pp 115–121
He YP, Xie H, Cui P, Wei FQ, Zhong DL, Gardner JS (2003)
GIS-based mapping and zonation of debris flows in Xiaoji-
ang Basin, southwestern China. Environ Geol 45:286–293
Heckerman D (1986) Probabilistic interpretation of MYCIN’s
certainty factor. In: Kanal LN, Lemmer JF (eds) Uncertainty
in artificial intelligence. Elsevier, New York, pp 298–311
Hergarten S (2003) Landslides, sandpiles, and self-organized
criticality. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 3:505–514
Hervás J, Rosin PL (1996) Landslide mapping by textural
analysis of ATM data. In: Proceedings of the 11th thematic
conference on applied geologic remote sensing, Las Vegas,
Nevada, Michigan, USA, vol 2, pp 394–402
Hervás J, Rosin PL, Fernández-Renau A, Gómez JA, León C
(1996) Use of airborne multispectral imagery for mapping
landslides in Los Vélez district (south-eastern Spain). In:
Chacón J, Irigaray C, Fernández T (eds) Landslides.
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 353–362
Highland LM (1997) Landslide hazard and risk: current and
future directions for the United Stated Geological Survey’s
landslide Program. In: Cruden DM, Fell R (eds) Landslide
risk assessment. International Workshop Risk Assessment,
IUGS Working Group Landslides, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA,
pp 207–213
Hines JW (1997) Fuzzy and neural approaches in engineering.
Wiley, New York, 210 pp
Hinojosa JA, Leon CO (1978) Unstable soil mapping in Spain.
In: Proceedings of 3rd International Cong. IAEG,Madrid,
section I, (I), pp. 217–227
Hiura H, Fukuoka H (1993) Fractal structure of spatial distri-
bution of landslides in Hokkaido Island, Japan. In: Novosad
S, Wagner P (eds) Landslides. Proceedings of the 7th
I.C.F.L. Bratislava (Eslovakia Rep.). Balkema, Rotterdam,
pp 29–34
Hiura H, Fukuoka H (1996) An analysis of the transition of the
distribution of the shallow slides in use of the fractal
dimension and the Weibull distribution function. In: Chacón
J, Irigaray C, Fernández T (eds) Landslides. Proceedings of
the 8th I.C.F.L. Granada (Spain). Balkema, Rotterdam, pp
363–372
HMSO (1996) Landslide investigation and management in Great
Britain: a guide for planners and developers. Department of
the Environment, London, 120 pp
Ho CL, Miles SB (1997) Deterministic zonation of seismic slope
instability: an application of GIS. In: Frost JD (ed) Spatial
analysis in soil dynamics and earthquake engineering.
Geotechnical special publication 67, ASCE, New York, pp
87–102
Hoek E (2002) Practical rock engineering. 312 pp. Online free
download from http://www.rocscience.com /hoek/Practical-
RockEngineering.asp
Hofmeister RJ, Miller DJ (2003) GIS-based modeling of debris-
flow initiation, transport and deposition zones for regional
hazard assessments in western Oregon, USA. In: Ricken-
man D, Chen C (eds) Debris-flow hazards mitigation:
mechanics, prediction and assessment. MillPress Science,
Rotterdam, pp 1141–1149
Hollestein K (2005) Reconsidering the risk assessment concept:
standardizing the impact description as a building block for
vulnerability assessment. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 5:301–
307
Hroch Z, Krycl P, Sebesta J (2002) Landslide hazards in North
Bohemia. In: Rybár, Stemberk, Wagner (eds) Proceedings
of the 1st European conference on landslides, Prague.
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 207–212
123
402
Humbert M (1977) La cartographie ZERMOS. Modalités
d́établissement des cartes des zones esposes à des risques
liés aux mouvements du sol et du sous-sol. Bull Bur Rech
Geol Min III (1–2):5–8
Hungr O (1997) Some methods of landslide hazard intensity
mapping. In: Cruden D, Fell R (eds) Landslide risk
assessment. Proceedings of the international workshop on
landslide risk assessment, Honolulú. Balkema, Rotterdam,
pp 215–226
Hutchinson JN (1988) General report: morphological and
geotechnical parameters of landslides in relation to geology
and hydrogeology. In: Bonnard C (ed) Landslides. Proceed-
ings of the VIth international symposium of landslides,
Lausanne, vol 1, pp 3–35
Hutchinson JN (1992) Landslide hazard assessment. In: Pro-
ceedings of the VIth ISL, Christchurch, vol 1, pp 1805–1841
Irigaray C (1990).Cartografı́a de riesgos geológicos asociados a
movimientos de ladera en el sector de Colmenar (Málaga).
Unpublished Post-graduate Thesis. University of Granada,
390 pp
Irigaray, C (1995) Movimientos de ladera: inventario, análisis y
cartografı́a de susceptibilidad mediante un Sistema de
Información Geográfica: Aplicación a las zonas de Colmen-
ar(Málaga), Rute (Córdoba) y Montefrı́o (Granada).
Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of Granada, Spain
Irigaray C, Chacón J (2003) Métodos de análisis de la suscep-
tibilidad a los movimientos de ladera mediante S.I.G. In:
Ayala-Carcedo FJ, Corominas J (eds) Mapas de suscepti-
bilidad a los movimientos de ladera con técnicas SIG, pp 21–
36. Instituto Geológico y Minero de España, 194 pp, serie
Medio Ambiente, no. 4. Madrid, Spain
Irigaray C, Fernández T, Chacón J (1994) GIS landslide
inventory and analysis of determinant factors in the sector
of Rute (Córdoba, Spain). In: Oliveira, Rodriguez, Coelho,
Cunha (ed) 7th International IAEG Congress, Lisboa,
Portugal, vol VI. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 4659–4668
Irigaray C, Fernández T, Chacón J (1996a) Comparative analysis
of methods for landslide susceptibility mapping. In: Chacón
J, Irigaray C, Fernández T (eds) Landslides. Balkema,
Rotterdam, pp 373–384
Irigaray C, Chacón J, Fernández T (1996b) Methodology for the
analysis of landslide determinant factors by means of a
G.I.S. Application to the Colmenar area (Malaga, Spain).
In: Chacón J, Irigaray C, Fernández T (eds) Landslides.
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 163–172
Irigaray C, Fernández T, y Chacón J (1996c) Inventory and
analysis of determining factors by a GIS in the northern
edge of the Granada basin (Spain). In: Senneset K (ed)
Landslides, vol 3. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 1915–1921
Irigaray C, Fernández T, y Chacón J (1996d) Metodologı́a de
análisis de factores determinantes de movimientos de ladera
mediante un S.I.G. Aplicación al Sector de Rute (Córdoba,
España). In: Chacón J, Irigaray C (eds) VI Congreso
Nacional y Conferencia Internacional de Geologı́a Ambi-
ental y Ordenación del Territorio, Granada, Spain, vol II, pp
55–74
Irigaray C, Fernández T, y Chacón J (1997a) Validación de un
método de análisis de la susceptibilidad a los movimientos
de ladera. aplicación al sector de Rute. In: Alonso E,
Corominas J, Chacón J, Oteo C, y Pérez J (eds) IV Simposio
Nacional sobre taludes y laderas inestables, Granada, Spain,
vol I, pp 39–49
Irigaray C, Fernández T, y Chacón J (1997b) Aplicación de un
SIG al análisis del medio fı́sico en el sector de Rute
(Córdoba). Cuaternario y Geomorfologı́a 11(1–2):99–112
123
J. Chacón et al.
Irigaray C, Fernández T, El Hamdouni R, Chacón J (1998a)
Practical validation of a methodology for landslide suscep-
tibility assessment and mapping in the Betic Cordillera
(Spain). In: Moore D, Hungr O (eds) Proceedings of the 8th
IAEG Congress II, Vancouver. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam,
pp 1057–1064
Irigaray C, Fernández T, El Hamdouni R, Chacón J (1998b)
Análisis de la susceptibilidad a los movimientos de ladera y
comprobación de su utilidad en el sector de Rute-Iznájar
(Córdoba, Granada). I Congreso Andaluz de Carreteras,
10–13, Granada, Spain, vol II, pp 1829–1834
Irigaray C, Fernández T, El Hamdouni R, Chacón J (1999)
Verification of landslide susceptibility mapping. A case
study. Earth Surf Processes Landforms 24:537–544
Irigaray C, Lamas F, El Hamdouni R, Fernández, T, Chacón J
(2000) The importance of precipitation and the susceptibil-
ity of the slopes for the triggering of landslides along the
roads. Nat Hazards 21(1):65–81
Irigaray C, Fernández T, Chacón J (2003) Preliminary rock-
slope-susceptibility assessment using GIS and the SMR
classification. In: Chacón J, Corominas J (eds) Special issue
on Landslides and GIS. Nat Hazards 30(3):309–324
Irigaray, C Fernández T El Hamdouni R Chacón J (2006)
Evaluation and validation of landslide-susceptibility maps
obtained by a GIS matrix method: examples from the Betic
Cordillera (southern Spain). Natural Hazards, ISSN: 0921-
030X (Paper) 1573-0840 (Online) DOI: 10.1007/s11069-006-
9027-8
Iwahashi J, Watanabe S, Furuya T (2003) Mean slope-angle
frequency distribution and size frequency distribution of
landslide masses in Higashikubiki area, Japan. Geomor-
phology 50:349–364
Jaboyedoff M, Baillifard F, Phillippossian F, Rouiller JD (2004a)
Assessing fracture occurrence using ‘‘weighted fracturing
density’’: a step forward estimation rock instability hazard.
Nat Hazard Earth Syst Sci 4:83–93
Jaboyedov M, Baillifard F, Couture R, Locat J, Locat P (2004b)
New insight of geomorphology and landslide prone area
detection using digital elevation model(s). In: Lacerda WA,
Ehrlich M, Fontoura SAB, Sayao ASF (eds) Landslides:
evaluation and stabilization. Balkema, Taylor & Francis
Group, London, pp 191–198
Jaboyedov M, Baillifard F, Couture R, Locat J, Locat P (2004c)
Toward preliminary hazard assessment using DEM topo-
graphic analysis and simple mechanical modeling by means
of sloping local base level. In: Lacerda WA, Ehrlich M,
Fontoura SAB, Sayao ASF (eds) Landslides: evaluation and
stabilization. Balkema, Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp
199–206
Jakob M, Weatherly H (2003) A hydroclimatic threshold for
landslide initiation on the North Shore Mountains of
Vancouver, British Columbia. Geomorphology 54(3–
4):137–156
Jhingran V, Mukherjee D (1996) Engineering geological
approach for the assessment of landslide hazard in the
Himalayan terrain for the highway. In: Kaare Senneset (ed)
Proceedings of the VIth I.S.L, Trondheim, Norway, vol 1.
A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 239–244
Jibson RW (1993) Predicting earthquake-induced landslide
displacements using Newmark’s sliding block analysis.
Transp Res Record 1411:9–17
Jibson RW, Baum RL (1999) Assessment of landsalide hazards
in Kaluani and Maakua Gulches, Oahu, Hawaii, following
the 9 May 1999 Sacred Falls Landslide. USGS Science for a
Changing World. http://www.pubs.usgs.gov./of/1999/ofr-99-
Engineering geology maps: landslides and GIS
0364/. Open-File Report 99-364. US Department of Interior,
Denver Federal Center, Colorado, 10 pp
Jibson RW, Harp EL, Michael JA (1998) A method for
producing digital probabilistic seismic landslide hazard
maps. Open-file report 98-113. Department of Interior,
USGS, USA, 17 pp
Jibson RW, Harp EL, Michael JA (2000) A method for
producing digital probabilistic seismic landslide hazard
maps. Eng Geol 58(3/4):271–289
Kääb A (2002) Monitoring high-mountain terrain deformation
from repeated air- and spaceborne optical data: examples
using digital aerial imagery and ASTER data. ISPRS J
Photogrammetry Remote Sens 57:39–52
Kawakami H, Saito Y (1984) Landslide risk mapping by a
quantification method. In: Proceedings of the IVth ISL
Toronto, Canada, vol 2, pp 535–540
Kienholz H (1978) Maps of geomorphology and natural hazard
of Grindewald, Switzerland, scale 1:10,000. Arctic Alpine
Res 10(2):169–184
Kim JW, Park SS, Kim CS, Lee Y (2004) The efficient web-based
mobile GIS service system through reduction of digital map.
In: Laganà A et al. (ed) ICCSA 2004, LNCS 3043. Springer,
Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 410–417
Kimura H, Yamaguchi Y (2000).Detection of landslide areas
using satellite radar interferometry. Photogrammetric Eng
Remote Sens 66(3):337–344
Kovácik M, Paudits P (1998) Map of relative susceptibility to
mass movements of the Tatras region, Slovakia. In: Moore
D, Hungr O (eds) Proceedings of the 8th IAEG Congress II,
Vancouver. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 1019–1024
Kubota T (1996) Study of the fractal dimension and geological
condition of landslides. In: Chacón J, Irirgaray C, Fernández
T(eds) Landslides. Proceedings of the conference (th ICFL.
Granada, Madrid, Barcelona (Spain). Balkema, Rotterdam,
pp 385–392
Kumar P, Shima UN (1998) Landslide hazard zonation in
Joshimath-Jelam area, Garhwal Himalaya, U.P. India. In:
Moore D, Hungr O (eds) Proceedings of the 8th IAEG
Congress, Vancouver. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 925–
932
Laird RT, Perkins JB, Bainbridge DA, Baker JB, Boyd RT,
Huntsman D, Staub PE, Zucker MB (1979) Quantitative
land-capability analysis. US Geological Survey Professional
Paper 945. US Department of Interior, Washington, 115 pp
Lan HX, Zhou CH, Wang LJ, Zhang HJ, Li RH (2004)
Landslide hazard spatial analysis and prediction using GIS
in the Xiaojiang watershed, Yunnan, China. Eng Geol: 20
(in press)
Landry J (1979) Cartes ZERMOS. Zones exposés à des risques
liés aix mouvements du solet du sous-sol. Région de Long-
le-Saunier à Oiligny (Jura). Orlèans, Bureau de Recher-
cheGéologique et Minière, 14 pp, 1 map
Lee S (2004) Application of likelihood ratio and logistic
regression models to landslide susceptibility mapping using
GIS. Environ Manage 34(2):223–232
Lee S, Choi W (2001) Construction of geological hazard spatial
DB and development of geological hazard spatial informa-
tion system. In: Proceedings of the IGARSS2001: scanning
the present and resolving the future. IEEE, New York, pp
1693–1695
Lee S, Choi UC (2003) Development of GIS-based geological
hazard information system and its application for landslide
analysis in Korea. Geosci J 7(3):243–252
Lee S, Min K (2001) Statistical analysis of landslide susceptibility
at Yongin, Korea. Environ Geol 40:1095–1113
403
Lee S, Ryu (2004) Landslide susceptibility analysis and its
verification using likelihood ratio, logistic regression and
artificial neural network methods: case study of Yongin,
Korea. In: Lacerda WA, Ehrlich M, Fontoura SAB, Sayao
ASF (eds) Landslides: evaluation and stabilization. Balk-
ema, Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp 91–96
Lee EM, Doornkamp JC, Brunsden D, Noton NH (1987)
Ground movement in Ventnor, Isle of Wight. Geomorpho-
logical Services Ltd., UK, 65 pp
Lee S, Ryu J, Min K, Choi W, Won J (2000) Development and
application of landslide susceptibility analysis techniques
using geographic information system (GIS). In: Stein TI (ed)
IGARSS 2000: IEEE 2000 International Geoscience and
Remote Sensing Symposium 1:319–321
Lee CF, Ye H, Yeung MR, Shan X, Chen G (2001a) AIGIS-
based methodology for natural terrain landslide susceptibil-
ity mapping in Hong Kong. Episodes 24(3):150–159
Lee S, Chang B, Choi W, Shin E (2001b) Regional susceptibility,
possibility and risk analysis of landslide in Ulsan metropol-
itan city, Korea. In: Proceedings of the IGARSS 2001:
scanning the present and resolving the future. IEEE,
Australia, pp 1690–1692
Lee S, Ryu J-H, Min K, Won J-S (2001c) Development of two
artificial neural network for landslide susceptibility analysis.
In: Proceedings of the IGARSS 2001: scanning the present
and resolving the future. IEEE, Australia, pp 2364–2366
Lee S, Chwae U, Min K (2002a) Landslide susceptibility mapping
by correlation between topography and geological structure:
the Janghung area, Korea. Geomorphology 46(3–4):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 J, Chwae U, Chang B (2002c) Landslide suscepti-
bility analysis using weight of evidence. In: IGARSS2002:
IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Sym-
posium and 24th Canadian Symposium on Remote Sensing:
integrating our view of the planet, New York, USA, pp
2865–2867
Lee S, Ryu J-H, Lee M-J, Won J-S (2003) Use of an artificial
neural network for analysis of the susceptibility to landslides
at Boun, Korea. Environ Geol 44:820–833
Lee S, Ryu JH, Won JS, Park HJ (2004a) Determination and
application of the weights for landslide susceptibility map-
ping using an artificial neural network. Eng Geol 71:289–302
Lee S, Choi J, Ryu H (2004b) Probabilistic landslide hazard
mapping using GIS and remote sensing data at Boun, Korea.
In: Lacerda WA, Ehrlich M, Fontoura SAB, Sayao ASF
(eds) Landslides: evaluation and stabilization. Balkema,
Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp 85–90
Lekkas E, Lozios G, Bertakis G, Vasilopoulou S (1995)
Management of geoenvironmental problems (natural haz-
ards). A method for landslide hazard assessment using
geographical information systems (G.I.S.). In: Proceedings
of the XV Congress of the Carpatho-Balcan Geological
Association, special publication of the Geological Society of
Greece no. 4/3, Athens, Greece, pp 996–1001
Lekkas E, Vasilopoulou S, Hadzinakos J (1998) GIS aided
landslide management in Ropoto, Trikala, Greece: Raster-
vector data treatment. In: Moore D, Hungr O (eds)
Proceedings of the 8th IAEG & Env. Congress, Vancouver.
A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 1759–1763
Leone F, Aste JP, Leroi E (1996a) L’evaluation de la vulner-
abilité aux mouvements de terrain: pour une meilleure
quantification du risqué. Revue de Geographie Alpine
84(1):35–46
123
404
Leone F, Favre JL, Leroi E (1996b) Vulnerability assessment of
element exposed to mass-movement: working toward a
better risk perception. In: Kaare Senneset (ed) Proceedings
of the VIth I.S.L., Trondheim, Norway, vol 1. A.A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 263–269
Leroi E (1996) Landslide hazard-risk maps at different scales:
objectives, tools and developments. In: Kaare Senneset (ed)
Proceedings of the VIIth ISL, Trondheim, vol 1, pp 35–52
Leroi E (1997) Landslide risk mapping: problems, limitations
and developments. In: Cruden DM, Fell R (eds) Landslide
risk assessment. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 239–250
Leroi E, Rouzeau O, Scanvic JY, Weber CC, Vargas C (1992)
Remote sensing and landslide hazard mapping in the
Colombian Andes. Episodes 15(1):32–35
Leroueil S, Locat J (1998) Slope movements—geotechnical
characterization, risk assessment and mitigation. In: Moore
D, Hungr O (eds) Proceedings of the 8th IAEG Congress,
Vancouver. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 933–944
Lessing P, Kulander BR, Wilson BD, Dean SL, Woodring SM
(1976) West Virginia landslides and slide-prone areas. West
Virginia Geol Econ Surv, Environ Geol Bull 15:64
Li S, Feng X-T, Zhao H, Feng S, Liu L, Zhao H (2004) Forecast
analysis of monitoring data for high slopes on three
dimensional geological information and an intelligent algo-
rithm. SINOROROCK2004 symposium. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 41(3):1–6
Liener S, Kienholz H, Liniger M, Krummenacher BK (1996)
SLIDISP—a procedure to locate landslide prone areas. In:
Kaare Senneset (ed) Proceedings of the VIth I.S.L., Trond-
heim, Norway, vol 1. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 279–284
Lin ML, Tung CC (2003) A GIS-based potential analysis of the
landslides induced by the Chi-Chi earthquake. Eng Geol
71:63–77
Lipmann RP (1987) An introduction to computing with neural
nets. IEEE Acoust Speech Signal Processing Mag 4:4–22
Liu ZQ (2003) Fuzzi cognitive maps in GIS data analysis. Soft
Comput 7:394–401
Liu X, Lei J (2003) A method for assessing regional debris flow
risk: an application in Zhaoton of Yunnan province (SW
China). Geomorphology 52:181–191
Liu X, Yue ZQ, Tham LG, Lee CF (2002) Empirical assessment
of Debris flow risk on a regional scale in Yunnan Province,
Southwestern China. Environ Manage 30(2):249–264
Liu JG, Mason PJ, Clerici N, Chen S, Davis A, Miao F, Deng H,
Liang L (2004) Landslide hazard assessment in the three
gorges area of the Yangtze river using ASTER imagery:
Zigui–Badong. Geomorphology 61:171–187
Lu P, Rosenbaum MS (2003) Artificial neural networks and grey
systems for the prediction of slope stability. In: Chacon J,
Corominas J (eds) Special issue on Landslides and GIS. Nat
Hazards 30(3):383–398
Luzi L (1995a) GIS for slope stability zonation in the Fabriano
area, Central Italy. MSc Thesis, ITC, Enschede, Nether-
lands. Unpublished
Luzi L (1995b) Application of favourability modelling to zoning
of landslide hazard in the Fabriano Area, Central Italy. In:
Proceedings of the first joint European conference and
exhibition on geographical information, The Hague, Neth-
erlands, pp 398–402
Luzi L, Pergalani F (1996a) Application of statistical and GIS
techniques to slope instability zonation (1:50.000 Fabriano
geological map sheet). Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 15(2):83–
94
Luzi L, Pergalani F (1996b) A methodology for slope vulnera-
bility zonation using a probabilistic method. In: Chacón J,
Irigaray C (eds) Proceedings of the Sexto Congreso
123
J. Chacón et al.
Nacional y Conferencia Internacional sobre Riesgos Natu-
rales, Ordenación del Territorio y Medio Ambiente, vol 1,
S.E.G.A.O.T., Granada, Spain, pp 537–556
Luzi L, Pergalani F (1999) Slope instability in static and dynamic
conditions for urban planning: the ‘‘Oltre Po Pavese’’ case
history (Regione Lombardia–Italy). Nat Hazards 20:57–82
Luzi L, Pergalani F (2000) A correlation between slope failures
and accelorometric parameters: the 26 September 1997
earthquake (Umbria-Marche, Italy). Soil Dyn Earthquake
Eng 20:301–313
Luzi L, Pergalani F, Terlien MTJ (2000) Slope vulnerability to
earthquakes at subregional scale, using probabilistic tech-
niques and geographic information systems. Eng Geol
58:313–316
Luzi G, Pieraccini M, Mecatti D, Noferini L, Guidi G, Moia F,
Atzeni C (2004) Ground-based radar interferometry for
landslides monitoring: atmospheric and instrumental decor-
relation sources on experimental data. IEEE Trans Geosci
Remote Sens 42(11):2454–2466
Maharaj RJ (1993) Landslide processes and landslide suscepti-
bility analysis from an upland watershed—a case study from
St.Andrew, Jamaica, West Indies. Eng Geol 34(1–2):53–79
Mahr T, Malgot J (1978) Zoning maps for regional and urban
development based on slope stability. In: Proceedings of the
IIIrd I.A.E.G. Congress I, Spain 1:14:124–137
Mallamud BD (2003) A universal probability distribution for
landslide events. Geophys Res Abstr 5:04399
Malamud BD, Turcotte DL, Guzzetti F, Reichenbach P (2004)
Landslide inventories and their statistical properties. Earth
Surf Processes Landforms 29:687–711
Malet JP, Hartig S, Calais E, Maquaire O (2000) Apport du GPS
suivı́ en continu des mouvements de terrain. Application au
glissement-coulée de Super-Sauze (Alpes-de-Haute-Prov-
ence, Frnace). C.R Acad Sci de la Terre et des Planétes
331:175–182
Malet JP, Maquaire O, Calais E (2002) The use of global
positioning system techniques for the continuous monitoring
of landslide: application to the Super-Sauze earthflow
(Alpes-de-Haute-Provence, France). Geomorphology
43:33–54
Malkawi AIH, Saleh B, Al-Sheriedeh MS, Hamza MS (2000)
Mapping of landslide hazard zones in Jordan using remote
sensing and GIS. J Urban Plng Dev ASCE 126(1):1–17
Mandelbrot BB (1967) How long is the coast of Britain?
Statistical self-similarity and fractal dimension. Science
156:636–638
Mandelbrot BB (1983) The fractal geometry of nature. Freeman,
New York
Malczewski J (1999) GIS and multicriteria decision analysis.
Wiley, Nueva York
Maquaire O, Thiery Y, Malet P, Weber C, Puissant A, Wania A
(2004) Current practices and assessment tools of landslide
vulnerability in mountainous basins identification of ex-
posed elements with a semiautomatic procedure. In: Lacer-
da WA, Ehrlich M, Fontoura SAB, Sayao ASF (eds)
Landslides: evaluation and stabilization. Balkema, Taylor
& Francis Group, London, pp 171–176
Marble DF (1984) Geographic information systems: an overview.
In: Proceedings of the Pecora 9 Conference, Sioux Falls, SD,
pp 18–24)
Marchi L, Dalla Fontana G (2000) Erosion area assessment in
mountainous basing using GIS methods. In: Haigh M,
Krecek J (eds) Environmental reconstruction in headwater
areas. NATO Advances Science Institutes Series, Sub-Ser2,
Environmental Security, vol 68. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 123–
136
Engineering geology maps: landslides and GIS
Marker B (1998) Incorporation of information on geohazards
into the planning process. In: Maund JG, Eddleston M (eds)
Geohazards in engineering geology. Geological Society,
London, Engineering Geology Special Publication 15, pp
385–389
Marquı́nez J, Menéndez R, Farias P, Jiménez M (2003) Predic-
tive GIS-based model of rock fall activity in mountain cliffs.
In Chacon J, Corominas J (eds) Special issue on Landslides
and GIS. Nat Hazards 30(3):341–360
Martı́nez-Casasnovas JA (2003) A spatial information technol-
ogy approach for the mapping and quantification of gully
erosion. Catena 50:293–308
Marzorati S, Luzi L, De Amicis M (2002) Rock falls induced by
earthquakes: a statistical approach. Soil Dyn Earthquake
Eng 22:565–577
Mason PJ, Rosenbaum MS (2002) Geohazard mapping for
predicting landslides: an example from the Langhe Hills in
Piemonte, NW Italy. Quart J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 35:317–
326
Mason PJ, Rosenbaum MS, Mc Moore JM (1998) Digital image
texture analysis for landslide hazard mapping. In: Maund
JG, Eddleston M (eds) Geohazard in engineering geology.
Geological Society, London, Engineering Geology Special
Publications 15, pp 297–305
Mayer K, Múller-Koch K, von Poschinger A (2002) Dealing with
landslide hazards in the Bavarian Alps. In: Rybár, Stem-
berk, Wagner (eds) Proceedings of the 1st European
conference on landslides, Prague. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp
417–421
McClelland DE, Foltz RB, Wilson WD, Cundy TW, Heinemann
R, Saurbier JA, SchusterRL (1997) Assessment of the 1995
& 1996 floods and landslides on the ClearwaterNational
Forest, Part I: Landslide Assessment, A Report to the
regional Forester NorthernRegion U.S. Forest Service
McClung DM (2002a) The elements of applied avalanche
forecasting. Part I: the human issues. Nat Hazards 25:111–
129
McClung DM (2002b) The elements of applied avalanche
forecasting. Part II: the physical issues and the rules of
applied avalanche forecasting. Nat Hazards 26:131–146
McCulloch WS, Pitts WH (1943) A logical calculus of the ideas
immanent in nervousactivity. Bull Math Biophys 5:115–133
McKean J, Roering J (2004) Objective landslide detection and
surface morphology mapping using high-resolution airborne
laser altimetry. Geomorphology 57:331–351
McKean J, Buechel S, Gaydos L (1991) Remote-sensing and
landslide hazard assessment. In: 8th thematic conference
geology remote sensing (ERIM), Denver, CO, USA, vol 2,
pp 729–742
Mehrotra GS, Sarkar S, Kanungo DP, Mahadevaiah K (1996)
Terrain analysis and spatial assessment of landslide hazards
in parts of Sikkim, Himalaya. J Geol Soc India 47(4):491–498
Mejı́a-Navarro M, Wohl EW, Oaks SD (1994) Geological
hazards, vulnerability, and risk assessment using GIS: model
for Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Geomorphology 10:331–
354
Menéndez-Duarte R, Marquı́nez J (2002) The influence of
environmental and lithologic factors on rockfall at a
regional scale: an evaluation using GIS. Geomorphology
43:117–136
Méneroud JP (1978) Cartographie des risques dans les Alps-
Maritimes (France). In: Proceedings of the IIIrd I.A.E.G.
Congress, II, Chap. 46, pp 98–107
Méneroud JP, Olivier G (1978) Eboulement et chutes de pierres
sur les routes. Methode de cartographie. Groupe d’Etudes
405
des Falaises (GEF). Rapport de recherche LPC no. 80,
L.C.P.Ch., Paris, France, 63 pp
Méneroud JP, Calvino A (1976) Carte ZERMOS. Zones exposés
à des risques liés aixmouvements du sol et du sous-sol à
1:25,000 region de la Moyenne Vesubie (Alpes-Mari-
times.Orléans, Bureau de Recherche Géologique et Mini-
ère, 11 pp, 1 map
Michel-Leiba M, Baynes F, Scott G, Granger K (2003) Regional
landslide risk to the Cairns Community. Nat Hazards
30:233–249
Miles SB, Ho CL (1999) Rigorous landslide hazard zonation
using Newmark’s method and stochastic ground motion
simulation. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 18:305–323
Miles SB, Keefer DK, Nyerges TL (2000) A case study in GIS-
based environmentl model validation using earthquake-
induced landslide hazard. In: Heuvelink GBM, Lemmens
MJP (eds) Accuracy 2000, proceedings, Delft University
Press, Delft, pp 481–492
Miller DJ (1995) Coupling GIS with physical models to assess
deep-seated landslide hazards. Environ Eng Geosci
1(3):263–276
Miller DJ, Sı́as J (1998) Deciphering large landslides: linking
hydrogeological, groundwater and slope stability models
through GIS. Hydrol Processes 12:923–941
Moon V, Blackstock H (2004) A methodology for assessing
landslide hazard using deterministic stability models. Nat
Hazards 32:111–134
Mora P, Baldi P, Casula G, Fabris M, Ghirotti M, Mozzini E,
Pesci A (2003) Global positioning systems and digital
photogrammetry for the monitoring of massmovements:
application to the Ca’ di Malta landslide (northern Apen-
nines, Italy). Eng Geol 68:103–121
Moreiras SM (2004) Landslide incidence zonation in the Rio
Mendoza valley, Mendoza province, Argentina. Earth Surf
Processes Landforms 29:255–266
Moreiras SM (2005) Landslide susceptibility zonation in the Rio
Mendoza valley, Argentina. Geomorphology 66:345–357
Morgan GC, Rawlings GE, Sobkowicz JC (1992) Evaluating
total risk to communities from large debris flows. In:
Geotechnique and natural hazard. Proceedings of the 1992
symposium on geohazard. Bi/Tech, Toronto, pp 225–236
Msilimba GG, Holmes PJ (2005) A landslide hazard assessment
and vulnerability appraisal procedure: Vunguvungu/Banga
catchment, Northern Malawi. Nat Hazards 34:199–216
Nagarajan R, Mukherjee A, Roy A, Khire MV (1998) Temporal
remote sensing data and GIS application in landslide hazard
zonation of part of Western Ghat, India. Int J Remote Sens
19(4):573–585
Nagarajan R, Roy A, Kumar RV, Mukherjee A, Khire MV
(2000) Landslide hazard susceptibility mapping based on
terrain and climatic factors for tropical monsoon regions.
Bull Eng Geol Environ 58:275–287
Nagler T, Rott H, Kamelger A (2002) Analysis of landslides in
Alpine areas by means of SAR interferometry. In: Interna-
tional Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium
(IGARSS) 1:198–200
Nakagawa H, Takahashi T (1997) Estimation of a debris flow
hydrograph and hazard area. In: Chen CL (ed) Debris-flow
hazards mitigation: mechanics, prediction & assessment.
ASCE, New York, pp 64–67
Neaupane KM, Achet SH (2004) Use of backpropagation neural
network for landslide monitoring: a case study in the higher
Himalaya. Eng Geol 74:213–226
Neulands H (1976) A prediction model of Landslip. Catena
5:215–30
123
406
Newman EB, Paradis AR, Brabb EE (1978) Feasibility and cost
of using a computer to prepare landslide susceptibility maps
of the San Francisco Bay region, California. US Geological
Survey Bulletin 1443, USGS, USA, 23 pp
Newmark NM (1965) Effects of earthquakes on dam and
embankments. Geotechnique 15:139–160
Nilsen TH, Wright RH (1979) Relative slope stability and land-
use planning in the San Francisco Bay region, California. US
Geological Survey Professional Paper 944, US Department
of Interior, Washington, 103 pp
Nilsen TH, Brabb EE (1977) Landslides. In: Borcherdt RD (ed)
Studies for seismic zonation of the San Francisco Bay
Region. US Geological Survey Professional Paper 941-A,
96 pp
O’Loughlin EM (1986) Prediction of surface saturation zones in
natural catchments bytopographic analysis. Water Resour
Res 22:794–804
Ohlmacher GC, Davis JC (2003) Using multiple logistic regres-
sion and GIS technology to predict landslide hazard in
northeast Kansas, USA. Eng Geol 69(3–4):331–343
Ojeda-Moncayo J, Locat J, Couture R, Leroueil S (2004) The
magnitude of landslides: an overview. In: Lacerda WA,
Ehrlich M, Fontoura SAB, Sayao ASF (eds) Landslides:
evaluation and stabilization. Balkema, Taylor & Francis
Group, London, pp 379–384
Omar H, Schaefer VR, Salsidu MS, Daud M, Zohadie MB,
Muniandy R (2004) An algorithm for cut slope evaluation:
geological rating and potential instability. In: Lacerda WA,
Ehrlich M, Fontoura SAB, Sayao ASF (eds) Landslides:
evaluation and stabilization. Balkema, Taylor & Francis
Group, London, pp 281–286
Pachauri AK, Pant M (1992) Landslide hazard mapping based on
geological attributes. Eng Geol 32(1–2):81–100
Pachauri AK, Gupta PV, Chander R (1998) Landslide zoning in
a part of the Garhwal Himalayas. Environ Geol 36(3–
4):325–334
Pack RT, Tarboton DG, Goodwin CN (1998) The SINMAP
approach to terrain stability mapping. In: Moore D, Hungr
O (eds) Proceedings of the 8th IAEG Congress, Vancouver.
A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 1157–1165
Paganini M, Palazo F, Arino O, Manunta P, Ferretti A, Gomtier
E, Wunderle S, Pasquali P, Strozzi T, Zilger J, van Westenlo
C (2003) SLAM, the development of an EO service to
support the legal obligations of Swiss and Italians Geolog-
ical Risk Services in landslide risk forecasting and preven-
tion. In: Proceedings of the IGARSS2003: IEEE
international geoscience and remote sensing symposium.
Learning from earth’s shapes and sizes, pp 2422–2425
Pan KL, Chen CH, Fu CH (1998) A regional assessment of
destructive debris flow along New Central Cross-Highway in
Taiwan. In: Moore D, Hungr O (eds) Proceedings of the 8th
IAEG Congress, Vancouver. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp
2039–2044
Parise M (2001) Landslide mapping techniques and their use in
the assessment of the landslide hazard. Phys Chem Earth C
26(9):697–703
Parise M, Jibson RW (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
Park NW, Chi KH (2003) A probabilistic approach to predictive
spatial data fusion for geological hazard assessment. In:
Proceedings of the IGARSS2003: IEEE International Geo-
science and Remote Sensing Symposium. Learning from
earth’s shapes and sizes, pp 2425–2427
123
J. Chacón et al.
Pasuto A, Soldati M (1999) The use of landslide units in
geomorphological mapping: an example in the Italian
Dolomites. Geomorphology 30:53–64
Patel AN, Mehta HS (1980) Application of digital techniques in
identifying landslide prone areas. In: Proceedings of the
IIIrd international symposium on landslides, Calcuta, vol I/
5, pp 25–27
Patt AG, Schrag DP (2003) Using specific language to describe
risk and probability. Clim Change 61:17–30
Paudits P, Bednarik M (2002) Using GIS in evaluation of
landslide susceptibility in Handlovska kotlina basin. In:
Rybár, Stemberk, Wagner (eds) Proceedings of the 1st
European conference on landslides, Prague. Balkema,
Rotterdam, pp 437–441
Pelletier JD, Malamud BD, Blodgett T, Turcotte DL (1997) Scale-
invariance of soil moisture and its implications for the
frequency-size distribution of landslides. Eng Geol 48:255–268
Perotto-Baldiviezo HL, Thurow TL, Smith CT, Fisher RF, Wu
XB (2004) GIS-based spatial analysis in steeplands, south-
ern Honduras. Agric Ecosyst Environ 103:165–176
Peuquet DJ, Marble DF (1990) Introductory readings in
geographic information systems. Taylor & Francis, London,
371 pp
Pike RJ (1991) The geometric signature: quantifying landslide-
terrain types from digital elevation models. Math Geol
20(5):491–511
Pike RJ (2000) Geomorphometry—diversity in quantitative
surface analysis. Prog Phys Geogr 4(1):1–20
Pistocchi A, Zani O (2001) Integrated hydrologic and landslide
risk management in the Romagna River Bassin using
cartographic predictive modeling. In: Falconer RA, Blain
WR (eds) River basin management. International series on
progress in water resources, vol 5. WIT Press, Ashurst, pp
273–282
Pomeroy JS (1974a) Landslide susceptibility and processes in the
Maryland Coastal Plain. Schultz AP, Southworth CS (eds)
Landslides of eastern North America. US Geological Survey
Circular 1008, Chap. 2, pp 5–9
Pomeroy JS (1974b) Landslide susceptibility map of the Ems-
worth 7-1/2 minute quadrangle, Allegheny County, PA. US
Geological Survey Open-File Report 74-75, 15 pp, 1 pl., 7
figs., scale 1:24,000
Pomeroy JS (1974c) Landslide susceptibility map of part of the
Mars 7-1/2 minute quadrangle, Allegheny County and
vicinity, Pennsylvania. US Geological Survey Open-File
Report 74-114, 18 pp, 1 pl., 7 figs., scale 1:24,000
Pomeroy JS (1974d) Landslide susceptibility map of part of the
Valencia 7-1/2 minute quadrangle, Allegheny County and
vicinity, Pennsylvania. US Geological Survey Open-File
Report 74-116, 18 pp, 1 pl., scale 1:24,000
Pomeroy JS (1974e) Landslide susceptibility map of the Glen-
shaw 7-1/2 minute quadrangle, Allegheny County, Pennsyl-
vania. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 74-118,
18 pp, 1 pl., 7 figs., scale 1:24,000
Pomeroy JS (1978) Isopleth maps of landslide deposits, Wash-
ington county, Pennsylvania—a guide to comparative slope
stability. US Geological Survey Misc. Field Investigation
Map MF-1010. USGS, California
Prina E, Bonnard Chr, Vulliet L (2004) Vulnerability and risk
assessment of a mountain road crossing landslides. Riv Ital
Giotec 2:67–79
Radbruch DH (1970) Map of relative amounts of landslides in
California. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 70-
1485, 36 pp, map scale 1:500,000. US Geological Survey
Open-File Report 85-585
Engineering geology maps: landslides and GIS
Radbruch DH, Crowther KC (1973) Map showing areas of
estimated relative susceptibility to landsliding in California.
US Geological Survey Miscellaneous Geologic Investiga-
tions Map I-747, scale 1:1,000,000
Radbruch DH, Colton RB, Davies WE, Lucchitta I, Skipp BA,
Varnes DJ (1982) Landslide overview map of the conter-
minous United States. US Geological Survey Miscellaneous
Field Studies Map MF-771, 1 sheet, scale 1:7,500,000.
Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources,
USA
Raetzo H, Lateltin O, Tripet JP (2002) Landslides and evalua-
tion of triggering factors, hazard assessment practice in
Switzerland. In: Rybár, Stemberk, Wagner (eds) Proceed-
ings of the 1st European conference on landslides, Prague.
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 455–460
Rafaelli SG, Montgomery DR, Greenberg HM (2001) A
comparison of thematic mapping of erosional intensity to
GIS-driven process models in an Andean drainage basin. J
Hydrol 244:33–42
Rautela P, Lakhera RC (2000) Landslide risk analysis between
Giri and Tons rivers in Himachal Himalaya (India). IAG
2(3/4):153–160
Refice A, Capolongo D (2002) Probabilistic modelling of
uncertainties in earthquake-induced landslide hazard assess-
ment. Comput Geosci 28:735–749
Refice A, Guerriero L, Bovenga F, Wasowski J, Veneziani N,
Atzori S, Ferrari AR, Marsella M (2000) Detecting landslide
activity by SAR interferometry. European Space Agency
(Special Publication) ESA SP 461:1176–1188
Refice A, Bovenga F, Guerriero L, Wasowski J (2001) DInSAR
applications to landslide studies. In: International Geosci-
ence and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS) 1:144–146
Remondo J, González-Dı́ez A, Dı́az de Terán JR, Cendrero A
(2003a) Landslide susceptibility models utilising spatial data
analysis techniques. A case study from the lower Deba
valley, Guipúzcoa (Spain). In: Chacon J, Corominas J (eds)
Special issue on Landslides and GIS. Nat Hazards
30(3):267–279
Remondo J, González-Dı́ez A, Dı́ı́az de Terán JR, Cendrero A,
Fabbri A, Chung CJF (2003b) Validation of landslide
susceptibility maps examples and applications from a case
study in Northern Spain. In: Chacon J, Corominas J (eds)
Special issue on Landslides and GIS. Nat Hazards
30(3):437–449
Remondo J, Bonachea J, Cendrero A (2004) Probabilistic
landslide hazard and risk mapping on the basis of occur-
rence and damages in the recent past. In: Lacerda WA,
Ehrlich M, Fontoura SAB, Sayao ASF (eds) Landslides:
evaluation and stabilization. Balkema, Taylor & Francis
Group, London, pp 125–130
Rengers N, Soeters R, Van Westen CJ (1992) Remote sensing
and GIS applied to mountain hazard mapping. Episodes
15(1):36–45
Rezig S, Favre JL, Leroi E (1996) The probabilistic evaluation of
landslide risk. In: Kaare Senneset (ed) Proceedings of the
VIth I.S.L., Trondheim, Norway, vol 1. A.A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, pp 351–355
Rizzo V (2002) GPS monitoring and new data on slope
movements in the Maratea Valley(potenza, Basilicata).
Phys Chem Earth 27:1535–1544
Rizzo V, Tesauro M (2000) SAR interferometry and field data of
Randazzo landslide (Eastern Sicily, Italy). Phys Chem Earth
B 25(9):771–780
Rocha GC (2004) Landslide risk mapping methodology applied
to medium size urbanities in Brazil: case study of Juiz de
Fora town, Minas Gerais state. In: Lacerda WA, Ehrlich M,
407
Fontoura SAB, Sayao ASF (eds) Landslides: evaluation and
stabilization. Balkema, Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp
297–302
Rodrı́guez Ortiz JM, Prieto C, Hinojosa JA (1978) Regional
studies on mass movements in Spain. In: Proceedings of the
IIIrd I.A.E.G. Congress I, 1:29:267–278
Rodriguez KM, Weissel JK, Kim Y (2002) Classification of
landslide surfaces using fully polarimetric SAR: examples
from Taiwan. In: International Geoscience and Remote
Sensing Symposium (IGARSS) 5:2918–2920
Romana M (1985) New adjustment ratings for application of
Bieniawski’s classification to slopes. In: International sym-
posium on the role of rock mechanics, ISRM, Zacatecas, pp
49–53
Romana M (1993) A geomechanical classification for slopes:
slope mass rating. In: Hudson JA (ed) Comprehensive rock
engineering, vol 3, Pergamon, UK, pp 575–600
Ronzani G, Strada C, Zamai V (1999) Application of GIS based
techniques in the ellaboration of the Romana SMR index
(1985) in order to assess the stability of rock walls (Italy). J
Tech Environ Geol 3:13–18
Rosenbaum MS, Popescu ME (1996) Using a geographical
information system to record and assess landslide-related
risks in Polonia. In: Kaare Senneset (ed) Proceedings of the
VIth I.S.L., Trondheim, Norway, vol 1. A.A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, pp 363–370
Rosenbaum MS, Senneset K, Popescu ME (1997) Assessing the
likelihood of landslide-related hazards on a regional scale.
In: Marinos PG, Koukis GC, Tsiambaos GC, Stournaras GC
(eds) Engineering geology and the environment. A.A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 1009–1014
Rouai M, Jaaidi EB (2003) Scaling properties of landslides in the
Rif mountains of Morocco. Eng Geol 68:353–359
Ruff M, Schanz C, Czurda K (2002) Geological hazard assess-
ment and rockfall modelling in the Northern Calcareous
Alps, Voralberg/Austria. In: Rybár, Stemberk, Wagner
(eds) Proceedings of the 1st European conference on
landslides, Prague. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 461–470
Rumelhart H, Hinton GE, Williams RJ (1986) Learning internal
representation by error propagation. In: Rumelhart H,
McClelland JL (eds) Parallel distributed processing. MIT
Press, Cambridge, pp 318–362
Rybar J (1973) Representation of landslides in engineering
geology maps. In: Landslide—the slope stability review,
Eureka, California, vol 1, no. 1, pp 15–21
Saboya F Jr, Pinto WD, Gatts CEN (2004) Fuzzy mapping of
great areas susceptible to slope failure. In: Lacerda WA,
Ehrlich M, Fontoura SAB, Sayao ASF (eds) Landslides:
evaluation and stabilization. Balkema, Taylor & Francis
Group, London, pp 371–378
Sadek S, Kaysi I, Bedran M (2000) Geotechnical and environ-
mental considerations in highways layouts: an integrated
GIS assessment approach. JAG 2(3/4):190–198
Saha AK, Gupta RP, Arora MK (2002) GIS-based landslide
hazard zonation in the Bhagirathi (Canga) Valley, Himala-
yas. Int J Remote Sens 23(2):357–369
Santacana N (2001) Análisis de la susceptibilidad del terreno a la
formación de deslizamientos superficiales y grandes desli-
zamientos mediante el uso de sistemas de información
geográfica: aplicación a la cuenca del rı́o Llobregat. PhD
Thesis. Department of Ingenierı́a del Terreno y Cartográ-
fica, UPC, Barcelona, Spain. Unpublished
Santacana N, Corominas J (2002) Example of validation of
landslide susceptibility maps. In: Rybár, Stemberk, Wagner
(eds) Proceedings of the 1st European conference on
landslides, Prague. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 305–310
123
408
Santacana N, Baeza C, Corominas J, de Paz A, Marturiá J (2003)
A GIS-based multivariate statistical analysis for shallow
landslide susceptibility mapping in La Pobla de Lillet Area
(Eastern Pyrenees, Spain). In: Chacon J, Corominas J (eds)
Special issue on Landslides and GIS. Nat Hazards
30(3):281–295
Sarkar S, Kanungo DP (2004) An integrated approach for
landslide susceptibility mapping using remote sensing and
GIS. Photogrammetric Eng Remote Sens 70(5):617–625
Sarkar S, Kanungo DP, Mehrotra GS (1995) Landslide hazard
zonation: a case study in Garhwai Himalaya, India. Mt Res
Dev 15(4):301–309
Sasaki Y, Abe M, Hirano I (1991) Fractal of slope failure size-
number distribution. J Japan Soc Eng Geol 32(3):1–11
Sassa K, Wang G, Fukuoka H, Wang F, Ochiai T, Sugiyama M,
Sekiguchi T (2004) Landslide risk evaluation and hazard
zoning for rapid and long-travel landslides in urban devel-
opment areas. Landslides DOI 10.1007/s10346–004–0028-y
Saunchyn DJ, Trench NR (1978) Landsat applied to landslide
mapping. Photogrammetric Eng Remote Sens 44(6):735–741
Savage WZ, Godt JW, Baum RL (2003) A model for spatially
and temporally distributed shallow landslide initiation by
rainfall infiltration. In: Rickenmann D, Chen C (eds)
Debris-flow hazards mitigation: mechanics, prediction and
assessment. MillPress Science, Rotterdam, pp 179–187
Savage WZ, Codt W, Baum RL (2004) Modeling timedependent
areal slope stability. In: Lacerda WA, Ehrlich M, Fontoura
SAB, Sayao ASF (eds) Landslides: evaluation and stabil-
ization. Balkema, Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp
23—38
Scanvic JY (1994) Remote sensing and GIS: tools for the
mapping of areas at risk from landslide. Mappemonde
94(4):44–47
Schiavon G, Del Frate F, D’Ottavio D, Stramondo S (2003)
Landslide identification by SAR interferometry: the Sarno
case. In: International Geoscience and Remote Sensing
Symposium (IGARSS) 4:2428–2429
Schmid RH, MacCannel J (1955) Basic problems, techniques and
theory of isopleth mapping. J Am Stat Assoc 50(269):220–
239
Schmoll HR (1974) Slope-stability map of Anchorage and
vicinity. Alaska US GeolSurv Misc Inv Map I–787–E
Schuster RL, Krizek RJ (eds) (1978) Landslides: analysis and
control. Transportation Research Board Special Report 176.
National Research Council, Washington, DC, 234 pp
Schuster RL, Wieczorek GF (2002) Landslides triggers and
types. In: Rybár, Stemberk, Wagner (eds) Proceedings of
the 1st European conference on landslides, Prague. Balk-
ema, Rotterdam, pp 59–78
Scott GR (1972) Map showing landslides and areas susceptible to
landslides in the Morrison Quadrangle, Jefferson County,
Colorado. US Geological Survey. Map I-790-B. USA
Sfar Felfoul M, Snane MH, Mlaouhi A, Megdiche MF (1999)
Importance du facteur lithologique sur le développement
des ravins du basin versant dÓued Maiez en Tunisie
Centrale. Bull Eng Geol Environ 57:285–293
Shafer G (1976) A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton
University Press, Princeton
Shortliffe EH, Buchanan GG (1975) A model of inexact
reasonning in medicine. Math Biosci 23:351–379
Siddle RC, Dakhal AS (2003) Recent advances in the spatial and
temporal modeling of shallow landslides. In: MODSIM2003:
International Congress on Modelling and Simulation. Uni-
versity of Wales, Nedlands, pp 602–607
Siddle RC, Wu WM (2001) Evaluation of the temporal and
spatial impacts of timber harvesting on landslide occurrence.
123
J. Chacón et al.
In: Wigmosta MS, Burges SJ (eds) Land use and water-
sheds—human influence on hydrology and geomorphology
in urban and forest areas. Water Sci Appl 2:179–193
Simons DB, Li RM, Ward TJ (1978) Mapping of potential
landslide areas in terms ofslope stability. Fort Collins,
Colorado. Civil Engineering Dept., Colorado State Univer-
sity,75 pp
Singhroy V, Molch K (2004) Characterizing and monitoring
rockslides from SAR techniques. Adv Space Res 33(3):290–
295
Singhroy V, Mattar KE, Gray AL (1998) Landslide characteri-
sation in Canada using interferometric SAR and combined
SAR and TM images. Adv Space Res 21(3):465–476
Singhroy V, Molch K, Bulmer M (2002) Characterization of
landslide deposits using SAR images. In: International
Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS)
1:185–187
Skabar A (2003) Predicting the distribution of discrete spatial
events using artifical neural networks. In: Gedeon TD, Fung
LCC (eds) AI 2003 and LNAI 2903. Springer, Berlin
Heidelberg New York, pp 567–577
Smith GJ, Rosenbaum MS (1998) Graphical methods for hazard
mapping and evaluation. In: Maund JG, Eddleston M (eds)
Geohazards in engineering geology. Geological Society,
London, Engineering Geology Special Publication 15, pp
215–220
Soeters R, Van Westen CJ (1996) Slope instability recognition,
analysis and zonation. In: Turner AK, Schuster RL (eds)
Landslides investigation and mitigation. Transportation
Research Board, Special Report 247, National Academy
Press, Washington, pp 129–177
Soeters R, Rengers N, van Westen CJ (1991) Remote sensing
and geographical information systems as applies to moun-
tain hazard analysis and environmental monitoring. In: 8th
thematic conference geology remote sensing (ERIM), Den-
ver, vol 2, pp 1389–1402
Somfai E, Czirók A, Viczek T (1994) Power-law distribution of
landslides in an experiment of a granular pile. J Phys A:
Math Gen 27(I):757–763
Sorriso-Valvo M (2002) Landslides: from inventory to risk. In:
Rybár, Stemberk, Wagner (eds) Proceedings of the 1st
European conference on landslides, Prague. Balkema,
Rotterdam, pp 59–79
Spiker EC, Gori PL (2000) National landslide hazards mitigation
strategy: a framework for loss reduction. Open-file report
00-450, Department of Interior, U.S.G.S., USA, 49 pp
Spiker EC, Gori PL (2003a) Partnerships for reducing landslide
risk: assessment of the national landslide hazards mitigation
strategy. The National Academy of Sciences Press, Wash-
ington, DC
Spiker EC, Gori PL (2003b) National landslide hazards mitiga-
tion strategy: a framework for loss reduction. USGS
Circular 1244. US Department of Interior, U.S.G.S. Reston,
Virginia, 56 pp
Spizzichino D, Falconi L, Delmonaco G, Margottini C, Puglisi V
(2004) Integrated approach for landslide risk assessment of
Craco village (Italy). In: Lacerda WA, Ehrlich M, Fontoura
SAB, Sayao ASF (eds) Landslides: evaluation and stabil-
ization. Balkema, Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp 237–
242
Squarzoni C, Delacourt C, Allemand P (2003) Nine years of
spatial and temporal evolution of the La Valette landslide
observed by SAR interferometry. Eng Geol 68(1–2):53–66
Sterlacchini S, Masetti M, Poli A (2004) Spatial integration of
thematic data for predictive landslide mapping: a case study
from Oltrepo Pavese area, Italy. In: Lacerda WA, Ehrlich
Engineering geology maps: landslides and GIS
M, Fontoura SAB, Sayao ASF (eds) Landslides: evaluation
and stabilization. Balkema, Taylor & Francis Group, Lon-
don, pp 109–117
Stevenson PC (1977) An empirical method for the evaluation of
relative landslide risk.Int Ass Eng Geol Bull 16:69–72
Süzen ML, Doyuran V (2004a) Data driven bivariate landslide
susceptibility assessment using geographical information
system: a method and application to Asarsuyu catchment,
Turkey. Eng Geol 71: 303–321
Süzen ML, Doyuran V (2004b) A comparison of the GIS based
landslide susceptibility assessment methods: multivariate
versus bivariate. Environ Geol 45:665–679
Tangestani MH (2004) Landslide susceptibility mapping using
the fuzzy gamma approach in a GIS, Kahan catchment area,
southwest Iran. Aust J Earth Sci 51(3):439–450
Tarchi D, Leva D, Sieber AJ (2000) SAR interferometric
techniques from ground based system for the monitoring
of landslides. In: International Geoscience and Remote
Sensing Symposium (IGARSS) 6:2756–2758
Tarchi D, Casagli N, Moretti S, Leva D, Sieber AJ (2003a)
Monitoring landslide displacements by using ground-based
synthetic aperture radar interferometry: application to the
Ruinon landslide in the Italian Alps. J Geophys Res B: Solid
Earth 108(8)
Tarchi D, Casagli N, Fanti R, Leva DD, Luzi G, Pasuto A,
Pieraccini M, Silvano S (2003b) Landslide monitoring by
using ground-based SAR interferometry: an example of
application to the Tessina landslide in Italy. Eng Geol 68(1–
2):15–30
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, Part C: Solar Terrest
Planet Sci 26/9:665–675
Terlien MTJ (1996) Modelling spatial and temporal variations in
rainfall-triggered landslides. PhD thesis. ITC Publication 32,
Enschede, Netherlands, 254 pp
Terlien MTJ (1997) Hydrological landslide triggering in ash-
covered slopes of Manizales (Colombia). Geomorphology
20:165–175
Terlien MTJ, Van Westen CJ, Van Asch TWJ (1995) Deter-
ministic modelling in GIS-based landslide hazards assess-
ment. In: Carrara A, Guzzetti F (eds) Geographical
information system in assessing natural hazards. Advances
in Natural and Technological Hazards Research, vol 5.
Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 57–77
Thein S, Schmanke V, Grunet J (1995) The production of a
landslide-susceptibility map at the scale of 1:10.000 for the
Katzenlochbach and Melb valley southwest of Bonn using a
geo-information-system. Mitteilungen der Osterreichischen
Geographischen Gesellschaft 137:93–104
Thierry P, Vinet L (2002) Mapping an urban area prone to slope
instability: Greater Lyons. Bull Eng Geol Environ 62:135–
143
Thornes JB, Alcántara-Ayala I (1998) Modelling mass failure in
a Mediterranean mountain environment: climatic, geologi-
cal, topographical and erosional controls. Geomorphology
24:87–100
Tomlinson RF (1984) Geographic information systems—a new
frontier. Oper Geogr 5:31–35
Trajan Software (2001) Trajan 6.0 Professional—neural network
simulator (manual). Protaprint, Durham
Trinh PT (2000) Remote sensing and GIS for warning of
geological hazards: application in Vietnam. In: Zschau J,
Kuppers AN (eds) Early warning systems for natural
409
disaster reduction, proceedings, Potsdam, Germany, pp
753–762
Turcotte DL (1999a) Application of statistical mechanism to
natural hazards and landforms. Physica A 274:294–299
Turcotte DL (1999b) Self-organized criticality. Rep Prog Phys
62:1377–1429
Turcotte DL (2001) Self-organized criticality: does it have
anything to do with criticality and is it useful? Nonlinear
Proc Geophys 8:193–196
Turcotte DL, Malamud BD (2004) Landslides, forest fires, and
earthquakes: examples of self-organized critical behavior.
Physica A 340:580–589
Turcotte DL, Malamud BD, Guzzetti F, Reichenbach P (2002)
Self-organization, the cascade model, and natural hazards.
Coloquium, PNAS 99(1):2530–2537
Turner AK (ed) (1992) Three-dimensional modelling with
geoscientific information systems. NATO ASI Series, C,
vol 354. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 452 pp
Turner AK, Schuster RL (eds) (1996) Landslides: investigation
and mitigation. Transportation Research Board Special
Report 247. National Research Council, Washington,
673 pp
Turrini MC, Visintainer P (1998) Proposal of a method to define
areas of landslide hazard and application to an area of the
Dolomites, Italy. Eng Geol 50:255–265
Uromeihy A, Mahdavifar MR (2000) Landslide hazard zonation
of the Khorshrostam area, Iran. Bull Eng Geol Environ
58:207–213
Vähäaho I (1998) From geotechnical maps to three-dimensional
models. Tunnelling Underground Space Technol 13(1):51–
56
Valadäo P, Gaspar JL, Queiroz G, Ferreira T (2002) Landslides
density map of S. Miguel Island, Azores archipelago. Nat
Hazard Earth Syst Sci 2:51–56
Vallario A, Coppola L (1973) Geologia e franosita nell’area ad
oriente del Taburno-Camposauro e del Partenio (Province
di Benevento ed Avellino). Geologia Applicata e Idrogeo-
logia, v. 8, pt. 1, pp 19–87. 1 map 1:50.000
Van Beek LPH, Van Asch THWJ (2004) Regional assessment of
the effects of land-use change on landslide hazard by means
of physically based modelling. Nat Hazards 31:289–304
Van Westen CJ (2000) The modelling of landslide hazards using
GIS. Surv Geophys 21:241–255
Van Westen CJ (2004) Geoinformation tools for landslide risk
assessment: an overview of recent developments. In: Lacer-
da WA, Ehrlich M, Fontoura SAB, Sayao ASF (eds)
Landslides: evaluation and stabilization. Balkema, Taylor&
Francis Group, London, pp 39–56
Van Westen CJ, Lulie Getahun F (2003) Analyzing the evolution
of the Tessina landslide using aerial photographs and digital
elevation models. Geomorphology 54:77–89
Van Westen CJ, Van Duren I, Kruse HMG, Tercien MTJ (1993)
GISSIZ: training package for geographical information
systems in slope instability zonation. ITC Publication, vol
15. International Institute for Aerospace and Earth Re-
sources Survey, ITC, Enschede, 245 pp
Van Westen CJ, Rengers N, Terlien MTJ, Soeters R (1997)
Prediction of the occurrence of slope instability phenomena
through GIS-based hazard zonation. Geol Rundsch 86:404–
414
Van Westen CJ, Seijmonsbergen AC, Mantovani F (1999)
Comparing landslide hazard maps. Nat Hazards 20:137–158
Van Westen CJ, Soeters R, Sijmons K (2000). Digital geomor-
phological landslide hazard mapping of the Alpago area,
Italy. IAG 2(1):51–60
123
410
Van Westen CJ, Rengers N, Soeters R (2003) Use of geomor-
phological information in indirect landslide susceptibility
assessment. In: Chacon J, Corominas J (eds) Special issue on
Landslides and GIS. Nat Hazards 30(3):399–419
Varnes DJ (1974) The logic of geological maps, with reference to
their interpretation and use for engineering purposes.
Geological Survey Professional Papers, 837. USGS, Wash-
ington, 48 pp
Varnes DJ (1978) Slope movement types and processes: In:
Schuster RL, Krizek RJ (eds) Landslides: analysis and
control. Transportation Research Board Special Report 176.
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, pp 11–33
Varnes DJ (1984) International Association of Engineering
Geology Commission on Landslides and Other Mass
Movements on Slopes. Landslide hazard zonation: a review
of principles and practice. Int Assoc Eng Geol, UNESCO
Natural Hazards Series no. 3, 63 pp
Vaunat J, Leroueil S (2002) Analysis of post-failure slope
movements within the framework of hazard and risk
analysis. Nat Hazards 26:83–109
Vecchia O (1978)A simple terrain index for the stability of
hillsides or scarps. In: Geddes JD(ed) Large ground move-
ments and structures. Wiley, NewYork Toronto, pp 449-461
Ventakatachalam G, Nagesha MS, Dodagoudar GR (2002)
Landslide modelling using remote sensing and GIS.
IGARSS: IEE International Geoscience and Remote Sens-
ing Symposium and 24th Canadian Symposium on Remote
Sensing: Integrationg our view of the Planet, Toronto,
Canada, pp 2045–2047
Vietmeier J, Wagner W, Dikau R (2000) Monitoring moderate
slope movements (landslides) in the Southern French Alps
using differential SAR interferometry. European Space
Agency (special publication) ESA SP 478:559–563
Vose D (1996) Quantitative risk analysis: a guide to Monte Carlo
simulation modeling. Wiley, Chichester, 328 pp
Wachal DJ, Hudak PF (2000) Mapping landslide susceptibility in
Travis County, Texas, USA. GeoJournal 51:245–253
Wang X, Jiang Y, Zhao Y, Pan L (2002) Study and application
on the visualization of geological information system in
landslideYanshilixue Yu Gongcheng Xuebao/Chinese. J
Rock Mech Eng 21(Suppl):2511–2514
Wang X, He M, Jiang Y, Cui Z (2003) Stability analysis of
landslide based on mechanics principle in GISYanshilixue
Yu Gongcheng Xuebao/Chinese. J Rock Mech Eng
22(6):977–980
Ward TJ, Li RM, Simons DB (1982) Mapping landslide hazards
in forest watersheds. J Geotech Eng Div—ASCE
108(2):319–324
Wasowski J, Del Gaudio V, Pierri P, Capolongo D (2002)
Factors controlling seismic susceptibility of the Sele valley
slopes: the case of the 1980 Irpinia earthqhake re-examined.
Surv Geophys 23:563–593
Wei P, Da’an L, Zhifa Y, Qianbang Z, Siyuan Y, Huiya Z,
Yanhui L (2004) A synthetic geological information system
and its application to Xiangjiaba hydropower station. Paper
1B13 SINOROCK2004 symposium. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci 41(3):7
Weibull W (1951) A statistical distribution of wide applicability.
J Appl Mech 18:293–297
Weidinger JT (1998) Case history and hazard analysis of two
lake-damming landslides in the Himalayas. J Asian Earth
Sci 16(2–3):323–331
Wetzel HU, Roessner S, Sarnagoev A (2000) Remote sensing
and GIS based geological mapping for assessment of
landslide hazard in Southern Kyrgyztan (Central Asia). In:
Brebbia CA, Pascolo P (eds) Management information
123
J. Chacón et al.
systems 2000—GIS and remote sensing. Management infor-
mation systems, vol 1. WIT Press, Ashurst, pp 355–366
Wieczorek GF (1978) Landslide susceptibility evaluation in the
Santa Cruz Range, San Mateo County, California. Berkeley,
University of California, PhD Thesis, 278 pp
Wieczorek GF (1984) Preparing a detailed landslide-inventory
map for hazard evaluation and reduction. Bull Assoc Eng
Geol 21(3):337–342
Wilkinson PL, Anderson MG, Lloyd DM, Renaud J-P (2002)
Landslide hazard zonation and bioengineering:towards pro-
viding improved decision support through integrated model
development. Environ Model Softw 17:333–344
Williamson JA (1975) Landslide susceptibility near Tomales
Bay, California. San Francisco State University, California,
Masters thesis, 113 pp
Wilson RC, Keefer DK (1985) Predicting aerial limits of
earthquake-induced landsliding.In: Ziony JI (ed) Evaluating
earthquake hazards in the Los Angeles region—An Earth-
Science perspective, USGS Professional paper 1360, pp.
316–345
Woodward HB (1897) Soils and subsoils from a sanitary point of
view; with especialreference to London and its neighbour-
hood 1st edn. Memoirs of the Geological SurveyEngland
and Wales. Her Majestýs Stationery Office, London
Worboys MF (1995) GIS: a computing perspective. Taylor and
Francis, London
Worboys MF, Duckham M (2004) GIS: a computing perspective,
2nd edn. CRC Press, UK
WP/WLI (1990) A suggested method for reporting a landslide.
International Geotechnical Societies’ UNESCO Working
Party on World Landslide Inventory (Chairman D. Cruden).
Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 41:5–12
WP/WLI (1991) A suggested method for a landslide summary.
International Geotechnical Societies’ UNESCO Working
Party on World Landslide Inventory (Chairman D. Cruden).
Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 43:101–10
WP/WLI (1993a) A suggested method for describing the activity
of a landslide. International Geotechnical Societies’ UNE-
SCO Working Party on World Landslide Inventory (Chair-
man D. Cruden). Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 47:53–57
WP/WLI (1993b) Multilingual landslide glossary. International
Geotechnical Societies’ UNESCO Working Party on World
Landslide Inventory (Chairman D. Cruden). BiTech, Rich-
mond, 59 pp
WP/WLI (1994) A suggested method for reporting landslide
causes. International Geotechnical Societies’ UNESCO
Working Party on World Landslide Inventory (Chairman
M.E. Popescu). Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 50:71–74
WP/WLI (1995) A suggested method for describing the rate of
movement of a landslide. International Geotechnical Soci-
eties’ UNESCO Working Party on World Landslide Inven-
tory (Chairman M.E. Popescu). Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol
52:75–78
WP/WLI (2001) A suggested method for reporting landslide
remedial measures. International Geotechnical Societies’
UNESCO Working Party on World Landslide Inventory
(Chairman M.E. Popescu). Bull Eng Geol Environ 60:69–74
Wrigth RH, Nilsen TH (1974) Isopleth maps of landslide
deposits, southern San Francisco Bay Region, California.
US Geological Survey Field Studies Map MF-550. USGS,
California
Wrigth RH, Campbell RH, Nilsen TH (1974). Preparation and
use of isopleth maps of landslide deposits. Geology 2:483–
485
Wu Q, Ye S, Wu X, Chen P (2004) Risk assessment of earth
fractures by constructing an intrinsic vulnerability map, a
Engineering geology maps: landslides and GIS
specific vulnerability map, and a hazard map, using Yuci
City, Shanxi, China as an example. Environ Geol 46:104–112
Xie QM, Xia YY (2004) Systems theory for risk evaluation of
landslide hazard. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci, vol 41, no. 3,
CD-ROM, Elsevier, Netherlands
Xie MW, Esaki T, Zhou GY, Mitani Y (2001) Effective data
management for GIS-based critical slip searching. In: Ho
KKS, Li KS (eds) Geotechnical engineering meeting soci-
ety’s needs. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 947–952
Xie MW, Esaki T, Zhou GY, Mitani Y (2003) Geographic
information systems-based three-dimensional critical slope
stability analysis and landslide hazard assessment. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 129(12):1109–1118
Xie M, Esaki T, Zhou G, Mitani Y (2003a) Geographic
information systems-based three-dimensional critical slope
stability analysis and landslide hazard assessment. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 129(12):1109–1118
Xie M-W, Zhou G-Y, Esaki T (2003c) GIS component based 3D
landslide hazard assessment system: 3DSlopeGIS. Chin
Geogr Sci 13(1):66–72
Xie M, Tetsuro E, Zhou G (2003b) GIS method for slope-unit-
based 3D landslide hazard evaluation.Yanshilixue Yu Gon-
gcheng Xuebao/Chinese. J Rock Mech Eng 22(6):969–976
Xie M, Esaki T, Cai M (2004a) A GIS-based method for locating
the critical 3D slip surface in a slope. Comput Geotech
31:267–277
Xie M, Esaki T, Cai M (2004b) A time-space based approach for
mapping rainfall-induced shallow landslide hazard. Environ
Geol 46:840–850
Xie M, Esaki T, Zhou G (2004c) GIS-based probabilistic
mapping of landslide hazard using a three-dimensional
deterministic model. Nat Hazards 33:265–282
Xie M, Esaki T, Mitani Y, Cai M (2004d) A 3D deterministic
approach for mapping landslide hazards using GIS. In:
Lacerda WA, Ehrlich M, Fontoura SAB, Sayao ASF (eds)
Landslides: evaluation and stabilization. Balkema, Taylor &
Francis Group, London, pp 97–102
Ye X, Kaufmann H, Guo XF (2004) Landslide monitoring in the
three Gorges area using D-INSAR and corner reflectors.
Photogrammetric Eng Remote Sens 70(10):1167–1172
Yi S, Sun Y (1997) Fractal characterization of regional landslide
activities and its significance. Engineering Geology and the
Environment, Proceedings symposium, Athens, 1:1155–1158
Yokoy Y, Carr JR, Watters RJ (1995) Fractal character of
landslides. Environ Eng Geosci 1(1):75–81
411
Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353
Zadeh LA (1978) Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility.
Fuzzy Sets Syst 1:3–28
Záruba Q, Mencl V (1961) Ingenieurgeologie. Berlin, Prague,
267 pp
Záruba Q, Mencl V (1969) Landslides and their control.
Elsevier, Amsterdam, 205 pp
Zebker HA, Goldstein RM (1986) Topographic mapping from
interferometric synthetic aperture radar observation. J
Geophys Res 91:4993–4999
Zell A (1994) Simulation neuronaler Netze. Addison-Wesley,
Bonn
Zerger A (2002) Examining GIS decision utility for natural
hazard risk modelling. Environ Modell Softw 17:287–294
Zêzere JL, Reis E, Garcı́a R, Oliveira S, Rodrigues ML, Vieira
G, Ferreira AB (2004a) Integration of spatial temporal data
for the definition of different landslide hazard scenarios in
the area north of Lisbon (Portugal). Nat Hazards Earth Syst
Sci 4(1):133–146
Zêzere JL, Rodrigues ML, Reis E, Garcia R, Oliveira S, Vieira
G, Ferreira AB (2004b) Spatial and temporal data manage-
ment for the probabilistic landslide hazard assessment
considering landslide typology. In: Lacerda WA, Ehrlich
M, Fontoura SAB, Sayao ASF (eds) Landslides: evaluation
and stabilization. Balkema, Taylor & Francis Group, Lon-
don, pp 117–124
Zhang LQ, Yang ZF, Liao QL, Chen J (2004) An application of
the rock engineering system (RES) methodology in rockfall
hazard assessment on the Chengdu-Lhasa highway, China.
SINOROCK 2004 Symposium. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
41(3):1–6. CD-ROM. Elsevier
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(3–
4):373–386
Zhou G, Song C, Simmer J, Cheng P (2004) Urban 3D GIS from
LIDDAR and digital aerial images. Comput Geosci 30:345–
353
Zimmermann HJ (1996) Fuzzy set theory and its applications,
3rd edn. Kluwer, Dordrecht
Zinck JA, López J, Metternicht GI, Shresta D, Vázquez-Selem L
(2001) Mapping and modelling mass movements and gullies
in mountain areas using remote sensing and GIS techniques.
JAG 3(1):43–53
123