Engineering Geology 161 (2013) 1–15

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Engineering Geology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enggeo

Assessment of rainfall-induced shallow landslide susceptibility using a

GIS-based probabilistic approach
Hyuck Jin Park a,⁎, Jung Hyun Lee a, Ik Woo b
a
Department of Geoinformation Engineering, Sejong University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
b
Department of Coastal Construction Engineering, Kunsan National University, Kunsan, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study proposes a probabilistic analysis method to assess shallow landslide susceptibility over an exten-
Received 28 September 2012 sive area by integrating an infinite slope model with GIS (Geographic Information System) and Monte Carlo
Received in revised form 17 April 2013 simulation, taking into consideration the inherent uncertainty and variability in input parameters. The me-
Accepted 22 April 2013
chanical parameters of soil materials (such as cohesion and friction angle) used in the infinite slope analysis
Available online 28 April 2013
have been identified as the major source of uncertainty because of their spatial variability; therefore, these
Keywords:
parameters were considered as random variables in this probabilistic landslide analysis. To properly account
Infinite slope model for the uncertainty in input parameters, the probabilistic analysis method used was Monte Carlo simulation.
Shallow landslide The process was carried out in a GIS-based environment because GIS has effective spatial data-processing
Hydrogeological model capacity over broad areas. In addition, the hydrogeological model was coupled with the infinite slope
Probability of failure model to evaluate increases in pore water pressure caused by rainfall.
Monte Carlo simulation The proposed approach was applied to a practical example to evaluate its feasibility. The landslide inventory
map and the spatial database for input parameters were constructed in a grid-based GIS environment and a
probabilistic analysis was implemented using Monte Carlo simulation. To evaluate the performance of the
model, the results of the probabilistic landslide susceptibility analysis were compared with the landslide in-
ventory. The probabilistic approach demonstrated good predictive performance when compared with the
landslide occurrence location. In addition, deterministic analysis was carried out using fixed single-input
data for comparison with the results from the proposed approach. In this comparison, the probabilistic anal-
ysis showed better performance than the deterministic analysis. In addition, the results showed that proper
consideration and understanding of uncertainties play an important role in accurately predicting shallow
landslide susceptibility.
© 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction difficult because an enormous amount of spatial data must be acquired

Landslides are a common geological hazard during the rainy sea-
son in Korea. On average, landslides cause the loss of 23 lives each
year, which accounts for nearly 25% of annual casualties due to natu-
ral disasters. In 2002, 75 people were killed in landslide-related inci-
dents throughout the country, and 18 people were killed in 2011 by
rainfall-induced shallow landslides in the central Seoul metropolitan
area (Korean Geotechnical Society, 2011). However, the development
and urbanization of mountainous areas continue; thus, slope instabil-
ity and the potential for landslides have increased.
The occurrence of landslides is controlled by various spatial and cli-
matic factors, such as geology, topography, hydrogeological conditions,
vegetation and rainfall. Thus, prediction of landslide susceptibility is
⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Geoinformation Engineering, Sejong
University, 98 Gunja-dong, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul 143-747, Republic of Korea. Tel.: +82 2
3408 3965; fax: +82 2 3408 4341.
E-mail address: hjpark@sejong.ac.kr (H.J. Park).
from the region and processed. Consequently, GIS (Geographic Infor-
mation System) has been widely used to analyze spatial information
relevant to landslides because of the strong capability of GIS for spatially
distributed data processing. In addition, complex techniques requiring a
large number of map overlays and table calculations become feasible by
using GIS (Soeters and van Westen, 1996). This capability has facilitated
many GIS-based studies on landslide susceptibility assessment.
Landslide susceptibility assessment methods can be classified as
qualitative or quantitative. Generally, qualitative approaches are based
entirely on the judgment of experts conducting the susceptibility as-
sessment (van Westen et al., 1999). Therefore, qualitative approaches
are seldom used as susceptibility assessment methods for large-scale
areas because of the lack of a concrete physical concept with slope fail-
ures (Xie et al., 2004). Quantitative landslide susceptibility assessment
methods can be divided into two categories: statistical methods and
geotechnical approaches (Aloetti and Chowdhury, 1999). The statistical
methods, such as bivariate or multivariate statistical analyses, analyze
the relationship between landslide occurrences and related factors,

0013-7952/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2013.04.011
2 H.J. Park et al. / Engineering Geology 161 (2013) 1–15
such as soil type, land use, slope geometry, vegetation and parent mate-
rial. The most significant drawback of statistical methods is the collec-
tion of data over large areas regarding landslide distribution and
factor maps (van Westen, 2000). In addition, statistical methods only
consider relationships between landslide occurrences and related fac-
tors, but not the failure mechanism. In contrast, the geotechnical
approach analyzes the mechanical condition of slopes and evaluates
their stability using mathematical calculations (Montgomery and
Dietrich, 1994; Wu and Sidle, 1995; Luzi and Pergalani, 1996;
Gokceoglu et al., 2000; Gorsevski, 2002; Guimaraes et al., 2003; Zhou
et al., 2003; Frattini et al., 2004; Godt et al., 2008; Liu and Wu, 2008;
Li and Chi, 2011; Ho et al., 2012). In this approach, the physical proper-
ties of a particular slope are obtained from field investigations and lab-
oratory tests, and a physically based model is used to evaluate landslide
susceptibility. The physically based model is a promising approach for
the susceptibility analysis of shallow landslides because of its capacity
to reproduce the physical processes governing landslide occurrence
(Fell et al., 2008). Moreover, the general grid-based structure and
wide availability of GIS provide a convenient framework allowing anal-
ysis over wide areas (Sorbino et al., 2010). Most recent physically based
models are combined with a hydrogeological model to evaluate the ef-
fect of pore water pressure. This is because pore water pressure, which
increases as a consequence of rainfall, triggers shallow landslides, and
the hydrogeological model can evaluate variations in rainfall-driven
pore water pressure.
However, in the physically based model, sufficient and accurate
information has to be obtained to construct an accurate landslide sus-
ceptibility map. That is, in landslide susceptibility analysis, the quality
and quantity of information for the generation of landslide suscepti-
bility zonation maps have been the main concerns, because such
data are often limited in extent and have imperfections or variable
quality (van Westen et al., 2006). In particular, the strength parame-
ters of slope materials, such as cohesion and friction angle, are inher-
ently spatially heterogeneous, as the slope material is produced by a
natural process (Baecher and Christian, 2003; Carrara et al., 2008;
Chowdhury et al., 2010). In addition, the input parameters used in
the geotechnical approach should be obtained from a very wide
study area, likely with limited sampling; thus, uncertainties are inev-
itably involved in the physically based model analysis. However, the
deterministic approach, which is generally adopted by physically
based model analyses, is not appropriate, because it considers only a
single fixed value, while disregarding the variability and uncertainty
in input parameters. It is more appropriate to use the probabilistic
analysis method, because it properly considers uncertainties in the
data. Nevertheless, most of the previous physically based model stud-
ies that were coupled with the hydrogeological model used the deter-
ministic analysis approach to estimate the potential or relative
instability of slope over a large area without considering the uncer-
tainties in input parameters (Acharya et al., 2006; Rosso et al., 2006;
Salciarini et al., 2006, 2008; Godt et al., 2008; Harp et al., 2009; Lee
and Ho, 2009; Apip et al., 2010; Sorbino et al., 2010; Chiang and
Chang, 2011; Ho et al., 2012; Segoni et al., 2012). Baum et al. (2005)
employed the probabilistic analysis approach based on historical
landslide records but used the deterministic analysis approach in
the evaluation of the physically based model for susceptibility analy-
sis. Recently, Santoso et al. (2011) applied the probabilistic analysis
approach in the physically based model approach, but only the coeffi-
cient of permeability was considered as a random variable, and not
the strength parameters of the slope materials, which were known
as major sources of uncertainty in the geotechnical approach. Some
authors employed probabilistic analysis approaches in the physically
based model analysis, but the hydrogeological model was not adopted,
and subsequently a constant groundwater level was assumed for the
entire study area in their analyses (Zhou et al., 2003; Shou and Chen,
2005; Shou et al., 2009). Therefore, to deal properly with the uncertain-
ty and variability in input parameters for the physically based model
analysis coupled with the hydrogeological model, in this study the
probabilistic analysis method was used considering the strength pa-
rameters of the soil as random variables. Monte Carlo simulation was
used for the probabilistic analysis with GIS integration. The proposed
approach was applied to assess the feasibility of the approach and to
build a landslide susceptibility map for the study site. Application of
the probabilistic analysis method in the infinite slope model coupled
with the hydrogeological model for landslide susceptibility assessment
requires spatial topographic, geologic, geotechnical and hydrogeo-
logical information. In addition, inventories of previous landslide occur-
rences are required to test the assessment results. Therefore, we
acquired information on landslide occurrence, precipitation, digital to-
pography data, geology and the random properties of strength parame-
ters for slope materials using field investigation and laboratory tests,
and implemented the probabilistic analysis for the study area. Next,
the results of the susceptibility analysis were compared with the land-
slide inventory for validation.
2. Infinite slope model and steady-state hydrogeological model
To use a geotechnical failure model and apply the mechanical
properties of slope materials to the susceptibility analysis, the infinite
slope model is used as a physically based model for rainfall-induced
shallow landslides. The slope is assumed to extend infinitely in its
dip direction, and sliding is considered to occur along a plane parallel
to the face of the slope. In previous works, the infinite slope model
was used in geotechnical analysis approaches because of its effective-
ness in landslide hazard analysis (Kamai, 1991; Terlien, 1996; Pack et
al., 1998, 2001; Frattini et al., 2004; Huang et al., 2006; Rosso et al.,
2006; Godt et al., 2008; Picarelli et al., 2008; D'Amato Avanzi et al.,
2009; Harp et al., 2009; Apip et al., 2010; Griffiths et al., 2011;
Santoso et al., 2011; Ho et al., 2012). This model is also appropriate
for Korean landslides, where sliding surfaces are commonly located
at shallow depths (NIDP, 2000). The infinite slope model has been
used previously in site-specific studies, but the adoption of GIS allows
the analysis, modeling and spatialization of slope stability conditions
using this simple geotechnical model for a broad area.
As shown in Fig. 1, the factor of safety for an infinite slope can be
calculated as:
c′ þ ðγ·z−γw ·hw Þ cos2 α tan ϕ′
FS ¼ ð1Þ
γ·z· sin α· cos α
where α is the slope angle, γ is the unit weight of soil, γw is the unit
weight of water, z is the soil depth from the ground surface, hw is the
saturated soil thickness above the slip surface, c′ is the effective
Fig. 1. The infinite slope model.
 H.J. Park et al. / Engineering Geology 161 (2013) 1–15
cohesion and ϕ′ is the effective friction angle (Coduto et al., 2010). For
simplicity, Eq. (1) assumes that the groundwater level in an infinite
slope is parallel to the surface and located at hw. In addition, it is as-
sumed that groundwater flow is parallel to the slip surface, and a
slice of infinite slope mass has a unit width.
However, pore water pressure reduces the effective normal stress
and the shear strength of soil, ultimately causing slope failure; thus,
knowledge of the groundwater level is important for predicting and
preventing slope instability. It is practically impossible, however, to
measure the groundwater levels over an extensive area. Therefore,
previous studies have used a constant or randomly selected value for
the groundwater level for the entire study area (van Westen and
Terlien, 1996; Zhou et al., 2003; Xie et al., 2004; Griffiths et al.,
2011). However, the groundwater level is dependent on soil type,
rainfall intensity and hydraulic conductivity of soil, so it is not appro-
priate to use a constant or randomly selected value for a large area. For
analysis of the pore water pressure regime, the present study used a
hydrogeological model that can evaluate rainfall-driven pore water
pressure and can be coupled to the infinite slope model. The
hydrogeological model uses analytical solutions for the pore water
pressure response to rainfall and can be used for shallow landslide
hazard analysis. The hydrogeological models can be classified into
two categories on the basis of the simplifying assumption: steady
and transient models (Montgomery and Dietrich, 1994; Terlien et al.,
1995; Wu and Sidle, 1995; Pack et al., 1998; Baum et al., 2002;
Crosta and Frattini, 2003; Savage et al., 2004; Godt et al., 2008). The
steady model assumes that rainfall infiltration is at its steady state,
and saturated water flows parallel to the slope surface (Montgomery
and Dietrich, 1994; Wu and Sidle, 1995). This model allows the predic-
tion of the groundwater table as a function of groundwater flow and
rainfall intensity. The transient model performs transient seepage
analysis using the linearized solution of Richards' equation (Iverson,
2000; Baum et al., 2002) and provides more realistic analysis results.
However, the transient model needs abundant and accurate spatial
information. Moreover, it is sensitive to some input data, such as
hydraulic properties of the soil, initial steady-state groundwater con-
dition and soil depth (Salciarini et al., 2006; Sorbino et al., 2007,
2010). Therefore, in this study the steady-state model was used, be-
cause the measurement of spatial parameters, such as initial steady-
state groundwater condition over a large area, is difficult.
In the steady-state model, pore water pressure can be computed as-
suming a hydrogeological steady state, with the depth of saturated soil
being sufficient to sustain a lateral discharge proportional to the specific
contributing area (upslope area per unit contour length) (Pack et al.,
2001). Subsequently, a steady-state shallow subsurface flow model,
derived from TOPMODEL assumptions (Beven and Kirkby, 1979), was
adopted for the infinite slope stability model using the following
equation:
c′ þ ½γ·z−m·γw ·z cos2 α tan ϕ′
FS ¼
γ·z· sin α· cos α

 
c′ þ γ·z− min RT · sina α ; 1:0 ·γ w ·z cos2 α tan ϕ′
¼ ð2Þ
γ·z· sin α· cos α
where m is the ratio of the groundwater level to the soil depth
 
¼ hzw , R is rainfall intensity, T is the soil transmissivity, which is
soil hydraulic conductivity times soil thickness, and α is the specific
contributing area (Beven and Kirkby, 1979; O'Loughlin, 1986;
Montgomery and Dietrich, 1994; Hsu, 1998; Dietrich et al., 2001;
Borga et al., 2002; Huang et al., 2006, 2007; Reid et al., 2007).
3. Monte Carlo simulation
The strength parameters of soil, such as cohesion and friction
angle, are required to evaluate the factor of safety using an infinite
3
slope model such as in Eq. (2). However, uncertainties are inevitably
involved in the determination of the strength parameters because of
the very large size of the study area and the limited number of sam-
ples. Therefore, applying the deterministic approach to an extensive
study area can be particularly difficult or impossible because of the
uncertainties and difficulties in obtaining, checking and processing
large spatial data sets (Zhou et al., 2003). For these reasons, the
parameters should be considered as random variables rather than
having single, deterministic values. Consequently, in this study, cohe-
sion and friction angle were considered as random variables, and
probabilistic analysis was employed to properly account for uncer-
tainty and variability in input parameters. To conduct a probabilistic
analysis, the random properties of the input parameters, such as the
mean, standard deviation and probability density function, were
obtained from the available data or from subjective engineering judg-
ments, such as literature reviews or an engineer's decision (Baecher
and Christian, 2003; Hoek, 2007). The probability of slope failure
was then evaluated using the random properties of the input param-
eters and their distribution functions.
The Monte Carlo simulation approach was employed to evaluate
the probability of slope failure using random properties of input pa-
rameters. The Monte Carlo simulation is the most complete probabi-
listic analysis because all random variables and the probability of
failure as the result of reliability analysis are represented by their
probability density function. The Monte Carlo simulation is relatively
easy to implement on a computer and can accommodate a wide range
of functions, including those that cannot be expressed conveniently in
an explicit form (Baecher and Christian, 2003). In the simulation pro-
cedure, discrete values of each random variable were randomly se-
lected from their probability density function. Using a group of
these discrete values, a factor of safety value was calculated with
the other deterministic input data. This process was repeated numer-
ous times for a pixel. From the large number of factor of safety values
that were generated, a probability density function of the factor of
safety was obtained, and the probability of failure was evaluated.
This process was repeated for other pixels, and the slope failure prob-
ability map was then produced.
4. Application of the proposed model to the study area
4.1. Study area and landslide location detection
Spatial information from the Pyeongchang district in eastern
Korea was used for the combined probabilistic infinite slope model
analysis and the hydrogeological model. The study site lies between
latitudes 37°33′20″N and 37°39′26″N and longitudes 128°29′49″E
and 128°36′36″E (Figure 2). The prevalent geological units exposed
in the study area are Mesozoic Nokam formation and igneous rock
(Imgye granite) (Table 1). These are located in the Precambrian meta-
morphic rocks with uniformity. The metamorphic rocks consist large-
ly of banded gneiss, with smaller amounts of migmatitic gneiss, schist
and quartzite. Triassic Nokam formation is composed of fine sand-
stone with gray sandy shale, originating from thick clastic successions
of marginal marine to nonmarine environments, whereas the Jurassic
plutonic rock, Imgye granite, mainly occurs as a large batholith trend
NW–SE and as small stocks along the Ogcheon Belt consisting of gran-
ite with minor syenite and diorite. The Jeongseon limestone, which is
the third prevalent unit and Ordovician in age, is mainly shallow marine
in origin and consists predominantly of limestone with smaller amounts
of sandstone and shale. This area has experienced an extensive intrusion
of granitoids by the Daebo Orogeny that continued from the early Juras-
sic to early Cretaceous and was the most severe in intensity; thus, all of
the previous formations were intensely deformed (Geological Society of
Korea, 1962; Lee, 1988). The topography consists mostly of mountain-
ous areas, which cover approximately 60% of the study area. Elevations
range from 430 to 1390 m, with an average of 736.1 m, and the areas
4 H.J. Park et al. / Engineering Geology 161 (2013) 1–15
Fig. 2. The study area and location of the landslides that occurred in July 2006.
with slope greater than 30° account for 41.2% of the total area. On 15–16
July 2006, this area experienced heavy rainfall of 429 mm, and over
1400 landslides were reported (KIGAM, 2009). Fig. 3 illustrates the typ-
ical landslide types that occurred in the study area.
The accurate detection of landslide locations is important for land-
slide susceptibility analysis. Field surveys are widely considered to be
the most accurate detection method in the landslide inventory pro-
cess. However, using a field survey as an incipient step in the
data-collection process is difficult, time consuming and costly, in par-
ticular in mountainous areas, where access is limited or impossible.
Aerial photography and satellite imagery have the advantage of
detecting landslides rapidly and accurately, and were therefore
employed to overcome the lack of field data.
Digital aerial photographs with a ground resolution of 50 cm were
obtained from Samah Aerial Survey Co. Ltd and the National Geographic
Information Institute (NGII) of Korea. Aerial photographs taken before
and after the landslides were used to detect event locations. The analog
‘before’ photos were taken on 4 April 2005 and the ‘after’ photographs
were taken on 27 May 2008 using the UltraCam-X sensor (Figure 4).
In this study, complementary field surveys were used to verify
landslide locations indicated by the aerial photographs. A total of 1480
Table 1
Geological description of lithology in the study area.
Era Period System
Cenozoic Quaternary Quaternary
Mesozoic Jurassic
Triassic Pyeongan
Unknown
Paleozoic Ordovician Joseon
Precambrian
landslides, occupying an area of about 771,100 m 2, were mapped
(Figure 2).
4.2. Spatial database construction
The proposed infinite slope model requires knowledge of several
input parameters, some of which can be derived from digital
topographic data using GIS, while others have to be obtained from
geotechnical field work and laboratory tests, or derived from precip-
itation records. Digitized terrain information is used to acquire the
slope angle as a geomorphological attribute. To achieve this, contour
lines and survey base points with an elevation value were extracted
from 1:5000 scale topographic maps, and a digital elevation model
(DEM) with a 10 m resolution was constructed. Using the DEM, the
slope angle (Figure 5) and specific contributing areas for groundwater
flow were calculated. Further, the soil thickness in the study area was
acquired from 1:25,000 scale digital soil maps produced by the
National Institute of Agricultural Science (http://soil.rda.go.kr) on
the basis of field observations. The soil thickness was evaluated
from the depth to bedrock and used as a soil depth (z) in the infinite
slope model in Eq. (2) (Figure 6). In addition, a geological map
Formation Description
Sand, gravel, clay
Felsite –
Imgye granite Biotite granite (porphyritic and schistose in parts)
Nokam Grayish-green fine sandstone, gray sandy shale
Gobangsan Gray, milky-white coarse sandstone and sandy shale
Sambangsan Light-gray quartzite, dark-gray medium to coarse sandstone
Jeongseon limestone Gray, dark-gray, milky-white limestone intercalated with thin
layers of gray shale and sandstone
Biotite gneiss Banded biotite gneiss, migmatitic gneiss, schist, quartzite
 H.J. Park et al. / Engineering Geology 161 (2013) 1–15
Fig. 3. Landslides triggered by heavy rainfall on July 15–16, 2006.
(Geological Society of Korea, 1962) was used to obtain the contribut-
ing lithology (Figure 7).
In this study, the requisite geotechnical and hydrogeological soil pa-
rameters were obtained from laboratory tests for the study area. Soil
samples were collected from the landslide occurrence locations in
each geological unit, as shown in Fig. 7, and a 75-mm diameter alumi-
num tube sampler was used for sampling (Figure 8). For each sampling
location, six to nine soil samples were obtained for the laboratory tests.
A total of 36 direct shear tests were performed to obtain shear strength
parameters, such as cohesion and internal friction angle, for each soil
type. Laboratory permeability tests were also performed for hydraulic
conductivity of the ground materials. Twelve constant head tests and
32 falling head tests were performed to obtain the hydraulic conductiv-
ity of each soil type. The unit weights of each soil type were also
obtained from laboratory tests. However, as mentioned in previous
works (Chowdhury and Flentje, 2003; Zhou et al., 2003; Xie et al.,
2004; Shou and Chen, 2005; Huang et al., 2006; Zolfaghari and Heath,
2008; Griffiths et al., 2011), cohesion and friction angle of slope mate-
rials were considered to be the major sources of uncertainty because
of spatial variability and limited sampling, and subsequently the values
5
for cohesion and friction angle were scattered (see Figure 9). Thus, in
the probabilistic analysis cohesion and friction angle were considered
as random variables. To quantify their random properties, the means
and standard deviations for cohesion and friction angle were evaluated
from the results of laboratory testing (Table 2). However, the probabil-
ity density functions of strength parameters for each soil type could not
be determined from the test results because the data were insufficient
for determining the distribution function. Therefore, the probability
density functions were estimated based on judgment, experience, or re-
sults published by others (Hoek, 2007). Previous studies have noted
that cohesion and friction angle were usually normally distributed
(Vanmarcke, 1977; Mostyn and Li, 1993; Lacasse and Nadim, 1996;
Terlien, 1996; Nilsen, 2000; Zhou et al., 2003; Pathak and Nilsen,
2004; Park et al., 2005; Liu and Wu, 2008; Zolfaghari and Heath, 2008;
Wang et al., 2010; Melchiorre and Frattini, 2011; Park et al., 2012).
Thus, a normal distribution was used as the probability density function
for cohesion and friction angle in this study.
The build-up of soil pore water pressure is the major triggering
mechanism for slope failure, so groundwater level data are required
for the infinite slope model. The groundwater level is calculated from
6 H.J. Park et al. / Engineering Geology 161 (2013) 1–15

Fig. 5. Map showing the distribution of slope angles.

4.3. Simulation procedure

Fig. 11 presents a flowchart showing the sequential steps in the

probabilistic analysis procedure. The study area was divided into
10 m × 10 m pixels, and the input data were converted to form a
10 m × 10 m grid using Arc/GIS software. These data sets and their ran-
dom properties (Table 2) were used, along with Monte Carlo simula-
tion, to evaluate the probability of failure. This simulation procedure
was coded and implemented in MATLAB software. The sequence is
listed below:
1. The groundwater level (m) for each pixel was calculated using the
hydrogeological model, with rainfall intensity (10 mm/h) and
hydraulic conductivity of the soil along with slope geometry.
2. Using cumulative distribution for each random variable and a ran-
dom number generator, cohesion and friction angle were randomly
generated. This step could be accomplished systematically for each
variable by first generating a random number between 0 and 1,
and then obtaining the corresponding random number with the

Fig. 4. Identification of landslide occurrence based on aerial photographs (A) before

and (B) after the landslide and (C) photographs from the field survey.

the hydrogeological model using rainfall intensity and hydraulic con-

ductivity data. Therefore, the precipitation input for the hydrogeological
model, such as rainfall intensity, is one of the most important parame-
ters to be obtained. Rainfall intensity values for the hydrogeological
model were obtained from Jinbu AWS (automatic weather system),
which is located at latitude 37°10′52″N and longitude 128°27′26″E,
because this is the closest and most representative rain gage in the
study area. The average rainfall intensity for the study area was obtained
from the hourly rainfall records in Fig. 10 by taking rainfall records on
average during the rainstorm on 15–16 July 2006, and 10 mm/h was
evaluated. Fig. 6. Map showing the distribution of soil thickness.
 H.J. Park et al. / Engineering Geology 161 (2013) 1–15
Fig. 7. Geological map and sampling location.
cumulative distribution function for each random variable through
appropriate transformations.
3. The random values for cohesion and friction angle obtained in the
previous step were used as input data for the calculation of the fac-
tor of safety. Eq. (2) was used to evaluate the factor of safety with
randomly generated strength parameters and deterministic input
parameters (e.g., soil thickness, slope angle and unit weight of
soil).
4. The operations described in steps 2 and 3 were repeated until a
sufficiently large number could be obtained for the factor of safety.
Based on the error analysis, the number of iterations required to
Fig. 8. Sampling procedure using aluminum tube samplers.
7
achieve an acceptable level of accuracy in simulation results was
determined to be 5000.
5. The probability of failure was evaluated. After performing a suffi-
cient number of iterations for steps 2 and 3, the probability of fail-
ure was determined. The probability of failure is the ratio of the
number of the iterations where the factor of safety is less than 1
to the total number of iterations evaluated.
6. The above calculation was repeated for all other pixels and the spa-
tial distribution map for the probability of failure was produced.
4.4. Evaluation of model performance
In landslide susceptibility analysis, model validation is a fundamental
step in determining model performance. Validation refers to comparing
the model predictions with the real-world data set to assess the accura-
cy or predictive power (Begueria, 2006). For model validation, previous
landslide susceptibility studies used the success rate, defined as the ratio
of successfully predicted landslides to the total number of actual land-
slides (Montgomery and Dietrich, 1994; Dietrich et al., 1995; Borga et
al., 1998, 2002; Duan and Grant, 2000; Lee, 2005). That is, the success
rate focuses on the model's ability to correctly identify landslide occur-
rence. However, an ideal landslide susceptibility map simultaneously
maximizes the agreement between known and predicted landslide loca-
tions and minimizes the area outside the known landslide locations that
is predicted to be unstable (Godt et al., 2008). Therefore, in this study a
receiver operating characteristic (ROC) graph was used to assess the
performance of models, because the ROC graph is a very useful tool for
visualizing and evaluating model performance and provides a diagnostic
that may be used to distinguish between two classes (true class and
modeled class) of events (Swets, 1988; Fawcett, 2006). In ROC analysis,
true class instances (observation or landslide occurrence) are compared
with modeled class instances (landslide prediction) using a classifica-
tion model. The observations are classified as positive or negative
depending on whether they indicate occurrence or nonoccurrence of a
landslide. Predictions are classified as yes or no depending on whether
they predicted ‘unstable’ or ‘stable’ conditions (Cepeda et al., 2010).
Fig. 12 presents the outcomes of a classification model using a confusion
matrix. Therefore, the grid-based prediction results of landslide suscep-
tibility obtained from the proposed analysis could be compared with the
landslide inventory, and one of four outcomes was assigned to each grid
cell. If the grid cell was predicted as unstable and was coincident with a
landslide occurrence in the inventory, it was counted as a true positive.
However, if the grid cell was predicted as unstable and it did not coin-
cide with a landslide location, it was counted as a false positive. If the
cell was predicted to be stable and was coincident with the area outside
the known landslide location, it was counted as a true negative, and if it
fell on the landslide occurrence grid, it was counted as a false negative
(Fawcett, 2006; Godt et al., 2008; Cepeda et al., 2010). Based on the con-
fusion matrix, two important measures of model performance
(true-positive rate and false-positive rate) are commonly used for
model validation. The true-positive rate (TPR) is the ratio of the number
of true positives to the total number of positives, and the false-positive
rate (FPR) is the ratio of the number of false positives to the total number
of negatives. These two metrics are used to plot the ROC graph, which is
a two-dimensional graph in which the TPR is plotted on the y-axis and
the FPR on the x-axis. Model results that plot toward the upper left of
the graph are generally considered superior on the ROC graph (Godt et
al., 2008). The origin of the graph (0, 0) represents a model result with
maximum underestimate. In contrast, the upper right of the graph (1,
1) represents the maximum overestimate, which means that the entire
area is predicted to be unstable. A perfect prediction would be located at
the upper left (0, 1). Since an ROC curve is a two-dimensional depiction
of model performance, a single scalar value representing the expected
performance is needed to compare model performance. A common
method is to calculate the area under the curve (AUC) (Hanley and
McNeil, 1982; Bradley, 1997). Since the AUC is a portion of the area of
8 H.J. Park et al. / Engineering Geology 161 (2013) 1–15

Fig. 9. Examples of distribution graphs of strength parameters in two major geological units: (A) friction angles for Imgye granite, (B) friction angles for sandstone in Nokam
formation, (C) cohesion for Imgye granite and (D) cohesion for sandstone in Nokam formation.

the unit square, its value will always be between 0 and 1, and the larger
the area, the better the model's performance. Another discrete classifier
is the distance to perfect classification (Cepeda et al., 2010):
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
r¼ ð1−TPRÞ2 þ FPR2 :
The smaller the r values, the better the model's performance.
5. Results
The probabilistic analysis was conducted following the procedure
described in Fig. 11, using Monte Carlo simulation with the input pa-
rameters listed in Table 2. First, the groundwater levels for each pixel
were calculated using the hydrogeological model and hydraulic input
parameters. Then, the factor of safety was evaluated for each pixel
using the randomly generated cohesion and friction angle, slope geom-
etry and groundwater levels. Based on the repeated factor of safety cal-
culations, the probability of failure for each pixel was obtained from the
factor of safety distribution. Fig. 13 shows the spatial distribution map
for the probability of failure calculated using the coupled infinite slope
model with the hydrogeological model and Monte Carlo simulation.
The area ratios for probabilities of failure of less than 10%, 10%–50%
and greater than 50% were 79.4%, 6.4% and 14.2%, respectively.
ð3Þ
When considering slope stability problems in engineering geology,
correct determination of the level of safety for a slope is needed. In
deterministic analysis, a value of FS = 1.0 is considered to be the cri-
terion that the safety of the slope can be evaluated. That is, a computed
factor of safety of less than 1.0 implies an unstable slope. However,
since there are many uncertainties that are involved in and affect the
analysis procedure, we need to estimate the probability of whether
the slope will be unstable in order to determine the level of slope
safety in the probabilistic analysis (Silva et al., 2008). Several different
criterion values for natural slopes and landslides have been suggested
for the probabilistic analysis. Ko Ko et al. (2004) suggested a failure
probability of 20% as the threshold for unstable areas, and Chowdhury
and Flentje (2003) suggested 15% for moderate to steeply inclined nat-
ural slopes. However, a probability of failure of 10% has been used as the

Table 2
Characteristics of input parameters in the study area.

Geological formation Friction angle (°) Cohesion (kPa) Unit weight (kN/m3) Hydraulic conductivity (m/h) Soil classification

Mean COV (%) Mean COV (%)

Felsite 20.8 9.9 17.5 8.6 17.8 0.171 SP

Quartzite in Sambangsan 40.6 1.5 8.0 25.0 19.3 0.096 SW
Imgye granite 35.2 4.5 3.8 28.9 23.2 0.089 SP
Jeongseon limestone 28.4 8.0 4.4 14.5 17.9 0.019 SP
Sandstone in Nokam 40.2 2.4 10.4 13.5 18.4 0.090 SP
Sandstone in Gobangsan 37.1 1.6 7.8 13.8 18.7 0.084 SW
 H.J. Park et al. / Engineering Geology 161 (2013) 1–15 9

of correctly predicted landslide grids (true positives) to the total

Fig. 10. Records of hourly and total rainfall in the study area.
criterion for unstable slopes in probabilistic design and stability analysis
procedures in several studies (Priest and Brown, 1983; AGS, 2000; Fell
et al., 2008; Liu and Wu, 2008; Silva et al., 2008). Consequently, a prob-
ability of slope failure of 10% was used as the criterion for unstable
slopes in this study, and a grid cell with a probability of failure greater
than 10% was predicted to be unstable.
In the results of the probabilistic infinite slope model analysis,
1086 of the 1480 grids where actual landslides occurred had proba-
bilities of failure greater than 10%. Thus, 73.4% of actual landslides
(or the mapped landslides in the inventory map) were evaluated
as unstable, meaning that the TPR, which is the ratio of the number
number of landslide occurrence grids (positives), was calculated as
0.734. In addition, 20.6% of non-landslide grids were predicted as un-
stable, which means that the FPR was 0.206 (Table 3). Next, this result
was plotted on the ROC graph (point D in Figure 14) to depict the rel-
ative trade-off between true positives and false positives. The AUC
and distance to perfect classification were evaluated from the ROC
graph, and their values were 0.764 and 0.336, respectively.
However, the coefficients of variation (COVs) for the friction an-
gles obtained from laboratory tests and used for the previous analysis
ranged from 1.5% to 9.9%, and these values were lower than those
(10%–15%) reported in previous studies (Schultze, 1975; Lee et al.,
1983; Harr, 1987). Moreover, the number of laboratory tests carried
out to determine the friction angle in this study was small relative
to the size of the study area, so it was expected that a higher uncer-
tainty would be involved in this probabilistic analysis procedure.
Therefore, higher COVs than those used for previous probabilistic
analyses needed to be considered, and the probabilities of slope fail-
ure were evaluated with an increased COV of the friction angle
(15%) to account for the higher uncertainties. Fig. 15 shows the spa-
tial distribution map for the probability of failure using an increased
COV for the friction angle. Of the mapped landslides, 79.9% of the inven-
tory was evaluated as unstable, and 24.4% of the non-landslide grids
were predicted to be unstable. That is, the evaluated TPR and FPR
were 0.799 and 0.244, respectively (Table 3). Consequently, both TPR
and FPR values obtained from the analysis with increased COVs were
higher than those obtained using laboratory tests, meaning that the
probabilistic analysis with increased COV captured more landslide oc-
currence and predicted a larger portion of the study area to be unstable
than the laboratory test results. The evaluated TPR and FPR were plotted

Start

Geometric and geotechnical parameters

of pixel

Geometry of Evaluate groundwater level using Rainfall

pixel hydrogeological model

Randomly generate geotechnical

parameters

Calculate factor of safety of pixel

No. of No
iterations =
Increase # of iterations

Yes
Calculate probability of failure for pixel
Increase # of pixels

Collect probability of failure of each pixel

to generate Pf map

Stop

Fig. 11. Flow chart for evaluating slope failure probability.

10 H.J. Park et al. / Engineering Geology 161 (2013) 1–15

True class (observations)

Positives Negatives

Yes True Positives False Positives

Modeled class
(predictions)
No False Negatives True Negatives

P N

Fig. 12. Confusion matrix showing outcomes of a classification model.

together with the previous results at point E in Fig. 14 for comparison
with the results from the probabilistic analysis using random properties
of laboratory test results. The AUC (0.780) and distance to perfect clas-
sification (0.316) for the analysis with increased COVs were evaluated
(Table 3). These results indicated that the probabilistic analysis with in-
creased COV of the friction angle showed better performance. This
shows that proper consideration and understanding of uncertainties
play an important role in accurately predicting shallow landslide
susceptibility.
To compare the results of the probabilistic and deterministic analy-
ses, a deterministic analysis was also conducted on the basis of the fac-
tor of safety concept. In the deterministic analysis, the infinite slope
model without the coupled hydrogeological model was used, and the
same deterministic input parameters (e.g., slope angle and soil thick-
ness) were used to evaluate the factor of safety. In addition, mean
values of the random variable (e.g., cohesion and friction angle) were
used as the representative single values for the deterministic analysis.
Moreover, since the hydrogeological model was not employed in the
deterministic analysis, the groundwater level was considered as a
fixed single value without considering rainfall intensity and hydraulic
conductivity of the ground. That is, the groundwater level value (m)
was set to constant values for half-saturated (m = 0.5) and fully satu-
rated soil (m = 1.0). Fig. 16 shows the spatial distribution maps for
the factor of safety in the deterministic analysis results when m values
were 0.5 and 1.0. For half-saturated soil, only 403 of 1480 actual land-
slide grids were predicted as unstable (i.e., factor of safety less than
1.0), which means that TPR was calculated as 0.273 (Table 3). The FPR
was also evaluated as 0.082, as listed in Table 3, and the obtained TPR
and FPR were plotted on an ROC graph (point A in Figure 14) for com-
parison. The AUC and distance to perfect classification for the determin-
istic analysis of the half-saturated slope model were evaluated as 0.595
and 0.732, respectively. In addition, in the case where the groundwater
level was increased to the full thickness of the soil, the TPR and FPR
values were evaluated and plotted on the ROC graph at point B in
Fig. 14. The evaluated TPR and FPR were 0.601 and 0.169, respectively.
Then, the AUC and distance to perfect classification for the fully saturated
slope model were evaluated as 0.716 and 0.433, respectively. As can be
observed in Fig. 14, the results of the probabilistic analysis were located
more toward the upper left corner of the ROC graph. Moreover, the AUC
values of the probabilistic analysis were larger than those of the deter-
ministic analysis, and the distances to perfect classification of the proba-
bilistic analysis were smaller than those of the deterministic analysis.
Consequently, the probabilistic analysis showed better performance
than the deterministic analysis.
To check the effect of the hydrogeological model, an additional
deterministic analysis was conducted with consideration of the
hydrogeological model. In this case, the groundwater level was eval-
uated from the hydrogeological model using rainfall intensity and
hydraulic conductivity of the ground for each grid cell, and the factors
of safety were calculated deterministically for each cell using the
calculated groundwater level. Fig. 17 shows the spatial distribution
map for the factor of safety evaluated with the hydrogeological
model. The TPR and FPR were evaluated as 0.603 and 0.169, respec-
tively (point C in Figure 14). The AUC and distance to perfect classifi-
cation were 0.717 and 0.431, respectively. As can be seen in Figs 16
and 17 and Table 3, the results of the deterministic analysis with
the hydrogeological model were almost identical to the results of
the deterministic analysis with m = 1.0. This is because the value of
10 mm/h rainfall intensity that was used in the hydrogeological
model causes almost full saturation of the study area (Figure 18).
However, if the performance of the probabilistic analysis coupled
with the hydrogeological model was compared with the performance
of the deterministic analysis coupled with the hydrogeological model,
the point of the probabilistic analysis in the ROC graph would be
located closer to the (0, 1) position than that of the deterministic
analysis. In addition, the AUC value of the probabilistic analysis was
higher and the distance to perfect classification of the probabilistic

Table 3
Comparison of model performance for the deterministic analyses with different
groundwater levels and the probabilistic analyses with different COVs of fiction angle.

Model True-positive False-positive Area Distance to

rate (TPR) rate (FPR) under the perfect
curve classification
(AUC) (r)

Deterministic analysis 0.273 0.082 0.595 0.732

with m = 0.5
Deterministic analysis 0.601 0.169 0.716 0.433
with m = 1.0
Deterministic analysis 0.603 0.169 0.717 0.431
with hydrogeological
model
Probabilistic analysis 0.734 0.206 0.764 0.336
with COV of friction
angle = 1.5–9.9%
Probabilistic analysis 0.799 0.244 0.780 0.316
with COV of friction
Fig. 13. Map showing the slope failure probability predicted using the COV of friction
angle = 15%
angle obtained from field data.
 H.J. Park et al. / Engineering Geology 161 (2013) 1–15 11

Fig. 14. ROC graph comparing the analysis results. A: deterministic analysis with m =
0.5, B: deterministic analysis with m = 1.0, C: deterministic analysis with the
hydrogeological model, D: probabilistic analysis with COV of friction angle =
1.5–9.9%, E: probabilistic analysis with COV of friction angle = 15%.

analysis was lower. Consequently, when the results of the probabilistic

analysis coupled with the hydrogeological model were compared with
those of the deterministic analysis coupled with the hydrogeological
model, the performance of the probabilistic analysis was superior.

6. Discussion

To evaluate the susceptibility of rainfall-induced shallow landslides,

this study adopted the probabilistic approach in a physically based
model analysis. The probabilistic approach demonstrated good predic-
tive performance regarding landslide occurrence locations in the land-
slide inventory over the study area. Moreover, the results of the
probabilistic analysis showed higher AUC and lower distance to perfect
classification values compared with the deterministic analysis, meaning
that the probabilistic analysis showed better performance than the de-
terministic analysis. However, there are some limitations in performing
Fig. 16. Map showing the factor of safety predicted for (A) m = 0.5 and (B) m = 1.0.
the probabilistic infinite slope model analysis and obtaining the input
parameters for the physically based model. Therefore, the shortcomings
need to be noted for future application because they may limit model
accuracy and should be improved.

6.1. Appropriateness of the hydrogeological model

In this study, the steady-state hydrogeological model was used to

Fig. 15. Map showing the slope failure probability predicted using 15% COV for the fric-
tion angle.
evaluate the groundwater level (or pore water pressure) in the infinite
slope model. This is because we could obtain only a limited amount of
hydraulic information for the study area, and consequently could not
utilize the transient hydrogeological model. As can be observed in
Fig. 18, the analysis results showed that almost the entire study area
(92.7%) was evaluated as fully saturated (that is, m = 1.0) when the
hydrogeological model was used to calculate the groundwater level
with 10 mm/h rainfall intensity. Subsequently, as mentioned previ-
ously, the results of the deterministic analysis with the hydrogeological
model were almost identical to those of the deterministic analysis with
m = 1.0. We can consider two possibilities that caused the fully satu-
rated study area. First, 429 mm of rainfall over two days can be con-
sidered as an extreme event, taking into account an average annual
rainfall of 1475 mm in the study area. This means that almost 30% of
the average annual rainfall fell in two days. Consequently, we could
say that the extreme case of heavy rainfall caused the full saturation
12 H.J. Park et al. / Engineering Geology 161 (2013) 1–15
Fig. 17. Map showing the factor of safety predicted using a hydrogeological model.
of the study area. As can be seen in Fig. 19, if groundwater levels were
evaluated using 1, 2 and 5 mm/h rainfall intensities with the
hydrogeological model, 35.0%, 48.3% and 78.6% of the study area, re-
spectively, were evaluated as fully saturated compared with 92.7% of
the study area that was saturated when 10 mm/h rainfall intensity
was used. In addition, if only steep slope areas in which landslides
could occur (slope angle greater than 15°) were considered, 14.1%
(1 mm/h), 26.2% (2 mm/h) and 56.2% (5 mm/h) of the study area
were evaluated as fully saturated. Therefore, 10 mm/h rainfall could
be the major cause of full saturation, and this was an uncommon and
extreme weather event in the study area. Another possibility is the lim-
itation of the steady-state hydrogeological model. The steady-state
model assumed that the recharge was constant and equal to the rainfall
intensity, with the value calculated as the mean intensity during the
event (Frattini et al., 2004). Therefore, this model could not take into ac-
count transient variations in rainfall amounts during the rainstorm, and
consequently this has caused overestimation of the groundwater level.
6.2. Soil depth
In this study, the infinite slope model was adopted as the physically
based model, and consequently information on the spatial distribution
Fig. 18. Ratio of groundwater level to soil depth calculated with the hydrogeological
model and 10 mm/h rainfall intensity.
of soil characteristics is required to perform the slope stability analysis.
However, sufficient soil information from landslide-prone areas has
rarely been obtained (Okimura, 1989; Derose et al., 1991), and soil
thickness is one characteristic for which information is difficult to ob-
tain. Therefore, many authors rely on simple solutions, such as consid-
ering a constant value for soil depth over the whole study area
(Montgomery and Dietrich, 1994; Khazai and Sitar, 2000) or assigning
a constant value for each geological formation (Savage et al., 2004).
Recently, more complex methods, such as multivariate statistical analy-
ses (Gessler et al., 2000; Tesfa et al., 2009), a process-based model
(Casadei et al., 2003; Pelletier and Rasmussen, 2009), a geomorphology-
based model (Catani et al., 2010; Segoni et al., 2012), or adoption of the
wetness index (Lee and Ho, 2009; Ho et al., 2012) have been proposed.
However, these complex methods are less frequently used in large-
scale stability analyses because they are very site specific and require
significant effort to be correctly applied and calibrated over large
areas (Segoni et al., 2012).
In this study, soil depth was obtained from digital soil maps at the
1:25,000 scale, and the average soil thickness for each soil type was
assigned to the study area. According to Melchiorre and Frattini (2011),
soil depth is the parameter that has the greatest influence on model un-
certainties, and is one of the variables that has the greatest effect on the
results of the analysis. Therefore, to improve the performance of the pro-
posed probabilistic model, more effort is required to obtain reliable soil
thickness data. Moreover, the soil thickness could be considered as a ran-
dom variable in the probabilistic analysis if we can obtain the random
properties of soil depth distribution.
6.3. Dependency between strength parameters
When dealing with more than one random variable in the probabilis-
tic analysis, uncertainty in one variable may be associated with uncertain-
ty in another (Baecher and Christian, 2003). That is, the uncertainties may
not be independent. Dependence among the uncertainties affects the
results of probabilistic analyses, but these dependencies can be difficult
to identify and to estimate. Therefore, many probabilistic analyses for
slope stability have assumed that the random variables are independent
(Alonso, 1976; Chowdhury, 1984; Li and Lumb, 1987; Zhou et al., 2003;
Park et al., 2005; Shou and Chen, 2005; Cassidy et al., 2008; Liu and Wu,
2008; Shou et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2010). This assumption is often
made to simplify the analysis. Consequently, the random variables used
in the proposed probabilistic analysis in this study were also assumed
to be independent. However, recently some researchers have shown
the effect of dependence between cohesion and internal friction angle
in probabilistic slope stability analyses (Yucemen et al., 1973; Low and
Tang, 1997; Liang et al., 1999; Cherubini, 2000; Hong and Roh, 2008;
Wu, 2008; Babu and Singh, 2009; Cho, 2010; Cho and Park, 2010). There-
fore, the assumption of independence needs critical evaluation, and con-
sequently the effect of dependence between strength parameters in
landslide susceptibility analysis was evaluated in this discussion. The cor-
relation coefficient between cohesion and friction angle is known to be −
0.5 from references (Mostyn and Li, 1993; Low and Tang, 1997;
Cherubini, 2000; Wu, 2008; Babu and Singh, 2009; Cho, 2010), and there-
fore a value of −0.5 was used as the correlation coefficient between cohe-
sion and friction angle in this study. The Monte Carlo simulation shown in
Fig. 11 was carried out with two correlated input variables. A negative
correlation implies that low cohesion values are associated with high
friction angle values and vice versa (Cho, 2010). According to Fenton
and Griffith (2003), the variance of shear strength is reduced if there
is negative correlation between cohesion and friction angle. Fig. 20
shows the spatial distribution map for the probability of failure using
correlated random properties of cohesion and friction angle obtained
from laboratory tests. The area ratios for probability of failure of less
than 10%, 10%–50% and greater than 50% were 79.1%, 6.5% and 14.4%, re-
spectively, and these values were similar to the results of the analysis
with uncorrelated variables. The TPR and FPR were evaluated to validate
 H.J. Park et al. / Engineering Geology 161 (2013) 1–15 13

Fig. 19. Detailed map of groundwater level ratio evaluated with the hydrogeological model for rainfall intensities of (A) 1 mm/h, (B) 2 mm/h, (C) 5 mm/h and (D) 10 mm/h.

model performance, and their values were 0.739 and 0.208, respective-
ly. The AUC and distance to perfect classification were 0.765 and 0.334,
respectively, showing that the performance of probabilistic analysis
with correlated variables was similar to that with uncorrelated vari-
ables listed in Table 3. Therefore, the dependence between two random
variables did not affect the results of the probabilistic infinite slope sta-
bility analysis in this study area.
7. Conclusions
• This study adopted the probabilistic approach in a physically based
model analysis to deal properly with uncertainties caused by limited
information and inherent variability of material properties. In this
probabilistic analysis, the uncertainties in strength parameters of
slope materials were considered and the analysis was implemented
to evaluate the probability of failure using the infinite slope model
coupled with GIS and Monte Carlo simulation.
• The proposed approach was applied to a practical example to evalu-
ate its feasibility. To achieve this, landslide occurrence locations were
obtained from aerial photographs to construct a landslide inventory,
and the strength parameters and hydraulic properties of slope mate-
rials were acquired from laboratory tests. The spatial database for
input parameters was constructed in a grid-based GIS environment.
In addition, the average rainfall intensity was evaluated from hourly
rainfall records obtained from the nearby rain gage.
• To evaluate the performance of the proposed probabilistic infinite
slope analysis, grid-based prediction results of the analysis were
compared with the landslide inventory using the ROC graph. Two
performance measures, TPR and FPR, were evaluated on the ROC
graph using a confusion matrix, and the scalar values representing
14 H.J. Park et al. / Engineering Geology 161 (2013) 1–15
Fig. 20. Map showing the slope failure probability predicted using correlated random
variables.
expected performance (AUC and distance to perfect performance)
were evaluated for model validation, because the ROC graph is a
two-dimensional depiction of performance in which it is not easy
to compare the model's performance.
• Based on the ROC graph, the model's performance in probabilistic
and deterministic analyses was evaluated and compared. The proba-
bilistic approach demonstrated good predictive performance com-
pared with the landslide inventory. Moreover, the results of the
probabilistic analysis showed higher AUC and lower distance to per-
fect classification than the deterministic analysis.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation
of Korea (NRF) grants funded by Korea government (MEST) (No.
2010-0021314 and No. 201M3A2A1050984).
References
Acharya, G., De Smedt, F., Long, N.T., 2006. Assessing landslide hazard in GIS: a case
study from Rasuwa, Nepal. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environments
65, 99–107.
AGS, 2000. Landslide risk management concepts and guidelines. Australian
Geomechanics 35, 49–92.
Aloetti, P., Chowdhury, R., 1999. Landslide hazard assessment: summary review and
new perspectives. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environments 58,
21–44.
Alonso, E.E., 1976. Risk analysis of slopes and its application to slopes in Canadian sen-
sitive clay. Geotechnique 26, 453–472.
Apip, K., Takara, K., Yamashiki, Y., Sassa, K., Ibrahim, A.B., Fukuoka, H., 2010. A distrib-
uted hydrological–geotechnical model using satellite-derived rainfall estimates for
shallow landslide prediction system at a catchment scale. Landslides 7, 237–258.
Babu, G.L.S., Singh, V., 2009. Reliability analysis of soil nail wall. Georisk 3, 44–54.
Baecher, G.B., Christian, J.T., 2003. Reliability and Statistics in Geotechnical Engineering.
Wiley (605 pp.).
Baum, R.L., Savage, W.Z., Godt, J.W., 2002. TRIGRS: a Fortran program for transient rain-
fall infiltration and grid based regional slope stability analysis. Open File Report,
02-424. USGS, Colorado (38 pp.).
Baum, R.L., McKenna, J.P., Godt, J.W., Harp, E.L., McMullen, S.R., 2005. Hydrologic mon-
itoring of landslide-prone coastal bluffs near Edmonds and Everett, Washington.
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report. (42 pp.).
Begueria, S., 2006. Validation and evaluation of predictive models in hazard assessment
and risk management. Natural Hazards 37, 315–329.
Beven, K.J., Kirkby, M.J., 1979. A physically based, variable contributing area model of
basin hydrology. Hydrological Sciences Journal 24, 43–69.
Borga, M., Fontana, G.D., Marchi, L., 1998. Shallow landslide hazard assessment using a
physically based model and digital elevation data. Environmental Geology 32,
81–88.
Borga, M., Dalla Fontana, G., Gregoretti, C., Marchi, L., 2002. Assessment of shallow
landsliding by using a physically based model of hillslope stability. Hydrological
Processes 16, 2833–2851.
Bradley, A.P., 1997. The use of the area under the ROC curve in the evaluation of
machine learning algorithm. Pattern Recognition 30, 1145–1159.
Carrara, A., Crosta, G.B., Frattini, P., 2008. Comparing models of debris-flow susceptibil-
ity in the alpine environment. Geomorphology 94 (3–4), 353–378.
Casadei, M., Dietrich, W.E., Miller, N.L., 2003. Testing a model for predicting the timing
and location of shallow landslide initiation in soil mantled landscapes. Earth
Surface Processes and Landforms 28, 925–950.
Cassidy, M.J., Uzielli, M., Lacasse, S., 2008. Probability risk assessment of landslides: a
case study at Finneidfjord. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 45, 1250–1267.
Catani, F., Segoni, S., Falorni, G., 2010. An empirical geomorphology based approach to
the spatial prediction of soil thickness at catchment scale. Water Resources
Research 46, W05508. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007450.
Cepeda, J., Chavez, J.A., Martinez, C.C., 2010. Procedure for the selection of runout
model parameters from landslide back analyses: application to the Metropolitan
area of San Salvador, El Salvador. Landslides 7, 105–116.
Cherubini, C., 2000. Reliability evaluation of shallow foundation bearing capacity on c,
ϕ soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 37, 264–269.
Chiang, S.H., Chang, K.T., 2011. The potential impact of climate change on typhoon-
triggered landslides in Taiwan, 2010–2099. Geomorphology 133, 143–151.
Cho, S.E., 2010. Probabilistic assessment of slope stability that considers the spatial var-
iability of soil properties. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineer-
ing 136, 975–984.
Cho, S.E., Park, H.C., 2010. Effect of spatial variability of crosscorrelated soil properties
on bearing capacity of strip footing. International Journal for Numerical and Ana-
lytical Methods in Geomechanics 34, 1–26.
Chowdhury, R., 1984. Recent developments in landslide studies: probabilistic methods,
state-of-art report. International Symposium on Landslides, pp. 209–228.
Chowdhury, R., Flentje, P., 2003. Role of slope reliability analysis in landslide risk man-
agement. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 62, 41–46.
Chowdhury, R., Flentje, P., Bhattacharya, G., 2010. Geotechnical Slope Analysis. CRC
Press, p. 737.
Coduto, D.P., Yeung, M.R., Kitch, W.A., 2010. Geotechnical Engineering: Principles and
Practices, 2nd ed. Pearson (794 pp.).
Crosta, G.B., Frattini, R., 2003. Distributed modeling of shallow landslides triggered by
intense rainfall. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 3, 81–93.
D'Amato Avanzi, G., Falaschi, F., Giannecchini, R., Puccinelli, A., 2009. Soil slip suscepti-
bility assessment using mechanical–hydrological approach and GIS techniques: an
application in the Apuan Alps. Natural Hazards 50, 591–603.
DeRose, R.C., Trustrum, N.A., Blaschke, P.M., 1991. Geomorphic change implied by reg-
olith slope relationships on steepland hillslopes, Taranaki, New Zealand. Catena 18,
489–514.
Dietrich, W.E., Reiss, R., Hsu, M.L., Montgomery, D.B., 1995. A process based model for
colluvial soil depth and shallow landsliding using digital elevation data. Hydrolog-
ical Processes 9, 383–400.
Dietrich, W.E., Bellugi, D., Real De Asua, R., 2001. Validation of the shallow landslide
model, SHALSTAB, for forest management. Water Science and Application 2,
195–227.
Duan, J., Grant, G.E., 2000. Shallow landslide delineation for steep forest watersheds based
on topographic attributes and probability analysis. In: Wilson, J.P., Gallant, J.C. (Eds.),
Terrain Analysis — Principles and Applications. John Wiley & Sons, pp. 311–329.
Fawcett, T., 2006. An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognition Letters 27,
861–874.
Fell, R., Corominas, J., Bonnard, C., Cascini, L., Leroi, E., Savage, W.Z., 2008. Guidelines for
landslide susceptibility, hazard and risk zoning for land use planning. Engineering
Geology 102, 85–98.
Fenton, G.A., Griffith, D.V., 2003. Bearing capacity prediction of spatially random c-ϕ
soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 40, 54–65.
Frattini, P., Crosta, G.B., Fusi, N., Negro, P.D., 2004. Shallow landslides in pyroclastic
soils: a distributed modeling approach for hazard assessment. Engineering Geology
73, 277–295.
Geological Society of Korea, 1962. Changdong–Hajinburi Geological Map Sheet. KIGAM.
Gessler, P.E., Chadwick, O.A., Charman, F., Althouse, L., Holmes, K., 2000. Modeling soil
landscape and ecosystem properties using terrain attributes. Soil Science Society of
America Journal 64, 2046–2056.
Godt, J.W., Baum, R.L., Savage, W.Z., Salciarini, D., Schulz, W.H., Harp, E.L., 2008.
Transient deterministic shallow landslide modeling: requirements for suscepti-
bility and hazard assessments in a GIS framework. Engineering Geology 102,
214–226.
Gokceoglu, C., Sonmez, H., Ercanoglu, M., 2000. Discontinuity controlled probabilistic
slope failure risk maps of the Altindag (settlement) region in Turkey. Engineering
Geology 55, 277–296.
Gorsevski, P.V., 2002. Landslide Hazard Modeling Using GIS. (Ph.D. thesis) University of
Idaho (240 pp.).
Griffiths, D.V., Huang, J., Fenton, G.A., 2011. Probabilistic infinite slope analysis. Com-
puters and Geotechnics 38, 577–584.
Guimaraes, R.F., Montgomery, D.R., Greenberg, H.M., Fernandes, N.F., Gomes, R.A.T.,
Carvalho Jr., O.A., 2003. Parameterization of soil properties for a model of topo-
graphic controls on shallow landsliding: application to Rio de Janeiro. Engineering
Geology 69, 99–108.
Hanley, J.A., McNeil, B.J., 1982. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver oper-
ating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143, 29–36.
Harp, E.L., Reid, M.E., McKenna, J.P., Michael, J.A., 2009. Mapping of hazard from
rainfall-triggered landslides in developing countries: examples from Honduras
and Micronesia. Engineering Geology 104, 295–311.
Harr, M.E., 1987. Reliability Based on Design in Civil Engineering. McGraw-Hill, New
York, p. 290.
 H.J. Park et al. / Engineering Geology 161 (2013) 1–15
Ho, J.Y., Lee, K.T., Chang, T.C., Wang, Z.Y., Liao, Y.H., 2012. Influence of spatial distribu-
tion of soil thickness on shallow landslide prediction. Engineering Geology 124,
38–46.
Hoek, E., 2007. Rock engineering; course note by Evert Hoek [online]. http://www.
rockeng.utoronto.ca/Hoekcorner.htm.
Hong, H.P., Roh, G., 2008. Reliability evaluation of earth slope. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering 134, 1700–1705.
Hsu, M.L., 1998. A grid based model for predicting shallow landslides: a case study in
Linkou, Taipei. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 79, W 25.
Huang, J.C., Kao, S.J., Hsu, M.L., Lin, J.C., 2006. Stochastic procedure to extract and to in-
tegrate landslide susceptibility maps: an example of mountainous watershed in
Taiwan. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 6, 803–815.
Huang, J.C., Kao, S.J., Hsu, M.L., Lin, J.C., 2007. Influence of specific contributing area al-
gorithm on slope failure prediction in landslide modeling. Natural Hazards and
Earth System Sciences 7, 781–792.
Iverson, R.M., 2000. Landslide triggering by rain infiltration. Water Resources Research
36, 1897–1910.
Kamai, T., 1991. Slope stability assessment by using GIS. Science and Technology Agency
of Japan, in Japanese.
Khazai, B., Sitar, N., 2000. Assessment of seismic slope stability using GIS modeling.
Geographic Information Sciences 6, 121–128.
KIGAM (Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources), 2009. Development of
Landslide Prediction Technology and Damage Mitigation Countermeasures. (203 pp.).
Ko Ko, C., Flentje, P., Chowdhury, R., 2004. Landslide qualitative hazard and risk assess-
ment method and its reliability. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environ-
ment 63, 149–165.
Korean Geotechnical Society, 2011. Final Report on Mt. Woomyun Landslide: Causes
and Recommendation of Countermeasure (262 pp., in Korean).
Lacasse, S., Nadim, F., 1996. Uncertainties in characterizing soil properties. Geotechni-
cal Special Publication 58, 49–75.
Lee, D.S., 1988. Geology of Korea (Kyohak-Sa, Seoul).
Lee, S., 2005. Application and cross validation of spatial logistic multiple regression for
landslide susceptibility analysis. Geosciences Journal 9, 63–71.
Lee, K.T., Ho, J.Y., 2009. Prediction of landslide occurrence based on slope instability
analysis and hydrological model simulation. Journal of Hydrology 375, 489–497.
Lee, I.K., White, W., Ingles, O.G., 1983. Geotechnical Engineering. Pitman, Boston.
Li, Y.F., Chi, Y.Y., 2011. Rainfall induced landslide risk at Lushan, Taiwan. Engineering
Geology 123, 113–121.
Li, K.S., Lumb, P., 1987. Probabilistic design of slopes. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 24,
520–535.
Liang, R.Y., Nusier, O.K., Malkawi, A.H., 1999. A reliability based approach for evaluating
the slope stability of embankment dams. Engineering Geology 54, 271–285.
Liu, C., Wu, C., 2008. Mapping susceptibility of rainfall-triggered shallow landslides
using a probabilistic approach. Environmental Geology 55, 907–915.
Low, B.K., Tang, W.H., 1997. Reliability analysis of reinforced embankments on soft
ground. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 34, 672–685.
Luzi, I., Pergalani, F., 1996. Application of statistical and GIS techniques to slope insta-
bility zonation. Soil Dynamic and Earthquake Engineering 15, 83–94.
Melchiorre, C., Frattini, P., 2011. Modeling probability of rainfall-induced shallow land-
slides in a changing climate, Otta, Central Norway. Climate Change. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0325-0.
Montgomery, D.R., Dietrich, W.E., 1994. A physically based model for the topographic
control on shallow landsliding. Water Resources Research 30, 1153–1171.
Mostyn, G.R., Li, K.S., 1993. Probabilistic slope analysis — state of play. Proceeding of
Conference on Probabilistic Method in Geotechnical Engineering, pp. 89–109.
NIDP (National Institute for Disaster Prevention), 2000. Fundamental issues for land-
slide hazard avoidance or mitigation plans. Research Report. (276 pp., in Korean).
Nilsen, B., 2000. New trend in rock slope stability analysis. Bulletin of Engineering
Geology and the Environment 58, 173–178.
O'Loughlin, E.M., 1986. Prediction of surface saturation zones in natural catchments by
topographic analysis. Water Resources Research 22, 794–804.
Okimura, T., 1989. Prediction of slope failure using the estimated depth of the potential
failure layer. Journal of Natural Disaster Sciences 11, 67–79.
Pack, T.T., Tarboton, D.G., Goodwin, C.N., 1998. The SINMAP approach to terrain stabil-
ity mapping. 8th Congress of the International Association of Engineering Geology,
Vancouver, B.C., Canada, pp. 21–25.
Pack, T.T., Tarboton, D.G., Goodwin, C.N., 2001. Assessing terrain stability in a GIS using
SINMAP. 15th Annual GIS Conference, GIS.
Park, H.J., West, T.R., Woo, I., 2005. Probabilistic analysis of rock slope stability and ran-
dom properties of discontinuity parameters, Interstate Highway 40. Engineering
Geology 79, 230–250.
Park, H.J., Um, J.G., Woo, I., Kim, J.W., 2012. Application of fuzzy set theory to evaluate
the probability of failure in rock slopes. Engineering Geology 125, 92–101.
Pathak, S., Nilsen, B., 2004. Probabilistic rock slope stability analysis for Himalayan con-
dition. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 63, 25–32.
Pelletier, J.D., Rasmussen, C., 2009. Geomorphically based predictive mapping of soil
thickness in upland watersheds. Water Resources Research 45, W09417. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007319.
Picarelli, L., Olivares, L., Avolio, B., 2008. Zoning for flowslide and debris flow in pyro-
clastic soils of Campania Region based on infinite slope analysis. Engineering
Geology 102, 132–141.
15
Priest, S.D., Brown, E.T., 1983. Probabilistic stability analysis of variable rock slopes.
Transactions of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy 92, A1–A2.
Reid, M.E., Ellen, S.D., Brien, D.L., Fuente, J., Falls, J.N., Hicks, B.G., Johnson, E.C., 2007.
Predicting debris slide locations in northwestern California. USDA Forest Service
Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-194.
Rosso, R., Rulli, M.C., Vannucchi, G., 2006. A physically based model for the hydrologic
control on shallow landsliding. Water Resources Research 42, W06410. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004369.
Salciarini, D., Godt, J.W., Savage, W.Z., Conversini, P., Baum, R.L., Michael, J.A., 2006.
Modeling regional initiation of rainfall induced shallow landslides in the eastern
Umbria Regional of Central Italy. Landslides 3, 181–194.
Salciarini, D., Godt, J.W., Savage, W.Z., Baum, R.L., Conversini, P., 2008. Modeling land-
slide recurrence in Seattle, Washington, USA. Engineering Geology 102, 227–237.
Santoso, A.M., Phoon, K.K., Quek, S.T., 2011. Effects of soil spatial variability on rainfall-
induced landslides. Computers and Structures 89, 893–900.
Savage, W.Z., Godt, J.W., Baum, R.L., 2004. Modeling time dependent areal slope stabil-
ity. In: Lacera, W.A., Erlich, M., Fontoura, S.A.B., Sayao, A.S.F. (Eds.), Landslide
Evaluation and Stabilization. Proceedings of 9th International Symposium on Land-
slides. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 23–36.
Schultze, E., 1975. The general significance of statistics for the civil engineer. Proceed-
ings of the 2nd International Conference on Application of Statistics and Probabil-
ity in Soil and Structural Engineering, Aachen.
Segoni, S., Rossi, G., Catani, F., 2012. Improving basin scale shallow modelling using re-
liable soil thickness maps. Natural Hazards 61, 85–101.
Shou, K., Chen, Y., 2005. Spatial risk analysis of Li-shan landslide in Taiwan. Engineering
Geology 80, 199–213.
Shou, K., Chen, Y., Liu, H., 2009. Hazard analysis of Li-shan landslide in Taiwan.
Geomorphology 103, 143–153.
Silva, F., Lambe, T.W., Marr, W.A., 2008. Probability and risk of slope failure. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 134, 1691–1699.
Soeters, R., van Westen, C.J., 1996. Slope instability recognition, analysis and zonation.
In: Turner, A.K., Schuster, R.L. (Eds.), Landslides Investigation and Mitigation, TRB,
Special Report, 247. National Academy Press, pp. 129–177.
Sorbino, G., Sica, C., Cascini, L., Cuomo, S., 2007. On the forecasting of flowslide trigger-
ing areas using physically based models. Proc. of 1st North American Landslides
Conference: AEG Publication, 23, pp. 305–315.
Sorbino, G., Sica, C., Cascini, L., 2010. Susceptibility analysis of shallow landslides
sources area using physically based models. Natural Hazards 53, 313–332.
Swets, J., 1988. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 240, 1285–1293.
Terlien, M.T.J., 1996. Modeling spatial and temporal variations in rainfall triggered
landslide. International Institute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Science, Publica-
tion No. 32.
Terlien, M.T.J., van Westen, C.J., van Asch, T.W.J., 1995. Deterministic modeling in GIS
based landslide hazard assessment. In: Carrara, A., Guzzetti, F. (Eds.), Geographical
Information Systems in Assessing Natural Hazards. Kluwer Academic Publisher,
Dordrecht, pp. 57–77.
Tesfa, T.K., Tarboton, D.G., Chandler, D.G., McNamara, J.P., 2009. Modeling soil depth
from topographic and land cover attributes. Water Resources Research 10,
W10438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007474.
van Westen, C.J., 2000. The modeling of landslide hazard using GIS. Surveys in
Geophysics 21, 241–255.
van Westen, C.J., Terlien, M.T.J., 1996. An approach towards deterministic landslide
hazard analysis in GIS; a case study from Manizales. Earth Surface Processes and
Landform 21, 853–868.
van Westen, C.J., Seijmonsbergen, A.C., Mantovani, F., 1999. Comparing landslide
hazard maps. Natural Hazards 20, 137–158.
van Westen, C.J., Asch, T.W.J., Soeters, R., 2006. Landslide hazard and risk zonation —
why is it still so difficult? Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment
65, 67–184.
Vanmarcke, E.H., 1977. Probabilistic modeling of soil profiles. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering Division ASCE 1227–1246.
Wang, Y., Cao, Z., Au, S., 2010. Efficient Monte Carlo Simulation of parameter sensitivity
in probabilistic slope stability analysis. Computers and Geotechnics 37, 1015–1022.
Wu, T.H., 2008. Reliability analysis of slopes. In: Phoon, K.K. (Ed.), Reliability Based
Design in Geotechnical Engineering. Taylor & Francis, pp. 413–447.
Wu, W., Sidle, R.C., 1995. A distributed slope stability model for steep forested basins.
Water Resources Research 31, 2097–2110.
Xie, M., Esaki, T., Zhou, G., 2004. GIS based probabilistic mapping of landslide hazard
using a three dimensional deterministic model. Natural Hazards 33, 265–282.
Yucemen, M.S., Tang, W.H., Ang, A.H.S., 1973. A probabilistic study of safety and design
of earth slopes. Civil Engineering Studies, Structural Research Series, 402 (Univer-
sity of Illinois, Urbana).
Zhou, G., Esaki, T., Mitani, Y., Xie, M., Mori, J., 2003. Spatial probabilistic modeling of
slope failure using an integrated GIS Monte Carlo simulation approach. Engineering
Geology 68, 373–386.
Zolfaghari, A., Heath, A.C., 2008. A GIS application for assessing landslide hazard over a
large area. Computers and Geotechnics 35, 278–285.