Natural Hazards

, Volume 60, Issue 3, pp 937–950 | Cite as

Weights of evidence method for landslide susceptibility mapping. Prahova Subcarpathians, Romania

  • Iuliana Armaş
Original Paper


The goal of this paper is to assess the landslide susceptibility of a hilly area in the Subcarpathian sector of the Prahova Valley, using the weight of evidence statistical method. This method aims to reduce the multitude of landslide-related conditions to a pattern of a few discrete predictive variables. The method is based on the decision of which state is more likely to occur grounded on the presence or absence of a predictive variable and the occurrence of an event (e.g., landslide) within a pixel. Based on the chi-square test and the Pearson correlation applied on the data, the selected conditionally independent variables in this study were as follows: slope gradient, slope aspect, and land use. Weights calculated individually for the three themes were added to produce a probability estimate of the area. The predictive power of the map was tested on the basis of a split sample of landslides that were not used in the modeling process. The fact that a great percent of the declivitous surfaces are susceptible to landslides shows the dominant manner of the evolution of the Subcarpathian slopes, the acceleration or deceleration of the process being influenced by the land use.


Weights of evidence statistical method Landslide susceptibility map GIS Romanian Subcarpathian area 



This research was financed by the Romanian National University Research Council, through the grant 2916/31GR/2007. The author would like to express her thanks to the two anonymous reviewers for all the careful review of the paper and the valuable suggestions made, aiming a better structure of the ideas and analytical steps.


  1. Agterberg FP, Cheng Q (2002) Conditional independence test for weights of evidence modeling. Nat Resour Res 11(4):249–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agterberg FP, Bonham-Carter GF, Wright DF (1990) Statistical pattern integration for mineral exploration. In: Gaal G, Merriam DF (eds) Computer applications in resource estimation prediction and assessment for metals and petroleum. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Aitken CGG, Taroni F (2004) Statistics and the evaluation of evidence for forensic scientists, 2nd Edn. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  4. Armaş I, Damian R (2006) Evolutive interpretation of the landslides from the Miron Căproiu Street Scarp (Eternităţii Street–V. Alecsandri Street)—Breaza Town, Revista de Geomorfologie 8:65–72Google Scholar
  5. Armaş I, Manea G (2002) Artificializarea peisajului in sectorul subcarpatic al vaii Prahova. Com de Geografie 6:31–38Google Scholar
  6. Armaş I, Damian R, Şandric I, Osaci-Costache G (ed) (2003) Vulnerabilitatea versanţilor subcarpatici la alunecări de teren (Valea Prahovei). Fundaţiei România de Mâine, BucureştiGoogle Scholar
  7. Ayalew L, Yamagishi H, Ugawa N (2004) Landslide susceptibility mapping using GIS-based weighted linear combination, the case in Tsugawa area of Agano River, Niigata Prefecture, Japan. Landslides 1:73–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barbieri G, Cambuli P (2009) The weight of evidence statistical method in landslide susceptibility mapping of the Rio Pardu Valley (Sardinia, Italy) 18th world IMACS/MODSIM congress, Cairns, Australia., 13–17 July 2009
  9. Barredo JI, Benavides A, Hervas J, van Westen CJ (2000) Comparing heuristic landslide hazard assessment techniques using GIS in the Tirajana basin, Gran Canaria Island, Spain. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 2:9–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bonham-Carter GF (1994) Geographic information systems for geoscientists: Modelling with GIS. Pergamon Press, Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  11. Bonham-Carter GF, Agterberg FP, Wright DF (1989) Weights of evidence modelling: a new approach to mapping mineral potential. In: Agterberg FP, Bonham-Carter GF (eds) Statistical application in the earth sciences. Geological Survey of Canada 89(9):171–183Google Scholar
  12. Carrara A, Cardinali M, Detti R, Guzzetti F, Pasqui V, Reichenbach P (1991) GIS techniques and statistical models in evaluating landslide hazard. Earth Surf Proc Land 16(4):427–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chung C-JF, Fabbri A (2003) Validation of spatial prediction models for landslide hazard mapping. Nat Hazards 30:451–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dai FC, Lee CF, Ngai YY (2002) Landslide risk assessment and management: an overview. Eng Geol 64(1):65–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Emmanuel J, Carranza M, Hale M (2000) Geologically constrained probabilistic mapping of gold potential, Baguio district, Philippines. Nat Resour Res 9:237–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gee MD (1992) Classification of landslide hazard zonation methods and a test of predictive capability. In: Proceedings of the 6th international symposium on landslides, vol 2. Christchurch, New Zealand, 1992, pp 947–952Google Scholar
  17. Glade T, Anderson MG, Crozier MJ (eds) (2005) Landslide hazard and risk. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  18. Good IJ (1988) Statistical evidence. In: Kotz S, Johnson NL (eds) Encyclopedia of statistics, vol 8. Wiley, New York, pp 651–655Google Scholar
  19. Guzzetti F (2006) Landslide hazard and risk assessment. Ph.D. Thesis, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelm-Universitaet Bonn, Last access 15 June 2009
  20. 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(1–4):181–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hansen DT (1998) Visualizing uncertainty captured from source documents with GRID. In: Proceedings of the eighteenth annual Esri international user conference, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  22. Hedges LV, Olkin I (1985) Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Highland LM, Bobrowsky P (2008) The landslide handbook—a guide to understanding landslides. US Geological Survey, RestonGoogle Scholar
  24. Komac M (2006) A landslide susceptibility model using the analytical hierarchy process method and multivariate statistics in perialpine Slovenia. Geomorphology 74(1–4):17–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kouli M, Loupasakis C, Soupios P, Vallianatos F (2010) Landslide hazard zonation in high risk areas of Rethymno Prefecture, Crete Island, Greece. Nat Hazards 52:599–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lee S, Choi J, Min K (2002) Landslide susceptibility analysis and verification using the Bayesian probability model. Env Geol 43:120–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee S, Choi J, Min K (2004) Probabilistic landslide hazard mapping using GIS and remote sensing data at Boun, Korea. Int J Remote Sens 25(11):2037–2052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Neuhäuser B, Terhorst B (2007) Landslide susceptibility assessment using “weights-of-evidence” applied to a study area at the Jurassic escarpment (SW-Germany). Geomorphology 86:12–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nguyen QP, Bui HB (2004) Landslide hazard mapping using Bayesian approach in GIS: case study in YangSan area, Korea. GIS-IDEAS Symposium 2004. Hanoi, Vietnam, pp 125–130Google Scholar
  30. Parichi M, Armaş I, Stanila L, Popa R (2006–2007) Studiul pedogeografic al teritoriului Cornu, TERRA XXXVI-XXXVII:59–73Google Scholar
  31. Parichi M, Armaş I, Vartolomei FL (2008) Informaţia pedologică în evaluarea susceptibilităţii versanţilor la alunecări de teren. Studiu de caz: oraşul Breaza, Lucrări şi rapoarte de cercetare, D.T.D.G., 2:15–27Google Scholar
  32. Parise M (2001) Landslide mapping techniques and their use in the assessment of the landslide hazard. Phys Chem Earth (C) 26:697–703Google Scholar
  33. Ranjan KD, Shuichi H, Atsuko N, Minoru Y, Takuro M, Katsuhiro N (2008) GIS-based weights-of-evidence modeling of rainfall-induced landslides in small catchments for landslide susceptibility mapping. Env Geol 54:311–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rezaei Moghaddam MH, Khayyam M, Ahmadi M, Farajzadeh M (2007) Mapping susceptibility landslide by using the weight-of-evidence model: a case study in Merek Valley, Iran. J Appl Sci 7(22):3342–3355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rupke J, Cammeraat E, Seijmonsbergen AC, van Westen CJ (1988) Engineering geomorphology of the Widentobel catchment, Apenzell and Sankt Gallen, Switzerland: a geomorphological inventory system applied to geotechnical appraisal of slope stability. Eng Geol 26:33–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. TC I (2001) ILWIS 3.0 academic—user’s guide. ITC, EnschedeGoogle Scholar
  37. Van Westen CJ (1993) Application of geographic information systems to landslide hazard zonation. Ph.D. Dissertation, Technical University Delft: ITC-publication number 15, ITC, Enschede, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  38. Van Westen CJ (1997) Statistical landslide hazard analysis, ILWIS 2.1 for Windows application guide. ITC Publication, Enschede, pp 73–84Google Scholar
  39. Van Westen C, Rengers N, Soeters R (2003) Use of geomorphological information in indirect landslide susceptibility assessment. Nat Hazards 30:399–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Van Westen CJ, Van Asch TWJ, Soeters R (2006) Landslide hazard and risk zonation: why is it still so difficult. Bull Eng Geol Environ 65:167–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Varnes DJ (1984) Landslide hazard zonation: a review of principles and practice of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Natural Hazards, vol 3. UNESCO Press, ParisGoogle Scholar
  42. Vartolomei FL, Armaş I (2010) The intensification of the anthropic pressure through the expansion of the constructed area in the subcarpathian sector of the Prahova Valley/Romania (1800–2008). Forum Geografic IX 9:125–132Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geomorphology, Faculty of GeographyUniversity of BucharestBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations