Earth and Planetary Science Letters 195 (2002) 169^183

www.elsevier.com/locate/epsl

Power-law correlations of landslide areas in central Italy

Fausto Guzzetti a; *, Bruce D. Malamud b , Donald L. Turcotte c ,
Paola Reichenbach a
a
CNR, IRPI Perugia, via della Madonna Alta 126, Perugia 06128, Italy
b
Department of Geography, Kings College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, UK
c
Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-1504, USA
Received 12 June 2001; received in revised form 5 November 2001; accepted 20 November 2001

Abstract

We have studied the frequency^area statistics of landslides in central Italy. We consider two data sets. Data set A
contains 16 809 landslide areas in the Umbria^Marche area of central Italy; they represent a reconnaissance inventory
of very old, old, and recent (modern) landslides. The noncumulative frequency^area distribution of these landslides
correlates well with a power-law relation, exponent 32.5, over the range 0.03 km2 6 AL 6 4 km2 . Data set B contains
4233 landslides that were triggered by a sudden change in temperature on 1 January 1997, resulting in extensive melting
of snow cover. An inventory of these snow-melt-triggered landslides was obtained from aerial photographs taken
3 months after the event. These landslides also correlate well with a power-law relation with exponent 32.5, over the
range 0.001 km2 6 AL 6 0.1 km2 . We show that the correlation of data set B is essentially identical to the correlation of
11 000 landslides triggered by the 17 January 1994 Northridge, California earthquake. We attribute a rollover for small
landslides in data set A to incompleteness of the record due to erosion and other processes, and to limitations in the
reconnaissance mapping technique used to complete the inventory. On the other hand, we conclude that rollovers for
small landslides in data set B and the California earthquake data are real and are associated with the surface
morphology. We conclude that the power-law distribution is valid over a wide range of landslide areas and discuss
possible reasons. We also discuss the contribution of the snow-melt- and earthquake-triggered landslide events to the
total landslide inventory. ß 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: landslides; power law; distribution; fractals; Umbria Italy; Marches Italy

1. Introduction losses due to landslides are greater than losses

In many countries, the casualties and economic
* Corresponding author. Fax: +39-75-501-4420.
E-mail addresses: f.guzzetti@irpi.pg.cnr.it (F. Guzzetti),
bruce@malamud.com (B.D. Malamud),
turcotte@geology.cornell.edu (D.L. Turcotte),
p.reichenbach@irpi.pg.cnr.it (P. Reichenbach).
from other natural hazards such as £oods, earth-
quakes, volcanic eruptions, and severe storms [1].
Considerable progress has been made in under-
standing the physical processes associated with
the landslide hazard (i.e., hydrology, surface mor-
phology, triggering mechanisms). However, less
work has been done on the probabilistic hazard
assessments of landslides [2]. Important questions
concerning probabilistic assessments include:

0012-821X / 02 / $ ^ see front matter ß 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 1 2 - 8 2 1 X ( 0 1 ) 0 0 5 8 9 - 1

EPSL 6085 11-2-02

170 F. Guzzetti et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 195 (2002) 169^183
(1) gWhat fraction of triggered landslide events
are associated with speci¢c triggers (i.e., intense
or prolonged rainfall, earthquake, snow-melt) ?
(2) What is the frequency of occurrence of a land-
slide of a speci¢ed size in a speci¢ed region and
time period? (3) Can the rate of occurrence of
small landslides in a region be extrapolated to
predict the rate of occurrence of large landslides ?
In this context, it is of interest to compare land-
slides with earthquakes. The physical processes
associated with both phenomena are extremely
complex. Despite these complexities, the fre-
quency-magnitude statistics of earthquakes satisfy
the Gutenberg^Richter relation [3]:
log N CE ˆ 3bm ‡ a …1†
where NCE is the cumulative number of earth-
quakes that occur in a speci¢ed region and time
interval with magnitudes greater than or equal to
m, a and b are constants. This relation is valid
over a wide range of earthquake sizes both re-
gionally and on a worldwide basis [4].
It can be shown [5] that Eq. 1 is entirely equiv-
alent to the power-law (fractal) relation:
K of the slip events satisfy the power-law (fractal)
N CE ˆ CA3
E …2†
with C a constant, AE the earthquake rupture
area, and K = b from Eq. 1. The frequency^area
statistics of earthquakes satisfy power-law (frac-
tal) statistics.
There is accumulating evidence that the fre-
quency^area statistics of landslides are also
power-law [6^14]. Inventories of landslides usually
give the total area of the landslide, including the
depletion area and run out. It can be argued that
it would be preferable to use either landslide fail-
ure area or landslide volume, but these quantities
are di¤cult to determine. Where landslide volume
has been determined, the frequency^volume statis-
tics also obey a power-law function [15,16]. In this
paper, we will show that two landslide inventories
from central Italy provide further strong support
for the hypothesis that landslide frequency^area
statistics are power-law (fractal) for landslides
that exceed a minimum length scale.
EPSL 6085 11-2-02
2. Computer models and self-organized criticality
Many empirical observations have shown that
both earthquakes and landslides obey power-law
(fractal) frequency^size statistics. However, is
there an underlying physical basis for this behav-
ior? A number of authors [17,18] have argued
that the power-law behavior of earthquakes is a
consequence of self-organized critical behavior. A
rigorous de¢nition of self-organized criticality is
elusive, but a working de¢nition is that the `input'
to a complex system is nearly constant, whereas
the `output' is a series of events or `avalanches'
that follow a power-law (fractal) frequency^size
distribution.
Slider block models are considered to be a sim-
ple analog for regional seismicity [19]. In these
models, slider blocks in an array are connected
to each other and to a driver plate by springs.
The blocks interact frictionally with a surface
and are dragged over the surface by the constant
motion of the driver plate. The blocks exhibit
stick^slip behavior and they move forward in a
sequence of slip events. Under many circumstan-
ces, the noncumulative frequency^area statistics
relation:
L
N E ˆ C 0 A3
E …3†
where NE is the (noncumulative) number of slip
events with area AE , the number of blocks that
participate in the event, and CP and L are con-
stants. A number of authors have shown that
for a variety of slider block models L is in the
range 1.0^1.3 [20]. However, some nonconserva-
tive models [21] have been proposed in which L is
a function of the parameters in the model, with
values obtained for L as large as 2.5.
For a noncumulative power-law distribution
(Eq. 3) with L = 1.0, the corresponding cumulative
distribution obtained by summing or integrating
will be logarithmic. For a noncumulative power-
law distribution (Eq. 3) with exponent L s 1.0, the
corresponding cumulative distribution obtained
by integration or summing will be a power-law
(Eq. 2) with exponent K = L31.0. We use the ex-
 F. Guzzetti et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 195 (2002) 169^183
ponent K for linearly binned noncumulative
power-law distributions and the exponent L for
cumulative distributions. A logarithmically
binned noncumulative distribution is equivalent
to a cumulative distribution.
The robust power-law behavior of the slider
block model has been associated with self-orga-
nized criticality and this is then associated with
earthquakes [17]. Although both the model and
the actual earthquakes yield robust power-law fre-
quency^size distributions under a wide variety of
circumstances, the power-law exponent in Eq. 2
for earthquakes is KV1.0, equivalent to LV2.0 in
Eq. 3, compared to LV1.0 for most slider block
models.
The concept of self-organized criticality was
¢rst given by Bak et al. [22,23] in order to explain
the behavior of their `sandpile' model. In this
model, there was a square grid of boxes and at
each time step a particle was dropped into a ran-
domly selected box. When a box accumulated
four particles, the particles were redistributed to
the four neighboring boxes, or in the case of edge
boxes, were lost from the grid. Redistributions of
particles could lead to further instabilities with
`avalanches' of particles lost from the grid. Be-
cause of this avalanche behavior, this was called
a `sandpile' model. The noncumulative frequency^
area distribution of model avalanches was found
to satisfy the noncumulative frequency^area
power-law distribution (Eq. 3) with N the number
of avalanches and A the number of particles lost
from the grid, with again LV1.
Shortly after the `sandpile' model was pro-
posed, a number of laboratory studies were
undertaken to determine whether actual sandpiles
exhibit self-organized criticality. A variety of fre-
quency^size statistics for `avalanches' were found
[24,25]; in some cases the results were consistent
with a power-law relation (Eq. 3), but in other
cases they were not.
Noever [9] and many other authors have asso-
ciated the apparent power-law frequency^area
statistics of landslides with the `sandpile' model.
However, there is clearly a large extrapolation
from the model to actual landslides. Neverthe-
less, the power-law behavior of landslides above
a minimum length scale appears to be quite uni-
EPSL 6085 11-2-02
171
versal, indicating an important underlying
physics.
It has been proposed that self-organized critical
behavior can be explained as a self-similar inverse
cascade [18,26,27]. This explanation is given in
terms of metastable regions. In terms of land-
slides, the metastable region is the region over
which a landslide will propagate once initiated.
As the landscape evolves, metastable regions
grow, principally by the coalescence of smaller
metastable regions. This growth by coalescence
is the self-similar inverse cascade. We will return
to this explanation after we have presented the
landslide inventory data.
3. Landslides in central Italy
We ¢rst turn our attention to landslides in the
Umbria^Marche area of central Italy [28]. The
Umbria region lies on the west side of the Apen-
nines mountain chain and is drained by the Tiber
River that £ows into the Tyrrhenian Sea. The
Marche region lies on the eastern side of the
Apennines divide and the region drains into the
Adriatic Sea. These regions have a long history of
catastrophic landslides that date back to the
Etruscan and Roman periods.
A variety of rock types are found in the out-
crops in these regions [28]. Hard rocks include
layered and massive limestones, cherty limestones,
sandstones, pyroclastic deposits, travertines and
conglomerates. Weak rocks include marls, shales,
sands, silty clays, and overconsolidated clays. Soft
rocks are marine and continental clays, silty clays,
and shales. The morphology and structural setting
are the result of two tectonic phases. A compres-
sive phase, late Miocene to early Pliocene in age,
was followed by an extensional phase of Pliocene
to recent age. The compressive deformation pro-
duced large anticlines, corresponding to major di-
vides, and synclines associated with thrusts and
transcurrent faults. The extensional tectonic phase
produced normal faults that formed intra-moun-
tain basins and valleys. Landslides include falls
and topples in hard rocks, soil slips in the collu-
vial cover, rotational slides in homogeneous soft
rocks, translational slides in well-bedded soft and
172 F. Guzzetti et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 195 (2002) 169^183

hard rocks, earth £ows, and complex and com-
pound slides where alternating layers of hard
and soft rocks crop out [28].
We ¢rst consider a regional inventory of 16 809
landslides in the Umbria^Marche area, which is
slightly larger than the political regions of Umbria
and Marche. The total study area is about 18 000
km2 . The inventory (Figs. 1 and 2) was obtained
by the systematic analysis of some 2000 black and
white vertical aerial photographs taken at a nom-
inal scale of 1:33 000 and supplemented by de-
tailed geomorphic investigations at selected sites
[29,30]. The total of all landslides mapped is 1831
km2 , or about 10% of the Umbria^Marche study
area. Table 1 gives the distribution of the type,
number and size of the mapped landslides. Land-
slides were mapped according to a simpli¢ed ver-
sion of Varnes classi¢cation [29^31].
The frequency^area statistics for landslides are
often presented using cumulative statistics; the
cumulative number of landslides NCL with areas
greater than AL is plotted as a function of AL .
However, the frequency^area distributions of
sandpile model avalanches, presented in Eq. 3

Fig. 1. Spatial distribution of landslides mapped in the Umbria^Marche (central Italy) area. Shown is the spatial location of
16 809 landslides (data set A) identi¢ed through the interpretation of about 2000 black and white 1:33 000 aerial photographs
£own 1954^1956. This ¢gure is a reduced version of 1:100 000 color landslide inventory maps [29,30], an example of which is
given in Fig. 2 (represented as a small square in the upper left of the above ¢gure). Boundaries for the Umbria (left) and Marche
(right) political regions are shown as thick black lines.

EPSL 6085 11-2-02

 F. Guzzetti et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 195 (2002) 169^183 173

Fig. 2. Portion of the landslide inventory map for the Marche Region, central Italy. This map was prepared through 1:33 000
aerial photograph interpretation. The above portrays a small portion (21U19 km) of the original 1:100 000 landslide inventory
map [30]. This ¢gure's location is given as a small square in the upper left of Fig. 1.

with power-law exponent LV1, were noncumula-
tive, i.e., the data are given in unit steps of num-
bers of particles lost from the grid. Since we wish
to compare the measured landslide distributions
with the model results, we will consider only non-
cumulative distributions. Binning the data is one
way to represent noncumulative distributions
(with care taken to correctly normalize the bins
and specify whether bin sizes are in linear or log-
arithmic coordinates). We use here the derivative
method to convert cumulative distributions to
noncumulative distributions. We start with the
cumulative distribution NCL (AL ). We then de¢ne
a noncumulative distribution in terms of the neg-
ative of the derivative of the cumulative distribu-
tion 3 dNCL /dAL . A close approximation of the
derivative, dNCL /dAL , is the slope of the best-¢t
line to a speci¢ed number of adjacent cumulative
data points (typically 5).
The noncumulative number^area distribution

EPSL 6085 11-2-02

174 F. Guzzetti et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 195 (2002) 169^183

Table 1
Distribution of type, number and area for two landslide inventories in central Italy
Landslide classi¢cation according to Varnes [31] Number of landslides Areas of mapped landslides (km2 )
Minimum Maximum Average Total
Data set A: Regional inventory of old and recent landslides in the Umbria^Marche area.
Slides 5 745 7.00U1034 2.80U100 8.93U1032 5.13U102
Slides/£ows 1 035 7.43U1033 4.32U100 1.68U1031 1.74U102
Flows 2 652 3.07U1033 2.57U100 5.99U1032 1.59U102
Flows: debris £ows 309 3.48U1033 1.48U100 8.20U1032 2.53U101
Complex 447 1.46U1032 5.29U100 2.30U1031 1.03U102
Multiple 439 1.42U1032 5.12U100 5.96U1031 2.62U102
Sur¢cial (landslide area) 3 759 4.50U1033 3.73U100 1.09U1031 4.09U102
Indistinct (? slides) 2 423 4.66U1033 1.27U100 7.67U1032 1.86U102
All of data set A 16 809 7.00U1034 5.29U100 1.09U1031 1.83U103
Data set B: Snow-melt-triggered landslides in Umbria.
Falls 10 2.28U1034 3.34U1032 4.34U1033 4.34U1032
Slides: shallow 2 225 5.80U1035 1.20U1031 1.62U1033 3.60U100
Slides: deep-seated 1568 3.95U1035 1.56U1031 5.39U1033 8.45U100
Flows 350 8.86U1035 7.31U1033 8.67U1034 3.03U1031
Flows: multiple 27 5.20U1034 3.42U1032 4.81U1033 1.30U1031
Indistinct (? slides) 53 5.01U1034 2.07U1032 3.87U1033 2.05U1031
All of data set B 4 233 3.95U1035 1.56U1031 3.01U1033 1.27U101

of the 16 809 landslides in the Umbria and Mar-

che regions is given in Fig. 3 (data set A). These
medium and large landslides correlate well with
the power-law (fractal) relation :
dN CL L
3 ˆ C 0 A3
L …4†
dAL

taking L = 2.5 and CP = 300 (with AL in km2 ). This

Fig. 3. Noncumulative frequency^area distributions of central
Italian landslides. The noncumulative frequency of landslides
3dNCL /dAL with area AL is given as a function of landslide
area AL for two data sets. Data set A represents an inven-
tory of 16 809 old and recent landslides mapped in the Um-
bria^Marche area (see Fig. 1 for the spatial distribution of
these landslides, Fig. 2 for an example of their detailed map-
ping). Data set B represents 4233 landslides triggered by a
January 1997 rapid snow melting in Umbria (see Fig. 4 for
photographs of these landslides, Fig. 5 for their spatial distri-
bution, and Fig. 6 for an example of their detailed map-
ping).
data set deviates from the power-law scaling for
1=2
AL 6 1031 km2 (AL W300 m). The largest num-
ber of landslides have an area AL = 2U1032 km2
1=2
(AL W140 m).
We next consider an inventory of 4233 land-
slides in the Umbria region that were triggered
by a sudden change in temperature on 1 January
1997. Four examples of landslides triggered by
this rapid snow-melt event are given in Fig. 4.
This inventory [32] was obtained from the inter-
pretation of about 400 aerial photographs taken
at a 1:20 000 nominal scale. The photographs
were taken 3 months after the snow-melt event
and supplemented by ¢eld mapping carried out
at a 1:10 000 scale. The total study area is about
2000 km2 . The spatial distribution of these land-
slides is given in Figs. 5 and 6.
The noncumulative number^area distribution

EPSL 6085 11-2-02

 F. Guzzetti et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 195 (2002) 169^183 175

Fig. 4. Four examples of landslides triggered by the January 1997 rapid snow-melting in Umbria. (A) To the right of the build-
ings can be seen a deep-seated slide (slump earth £ow) of about 50U180 m. (B) In the foreground, cutting across the paved
road, can be seen part of a deep-seated slide (rotational) of about 30U100 m. (C) On the slope can be seen a shallow slide (soil
slip) of about 40U40 m. (D) In the middle can be seen deep-seated slides (complex), with the largest (on the left) extending
about 100U250 m.

of these landslides is also given in Fig. 3 (data set
B). Note that the two vertical scales have been
adjusted so that the two data sets overlap. These
landslides also correlate well with the power-law
relation (Eq. 4), again taking L = 2.5 and CP = 0.3
(with AL in km2 ). This data set deviates from the
1=2
power-law scaling for AL 6 1033 km2 (AL W30
m). The largest number of landslides have an
1=2
area AL = 6U1034 km2 (AL W25 m).
In the study area, small landslides exhibit as-
pect ratios (the ratio of down-slope length to the
across-slope width) near unity and large landslides
can have aspect ratios greater than 2.5. Thus for
data set B, assuming an aspect ratio of 1.0 for
small landslides, the deviation from the power-
law scaling at AL V1033 km2 can be associated
1=2
with a linear dimension AL W30 m.
The overlap of the two data sets illustrated in
Fig. 3 shows that the power-law scaling is valid
over the range of landslide areas, 1033
km2 6 AL 6 4 km2 , i.e., for lengths scales greater
1=2
than AL W30 m. The inventory of the snow-
melt-induced landslides (data set B) is certainly
more complete than the historical landslides
(data set A). We conclude that the rollover (at
AL W2U1032 km2 ) of the landslides in the region-
al inventory in data set A is due to the inability to
measure the areas of the smaller landslides on the
aerial photographs and/or due to erosion and oth-
er wasting processes.
In data set A, the reconnaissance technique
used to map landslides from aerial photographs
limited the size of features that could be recog-
nized. Due to the scale (1:33 000) and the quality

EPSL 6085 11-2-02

176 F. Guzzetti et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 195 (2002) 169^183

Fig. 5. Spatial distribution of Umbria landslides triggered by rapid snow-melt in January 1997 [32]. Shown is the spatial location
of 4233 landslides (data set B) identi¢ed through the interpretation of 1:20 000 aerial photographs £own 3 months after the
event. These aerial photographs, supplemented by ¢eld surveys, resulted in mapping being carried out at a scale of 1:10 000, an
example of which is given in Fig. 6 (represented as the small rectangle in the lower middle portion of the ¢gure above).

of the photographs, the smallest landslide consis-
tently recognized had an area of about 1 hectare
(AL = 1032 km2 or about 3 mmU3 mm on the
photograph). The evidence for the existence of
the smaller landslides in the regional inventory
has been lost due to erosion and human action
[28]. Data set A is thus incomplete for landslides
below AL W1032 km2 .
On the other hand, the rollover of the land-
slides in data set B is not an artifact, and is the
result of the truncation of the power-law scaling
1=2
at a length scale of about AL W30 m. Due to the
freshness of the snow-melt-triggered landslides,
and the quality and scale (1:20 000) of the
aerial photographs, the smallest landslide area
consistently mapped is about 2.5U1034 km2
1=2
(AL W16 m), i.e., lower than the dimension
1=2
AL W30 m at which the data set deviates from
the power-law relation. This conclusion is sup-
ported by ¢eldwork carried out to map landslides
before the aerial photographs were taken, and by
successive ¢eld surveys performed to check the
quality of the aerial photographs interpretation
[32]. Ground surveys con¢rmed that the landslide

EPSL 6085 11-2-02

 F. Guzzetti et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 195 (2002) 169^183 177

Fig. 6. Portion of the landslide inventory map for the Umbria Region, central Italy. The above portrays a small portion
(4.8U4.4 km) of the inventory map created from Umbria snow-melt-triggered landslides [31]. This ¢gure's location is given as a
small rectangle in the lower middle of Fig. 5.

inventory, as interpreted from the aerial photo-
graphs, is virtually complete.
Table 1 shows that the landslide areas in the
two (combined) data sets presented in Fig. 3
range from 4.0U1035 km2 (the smallest landslide
mapped in data set B, the snow-melt-triggered
inventory) to 5.3 km2 (the largest landslide of
data set A, the regional inventory). Regardless
of the fact that some uncertainty is associated
with the identi¢cation of the largest failures as
unique (single) landslides and that some of
the smallest landslides may have been missed by
our mapping, landslide areas in the combined
data sets span a very large range. Fig. 3 shows
that the power-law scaling is valid from 1033
km2 6 AL 6 4 km2 . The upper limit of this
range may be constrained by the geological set-
ting, which controls the extent of the largest

EPSL 6085 11-2-02

178 F. Guzzetti et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 195 (2002) 169^183
slopes where landslides can occur. It is worth not-
ing that the area of the 10 largest landslides in
data set A (AL s 3 km2 ) is of the same order of
magnitude as the area of the largest hillslopes in
the Umbria^Marche area. Due to the present
physiographic setting, single landslide areas
much larger than 4^5 km2 are not expected in
this region.
What is the contribution of the snow-melt-trig-
gered landslides to the total landslide inventory?
In the two available landslide inventories, the
snow-melt-triggered landslides (data set B) have
a total landslide area of 12.7 km2 and represent
0.7% of the total landslide area of 1831 km2 for
the long-term (regional) landslides (data set A).
However, the frequency^area distributions as pre-
sented in Fig. 3 tell a di¡erent story. Assume that
both inventories are complete for the larger land-
slides. Evidence that this is true can be seen in
Fig. 3 where the larger landslides for both data
sets A and B have the same power-law distribu-
tions. Comparing the CP values from Eq. 4 for
both distributions (Fig. 3), data set B has
CP = 0.3 and data set A has CP = 300; the ratio is
1:1000. The area under the two frequency^area
distributions represents the relative total landslide
area for each data set. Changing CP in Eq. 4 by
1000 is the same as changing the area under
the frequency^area curve by a factor of a 1000.
Therefore, based on the frequency^area distribu-
tions, the total area of the snow-melt-triggered
landslides (data set B) represents 0.1% of the
total area of the long-term (regional) landslides
(data set A). The lower value of 0.1% (vs. 0.7%
as discussed at the beginning of this paragraph) is
a re£ection of the fact that data set A is incom-
plete.
Based on empirical observations [32], we esti-
mate that the snow-melt-triggered landslide event
(the 4233 landslides in data set B) has a return
period of about 25 yr, i.e., there have been two
snow-melt-triggered landslide events in the last
50 yr. Using 20^25 yr as a very rough estimate
for the return period of one snow-melt-triggered
landslide event (data set B), 1000 of these trig-
gered landslide events (data set A) would
occur over a period of 20 000^25 000 yr. This is
only an estimate since larger triggered landslide
EPSL 6085 11-2-02
events certainly have occurred, and landslides
are also triggered by rainfall and earthquakes
[28]. One interpretation is that the regional land-
slide inventory represents landslides that have oc-
curred in the last 10 000 yr (i.e., since the last
glaciation).
An important question for understanding the
geomorphological evolution of an area where
slope failures actively shape the landscape, as
well as for landslide hazard assessment, is the rel-
ative importance of triggered landslide events in
the long-term landslide inventory. Certainly earth-
quakes, rapid snow-melt, and high-intensity or
prolonged rainfall can each trigger many land-
slides. But, what are the frequency-magnitude sta-
tistics for the resulting landslide events? Are most
landslides included in the largest triggered land-
slide events or does the regular background of
landslides dominate the landslide inventory ? The
comparison made in Fig. 3 provides a rational
basis for quantifying the intensity of a triggered
landslide event. Simply taking the number of
counted landslides is inappropriate; doing this
for the comparison given in Fig. 3 would lead
to a serious error, as data set B is relatively com-
plete (i.e., all or a high percentage of the triggered
landslides are counted) and A is incomplete.
Based on the actual landslide inventories, the rel-
ative intensities (number of landslides) of the two
data sets would be 4233/16 809 or approximately
1/4. This is very di¡erent from our previous con-
clusion based on the power-law distributions for
each data set, and the ratio of 1:1000 for the
two values of CP, that the relative intensities are
1/1000.
Power-law correlations can begin to provide the
basis for quantifying triggered landslide events. If
the landslide inventory is complete (such as in
data set B), then the intensity of the landslide
event will be the number of landslides that occur
as part of the event. However, if the landslide
inventory is incomplete (such as data set A),
then as we have shown, one can calculate the
landslide intensity of the inventory from CP and
L in Eq. 4. Quantitative estimate of the extent and
intensity of triggered landslide events might aid in
improving our ability to assess landslide hazard,
and the associated risk.
 F. Guzzetti et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 195 (2002) 169^183
4. California landslides
For comparison, we now consider the distribu-
tion of 11 000 landslides over an area of 10 000
km2 triggered by the 17 January 1994 Northridge
(California) earthquake. An inventory of these
landslides was carried out by Harp and Jibson
[33,34]. They compared 1:60 000 scale aerial pho-
tographs taken the morning after the earthquake
with aerial photographs taken previously. The
digitized photographs were supplemented by ¢eld-
work. They estimated that the inventory is nearly
complete for landslides with a length scale greater
1=2
than AL W5 m. The noncumulative number^area
distribution of these landslides is given in Fig. 7.
These landslides correlate well with the power-law
relation (Eq. 4) taking L = 2.3 and CP = 1.0 (AL in
km2 ). This data set deviates from the power-law
1=2
scaling for AL 6 1033 km2 (AL W30 m). The
largest number of landslides have an area
1=2
AL = 6U1034 km2 (AL W25 m).
The data for these earthquake-triggered land-
slides in California are remarkably similar to the
snow-melt-triggered landslides in central Italy.
The best-¢t power-law exponent is 2.3 for the
California data and is 2.5 for the Italian data.
The rollovers for small landslides occur at essen-
tially the same landslide areas for the two data
sets. The relative intensities of the snow-melt-trig-
gered landslides can be obtained from the corre-
lations given in Figs. 3 and 7. A comparison made
at AL = 1032 km2 shows that the intensity of the
California landslide event was about twice the in-
tensity of the Italian landslide event. Since both
inventories appear to be relatively complete, the
relative intensities are proportional to the number
of landslides, i.e., 11 000/4233 = 2.6.
5. Discussion
We now compare the results given above with
previous studies. Fujii [35] obtained a cumulative
number^area inventory of 800 landslides caused
by a heavy rainfall event in Japan. An excellent
correlation with the power-law relation (Eq. 2)
was found taking K = 0.96. The equivalent noncu-
mulative power-law exponent (Eq. 4) is L = 1.96.
EPSL 6085 11-2-02
179
Fig. 7. Noncumulative frequency^area distribution of 11 000
landslides triggered by the 17 January 1994, Northridge, Cal-
ifornia earthquake [33,34]. The noncumulative frequency of
landslides 3dNCL /dAL with area AL is given as a function of
landslide area AL .
Hovius et al. [13] have given a number^area in-
ventory of 4984 landslides in the montane zone
east of the Alpine fault in New Zealand. They
estimated that these landslides occurred over a
40^60-yr period. Their logarithmically binned
data correlated well with the power-law relation
(Eq. 2) taking K = 1.17. This correlation is valid
1=2
over the range AL = 7U1033 km2 (AL W84 m) to
AL = 1 km2 . Logarithmic binning is equivalent to
a cumulative distribution, therefore the equivalent
noncumulative power-law exponent (Eq. 4) is
L = 2.17.
Hovius et al. [14] have given a number^area
inventory of 1040 fresh landslides in the Ma-An
and Wan-Li catchments on the eastern side of the
Central Range in Taiwan. They estimated the
landslides have an age of less than 10 yr. Their
logarithmically binned data correlate well with the
power-law relation (Eq. 2) taking K = 1.66. This
correlation is valid over the range AL = 1033
1=2
km2 (AL = 30 m) to AL = 5U1032 km2 . The
equivalent noncumulative power-law exponent
(Eq. 4) is L = 2.66. It is interesting to note that
the power-law exponent and the deviation from
power-law scaling for this data set and the two
landslide events we gave above (Italy and Califor-
nia) are very similar.
Noncumulative number^area distributions for
180 F. Guzzetti et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 195 (2002) 169^183
several regional landslide inventories have been
given by Malamud and Turcotte [4]. Results for
1130 landslides from the Challana Valley, Bolivia
correlate well with the noncumulative power-law
relation (Eq. 4) taking L = 2.6; 3243 landslides
from the Akishi Range, central Japan correlate
well taking L = 3.0; and 709 earthquake-induced
landslides from Eden Canyon, Alameda, CA,
USA, correlate well taking L = 3.3.
Hungr et al. [15] have given cumulative fre-
quency^volume inventories for 1937 rock falls
and rock slides along the main transportation cor-
ridors of southwestern British Columbia. The
data correlate reasonably well with a power-law
relation taking the slope to be 30.5 þ 0.2. Assum-
ing the volume V correlates with the area accord-
ing to VVA3=2 , the equivalent cumulative fre-
quency^area power-law exponent (Eq. 2) is
K = 0.75 þ 0.30, and the equivalent noncumulative
frequency^area power-law exponent (Eq. 4) is
L = 1.75 þ 0.30.
Dai and Lee [16] have given cumulative fre-
quency^volume inventories for 2811 landslides in
Hong Kong that occurred during the period
1992^1997. The data correlate reasonably well
with a power-law taking the slope to be 30.8.
Again assuming VVA3=2 , the equivalent cumula-
tive frequency^area power-law exponent (Eq. 2)
is K = 1.2, and the equivalent noncumulative
frequency^area power-law exponent (Eq. 4) is
L = 2.2.
Although there is certainly variability, many
landslide inventories appear to satisfy noncumu-
lative power-law frequency^area statistics, with an
exponent L = 2.5 þ 0.5. An important question is
whether this relatively large scatter in values of L
is due to scatter in the data or is due to di¡erent
values of L associated with di¡erent physiographic
settings (i.e., changes in lithology, geology, mor-
phology, climate history, etc.). For a single data
set, the error bar on L can be relatively large. For
instance, depending on where the tail is ¢t, Stark
and Hovius [36] ¢nd variations on the order of
L = 2.88 þ 0.22. Other authors' data sets that we
have discussed have even larger variability. This
variation is also quite evident in our Fig. 3, where
for each data set an error bar of L = 2.5 þ 0.25 is
reasonable. But, when the two data sets are com-
EPSL 6085 11-2-02
bined, the error is reduced to L = 2.5 þ 0.10, and
the power-law behavior is valid for 0.001
km2 6 AL 6 4 km2 . This combination suggests
that the power-law distribution of landslides
may be valid over a wider range of values than
shown by previous studies. Furthermore, the com-
bined data set provides an estimate of the impor-
tance of individual triggering events. However,
due to the error bars for the di¡erent landslide
data sets we have compared, it is di¤cult to con-
clude that the variations in published values of L
are necessarily associated with geology. It is
clearly desirable to obtain more landslide invento-
ries to determine whether the values of L are re-
lated to type of physiographic setting. It is also
important to emphasize studies of fresh landslides
where inventories are complete and the smaller
landslides have not been degraded by mass-wast-
ing processes.
Another important question concerning land-
slides is the contribution of landslides triggered
by an event (by intense or prolonged rain, earth-
quake, or snow-melt) to the total regional land-
slide inventory. This is a di¤cult question to ad-
dress at this time since there are very little data on
the intensities of landslide events. We have shown
that the total number of landslides during an
event is a measure of the intensity of the event
if the inventory of landslides is complete down
to scales of 5^10 m. It is clearly desirable to sys-
tematically carry out inventories of triggered land-
slide events in order to establish the expected re-
currence rates of such events. An important
question is whether these events occur on a regu-
lar basis, both regionally and globally.
Using the Gutenberg^Richter relation (Eq. 1),
the recurrence rate of earthquakes can be speci¢ed
both regionally and globally. The rate of occur-
rence of small earthquakes can be extrapolated to
predict the occurrence rate of larger earthquakes
[37]. If landslides occur on a regular basis, it may
be possible to use the frequency of occurrence of
small landslides to forecast the risk of catastroph-
ically large landslides. However, if triggered land-
slide events are dominant, then the risks of the
trigger themselves ^ earthquakes, snow-melt, or
intense rain ^ will dominate the forecasts.
The rollover of the data away from the power-
 F. Guzzetti et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 195 (2002) 169^183
law correlation for small landslides appears to be
systematic and requires an explanation. This roll-
over occurs at a characteristic length scale of ap-
1=2
proximately AL W30 m. For their two data sets
from Taiwan and New Zealand, Stark and Ho-
vius [36] provide a statistical correlation with the
entire landslide distribution, using a double Pa-
reto probability distribution. They argue that
landslides exhibit two scaling regions and that
the rollover scale is purely an artifact of mapping
resolution for the data sets that they consider.
For data set B considered in this paper, the
rollover cannot be attributed to mapping resolu-
tion and we attribute the rollover to a termination
in the self-similar power-law scaling valid for
large landslides. Pelletier et al. [12] also made
this argument and provided two alternative ex-
planations for the rollover. The ¢rst is that the
scale at which the rollover occurs, for scales less
than about 30 m, is also the scale on which well-
de¢ned stream networks form in soil-mantled
landforms. The gullying associated with stream
and river networks would be expected to play a
signi¢cant role in the geometry of landslides for
climatically controlled failures, such as those of
data set B, or other landslides triggered by rain-
fall. For climatically controlled landslides, water
and groundwater are important issues and both
relate to the size of a slope, which in turn depends
on the pattern and density of the river network.
For seismically induced landslides, the relation-
ship is less clear. These landslides, and particu-
larly rock-falls, occur where slopes are steeper,
where seismic shaking concentrates, and where
the rock is weaker. A second explanation for the
rollover is associated with the failure criteria [38]:
d f ˆ d 0 ‡ … b gh3 W †f …
where df is the failure shear stress of the land-
slide's basal (sliding) surface, d0 is the cohesive
strength of this surface, b is the density of the
rock, g is the Earth's gravitational acceleration,
h is the depth to the basal surface, W is the pore
pressure in the rock or soil, and f the coe¤cient of
friction on the basal surface. For small, shallow
landslides, bgh is small because h is small and
failure is mostly controlled by the cohesive
EPSL 6085 11-2-02
181
strength. Since the gravitational body force on
the basal layer driving the landslide is proportion-
al to h, the cohesive force will prevent small land-
slides. In this explanation, the rollover is attrib-
uted to the transition from a resistance controlled
by friction (large landslides) to a resistance con-
trolled by cohesion (small landslides).
We believe the evidence is convincing that me-
dium and large landslides consistently satisfy
power-law (fractal) frequency^area statistics, but
why ? One explanation is to simply invoke the
sandpile model as an analog for landslides in
the same way that slider block models are associ-
ated with earthquakes. However, the noncumula-
tive power-law exponent for landslides is L = 2.5 þ
0.5 whereas the noncumulative power-law expo-
nent for the sandpile model avalanches is LV1.0.
In order to explain this di¡erence, Pelletier et al.
[12] combined a slope stability analysis with self-
a¤ne topography and soil-moisture content and
found a power-law noncumulative frequency^area
distribution with L = 2.6. Hergarten and Neuge-
bauer [39] used a numerical model combining
slope stability and mass movement and found
an approximation to a power-law distribution
with an exponent of LV2.1. These authors [40]
later used a cellular-automata model with time-
dependent weakening, similar to the sandpile
model, and found a power-law distribution with
LV2.0. While it is certainly possible to develop
SOC-like models that reproduce the observed
power-law dependence of actual data, there is a
real question whether these models are realistic in
terms of the governing physics. Certainly much
more work remains to be done.
A relatively simple inverse cascade model [15]
can qualitatively explain the power-law behavior
5† of both SOC models and actual landslides. The
cascade model involves metastable regions over
which landslides will propagate once triggered.
These metastable regions grow due to tectonic
mountain building processes. The growth is pri-
marily through the coalescence of smaller meta-
stable regions and the growth of the metastable
regions is a scale invariant process that must give
power-law statistics. When a triggering event, i.e.,
an earthquake, occurs, the landslides propagate
over the metastable regions. Since the metastable
182 F. Guzzetti et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 195 (2002) 169^183
regions have a power-law frequency^area distri-
bution, so will the resulting landslides. However,
further work is required to provide a comprehen-
sive explanation for the landslide statistics de-
scribed in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work has been supported by NASA Grant
NAG5-9067. We thank reviewers Stefan Hergart-
en and Alberto Carrara, whose comments sub-
stantially improved this paper. This paper is
CNR-GNDCI Pub. No. 2230.[AC]
References
[1] R.L. Schuster, R.W. Fleming, Economic losses and fatal-
ities due to landslides, Am. Assoc. Eng. Geol. Bull. 23
(1986) 11^28.
[2] F. Guzzetti, A. Carrarra, M. Cardinali, P. Reichenbach,
Landslide hazard evaluation: A review of current tech-
niques and their applicability in a multi-scale study, cen-
tral Italy, Geomorphology 31 (1999) 181^216.
[3] B. Gutenberg, C.F. Richter, Seismicity of the Earth and
Associated Phenomena, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ, 1954, 310 pp.
[4] B.D. Malamud, D.L. Turcotte, Self-organized criticality
applied to natural hazards, Nat. Hazards 20 (1999) 93^
116.
[5] D.L. Turcotte, Fractals and Chaos in Geology and Geo-
physics, 2nd edn., Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge, 1997, 398 pp.
[6] I.E. Whitehouse, G.A. Gri¤ths, Frequency and hazard of
large rock avalanches in the central Southern Alps, New
Zealand, Geology 11 (1983) 331^334.
[7] H. Ohmori, M. Hirano, Magnitude, frequency and geo-
morphological signi¢cance of rocky mud £ows, landcreep
and the collapse of steep slopes, Z. Geomorph. Suppl. 67
(1988) 55^65.
[8] Y. Sasaki, M. Abe, I. Hirano, Fractals of slope failure
size-number distribution, J. Jpn. Soc. Eng. Geol. 32
(1991) 1^11.
[9] D.A. Noever, Himalayan sandpiles, Phys. Rev. E47
(1993) 724^725.
[10] T. Sugai, H. Ohmori, M. Hirano, Rock control on mag-
nitude^frequency distributions of landslides, Trans. Jpn.
Geomorph. Union 15 (1994) 233^251.
[11] Y. Yokoi, J.R. Carr, R.J. Watters, Fractal character of
landslides, Environ. Eng. Geol. 1 (1995) 75^81.
[12] J.D. Pelletier, B.D. Malamud, T. Blodgett, D.L. Turcotte,
Scale-invariance of soil moisture variability and its impli-
EPSL 6085 11-2-02
cations for the frequency^size distribution of landslides,
Eng. Geol. 48 (1997) 255^268.
[13] N. Hovius, C.P. Stark, P.A. Allen, Sediment £ux from a
mountain belt derived by landslide mapping, Geology 25
(1997) 231^234.
[14] N. Hovius, C.P. Stark, C. Hao-Tsu, L. Jinn-Chuan, Sup-
ply and removal of sediment in a landslide-dominated
mountain belt: Central Range, Taiwan, J. Geol. 108
(2000) 73^89.
[15] O. Hungr, S.G. Evans, J. Hazzard, Magnitude and fre-
quency of rock falls and rock slides along the main trans-
portation corridors of southwestern British Columbia,
Can. Geotech. J. 36 (1999) 224^238.
[16] F.C. Dai, C.F. Lee, Frequency^volume relation and pre-
diction of rainfall-induced landslides, Eng. Geol. 59
(2001) 253^266.
[17] P. Bak, C. Tang, Earthquakes as a self-organized critical
phenomenon, J. Geophys. Res. 94 (1989) 15635^15637.
[18] D.L. Turcotte, Self-organized criticality, Rep. Prog. Phys.
62 (1999) 1377^1429.
[19] R. Burridge, L. Knopo¡, Model and theoretical seismic-
ity, Seism. Soc. Am. Bull. 57 (1967) 341^371.
[20] J.M. Carlson, J.S. Langer, Mechanical model of an earth-
quake fault, Phys. Rev. A40 (1989) 6470^6484.
[21] Z. Olami, H.J.S. Feder, K. Christensen, Self-organized
criticality in a continuous, nonconservative cellular au-
tomaton modeling earthquakes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68
(1992) 1244^1247.
[22] P. Bak, C. Tang, K. Wiesenfeld, Self-organized criticality:
An explanation of 1/f noise, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59 (1987)
381^384.
[23] P. Bak, C. Tang, K. Wiesenfeld, Self-organized criticality,
Phys. Rev. A38 (1988) 364^374.
[24] S.R. Nagel, Instabilities in a sandpile, Rev. Mod. Phys. 64
(1992) 321^325.
[25] J. Feder, The evidence for self-organized criticality in
sandpile dynamics, Fractals 3 (1995) 431^443.
[26] D.L. Turcotte, B.D. Malamud, G. Morein, W.I. New-
man, An inverse-cascade model for self-organized critical
behavior, Phys. A 268 (1999) 629^643.
[27] A. Gabrielov, W.I. Newman, D.L. Turcotte, An exactly
soluble hierarchical clustering model: Inverse cascades
self-similarity, and scaling, Phys. Rev. E60 (1999) 5293^
5300.
[28] F. Guzzetti, M. Cardinali, P. Reichenbach, The in£uence
of structural setting and lithology on landslide type and
pattern, Environ. Eng. Geol. 2 (1996) 531^555.
[29] F. Guzzetti, M. Cardinali, Carta Inventario dei Fenomeni
Franosi della Regione dell'Umbria ed aree limitrofe,
GNDCI Pub., 1989, No 204, 2 sheets, 1:100 000 scale,
(in Italian).
[30] G. Antonini, M. Cardinali, F. Guzzetti, P. Reichenbach,
A. Sorrentino, Carta Inventario dei Fenomeni Franosi
della Regione Marche ed aree limitrofe,. GNDCI Pub.,
1993, No 580, 2 sheets, 1:100 000 scale, (in Italian).
[31] D.J. Varnes, Slope movement types and processes, in:
R.L. Schuster, R.J. Krizek (Eds.), Landslide Analysis
 F. Guzzetti et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 195 (2002) 169^183 183

and Control, Transportation Research Board Special Re-
port 176, National Academy of Sciences, Washington,
DC, 1978, pp. 11^33.
[32] M. Cardinali, F. Ardizzone, M. Galli, F. Guzzetti, P.
Reichenbach, Landslides triggered by rapid snow melt-
ing: the December 1996^January 1997 event in Central
Italy, in: P. Claps, F. Siccardi (Eds.), Proceedings 1st
Plinius Conference on Mediterranean Storms, Maratea,
Italy, 14^16 October 1999, Bios Pub., Cosenza, 2000, pp.
439^448.
[33] E.L. Harp, R.L. Jibson, Inventory of landslides trig-
gered by the 1994 Northridge, California earthquake
US Geological Survey Open File Report, 1995, pp. 95^
213.
[34] E.L. Harp, R.L. Jibson, Landslides triggered by the 1994
Northridge, California earthquake, Seism. Soc. Am. Bull.
86 (1996) S319^S332.
[35] Y. Fujii, Frequency distribution of landslides caused by
heavy rainfall, J. Seismol. Soc. Japan 22 (1969) 244^247.
[36] C.P. Stark, N. Hovius, The characterization of landslide
size distributions, Geophys. Res. Lett. 28 (2001) 1091^
1094.
[37] V.G. Kossobokov, V.I. Keilis-Borok, D.L. Turcotte, B.D.
Malamud, Implications of a statistical physics approach
for earthquake hazard assessment and forecasting, Pure
Appl. Geophys. 157 (2000) 2323^2349.
[38] K. Terzaghi, Stability of steep slopes on hard unweath-
ered rock, Geotechnique 12 (1962) 251^270.
[39] S. Hergarten, H.J. Neugebauer, Self-organized criticality
in a landslide model, Geophys. Res. Lett. 25 (1998) 801^
804.
[40] S. Hergarten, H.J. Neugebauer, Self-organized criticality
in two-variable models, Phys. Rev. E 61 (2000) 2382^
2385.

EPSL 6085 11-2-02