Environmental Geology

, Volume 47, Issue 7, pp 956–966 | Cite as

Comparative evaluation of landslide susceptibility in Minamata area, Japan

Original Article


Landslides are unpredictable; however, the susceptibility of landslide occurrence can be assessed using qualitative and quantitative methods based on the technology of the Geographic Information Systems (GIS). A map of landslide inventory was obtained from the previous work in the Minamata area, the interpretation from aerial photographs taken in 1999 and 2002. A total of 160 landslides was identified in four periods. Following the construction of geospatial databases, including lithology, topography, soil deposits, land use, etc., the study documents the relationship between landslide hazard and the factors that affect the occurrence of landslides. Different methods, namely the logistic regression analysis and the information value model, were then adopted to produce susceptibility maps of landslide occurrence. After the application of each method, two resultant maps categorize the four classes of susceptibility as high, medium, low and very low. Both of them generated acceptable results as both classify the majority of the cells with landslide occurrence in high or medium susceptibility classes, which could be believed to be a success. By combining the hazard maps generated from both methods, the susceptibility was classified as high–medium and low–very low levels, in which the classification of high susceptibility level covers 6.5% of the area, while the areas predicted to be unstable, which are 50.5% of the total area, are classified as the low susceptibility level. However, comparing the results from both the approaches, 43% of the areas were misclassified, either from high–medium to low–very low or low–very low to high–medium classes. Due to the misclassification, 8% and 3.28% of all the areas, which should be stable or free of landsliding, were evaluated as high–medium susceptibility using the logistic regression analysis and the information value model, respectively. Moreover, in the case of the class rank change from high–medium susceptibility to low–very low, 35% and 39.72% of all mapping areas were predicted as stable using both the approaches, respectively, but in these areas landslides were likely to occur or were actually recognized.


Landslides Susceptibility Logistic regression analysis Information value model Geographic Information Systems 


  1. Alcantara-Ayala I (2004) Hazard assessment of rainfall-induced landsliding in Mexico. Geomorphology 61(1–2):19–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aleotti P, Chowdhury R (1999) Landslide hazard assessment: summary review and new perspectives. Bull Eng Geol Environ 58:21–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carrara A, Cardinali M, Detti R, Guzzetti F, Pasqui V, Reichenbach P (1991) GIS techniques and statistical models in evaluating landslide hazard. Earth Surface Process Landform 16:427–445Google Scholar
  4. Carrara A, Cardinali M, Guzzetti F (1992) Uncertainty in assessing landslide hazard and risk. ITC 2:172–183Google Scholar
  5. Chau KT, Sze YL, Fung MK, Wong WY, Fong EL, Chan LCP (2004) Landslide hazard analysis for Hong Kong using landslide inventory and GIS. Comput Geosci 30(4):429–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chung CF, Fabbri AG (1995) Multivariate regression analysis for landslide hazard zonation. In: Carrara A, Guzzetti F (eds) Geographical information systems in assessing natural hazards. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 107–133Google Scholar
  7. Cruden DM, Fell R (1997) Landslide risk assessment. In: Proceedings of International Workshop on Landslide Risk Assessment, Honolulu. AA Balkema, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  8. Dai FC, Lee CF (2001) Terrain-based mapping of landslide susceptibility using a geographical information system: a case study. Can Geotech J 38(5):911–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gupta P, Anbalagan R (1997) Slope stability of Tehri Dam reservoir area, India, using landslide hazard zonation (LHZ) mapping. Q J Eng Geol 30(1):27–36Google Scholar
  10. Guzzetti F, Carrara A, Cardinalli M, Reichenbach P (1999) Landslide hazard evaluation: a review of current techniques and their application in a multi-case study, central Italy. Geomorphology 31:181–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hansen A, Brimicombe AJ, Franks C, Kirk P, Tung F (1995) Application of GIS to hazard assessment, with particular reference to landslides in Hong Kong. In: Carrara A, Guzzetti F (eds) Geographical information systems in assessing natural hazards. Kluwer, The Netherlands, pp 273–298Google Scholar
  12. Hutchinson JN (1995) Keynote paper—landslide hazard assessment. Proceedings of 6th symposium on landslides. In: Bell DH (ed) Landslides, vol 3. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 1805–1841Google Scholar
  13. Lee S, Chwae U, Min KD (2002) Landslide susceptibility mapping by correlation between topography and geological structure: the Janghung area. Korea Geomorphol 46(3–4):149–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Turner AK, Schuster RL (eds) (1996) Landslides: investigation and mitigation. Washington, DC, National Research Council, Transportation Research Board Special Report 247, pp 675Google Scholar
  15. Varnes DJ (1984) Hazard zonation: a review of principal and practice. Commission of Landslide of IAEG, UNESCO, Natural Hazards, No 3, p 61Google Scholar
  16. van Westen CJ (1993) Application of Geographical Information System to landslide hazard zonation. ITC Publication 15:245Google Scholar
  17. Wu SR, Shi L, Wang RJ, Tan CX, Hu DG, Mei YT, Xu RC (2001) Zonation of the landslide hazards in the fore reservoir region of the three Gorges project on the Yangtze river. Eng Geol 59:51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Yan TZ (1988) Advances on quantitative prediction of landslide researches (in Chinese). Hydrogeol Eng Geol 6:8–14Google Scholar
  19. Yin KL, Yan TZ (1988) Statistical prediction model for slope instability of metamorphosed rocks. In: Bonnard C (ed) Proceedings of 5th international symposium landslides, Lausanne, vol 2. AA Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 1269–1272Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Disaster Prevention Research InstituteKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan
  2. 2.Geotechnical InstituteHohai UniversityNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations