Advertisement

Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 14, Issue 7, pp 1266–1277 | Cite as

Comparative analysis of SHALSTAB and SINMAP for landslide susceptibility mapping in the Cunha River basin, southern Brazil

  • Gean Paulo MichelEmail author
  • Masato Kobiyama
  • Roberto Fabris Goerl
PROGRESS IN EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION IN LATIN AMERICA

Abstract

Purpose

The Shallow Landsliding Stability Model (SHALSTAB) and Stability Index Mapping (SINMAP) models have been applied to various landslide management and research studies. Both models combine a hydrological model with an infinite slope stability model for predicting landslide occurrence. The objectives of the present study were to apply these two models to the Cunha River basin, Santa Catarina State, southern Brazil, where many landslides occurred in November 2008, and perform a comparative analysis of their results.

Materials and methods

Soil samples were collected to determine the input parameters. The models were calibrated with a landslide scar inventory, and rainfall data were obtained from three rain gauges. A comparison of their results obtained from the models was undertaken with the success and error index.

Results and discussion

Based on the maps of stability and instability areas for the study basin, the models performed well. Since the initial equations of both models are not particularly different, their results are similar. Locations with steep slopes, as well as areas with concave relief that tend to have larger contribution areas and moisture, have lower stability indexes. SHALSTAB classified only ~13 % of the total area of the Cunha River basin as unstable, while SINMAP classified ~30 % as unstable.

Conclusions

The analysis of maps based on the results of the two models shows that if SHALSTAB is correctly calibrated, based on hydrological parameters, its results could be more accurate than SINMAP in the prediction of landslide areas. Although SINMAP showed better calibration of the landslide scars, its classification over the basin results in an overestimation of stability areas. The conclusion is that SHALSTAB is more suitable than SINMAP for the prediction of landslides in the Cunha River basin, Brazil.

Keywords

Landslides SHALSTAB SINMAP Slope stability 

References

  1. Andriola P, Chirico GB, De Falco M, Crescenzo G, Santo A (2009) A comparison between physically-based models and a semiquantitative methodology for assessing susceptibility to flowslides triggering in pyroclastic deposits of southern Italy. Geogr Fis Dinam Quat 32:213–226Google Scholar
  2. Bathurst JC, Moretti G, El-Hames A, Moaven-Hashemi A, Burton A (2005) Scenario modelling of basin-scale, shallow landslide sediment yield, Valsassina, Italian Southern Alps. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 5:189–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beven KJ, Kirkby MJ (1979) A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology. Bull Hydrol Sci 24:43–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cendrero A, Dramis F (1996) The contribution of landslides to landscape evolution in Europe. Geomorphology 15:191–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen CY, Chen LK, Yu FC, Lin SC, Lin YC, Lee CL, Wang YT (2010) Landslides affecting sedimentary characteristics of reservoir basin. Environ Earth Sci 59:1693–1702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Claessens L, Heuvelink GBM, Schoorl JM, Veldkamp A (2005) DEM resolution effects on shallow landslide hazard and soil redistribution modelling. Earth Surf Proc Landforms 30:461–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Corominas J, Moya J (2008) A review of assessing landslide frequency for hazard zoning purposes. Eng Geol 102:193–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corsini A, Borgatti L, Cervi F, Dahne A, Ronchetti F, Sterzai P (2009) Estimating mass-wasting processes in active earth slides—earthflows with time-series of high-resolution DEMs from photogrammetry and airborne LiDAR. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9:433–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crozier MJ (2010) Landslide geomorphology: an argument for recognition, with examples from New Zealand. Geomorphology 120:3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dietrich WE, Montgomery DR (1998) SHALSTAB: a digital terrain model for mapping shallow landslide potential. NCASI (National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement), Technical Report, 29 pGoogle Scholar
  11. Dietrich WE, Bellugi D, Real de Asua R (2001) Validation of the shallow landslide model, SHALSTAB, for forest management. In: Wigmosta MS, Burges SJ (ed) Land use and watersheds: human influence on hydrology and geomorphology in urban and forest areas. Water Sci Appl, AGU, Washington DC, vol 2 pp 195–227Google Scholar
  12. EMBRAPA Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Solos (2009) Sistema brasileiro de classificação de solos. EMBRAPA-SPI, Rio de Janeiro, 412 pGoogle Scholar
  13. IBGE Gerencia de Recursos Naturais e Estudos Ambientais (2003) Reconhecimento de Solos (mapa). Folha Blumenau. Escala 1:100000Google Scholar
  14. Kobiyama M, Goerl RF, Correa GP, Michel GP (2010) Debris flow occurrences in Rio dos Cedros, Southern Brazil: meteorological and geomorphic aspects. In: Wrachien D, Brebbia CA (eds) Monitoring, simulation. Prevention and remediation of dense debris flows III. WIT Press, Southampton, pp 77–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kobiyama M, Almeida AA, Grison F, Giglio JN (2011) Landslide influence on turbidity and total solids in Cubatão do Norte River, Santa Catarina, Brazil. Nat Hazards 59:1077–1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Korup O (2005) Large landslides and their effect on sediment flux in South Westland, New Zealand. Earth Surf Proc Landforms 30:305–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Meisina C, Scarabelli S (2007) A comparative analysis of terrain stability models for predicting shallow landslides in colluvial soils. Geomorphology 87:207–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Michel GP, Goerl RF, Kobiyama M, Higashi RAR (2011) Estimativa da quantidade de chuva necessária para deflagrar escorregamentos. In: Anais do XIX Simpósio Brasileiro de Recursos Hídricos. Maceió: ABRH, 2011. CD-rom. 20 pGoogle Scholar
  19. Montgomery DR, Dietrich WE (1994) A physically based model for the topographic control on shallow landsliding. Water Resour. Res. 30:1153–1170Google Scholar
  20. Mota AA, Kobiyama M (2011) Avaliação da dinâmica da água na zona vadosa em solos de diferentes usos com o modelo Hydrus-1D. In: XIX Brazilian Symposium of Water Resoureces, Maceió, ABRH, Procedings, 16 pGoogle Scholar
  21. O’Loughlin EM (1986) Prediction of surface saturation zones in natural catchments by topographic analysis. Water Resour Res 22:794–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pack RT, Tarboton DG, Goodwin CN (1998) Terrain stability mapping with SINMAP, technical description and users guide for version 1.00. Report Number 4114–0, Terratech Consulting Ltd., Salmon Arm, Canada, 68 pGoogle Scholar
  23. Petley D (2010) Landslide hazards. In: Alcantara-Ayala I, Goudie A (eds) Geomorphological hazards and disaster prevention. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 63–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Petley D (2012) Global patterns of loss of life from landslides. Geol 40:927–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Safaei M, Omar H, Huat BK, Yousof ZBM, Ghiasi V (2011) Deterministic rainfall induced landslide approaches, advantage and limitation. Electron J Geotech Eng 16:1619–1650Google Scholar
  26. Schaap MG, Leij FJ (2000) Improved prediction of unsaturated hydraulic conductivity with the Mualem-van Genuchten model. Soil Sci Soc Am J 64:843–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schaap MG, Leij FJ, van Genuchten MT (2001) Rosetta: a computer program for estimating soil hydraulic parameters with hierarchical pedotransfer functions. J Hydrol 251:163–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Selby M (1993) Hillslope materials and processes. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 289 pGoogle Scholar
  29. Sorbino G, Sica C, Cascini L (2010) Susceptibility analysis of shallow landslides source areas using physically based models. Nat Hazards 53:313–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Steijn H (1996) Debris-flow magnitude-frequency relationship of mountainous regions of Central and Northwest Europe. Geomorphology 15:256–273Google Scholar
  31. Wilcock PR, Schmidt JC, Wolman MG, Dietrich WE, Dominick D, Doyle MW, Grant GE, Iverson RM, Montgomery DR, Pierson TC, Schilling SP, Wilson RC (2003) When models meet managers: examples from geomorphology. In: Wilcock PR, Iverson RM (eds) Prediction in geomorphology, Geophys Monogr Ser, vol 135. AGU, Washington, pp 27–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wu S, Li J, Huang GH (2008) A study on DEM-derived primary topographic attributes for hydrologic applications: sensitivity to elevation data resolution. Appl Geogr 28:210–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gean Paulo Michel
    • 1
    Email author
  • Masato Kobiyama
    • 1
  • Roberto Fabris Goerl
    • 2
  1. 1.Instituto de Pesquisas HidráulicasUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do SulPorto AlegreBrazil
  2. 2.Programa de Pós Graduação em GeografiaUniversidade Federal do Paraná, Centro PolitécnicoCuritibaBrazil

Personalised recommendations