Geoinformatics based landslide vulnerable zonation mapping using analytical hierarchy process (AHP), a study of Kallar river sub watershed, Kallar watershed, Bhavani basin, Tamil Nadu

  • S. Abdul Rahaman
  • S. Aruchamy
Original Article


Landslide is one of the most horrible catastrophic events among the various disasters to the human society, which is caused by the influence of various phenomena of the earth, atmospheric and anthropogenic activities individually or collectively. Landslides not only affect the loss of human life, but also cause economic burden on the society. In the very recent past Geoinformatics based decision support system and techniques are being used for landslide hazard mapping and zonation maping. It enables the combination of different data layers at varies levels. In the present study, Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method was applied to prepare landslide Vulnerable Zonation mapping for Kallar River Sub Watersheds, Bhavani basin, Tamil Nadu by taking ten relevant factors. All these factors were converted into layers by extraction of related spatial data. The Landslide Vulnerable Zonation Index was calculated using the weighted linear combination technique based on the assigned weight and the rating given by using AHP method. Finally the study area was brought under five classes of vulnerable zones. In this 33% of area occupied by very high and high zones followed by moderate zone covers 41 and 26% of the area under very low vulnerability and low vulnerability zones. Further resulted vulnerable zone map and land use/land cover map were overlaid to check the vulnerability status by comparing the previous significant landslide locations. The landslide Vulnerable Zonation map is useful for landslide hazard prevention, mitigation, and improvement to society and implementation of appropriate landuse planning.


Landslide vulnerable zonation Geoinformatics Analytical hierarchy process 


  1. Althuwaynee OF, Pradhan B, Lee S (2012) Application of an evidential belief function model in landslide susceptibility mapping. Comput Geosci 44:120–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson PM, Massari R (1998) Generalized linear modeling of susceptibility to landsliding in the central Apennines, Italy. Comput Geosci 24:373–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burrough PA, McDonnel R (1998) Principles of geographical information systems. 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, London, p 193Google Scholar
  4. Carrara A, Cardinali M, Detti R, Guzzetti F, Pasqui V, Reichenbach P (1991) GIS techniques and statistical models in evaluating landslide hazard. Earth Surf Process Landf 16(5):427-445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carrara A, Cardinali M, Guzzetti F (1992) Uncertainty in assessing landslide hazard and risk. ITC J (2):172–183Google Scholar
  6. Chandel VBS, Brar KK, Chauhan Y (2011) RS & GIS based landslide hazard zonation of mountainous terrains: a study from Middle Himalayan Kullu District, Himachal Pradesh, India. Int J Geomat Geosci 2(1):121–132Google Scholar
  7. Hutchinson JN, Chandler MP (1991) A preliminary landslide hazard zonation of the under cliff of the Isle of Wight. In: Chandler RJ (ed) Slope stability engineering, development and applications. Prococeedings of the international conference on slope stability, Isle of Wight, 15–18 April, Thomas Telford, pp 197-206Google Scholar
  8. Jibson RW, Harp EL, Michael JA (2000) A method for producing digital probabilistic seismic landslide hazard maps. Eng Geol 58(3–4):271–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lee S (2007) Application and verification of fuzzy algebraic operators to landslide susceptibility mapping. Environ Geol 52(4):615–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lee S, Pradhan B (2006) Probabilistic landslide hazards and risk mapping on Penang Island, Malaysia. J Earth Syst Sci 115(6):661–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lee EM, Doorkamp JC, Brunsden D, Noton NH (1991) Ground movement in ventnor, isle of wight. Research contract no. PECD 7/1/272. A report by Geomorphological Services Ltd for the department of environmentGoogle Scholar
  12. Luzi L, Pergalani F, Terlien MTJ (2000) Slope vulnerability to earthquakes at subregional scale, using probabilistic techniques and geographic information systems. Eng Geol 58(3–4):313–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Miles SB, Ho CL (1999) Applications and issues of GIS as tool for civil engineering modeling. J comput civil eng ASCE 13(3):144–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Moon AT, Olds RJ, Wilson RA, Burman BC (1992) Debris flow zoning at Montrose, Victoria. In: Landslides: Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium, February, Bell DH (ed), Christchurch, New Zealand. Balkema AA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, vol 2, pp 1015–1022Google Scholar
  15. Morgan GC, Rawlings GE, Sobkowicz JC (1992) Evaluating total risk to communities from large debris flows. In: Geotechnique and natural hazards. Proceedings Geohazards ’92 Symposium, BiTech Publishers, Canada, pp 225–236Google Scholar
  16. Pachauri AK, Pant M (1992) Landslide hazard mapping based on geological attributes. Engineering Geology 32(1–2):81–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pachauri AK, Gupta PV, Chander R (1998) Landslide zoning in a part of the Garhwal Himalayas. Environ Geol 36(3–4):325–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pourghasemi HR, Moradi HR, Fatemi AS, Mahdavifar MR, Mohammdi M (2009) Landslide hazard assessment using fuzzy multi criteria decision-making method. Iran J Watershed Manag Sci Eng 3(8):51–62Google Scholar
  19. Rahaman SA, Aruchamy S, Jegankumar R (2014) Geospatial approach on landslide hazard zonation mapping using multicriteria decision analysis: a study on Coonoor and Ooty, part of Kallar Watershed, The Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu. ISPRS - International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences XL-8:1417–1422Google Scholar
  20. Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in higherarchial structures. J Math Psychol 15:234–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Saaty TL (1980) The analytical hierarchy process. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Saaty TL (1990) The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation, 1st ed. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, p 502Google Scholar
  23. Saaty TL (1994) Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with analytic hierarchy process, 1st ed. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, p 527Google Scholar
  24. Saaty TL, Vargas LG (2001) Models, methods, concepts, and applications of the analytic hierarchy process, 1st edn. Kluwer Academic, Boston, p 333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sharma LP, Debnath P, Patel N, Ghose MK (2009) Landslide vulnerability. My Coordinates V 11:31–34Google Scholar
  26. Shu-Quiang W, Unwin DJ (1992) Modelling landslide distribution on loess soils in China: an investigation. Int J geogr inf syst 6(5):391-405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Siddle HJ, Jones DB, Payne HR (1991) Development of a methodology for landslip potential mapping in the Rhondda Valley. In: Chandler RJ (ed) Slope Stability Engineering, Thomas Telford, London, pp 137–142Google Scholar
  28. Süzen ML, Doyuran V (2004) Data driven bivariate landslide susceptibility assessment using geographical information systems: a method and application to Asarsuyu catchment. Turk Eng Geol 71(3–4):303–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vargas LG (1990) An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications. Eur J Oper Res 48:2–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wadge G (1988) The potential of GIS modelling of gravity flows and slope instabilities. Int J geogr inf syst 2(2):143-152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yalcin A (2008) GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping using analytical hierarchy process and bivariate statistics in Ardesen (Turkey). Catena 72:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhou CH, Lee CF, Li J, Xu ZW (2002) On the spatial relationship between landslides and causative factors on Lantau Island, Hong Kong. Geomorphology 43(3–4):197–207Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyBharathidasan UniversityTiruchirappalliIndia

Personalised recommendations