APPLICATIONS OF STATISTICAL AND HEURISTIC METHODS

FOR LANDSLIDE SUSCEPTIBILITY ASSESSMENTS

A case study in Wadas Lintang Sub District,

Wonosobo Regency, Central Java Province, Indonesia

Thesis submitted to the Graduated School, Faculty of Geography, Gadjah Mada University
and International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation in partial
fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Joint Education
Program between Gadjah Mada University (GMU)-Yogyakarta-Indonesia and
International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)-
Enschede-The Netherlands,on Geo-Information for Spatial Planning and Risk Management

by:
Bonaventura Firman Dwi Wahono
(22624-AES)
08/276588/PMU/05636

SUPERVISOR :
Dr. Danang Sri Hadmoko M.Sc.(GMU)
Dr. C.J. van Westen (ITC)

GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR GEO-INFORMATION
AND EARTH OBSERVATION
2010
 APPLICATIONS OF STATISTICAL AND HEURISTIC METHODS
FOR LANDSLIDE SUSCEPTIBILITY ASSESSMENTS

A case study in Wadas Lintang Sub District,

Wonosobo Regency, Central Java Province, Indonesia

By:
Bonaventura Firman Dwi Wahono
(22624-AES)
08/276588/PMU/05636

Has been approved in Yogyakarta

...February 2010
By Team of Supervisors:

Chairman:

. .

External Examiner:

. . . .

Supervisor I: Supervisor II

Dr. Danang Sri Hadmoko, M.Sc Dr. C.J. van Westen

Certified by:
Program Director of Geo-Information for Spatial Planning and Risk Management
Graduate School Faculty of Geography, Gadjah Mada University

Dr. H.A Sudibyakto, M.S.

 DEDICATED TO

MY LOVELY FAMILY
I certify that although I may have conferred with others in preparing for this assignment,
and drawn upon a range of sources cited in this work, the content of this thesis report is my
original work.

Signed …………………….

DISCLAIMER
This document describes work undertaken as part of a programme of study at the Double
Degree International Program of Geo-information for Spatial Planning and Risk
Management, a Joint Education Program of Institute for Geo-information Science and
Earth Observation, the Netherlands and Gadjah Mada University, Indonesia. All views and
opinions expressed therein remain the sole responsibility of the author, and do not
necessarily represent those of the institutes.
ABSTRACT

One of the basic activities in landslide mitigation is to generate a landslide susceptibility

map which is the main objective of this research. Using appropriate method becomes the
key to determine the areas prone to landslide. There are three applied methods for
assessing the landslide susceptibility in Wadas Lintang sub district such as bivariate
statistical analysis, multivariate statistical analysis and combination between bivariate and
pair wise comparison method. The result showed that there are 71 landslide sites which are
categorized into two types of landslide; rotational slides and translational slides. From the
rainfall analysis, temporal probability of landslides can be formulated as Y = 0.0334X –
4.0127, where x is daily rainfall. Based on laboratory investigation, the soil textures in
research area were dominated with a high percentage of clay fractions. The investigation
also showed that the soil of research area can be categorized as organic clay and very
plastic silt which is harmful for sliding in rainy season. The simple formulas were used to
extract magnitude of landslide which is ranging from 1.848 to 2.565. Building the
susceptibility map for rotational slides and translational slides should be separated because
of their different characteristics. The comparison between three methods for assessing
landslide susceptibility proofs that multivariate statistical analysis gives the best estimation
of the location of future rotational slides as well as translational slides. The susceptible
areas to landslide are determined by a combination of several factors which depend on the
landslide types. Rotational slides occur on steep slopes from 15 – 30%, in areas covered by
shifting cultivation and shrubs and underlain by grained sandstone, breccia and andesite.
Most landslides of translational slides occur on landuse types of settlement and paddy field
and in geological unit such as breccia, basalt and andesite. Translational slides dominantly
occurred in flat - gentle slope from 0 to 8%. Based on the best resulted susceptibility map,
the high susceptible area of rotational slides comprise 36.50% of the whole research area in
which Samogede, Ngalian, Trimulyo, Lancar and Gumelar become the most susceptible
villages. The high susceptible area prone to translational slides was estimated equal to
14.35% of research area at which Kaligowong, Tirip, Sumber Rejo, Wadas Lintang, and
Plunjaran appear to be the most susceptible villages.

Key words: Landslide, susceptibility, statistical, bivariate, multivariate, pair-wise.

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This research had been supported by contributions of many people and institutions. Supports had
come in many different ways and each input helped to bring this research to be completed.
Herewith I would like to thank all who have helped me in this effort and particularly mention of
person and institution whose contribution has been important.
First I thank to Jesus Christ whom supported me by his grace and blessing. I would like to express
my high gratitude to my GMU supervisor, Dr. Danang Sri Hadmoko, M.Sc, for his valuable
guidance, encouragements and discussions during this susceptible period. This research would not
been carried out and written without his attentive support. I would also like to give my sincere
gratitude to Dr. C.J van Westen , my ITC supervisor, for his remarks, improvements and comments
during writing proposal until the final submission.
I also appreciate to all lecturer and staff members both in GMU and ITC, for their support and
guidance, especially to Dr. Sudibyakto, Dr. Junun Sartohadi, Dr. Aris Marfai, Drs. Robert Voskuil,
Dr. Michiel Damen, Prof.Dr.Victor Jetten, Dr. David G. Rossiter, Drs. Nanette C. Kingma, mbak
Tuti, mbak Indri, mbak Win and mas Wawan. I appreciate also to Mr. Mauro Rossi (CNR IRPI)
and Saibal Gosh (PhD student of ITC) for giving the scripts and guidance of multivariate statistical
analysis.
I wish to convey my acknowledgement for BAPPENAS, Netherlands Fellowship Programme-
NESO (NEC) and local government of South Sumatra Province for giving me scholarship and
financial support to continue my post graduate programme. Thanks also to my previous bosses, Dr.
Doddy Supriadi, ibu Sri Hastuti, bapak Zulfikhar and mbak Neneng, for giving the opportunity to
continue my study.
This research had also been done by permission given by local governments of Wonosobo regency
and Wadas Lintang sub district. Thank for the kindness of all the chiefs in each authority’s level.
Thanks to all of my classmates for making a friendly atmosphere and sharing all their scientific
abilities. This condition kept me to stay in Jogja. Thanks to Emba Tampang Allo for his critical
discussion and to Fetty Febrianti for her word’s editing in my thesis.
I owe a lot to my brother’s family, Peyek and mbak Tita, for giving the facilities and comfortable
condition during I stay in Jogja and to my little Ale for her strengthen smiles.
My sincere gratitude is also given to my parents and my parents in law for their supporting and
keeping my family during I continue my study and for my siblings and brothers, Sesilia, Sari,
Chepy and Bram who gave a comfortable condition to my family.
The last is special and deeply thank to my lovely family, my beloved wife, Agrestiwa Perbawani
and my children, Pascal Rangga Prasetya and Felicia Maharani. This research is mainly dedicated
for you.

Jogjakarta, January 2010

Bonaventura Firman D. Wahono

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

DISCLAIMER... ..........................................................................................................................i
ABSTRACT ...... ........................................................................................................................ ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT......................................................................................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...........................................................................................................iv
LIST OF TABLE........................................................................................................................vi
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................. vii
CHAPTER 1. .....INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................1
1.1 Background............................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Problem Statement................................................................................................. 2
1.3 Objectives .............................................................................................................. 3
1.4 Research Questions................................................................................................ 3
1.5 Recent studies ........................................................................................................ 4
CHAPTER 2. .....LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................6
2.1. Types of Landslides............................................................................................... 6
2.1.1. Falls ............................................................................................................... 6
2.1.2. Flows ............................................................................................................. 6
2.1.3. Slides ............................................................................................................. 7
2.1.4. Topples .......................................................................................................... 7
2.1.5. Spread ............................................................................................................ 8
2.2. Landslide’s influencing factors ............................................................................. 8
2.2.1. Landslide triggering factors........................................................................... 9
2.2.2. Landslide preparatory factors ........................................................................ 9
2.2.2.1. Slope Gradient ........................................................................................... 9
2.2.2.2. Landuse.................................................................................................... 10
2.2.2.3. Lithology ................................................................................................. 10
2.2.2.4. Geological structure................................................................................. 10
2.2.2.5. Distance to road ....................................................................................... 11
2.2.2.6. Distance to river....................................................................................... 11
2.3. Soil Properties...................................................................................................... 11
2.4. Remote Sensing and GIS in mapping Landslide Inventory. ............................... 12
2.5. Landslide Susceptibility ...................................................................................... 12
2.5.1. Heuristic approach....................................................................................... 13
2.5.2. Statistical approach...................................................................................... 13
2.5.3. Physically-based modeling approach .......................................................... 13
2.5.4. Probabilistic approach ................................................................................. 13
2.6. Magnitude of landslides....................................................................................... 14
CHAPTER 3. .....METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................15
3.1. Raw materials, data requirement and equipment................................................. 15
3.2. Data preparation .................................................................................................. 16
3.3. Methods ............................................................................................................... 17
3.3.1. Landslide Inventory..................................................................................... 17
3.3.2. Rainfall Frequency Analysis ....................................................................... 19
3.3.3. Soil properties analysis................................................................................ 19
3.3.4. Determining landslide influencing factors of research area ........................ 20
3.3.5. Landslide Density ........................................................................................ 20

iv
 3.3.6. Landslide susceptibility analysis ................................................................. 20
3.3.6.1. Bivariate statistical analysis .................................................................... 20
3.3.6.2. Multivariate statistical analysis................................................................... 21
3.3.6.3. Spatial Multi Criteria Evaluation............................................................. 22
3.3.6.4. Improved method..................................................................................... 22
3.3.7. Verifying landslide susceptibility maps ...................................................... 23
3.3.8. Classifying the landslide susceptibility map ............................................... 25
3.3.9. Extracting Landslide Magnitude ................................................................. 25
CHAPTER 4. .....RESEARCH AREA ......................................................................................27
4.1. Geographic position............................................................................................. 27
4.2. Rainfall activity ................................................................................................... 27
4.3. Geological and geomorphological condition of research area ............................ 28
4.4. Landuse of Wadas Lintang sub district ............................................................... 30
4.5. Reported landslides of Wonosobo regency ......................................................... 30
CHAPTER 5. .....LANDSLIDE CHARACTERISTICS ...........................................................32
5.1. Soil Properties Analysis....................................................................................... 32
5.2. Generating the landslide inventory map .............................................................. 33
5.2.1 Recognizing landslides by using aerial photos................................................ 33
5.2.2 Recognizing landslides by using SPOT Imagery ............................................ 34
5.2.3 Field observation as a final mapping process.................................................. 35
5.3. Landslide Profile.................................................................................................. 39
5.4. Volumetric Analysis ............................................................................................ 40
5.5. Slope morphology analysis.................................................................................. 41
5.6. Magnitude of landslides....................................................................................... 42
5.7. The probability of occurrence rainfall triggering landslides ............................... 42
CHAPTER 6. .....LANDSLIDE SUSCEPTIBILITY ASSESSMENT......................................45
6.1 Selecting the landslide influencing factors of research area................................ 45
6.2 Bivariate statistical analysis................................................................................. 48
6.1.1 Bivariate statistical analysis for rotational slides ............................................ 48
6.1.2 Bivariate statistical analysis for translational slides ........................................ 49
6.1.3 Bivariate statistical analysis for mixed types .................................................. 50
6.3 Multivariate statistical analysis by using logistic regression............................... 52
6.2.1 Multivariate statistical analysis for rotational slide......................................... 52
6.2.2 Multivariate statistical analysis for translational slides................................... 54
6.2.3 Multivariate statistical analysis for mixed types ............................................. 56
6.4 Improved Method (BSA and pair-wise) .............................................................. 59
6.4.1 Improved Method for Rotational Slides .......................................................... 60
6.4.2 Improved Method for Translational slides ...................................................... 62
6.4.3 Improved Method for mixed types .................................................................. 64
6.5 Verifying landslide susceptibility index map ...................................................... 66
6.6 Defining the best method for assessing the landslide susceptibility ................... 68
6.7 Determining the classification of susceptibility maps......................................... 69
6.8 Comparison of spatial predictions ....................................................................... 73
6.9 Defining the areas prone to landslide in Wadas Lintang Sub District................. 74
CHAPTER 7. .....CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS................77
7.1 Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 77
7.2 Limitations........................................................................................................... 78
7.3 Recommendations ............................................................................................... 79
REFERENCES .. .......................................................................................................................80

v
LIST OF TABLE

Table 1-1. The Disaster Event of Indonesia in 2008,......................................................................... 1

Table 2-1. Velocity of Several Types of Movement .......................................................................... 6
Table 2-2.Causal Factors of landslides .............................................................................................. 9
Table 3-1. Data required, row materials and preparation processes................................................. 15
Table 3-2. Equipment used in the field observation......................................................................... 16
Table 3-3. Scale for Pair wise Comparison...................................................................................... 22
Table 4-1 Geology formation of research area................................................................................. 28
Table 4-2 the composition of slope classes in the research area. ..................................................... 30
Table 4-3 .The composition of landuse in the research area ............................................................ 30
Table 5-1 Relationship between the limits and engineering properties ........................................... 33
Table 5-2 Landslide magnitudes in the research area ...................................................................... 42
Table 5-3 Return Period (TR) of Annual Rainfall in Wadas Lintang .............................................. 43
Table 6-1 The weight values of each class parameter induced rotational slides.............................. 46
Table 6-2 The weight values of each class parameter induced translational slides ......................... 47
Table 6-3 The weight values of each class parameter induced mixed types of landslides............... 50
Table 6-4 Summary of training datasets for rotational slides in MSA............................................. 52
Table 6-5 Classification of dataset for rotational slides in MSA ..................................................... 52
Table 6-6 The coefficients of of dataset for rotational slides in MSA ............................................. 53
Table 6-7 Summary of training datasets for translational slides in MSA ........................................ 54
Table 6-8 Classification table of dataset for Translational slides in MSA....................................... 55
Table 6-9. The coefficients of of dataset for Translational slides in MSA ..................................... 55
Table 6-10 Summary of training datasets for both types in MSA.................................................... 56
Table 6-11 Classification table of dataset for mixed types in MSA................................................. 57
Table 6-12 The coefficients of dataset for mixed types in MSA ..................................................... 57
Table 6-13. The weight value for each group and parameter for rotational slides by using pair wise
comparison – SMCE ........................................................................................................................ 60
Table 6-14 . Final weight values of rotational slides by using Pair-wise comparison. .................. 61
Table 6-15 The weight value for each group and parameter for translational slides by using pair
wise comparison – SMCE................................................................................................................ 62
Table 6-16 Final weight values of translational slides by using Pair-wise comparison method...... 63
Table 6-17 The weight value for each group and parameter for translational slides by using pair
wise comparison – SMCE................................................................................................................ 64
Table 6-18 Final weight values of mixed types by using Pair-wise comparison method ................ 65
Table 6-19 the matrix showing the areas classified as the same class of rotational susceptibility (in
percentage of study area).................................................................................................................. 73
Table 6-20 the matrix showing the areas classified as the same class of translational slides
susceptibility (in percentage of study area)...................................................................................... 73
Table 6-21 the matrix showing the areas classified as the same class of mix landslide susceptibility
(in percentage of study area) ............................................................................................................ 74
Table 6-22 Susceptible classes of rotational slide of each village in the research area ................... 75
Table 6-23 Susceptible classes of translational slides of each village in the research area ............. 76

vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. The latest landslide susceptibility map including research area...................................... 2
Figure 2-1. Fall Type.......................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2-2. Flow type......................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 2-3. a) Rotational slide, b) Translational Slide ....................................................................... 7
Figure 2-4.Topples type ..................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 2-5.Spread type ....................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 3-1. Flow chart of building landslide inventory map............................................................ 18
Figure 3-2. Flowchart of Landslide Susceptibility Analyses ........................................................... 23
Figure 4-1 : Administrative Map of Wonosobo Regency (Source Local Government) .................. 27
Figure 4-2 Average Monthly Rainfall of Wadas Lintang sub district 1980 - 2008 ......................... 28
Figure 4-3 Litology map of research area ........................................................................................ 29
Figure 4-4 Topographic visualization of research area .................................................................... 29
Figure 4-5 Landslide occurrences in Wonosobo Regency, 2000 – 2008 ......................................... 31
Figure 5-1 Soil texture distribution of landslide sites ...................................................................... 32
Figure 5-2 Casagrande Plasticity Chart of soil samples................................................................... 33
Figure 5-3 Temporal Landslide investigation 1(a) aerial photo 1994,(b) SPOT 2006, (c) Field
Observation 2009 ............................................................................................................................. 34
Figure 5-4 Temporal landslide investigation 2 (a) SPOT 2006, (b) Field Observation, 2009 ......... 34
Figure 5-5 Misinterpretation Landslide investigation (a) SPOT 2006, (b) Field Observation......... 35
Figure 5-6 Field observation (a) direct measurement, (b) taking soil sample of landslide sites ...... 35
Figure 5-7 Unreported landslides (a) in the mix garden (b) forest, (c) shifting cultivation area ..... 36
Figure 5-8 The damages caused by translational slides in the settlement area. (a) wall break, (b)
floor cracks....................................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 5-9 The boundaries of translational slides (a)land drops down,(b) land breaks away.......... 36
Figure 5-10 Geomorphological Distribution of Landslide in Wadas Lintang ................................. 37
Figure 5-12 Landslide profile of Dadap Gede.................................................................................. 39
Figure 5-13 Volumetric Analysis process........................................................................................ 40
Figure 5-14 Transect lines of Dadap Gede’s Landslide ................................................................... 40
Figure 5-15 Slope condition before and after sliding at Dadap Gede .............................................. 41
Figure 5-16 Relationship between Left Probability and amount of Rainfall ................................... 44
Figure 6-1 Success rate of rotational susceptibility index based on sensitivity analysis ................. 45
Figure 6-2 Landslide occurrences triggered by road expanded....................................................... 46
Figure 6-3 Success rate of translational slides susceptibility index based on sensitivity analysis... 47
Figure 6-4 Landslide occurrences triggered by river bank erosion in toe part................................. 48
Figure 6-5 Landslide Susceptibility index map of Rotational Slides by using BSA........................ 49
Figure 6-6 Landslide Susceptibility index map of Translational slides by using BSA.................... 50
Figure 6-7 Landslide Susceptibility index map of mixed types by using BSA................................ 51
Figure 6-8 Susceptibility index map of Rotational Slides by using MSA ....................................... 54
Figure 6-9 Susceptibility index map of translational slides by using MSA ..................................... 56
Figure 6-10 Susceptibility index map of mixed types by using MSA ............................................. 58
Figure 6-11 Susceptibility index map of rotational slides by using Improved Method ................... 62
Figure 6-12 Susceptibility index map of translational slides by using Improved Method............... 64
Figure 6-13 Susceptibility index map of mixed types by using Improved Method ......................... 66
Figure 6-14 Comparing the prediction rate of 3 methods for mixed types ...................................... 67
Figure 6-15 Comparing the prediction rate of 3 methods for rotational slides ................................ 67
Figure 6-16 Comparing the prediction rate of 3 methods for translational slides............................ 68
Figure 6-17 Class breaks of rotational susceptibility map ............................................................... 69
Figure 6-18 Final susceptibility map for rotational slides................................................................ 70
Figure 6-19 Class breaks of translational slides susceptibility map................................................. 70
Figure 6-20 Final susceptibility map for translational slides ........................................................... 71
Figure 6-21 Class breaks of susceptibility map for mixed landslides .............................................. 72
Figure 6-22 Landslide susceptibility map for mixed types .............................................................. 72

vii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background
Landslides are regarded as natural degradation processes as stated (Van Westen,1994a)
produced by natural and human activities. Natural factors such as high rainfall,
earthquake, and volcanic eruption can trigger landslide occurrences. This condition
becomes worse when human activity also contributes to landslide occurrences.
Landslides are among of the major hazardous events in Indonesia. It caused a large
number of casualties and damages. Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana
Indonesia / National Bereau of Disaster Management in Indonesia (BNPB) (2008)
revealed the data of disaster occurrences in 2008 as presented in Table 1:
Table 1-1. The Disaster Event of Indonesia in 2008,
Number of The Number of
No Disaster Types Occurrences Affected and Casualties
Evacuated People
1 Flood 197 587.190 68
2 Typhoon 56 2.564 3
3 Landslide 39 1.599 73
4 Flood and 22 15.915 54
5 Tidal Wave 8 3.911 -
6 Earthquake 8 24.002 12
7 Fire 7 2.392 -
8 Technological 3 - 30
9 Forest Fire 1 - 3
10 Volcanic Eruption 1 9.708 -
11 Social Disturbance 1 - 2
Total 343 647.281 245
Source BNPB, 2008
Although most parts of Indonesia have more experience related to landslides, the
preparedness and mitigation activities are not running well in many regions. The lack
of required data, and hazard experts, limited budget and the lack of awareness of local
government are some of the reasons why the mitigation and preparedness activities are
far from adequate. In other hand, those activities are absolutely needed to reduce the
effect of hazard.
One of the activities in landslide mitigation is to generate landslide susceptibility maps.
Landslide susceptibility can be defined as the relative degree of instability of the
terrain. This map presents the probability of future landslide occurrences. It can be
made by correlating the environmental factors, which influence the landslide
occurrences with past distribution of slope failures (Brabb,1984). To build a landslide
susceptibility map we should consider the published methods or we can modify these
to get a better-expected result. In spite of that, the chosen mapping method depends on
data availability, financial budget and time for observation, while detailed level of
required data counts on working scale and the proposed application of the mapping
result (Soeters and Van Westen,1996).

1
In Indonesia, many local institutions tried to apply the known landslide susceptibility
assessment methods in their regions. Most of them only implemented the heuristic
method to the area prone to landslide and the problem of this method is in the
subjectivity of defining parameters, the weighted and scoring values. These given
values were based on either individual opinion or taken values from another location.
For example, Wuryanta et al (2004) developed the landslide susceptibility map in
Kulon Progo, Kebumen and Purworejo. They used the weighted value based on their
opinions and they did not use the landslide inventory map to build a landslide
susceptibility map. Therefore the resulted landslide susceptibility maps have many
weaknesses and uncertainties.
To assess the landslide susceptibility, the statistical analysis requires a landslide
occurrence map that will be combined with environmental factors and the assumption
that landslides will occur under the similar condition of each factor like the occurrences
in the past. (Van Westen et al.,2005). In this approach landslide analysis requires a large
number of input variables which several of them need a high cost and time consuming
to collect (Van Westen,1994). The combination and comparison between statistical and
heuristic method will become the major discussion in this research.
The author chooses Wadas Lintang District where located in the southern part of
Wonosobo Regency as the study area. This location was selected because a number of
landslide occurrences are highly recorded. As a part of landslide mitigation activities,
building the landslide susceptibility map is an important thing to generate the spatial
planning for this district.

1.2 Problem Statement

The intensive human activities in utilizing land are responsible for reducing the
qualities of environmental condition. The decreasing becomes the causal factor for
triggering several hazard events, such as landslides. Landslide mitigation processes are
absolutely needed for hilly and mountainous area.
Wonosobo is one of the landslide susceptible areas in the Central Java Province where
landslide occurrences almost occur during the rainy season. Unfortunately the
availability of landslide susceptibility map just is in Provincial level with scale 1 :
250.000 just showing the mass movement activities and not presenting the hazard
zonation. This map was published by Bakosurtanal (2005). The latest landslide
susceptibility map is shown in the Figure 1.

Research Area

Figure 1-1. The latest landslide susceptibility map including research area.

2
The local authorities need a more detailed landslide susceptibility map to support the
better environmental management and for reducing the victims and damages caused by
future landslide occurrences. Actually there are some data related to landslides in
Wonosobo Regency during 2000 – 2008 in tabular format. However the lack of
detailed spatial data of landslide occurrences and its distribution is still a main problem.
Next, we need the landslide susceptibility map yet in the more detailed scale than the
provincial one.
The other problem is how to improve susceptibility assessment method related to
landslides. This improvement is expected to solve the problem related to the weakness
of both methods; heuristic and statistical method. Using multivariate statistical analysis
(MSA) completely depends on the accuracy of data. MSA may get the result
objectively, but expert’s knowledge is entirely needed in the estimation of future
landslides. In the end of this research, the author will compare the combined method
with statistical methods. This research is hoped not only to produce a map, but also to
contribute the suitable approaches to landslide susceptibility mapping.
Anyway, limiting the landslide causal factors may overcome as a question to be
answered in this research. This can be solved by field observation which aims to
identify the physical characteristics of landslide causal factor.

1.3 Objectives
The main objective of this study is to assess and evaluate the landslide susceptibility in
Wadas Lintang Sub District using statistical analysis and pair-wise comparison method
in the medium scale. The specific objectives are:
1. To inventorize the distribution of landslide occurrences in Wadas Lintang Sub
District.
2. To define the appropriate method for assessing the landslide susceptibility in the
research area.
3. To determine and to map the areas of landslide susceptibility based on the best
method.

1.4 Research Questions

The research questions are formulated as follow:
1. How to develop the map of landslide occurrences in Wadas Lintang Sub District?
1.1. What are the characteristic of soil on the landslide site?
1.2. How to extract the data of the past landslide occurrences either using
satellite imagery or aerial photos?
1.3. How to collect, measure, and map the recent landslide occurrences through
field work?
1.4. How to differentiate the landslides according to type and date of
occurrences?
1.5. How to express the landslide magnitude in the research area?
1.6. What is the probability of occurrence rainfall triggering landslide?
2. What is the most appropriate method to assess landslide susceptibility in the
research area?
2.1. Can the combination between bivariate statistical and pair-wise comparison
method predict the future landslide more accurately than that by using either
bivariate or multivariate statistical method?

3
 3. How to determine the prone area of landslide in Wadas Lintang Sub District?
3.1. What are the landslide influencing factors of Wadas Lintang Sub District?
3.2. Which areas in parts of Wadas Lintang Sub Districts are susceptible to
landslide occurrences?

1.5 Recent studies

Magliulo et al (2008) built the landslide susceptibility map by using bivariate statistical
method in southern Italy. They extracted the landslide susceptibility map by applying
both information value and landslide detachment zone. Then the results had been
compared with geomorphological field survey. The authors used orto-photo to
recognize landslide sites as the based to generate landslide inventory map. As the
preparatory factors, they choose lithology, landuse, slope gradient and aspect. The final
result showed that both methods had good coherence with geomorphological map.
Firdaini (2008) generated landslide hazard assessment to define and evaluate land
capability in Purworejo regency. She used some factors to build landslide hazard map
such as slope, geology, soil, and landuse. The score values for each class parameter
were given by her opinion based on the rank of them. The rank was arranged based on
general pattern of landslide prone area in Indonesia. All factors were assumed in the
same weight. Three classes of susceptibility were given by using equal interval method.
Landslide inventory map was used to determine landuse priority and not used for
verifying the landslide hazard map. The susceptibility method can be included as
heuristic approach
Marhaento’s research (2006) tried to generate landslide hazard map by using heuristic
and bivariate statistical analysis. Loano sub district in Purworejo Regency was chosen
as the study area. Heuristic method was used to determine the landslide preparatory
factors such as slope gradient, soil type, soil depth, land-use, lithology and distance to
road. He extracted the landslide sites by using multi temporal ASTER images. The
accuracy test chosen was success rate.
Wuryanta et al (2004) had done the research about landslide identification and solving
activities in Kulon Progo, Purworejo and Kebumen regencies in Indonesia. Some
factors were used to generate the susceptibility map such as landform, slope, geology,
soil and landuse. The weight values were given based on their opinion. The final
weight values were extracted by adding all weight values of each factor. The
susceptibility classes were divided with equal interval method where maximum values
minus minimum value divided with number of classes. They also identified the
landslide by using Landsat 7 ETM which has 30 m spatial resolution, but the results
were not used for verification. The identification of landslide site was used to combine
with susceptibility map for producing the final susceptibility map. The susceptibility
method is so subjective and can be included as heuristic approach.
Castellanos and van Westen’s research (2003) in Cuba gave details how to construct
the landslide hazard map by means of developed heuristic method. They developed
analytical hierarchy process, a part of the decision support system, as the heuristic
model. Pair-wise and ranking methods were chosen to extract the weighting value. The
causative factors chosen were topographic, geological, hydrological, geomorphology
and tectonic factors. They gave the initial weights for each class parameters and the
parameter levels based on both their analysis of three existing landslide area and their
knowledge. The procedure to build the hazard map can be described as selecting the

4
parameters, designing the hierarchical tree, assigning the weighting value, and
generating the final map.

Compared with those researches, this study is significantly different. Two different
maps of landslide susceptibility had been generated based on the types of landslides.
The different can also be seen in the improved method which author used combination
between pair-wise comparison - analytical hierarchy process (included as heuristic
method) and bivariate statistical analysis. The BSA was only applied to extract the
initial weighting value for each class parameter. Pair-wise comparison method was
used to give the weighting value of parameter and then combining with the level of
initial value of each class parameter to produce the final weighting value for each class
parameter. Pair-wise comparison method which based on analytical hierarchy process
was applied by means of Spatial Multi Criteria Evaluation (SMCE). In this research,
the method for assessing susceptibility is not only using the improved method, but also
bivariate statistical analysis and logistic regression (multivariate statistical analysis).
The results of the three methods had been compared and the best results are used as
final landslide susceptibility maps. Another difference is in testing the accuracy of
landslide susceptibility map. The author selected prediction rate method where there
were two scenarios of landslide inventory map; for generating and for verifying
landslide susceptibility map.

5
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Types of Landslides

United States Geological Survey defined landslide as a type of mass movement caused
either by natural occurrence or human activity or combination of both. Based on the
velocity of the movement, landslides can be classified into several types such as fall,
flow and slide (Abbot,2004)as described in table 2-1, later Soetoers and van Westen
gave new types; topple and spread.
Table 2-1. Velocity of Several Types of Movement
Type of Less than 1 cm a 1 mm/day to 1 1 to 5 km/hour Generally greater
Movement year km/hour than 4 km/hour
slowest -----------------------------------------------
fastest
flow creep/debris ------------debris flow------------------------

earth flow mudflow (water debris avalanche
saturated debris) (debris)
rock avalanche
(rock)
slide -----------debris slide-------------------------

----------rock slide (bedrock)----------------

fall rock fall (bedrock)
debris fall (debris)
----------------landslides---------------------

Source: Abbot, 2004

2.1.1. Falls
These types occur in very steep slope when elevated masses are separated along joints,
bedding or the weaknesses. The detached masses go downward by falling, bounding
and rolling which can be seen in figure 2-1

Figure 2-1. Fall Type

2.1.2. Flows
Flows are the type of mass movement with a fluid motion. The speeds of the
movements vary from slow to rapid. The ranges of material are differently gradated
from massive boulders to sand, clay, snow and ice. The differences between slide and
flow are based on the water contents and slip surface. Falls are strongly influenced by
gravity, mechanical weathering, and the presence of interstitial water. There are several
sub types of flows such as earth-flow, mudflow, debris-flow, and debris avalanche. The
illustration of flows is presented in figure 2-2

6
 Figure 2-2. Flow type

2.1.3. Slides
Slides can be defined as movements of masses on failure surfaces or on the zone of
shear strain. Typically of failure surface are either 1) curved in concave upward sense
(rotational slides) and 2) nearly planar (translational slides).
• Rotational slides
These slides occur along a curved surface. In the crown parts, the displaced masses
moves downward vertically and the top surface of displaced masses angles back toward
on the scarp. Movement is more or less rotational on axis parallel to the slope (Cruden
and Varnes,1996). To identify the centre of rotation, we can determine by piercing a
cross section with the point of compass and then swinging the compass in an arc to
draw the failure surface (Abbot,2004). This slides is illustrated in Figure 2-3a
• Translational slides
Translational slides are types of slides where the sliding can extend downward and
outward along a broadly planar surface, and slide out over the original surface (Cruden
and Varnes,1996) as depicted in Figure 2-3b. This type typically takes place along
structural features, such as a bedding plane or the interface between resistant bedrock
and weaker overlying material. (Abbot,2004) They are found globally in all types of
environments and conditions. Translational slides generally fail along geologic
discontinuities such as faults, joints, bedding surfaces, or the contact between rock and
soil. These slides typically reflect a weak layer or existing structural discontinuity
(Cruden and Varnes,1996). If the overlying material moves as a single, little-deformed
mass, it is called a block slide.

a) b)

Figure 2-3. a) Rotational slide, b) Translational Slide

2.1.4. Topples
Toppling is privileged by the presence of a steeply inclined join set with the strike
aligned by more or less parallel to the slope face which can be seen in Figure 2.4.
Topples are similar to falls except that the initial movement involves a forward rotation
of the mass.

7
 Figure 2-4.Topples type

2.1.5. Spread
The distinctive type of landslide is a spread. This type generally takes places on very
gentle slopes or flat terrain. The upper layer is broken and moves outward on the
underlying layer. Figure 2-5 shows the illustration of this type. The surface’s
boundaries of mass movement can be difficult and diffuse to recognize (Soeters and
Van Westen,1996). The failure is usually triggered by ground motion, such as that
experienced during an earthquake, but can also be artificially induced.

Figure 2-5.Spread type

2.2. Landslide’s influencing factors

There are many factors that should be considered to analyze landslide hazard
(Varnes,1984). Soeters & Westen (1996) divided those factors into 5 groups of factors
as described follow
- Geomorphology factors such as data of terrain unit, geomorphological sub unit,
types of landslide.
- Topography factors such as data of digital terrain model, slope direction and length,
concavities
- Engineering geology factors such as data of lithology, material sequences, structure
of geology, and seismic acceleration.
- Landuse factors such as data of infrastructure (recent and older) and landuse map
(recent and older)
- Hydrology factors such as data of drainage, catchments area, rainfall, temperature,
evaporation and water table map.
As mentioned by Soeters & Westen (1996), it may not be necessary to include all
parameters; because it depends which ones are relevant for the study area. It also
provides to conduct landslide susceptibility assessment by using few parameters.
Cruden and Varnes (1996) separated landslide causal factors into two group;
preparatory and triggering factors. They also classified the causal factors of landslide
including preparatory and triggering factors into geological, morphological, physical
and human induced causes as given in the table 2-2.

8
 Table 2-2.Causal Factors of landslides
Geological Factors Morphological factors
• Tectonic or volcanic uplift
• Weak materials • Glacial rebound
• Sensitive materials • Fluvial erosion of slope toe
• Sheared materials • Wave erosion of slope toe
• Jointed or fissured materials • Glacial erosion of slope toe
• Adversely oriented mas discontinuity • Erosion of lateral margins
• Aversely oriented structural • Sub terrain erosion
discontinuity • Deposition loading slope or its
• Contrast in permeability crest
• Weathered materials • Vegetation loss

Physical factors Human Induced Factors

• Intense rainfall
• Rapid snow melt
• Prolonged exceptional precipitation
• Rapid draw down of floods and tides
• Earthquake
• Volcanic eruption
• Freeze and thaw weathering
• Shrink and swell weathering
Source : Cruden and Varnes, 1996
• Excavation of slope and toe
• Loading of slope or its crest
• Draw down of reservoir
• Deforestation
• Irrigation
• Mining
• Artificial Vibration
• Water leakage from utilities

2.2.1. Landslide triggering factors

Triggering factors are the events that change the condition of slope from generally
stable to actively unstable state. The movement is initiated by triggering factors, such
as earthquake, volcano eruption and relatively high rainfall.
Rainfall is the most significant and common triggering factor for causing landslide
occurrences in Indonesia. Generally, the infiltration process of rainfall influences the
results in changing soil suction, positive pore pressure, ground water table, as well as
increasing the weight of soil unit, diminishing shear strength of rock and soil (Huang
and Lin, 2002)

2.2.2. Landslide preparatory factors

It is different with preparatory factors which cause the changes from susceptible slope
to movement without initiating it. Preparatory factors have a tendency to place the
slope in generally stable state such as slope gradient, landuse, drainage pattern,
lithology, geological structure, etc . The relationship between landslide occurrences and
landslide preparatory factors in the research area will describe as below.

2.2.2.1.Slope Gradient
The slope gradient is the most important factor to build landslide susceptibility
mapping. This factor is generated from Digital Elevation Model. Based on USDA, the
classes of slope gradient are extracted in percentage classified into 7 classes; 0 – 3, 3 –
8, 8 – 15, 15 – 30, 30 – 45, 45 – 65, and higher than 65%. Gentle slopes are predicted
to give the low value for shallow landslide based on commonly lower shear stresses

9
correlated with low gradient. At slope from 10 to 45 %, landslides may have high
probability. The remained slope angle more than 45% will give a low probability
relatively because the existing of resistant lithologic units. The assumption that these
units are not covered by weathered units which are susceptible for land-sliding.

2.2.2.2.Landuse
Landuse is one of the key factors responsible for the occurrence of landslides. The
comparison between aerial photo 1994 and SPOT Imagery 2006 shows the drastically
changes of forest area. Many forest areas were converted into agricultural areas and it
was followed with increasing the number of landslide occurrences.
Theoretically, barren land and shifting cultivation are more prone to landslides than
other landuses. It could be happened because there is no deep root which can hold the
soil. Contrarily, forest areas tend to decrease the landslide occurrences due to the
natural anchorage provided by the tree roots. Landuse data is extracted from SPOT
satellite imagery taken in 2006. The interpretation is done visually and then supported
by supervised classification. Validating and verifying are done by checking most of
research area. The classes of landuse are based on the landuse classification published
by Mallingreu,J.P (1977) who researched about landuse in Indonesia, and the classes
are categorized into reservoir / water body, settlement, forest, mixed garden, paddy
field, shifting cultivation, filed crop, barren land, and shrub.

2.2.2.3.Lithology
Lithology data was extracted from geological map. This data had been prepared for
common geological functions without take into account the special needs of the
susceptibility evaluation procedure. So, the geological units were regrouped based on
lithological attributes rather than their stratigraphic content and age (Suzen and
Doyuran,2004). Lithology is one of the main factors influencing the type and the
intensity of the morphodynamic processes, including landsides. Thus, many researchers
involved lithology as a factor for susceptibility mapping (e.g. Dai et al. (2001);; van
Westen et al.(2003); Ayalew and Yamagishi (2005); Ayenew and Barbieri (2005);
Ermini et al. (2005). Based on geological map scale 1 : 100.000 published by
Geological Research and Development Centre of Indonesia, various rock formations in
the study area have been grouped into seven classes to prepare the lithology data layer.
The five classes correspond to (a) Schits and Phyllite, (b) Penosogan Formation, (c)
Halang Formation Breccia, (d) Waturanda Formation (e) Tuff Member Waturanda
Formation, (f) Totogan Formation, (g) Peniron formation. For area utilized for
reservoir was defined as water body. The description of contents per each formation is
discussed in chapter of research area.

2.2.2.4.Geological structure
Saha et al, (2005) used the geological structure as a landslide causal factor. It means
that landslide occurrences rise with proximity to geological structures. In this term, the
lineament was presented as geological structure. The distance to lineament map
signifies the presence of joint-fracture affecting the shear strength (Suzen and
Doyuran,2004). The distance to lineament was worked in meter scale, and it tends to
evaluate the local situation.
Structurally, the research area is relatively complex. Based on visual interpretation
from SPOT imagery taken in 2006 and geological map, we can identify that there is a
major fault that pass through the area, named Kalibawang Fault. In addition to fault,
10
there are several lineaments in this area. Field observation shows that some of the
lineaments are taken place on the cuesta area. Euclidean distance processing, one of the
distance function, has been done to determine a buffer zone to signify the influenced
area on the landslide occurrences.

2.2.2.5.Distance to road
Beside the natural environment, human induced factor may raise the probability of
landslide occurrences. Cutting the toe of steep slope and filling along the road are the
common human activities on the hilly areas which increase the susceptible area to
landslide. It is convinced when the author found that many landslide sites are near by
cutting road area. The road network map was taken from topographic map scale 1 :
25.000. The best way to contain the effect of road factor in landslide study is by
making a buffer on the upslope part.

2.2.2.6.Distance to river
In order to evaluate the influence of drainage pattern on landslide occurrence, a spatial
analysis is performed. Many landslide sites took place near by the river, especially
river with steep cliff. Water flow scraps the edges of river causing the broken of upper
part. The areas near by the river are more susceptible for sliding. It is supported by
Suzen and Doyuran’s statement that corrected distance to river network is a sign of the
possibility of river bank erosion in toe part of landslide. The river network map was
taken from topographic map scale 1 : 25.000. Similar with the process in the geological
structure and distance to road, the map of river distance was identified by buffering the
river network. This is measured to be a reason of the terrain modification caused by
undercutting of the slopes in the research area.

2.3. Soil Properties

Soil properties in term of geotechnical engineering support to influence landslide
occurrences. It could be happened when the soil moisture content exceeds the liquid
limit in the field. This event generates the dangerous and prospectively devastating
results as a soil become visible to be stable and then when distressed can unexpectedly
break away (Handy and Spangler,2007). The soil loses its shear strength and become
changed into a quick churning, and flow which cross anything in its path. Similar with
that statement, Denisov in Handy and Spangler, (2007) declared that if the exceeding
of saturated soil moisture content pass over the liquid limit, the soil become harmful to
collapse and density under its own weight (if it ever becomes saturated). Increase in
soil moisture content decreases soil strength by diminishing capillary cohesion.
Liquid and plastic limits are significantly controlled by the clay content and clay
mineralogy. Lambe and Whitman (1951) gave the description that the liquid limit is the
water content where the soil has smaller shear strength. It gets to flow closely to a path
of standard width when vibrated in a specific manner. The plastic limit is the water
content where the soil starts to crumble and the soil can be rolled into thread of
specified size. Based on theirs definition, the equation of plasticity index is formulated
below:
PI = LL – PL
Where PI = Plasticity Index
. LL = Liquid Limit
PL = Plastic Limit

11
2.4. Remote Sensing and GIS in mapping Landslide Inventory.
Many researches evaluate the characteristics of landslides on the basis of
geomorphological analysis fulfilled through aerial photograph interpretation and field
observation (Carrara et al, 2003). Recently, some improvements have been developed
for recognizing the landslide occurrences. For instant ; combination between satellite
imagery and digital elevation model can be used to detect landslide sites (Barlow et
al.,2006). Usually, landslide occurs in mountainous areas where are less accessible.
Instead of doing the direct mapping, using the remote sensing method will be more
reliable.
By visual recognition from remote sensing data using visual aspects such size, contrast,
and morphological expression, the identification of landslide occurrence can be
conducted (Cassale et al.,1993). This process will show the scarp, disrupted vegetation
cover and deviation in soil moisture related to past landslide occurrences
(Marhaento,2006).
The advantages of GIS technology such as geo-statistical analysis and database
processing provide necessary tools for supporting landslide susceptibility map. The
statistical method has been implemented by several researchers and it used to
determine the relationship between slope failure and causal factor to generate landslide
susceptibility map (Zhou et al.,2003).

2.5. Landslide Susceptibility

The terminology used in this report concerning landslide hazards and associated
concepts reflects the following definitions, based on Varnes (1984) as follow:
• Landslide susceptibility refers to the likelihood of a landslide occurring in an area
due to local terrain conditions. Susceptibility does not consider the probability of
occurrence, which depends also on the recurrence of triggering factors.
• Landslide hazard refers to the potential for occurrence of a damaging landslide
within a given area. Landslide hazard includes spatial probability, size probability
and temporal probability.
The landslide susceptibility assessment provides important information for conducting
the landslide hazard assessment. Spiker and Gori (2000) stated that landslide inventory
and landslide susceptibility maps are critically needed in landslide prone regions of the
nation. Landslide susceptibility map proposes to determine the areas that would be
affected by landslide in the future either by natural or human induced factors. These
maps must be sufficiently detailed to support mitigation action at the local level.
Generally, several methods pertaining to landslide susceptibility mapping can be
divided into three methods: qualitative, semi quantitative and quantitative (Lee and
Jones,2004). The qualitative method is a subject oriented method and well applied on
the large areas and the quantitative method is object oriented method which looks for
relationship between environmental factors and previous landslide occurrences. There
are some approaches which can be classified into either qualitative or quantitative
method. Some approaches from those methods have been elaborated by researchers,
such as heuristic approach by Ruff and Czurda (2007), statistical approach by Carara et
al (1991), deterministic by Soeters and Westen (1996) and probabilistic approach by
Guzzeti et al (2005).

12
2.5.1. Heuristic approach
Heuristic approach is based on opinion of geomorphologic experts. Landslide
inventory map is accompanied with environmental factors to be main input for
determining landslide hazard zonation, and then the experts define the weighting value
for each factor. Heuristic approach takes into account a hierarchical level and different
method for determining weigh factors. Next, the hierarchical heuristic model becomes
a part of decision support system (DSS) which aims for spatial decisions (Castellanos
and Van Westen,2003). Generally, this approach can be divided into two analyses,
direct mapping analysis and qualitative map combination. In the direct mapping
analysis, the geomorphologist determine the susceptibility in the field directly which is
based on individual experience. In the later analysis, the experts use their knowledge to
determine the weighting value for each class parameter in each parameter. The main
problem of this approach is in determining the exactly weighting value because this
approach is mainly subject oriented method.

2.5.2. Statistical approach

In term of landslide susceptibility assessment, the statistical approach has been
expanded to produce higher degree of objectivity of landslide hazard assessment (Van
Westen,1993). The key of this method is landslide inventory map when the past
landslide occurrences are absolutely needed to forecast the future landslide’s areas.
The combinations of causal factors are statistically determined, and based on similar
existing condition, quantitative estimation of landslide occurrences are generated for
currently free areas of landslide (Soeters and Van Westen,1996). There are two
different analyses in the statistical approach; bivariate statistical analysis and
multivariate statistical analysis. Both of these analyses will be deeply explain in
chapter 3.

2.5.3. Physically-based modeling approach

Landslide hazard assessment is determined by using slope stability model. In the
contrary with other approaches, this approach quantitatively produces the stability
index by calculating the safety factors. There are some weaknesses of this approach.
The complicated calculation of safety factor, detailed required datasets, and the
measurement of parameter’s spatial distribution relatively become the obstacles of this
approach (Van Westen et al.,2005).
Some experts gave some limitations for this approach. Van Westen (1993) stated that
It can be implemented only at large scale and over small areas, because some input data
such as ground water level, soil profile and geotechnical description are not sufficient
in regional and medium scale. The resulted values of safety factors are only used to test
different condition of slip surfaces and ground water depth, so they should not be used
as absolute values. This approach is also acceptable only when geomorphologic and
geological conditions over whole research area are moderately homogenous and the
existing landslide types are simple. (Soeters and Van Westen,1996).

2.5.4. Probabilistic approach

This approach is based on some following methods such as interpreting remote sensing
data, field observation, interviews, and historical analysis of landslides in study area
(Soeters and Van Westen,1996). Because the resulted spatial distribution of landslide
occurrences presents the location of each type of landslides, it is considered as a
straightforward form of landslide hazard zonation. The weakness of this approach is

13
that the result doesn’t present estimation of temporal changes in landslide distribution.
It causes landslides that occurred before image taken may be unpredictable. Therefore
the generating of landslide activity map should be based on multi temporal
interpretation of aerial photographs (Van Westen,1993). Even though this approach
doesn’t explore the correlation between landslides and causal factors, it can be used to
describe the density of landslide qualitatively.

2.6. Magnitude of landslides

In addition to the strength of mind of location and date of occurrences (Varnes,1984)
landslide susceptibility assessment also involves the magnitude of potential phenomena
(Guzzetti et al.,2005)
The landslide magnitude was mostly articulated in term of landslide area which is
generally easy to be measured quantitatively. In a few cases, the magnitude of landslide
was expressed in term of volume of soil displaced which is much more difficult to
assess (Marques,2008). The volume of soil displaced was predicted by reflecting on the
horizontal area lost.
Stark and Hovius (2001) stated that the reasonable proxy for estimating landslide
magnitude is landslide sizes such volume and area which can be obtained from
landslide observation. Recently, Malamud et al (2004) proposed a formula of landslide
magnitude based on the total number of landslide events.
So, three parameters which purpose to estimating magnitude of landslide were used in
this research. They are total effected area, number of occurrences, and volume of the
landslide.

14
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
The main objective of this research is to produce landslide susceptibility maps by using
the combination between bivariate statistical analysis and spatial multi criteria
evaluation. The maps are expected to estimate the landslide occurrences in the future.
The other objectives are to invent the distribution of landslide occurrences as a base to
generate a landslide susceptibility map. At the end of this research, the author will
validate the improved method by comparing the results with pure bivariate statistical
analysis and multivariate statistical analysis and the best results become the selected
susceptibility map of research area. The following part will briefly describe the used
materials and equipment, and the methods chosen to solve the objectives.

3.1. Raw materials, data requirement and equipment

The basic materials which are used and considered in this research are listed as follow
• Aerial photos from the year 1993 at scale 1 : 20.000 which contains of 7 photos
(just some parts of research area), source Perhutani Unit I
• Aerial photos from the year 1994, date taken April 23rd, 1994, at scale 1 : 50.000
which contains of 7 photos (whole research area), source : Bakosurtanal.
• SPOT Imagery, resolution 15 m, at the year 2006, date taken 6rd September 2006,
source : ITC, the Netherland
• Landuse map from the year 2000 at scale 1 : 25.000, source : Bakosurtanal
• Topographic map from the year 2000, sheet 1408-143, Wadas Lintang, at scale 1 :
25.000, source : Bakosurtanal
• Geological map from the year 1992 At scale 1 : 100.000, source Geological
Research and Development Centre, Bandung
• Daily rainfall of research area from year 1980 to 2008, source : Public Work
Service of Wonosobo Regency and Badan Meteorologi dan Geofisika, Semarang.
The spatial data availability is the most important thing to make the environmental
modeling in Geographic Information Science. It helps the decision maker to manage
the implementation (Skidmore,2002).
Not all data related to landslide parameters can be directly extracted. Some of them
must be prepared as is shown in the table 3.1.
Table 3-1. Data required, row materials and preparation processes
No Parameters Row Materials Preparation processes

Creating slope gradient map from

1 Contour Map (Topographic
Slope gradient DEM / elevation map then reclassify
Map,)
based on their class
2 Detailed by using landform map and
Litology Geological Map
RS Image
3 Geological Detailed by using landform map and
Geological Map
Structure RS Image
Interpreting satellite image to achieve
4 landuse information (visual and
Landuse SPOT Image 2006
supervised interpretation) and then
validated by field observation
6 Make a buffer from road feature in
Road network Topographic Map
the digital base map.

15
 7 Make a buffer from river feature in
River network Topographic Map
the digital base map.
Delineating the locations of landslide
8 RS Images, Reported events,
Landslide sites occurrences and verifying all of
and Field Observation
samples in the field observation
9 Extracting data from a station
Rainfall Data Rainfall reports (4 station)
completed by data from the others
10 Soil Texture and Soil Sample of Landslide
Laboratory Investigation
Plasticity Index Sites

Some tools are used to measure the characteristics of landslide occurrences in the field
work. They can be seen in the table 3-2 below:
Table 3-2. Equipment used in the field observation
No Name Function Pictures

Laser range Finder / Measure the distance

1
Laser Ace between two points,

Global Position Determining the

2
System (GPS) geographic position

3 Compass (Suunto) Measuring the azimuth

Clinometers
4 Measuring slope angle
(Suunto)

6 Soil Trowel Taking a soil sample

Source : Field Work

3.2. Data preparation

All of the row data can’t be directly used to put into the processes, so it had been
prepared firstly. In this sub section, the author explains the preparation processes.
a. Aerial photos
Aerial photos were taken in TIFF or JPEG format, and to put these data to spatial
format, geometric corrections were done. Geometric corrections are based on the
Ground Control Points which exactly known in the field. The author did this
process by using ARC GIS ver 9.3 and ARC View ver 3.3. After the process, the

16
 result had been converted into ILWIS format, and then combining the image with
DEM data by means of stereo pair process. The combination was shown as
anaglyph map. The aim of this procedure is to analyze the landslide distribution and
to generate landform map.
b. SPOT Imagery.
Similar with the processes did in aerial photo, this image was corrected
geometrically. To give a good visual appearance, the bands of this image were
arranged. Based on that appearance, we identified the landslide sites and classified
landuse in the research area. There was a research in Hongkong providing that
SPOT imagery could be used to identify landslide sites. They applied automated
change detection using SPOT multi-spectral satellite images with 20 m spatial
resolution (Nichol and Wong,2005). Although there was only a SPOT image,
recognizing landslides still could be implemented by followed extensive field
check. Despite the visual interpretation, determining landuse had used supervised
classification by taking some locations as sample plots of specific landuse. These
sample plots were utilized as the bases for identifying all parts of research area. The
basic concept of supervised classification is classifying by using same value of the
pixels in the sample plot to these in the whole area.
c. Digital Elevation Model (DEM)
In this research, DEM was used to build the slope gradient map. DEM was not
directly obtained from existing map except SRTM data, so it should be generated
from some raw data, for instant height point and contour data. In this case, the
available data is a contour map taken from topographic map at scale 1: 25,000 with
interval range 12.5 m. DEM is constructed by using Topo to Raster Process in the
ARC GIS Ver 9.3, and then the slope gradient was generated in percent rise by
using spatial analysis tool. The other purposes of generating DEM are to support
the identification of landslide sites and to generate landform map. Extracting DEM
can also be done by using other spatial software such as ILWIS, MapInfo, etc.
d. Road and river networks
The maps of both river and road network were taken from topographic map with
scale 1 : 25,000. The whole of research area was separated into some classes based
on the distances between locations and river or road network. The distances can be
classified into 6 classes; 0 – 20 m, 20 – 40 m, 40 – 60m, 60 – 80m, 80 – 100m and
more than 100 m
e. Landform map.
Some map sources (e.g. geological map) has a less detail scale. To make it same to
the others, detailing processes had been done. Landform map could be used a basic
to recognize more detail layer. This map was produced by identifying either
anaglyph or stereo pair map.

3.3. Methods
There are several methods to solve the objectives of this research which are described
in the sub section below.

3.3.1. Landslide Inventory

Landslide inventory map was built by using interpretation of both aerial photo (taken in
1993, 1994) and SPOT Imagery (taken in 2006) and verified by field works. Voskuil
(2008) gave some indicators to recognize landslide both by RS Imagery and field check
as follow:

17
• Semi-circular back scars and cracks.
• Irregular/hummocky ground beneath the scars (local)
• Irregular/hummocky slopes
• Pounding of water in slides material, anomalies in drainage
• Vegetation anomalies
• Presence of man-made structures

Before field work had been done, the author built landslide inventory map by using
remote sensing imageries (explained in data preparation section). The result had
validated by field observation, where misinterpretations and inactive landslide sites
were eliminated. To verify the realistic susceptibility maps, landslide occurrences from
2007 to 2009 were separated differently to test the landslide susceptibility map.
The field work also proposed to add landslide sites which were not recognized in
interpreting RS Imagery. Furthermore of these proposals, field observation was done to
easily collect and recognize the types and dates of landslide occurrences. Interviewing
the local communities was perceived helpfully, especially to identify the locations and
boundaries of landslide sites. The other helpful material was the report of landslide
occurrences from 2000 to 2009 presented by local government of Wonosobo Regency.
This report showed the dates, villages and damages of landslide events. Figure 3-1
presented the procedure to generated landslide inventory map.

Aerial photos 1994 Contour map SPOT imagery 2006

Extracting
DEM

Combining Combining
DEM data

Anaglyph map Stereo pair map

Interpreting Interpreting

Landslide sites 1994 Landslide sites 2006

Field observation
Reported landslide

Landslide inventory map

Past landslide Separated Recent landslide

inventory map inventory map
in 2006

Figure 3-1. Flow chart of building landslide inventory map

18
3.3.2. Rainfall Frequency Analysis
This research took a center of attention on rainfall as the triggering factor of landslide
occurrences. The reason is that rainfall generally causes of landslides in the subtropical
and monsoonal climatic regions covered by hilly or mountainous topography. The
author collected as much rainfall data in the study area. The aim of the rainfall
frequency analysis is to estimate the temporal probability of landslide occurrences. By
analyzing it, we can know the relationship between the temporal probability of
occurrences and its return period.
Gumbel Extreme Value Distribution was chosen as the method to analyze the rainfall
data in the research area. The benefits of this method are that it can applied even with a
small number of data sets and it can be used with extreme values (Parodi,2005).
The rainfall data of research area was collected from surrounding rainfall station. The
maximum value of monthly rainfall per year was extracted by summarizing the daily
rainfall data. Then maximum annual rainfall values were sorted and ranked from the
lowest to the highest. The lowest rank 1 was given to the lowest value of rainfall data
and the highest rank N was allocated to the highest data value. The daily rainfall data
before landslide event is also considered to be analyzed. It is computed over the return
periods before the landslide initiated.
After that process, the other step should be followed that described below.
• The rainfall data per year was sorted by ascending and then we give the rank value
started from smallest to the biggest value.
• The left sided probability for each observation was calculated by means of equation
below :
R
PL =
N+ 1
Where
PL : left sided probability (probability that a certain rainfall amount is lower
than the one considered)
R : is the rank of a given amount / value of rainfall
N : number of observed years
• After all of left probability value is got, the return period (TR) was determined by
using equation below.
1 1
TR = =
PR 1- PL
Where
PR : right sided probability (probability that a certain rainfall is higher than
the one under consideration)

3.3.3. Soil properties analysis

Soil data should be included as a factor to build susceptibility map. The lack of the data
and the time consuming to build semi-detail soil map became the reasons why it was
not put into susceptibility map. The other approach is by knowing the tendency of soil
in the landslide sites. In this research, the soil properties data that had been extracted is
texture and plasticity index. The soil samples were collected from landslide sites by
means of field observation and then brought to laboratory for the investigation.

19
3.3.4. Determining landslide influencing factors of research area
In this research, the causal factors of landslides are determined by field observation,
general literature inputs and data availability. Some factors had been chosen such as
slope gradient, landuse, lithology, geological structure, distance to river, and distance
to road. The reasons why chose them were explain in chapter 2.
Exactly, soil properties data was needed to be put in the causal factor, but since there
was no valid soil data, so the samples of soil in each landslide site were only taken to
know the tendency of soil properties in the research area. To determine the landslide
influencing factors, sensitivity analysis was done by eliminating each factor in
generating susceptibility index. The factors which are not significant were removed in
constructing the final susceptibility index map.

3.3.5. Landslide Density

Landslide density can be defined as the area of landslide, divided by the total area. It
can be implemented to calculate landslide density within the parameter class and
landslide density within the entire area ( van Westen, 1993 and Yin and Yang, 1988).
The formulas of landslide density are presented below ;

DensClas =
NpixXi
DensMap =
∑ NpixXi
NpixNi ∑ NpixNi
where, area is represented as a number of pixels, Densclas = the landslide density within the
parameter class, Densmap = the landslide density within the entire map, Npix(Xi) = number of
pixels, which contain landslides, in a certain parameter class, Npix(Ni) = total number of pixels
in a certain parameter class
Some times landslide density is also presenting in point unit. It means that landslide
density is measured by dividing the number of occurrences with the entire area. The
unit is presented as occurrences per square kilometer.

3.3.6. Landslide susceptibility analysis

There are three methods which were compared in generating landslide susceptibility
maps; the improved method (combination of BSA and pair-wise), bivariate statistical
analysis and multivariate statistical analyses. The description of these methods are
described in the sub section below

3.3.6.1.Bivariate statistical analysis

In this technique, the contribution of each parameter class of causal factors was
assessed independently with landslide distribution. It proposed to determine the
density of landslides in different parameter classes, relative to the landslide
density over the entire research area. Using these density values derived from
existing landslide distribution, the landslide susceptibility was predicted for absences
landslide areas, by addition of the weights of individual parameter classes. Van Westen
(1993) had proposed some procedures to perform the bivariate statistical analysis
(BSA) for landslide hazard zonation studies.
• Categorizing each parameter map into some relevant class parameters.
• Overlaying and analyzing the combination of the parameter classes with landslide inventory.
• Calculating the weight values for parameter classes based on cross tabulated data
• Assignment of the weight values to the parameter classes and integration of the
parameter maps
• In the end processes, the resulting value is classified a few hazard classes.

20
In BSA, author used Information Value Method (Yin and Yan,1988) to build landslide
susceptibility map which uses the following formula as below :

Where Wi is the weight given to a certain parameter class i; DensClas is the density of
the landslides in the class i; DensMap is the density of the landslides in the whole study
area; NpixXi is the number of pixels falling within the polygons representing landslides
occurring within the class i; NpixNi is the number of pixels within the class i; ΣNpixXi
is the total number of pixels falling within the polygons representing landslides
occurring in the whole study area; ΣNpixNi is the total number of pixels of the whole
study area map.
In addition to Information Value Method, there are some methods in term of BSA
which developed by some researchers such as Landslide Susceptibility Analysis
(Brabb,(1984); van Westen, (1993)), Weights of Evidence model (Lee and Choi,2004).

3.3.6.2.Multivariate statistical analysis

In Multivariate statistical analysis (MSA), the combinations of all causal factors gave
the weighting values which control the landslide occurrences. These values signify the
contribution of each combination of causal factors to the degree of landslide
susceptibility within defined land unit. Moreover, the relations among the causal
factors are also met within the analyses. The general property of these analyses is their
nature of being based on the presence or absence of landslide occurrences in the
defined land units and there are two main approaches for multivariate statistical
analysis (Van Westen,1993):
• Statistical analysis of point data obtained from checklist of causal factors associated
with individual landslide occurrences.
• Statistical analysis performed on terrain units covering the whole study area.
In comparison with bivariate statistical analysis, multivariate statistical analysis is
rather time and budget consuming, in term of both collecting and processing data. We
have to take samples for relevant factor either on unique condition area or terrain units
and then determine either the presence or absence of the landslide occurrences. The
resulted data will become the subjects in multivariate statistical procedure. The
procedure to generated Multivariate Statistical Analysis can be described below : (Van
Westen,1993):
• Defining the landslide causal factors as the parameter maps and then overlaying all
of the parameter maps to produce the land unit map. From the later process, a large
matrix is resulted.
• Crossing the land unit map with the landslide inventory map to extract the stable and
unstable areas.
• The coefficients approximated by the multivariate analysis are used to calculate
the landslide susceptibility of the entire study area.
• Slicing the landslide susceptibility values into a few susceptibility classes.
Application of multivariate statistical analysis in this research is as the comparing
method with selected method. The method of Multivariate Statistical Analysis used in
this study is Logistic Regression which doesn’t required normally distributed input
variables. Logistic Regression Method is a mathematical modeling approach generating

21
to explain the relationship among several independent variables and dependent variable
(Hosmer and Lemeshow,2000). The relationship above can be expressed as formula below:
Pr (event) = 1 / (1 + e –z)
Where Pr (event) is the estimated probability of landslide occurrence which varies from 0 to 1
and Z is the linear combination:
Z = B0 + B1X1 + B2X2 ………+ BnXn
Where Bi (i=0, 1, 2 . . ., n) is the coefficient estimated from the sample data, n is the number of
independent variables (i.e. landslide-related physical parameters), and Xi (i=1, 2,. . ., n) is the
independent variable .
The other methods in Multivariate Statistical Analysis are Multiple regression and discriminant
analysis which applied by some researchers recently (Ayalew and Yamagishi, (2005);
Yesilnacar and Topal, 2005). Both of these methods required the normally distributed input
variables (Suzen, 2003)

3.3.6.3.Spatial Multi Criteria Evaluation

Spatial multi criteria evaluation (SMCE) is a model in ILWIS Software which is categorized as
a heuristic method generated in more transparent way. Implementing SMCE helps users to
apply multi criteria evaluation in analyzing spatially (ITC, 2001). The model is built by making
criteria tree, where the causal parameter maps is grouped, standardized and weighted. The
landslide causal parameters are weighted by means of direct, pair wise and rank ordering
comparison and the output is a composite index map (Castellanos and Van Westen,2007).
In this research, the weighting method used is pair-wise comparison method This method
assumes that the users comparably evaluate the difference of magnitude among all unique pairs
of factors qualitatively. Pair-wise comparison method was established by Saaty (1980) in the
context of the analytical hierarchy process (AHP). In this process, the weights are defined by
standardizing the eigenvector correlated with the highest eigenvalue of the ratio matrix. The
AHP consists of three main steps ; 1)generating the pair wise comparison matrix, 2)computing
the weights of the criterion, and 3) estimating the consistency ratio (Malczewski,1999). In the
development comparison matrix the method employs an underlying scale with values from 0 to
1 to rate the relative preferences for two criteria which can be seen in the table 3-3 below :
Table 3-3. Scale for Pair wise Comparison
Intensity Definition
1 Equal Importance
2 Equal to moderate importance
3 Moderate importance
4 Moderate to strong importance
5 Strong Importance
6 Strong to very strong importance
7 Very strong importance
8 Very to extremely strong importance
9 Extremely importance
Source : Saaty 1980

3.3.6.4.Improved method
This research used the combination between bivariate statistical analysis and pair-wise
comparison. Firstly, to know the scored value for each class parameter, the author calculated
the density of landslides by using partly steps in the bivariate statistical analysis. The second
process is grouping the causal factors into 4 general factors such as human induced, geological,
hydrological and geomorphologic factors. Next, the levels of weight values were used to
standardize input value by means of pair wise comparison resulting values from 0 to 1. After
this process the steps in spatial multi-criteria evaluation were followed again by means of pair

22
wise comparison method. The difference of this improved method was located on giving the
weighting value of each parameter. The weighting value of this method was given by
calculation process of analytical hierarchy process. The values were extracted based on the
level of influences. Expert opinion which depends on observed physical characteristic of
landslide sites determined the levels of the influencing factors. The levels of influence for each
parameter can also be investigated from the weight values in BSA and the B value in MSA.
The procedures to generate the landslide susceptibility maps are presented in the figure 3-2.

3.3.7. Verifying landslide susceptibility maps

Accuracy test is absolutely needed to verify the performance of susceptibility maps. prediction
rate, the chosen method, was applied to know how well the model performs for future landslide
occurrences. The distribution of multi temporal landslide event is definitely required in this
method. We need at least two types of landslide inventory maps. The first one is to build
landslide susceptibility map and the other ones are to test the accuracy of landslide
susceptibility map. It is the difference with success rate method which only need a landslide
inventory map. Success rate is made just for prove how good the estimation of model when it
was built (Chang-Jo et al, 1995). In both prediction and success rate, the percentage of
landslide occurrences was calculated. The calculated result was plotted in the graph where the
percentage of the map in the X-axis and the percentage of the landslide occurrences in the Y-
axis (Van Westen et al, 2009). The curve reveals the percentage of area of landslide
occurrences which is estimated by percentage of predicted area. The better result is if the less
percentage of map area can predict the higher percentage of landslide area.
Figure 3-2. Flowchart of Landslide Susceptibility Analyses
Defining the landslide parameters
Overlay Slope gradient
Past landslide inv map
Geological structure
Litology
Landuse
Presence and absence
Road distance
location River distance

Sampling
MSA process

Sampled data

Logistic Regression
Intercept and index value
Analysis in SPSS

Combining
Recent landslide
inventory map Combination values

Calculating
Landslide suscept index map
probability

Landslide
Prediction rate Reclassify
suscept map 3

Predicted rate
graph 3
A

23
 Defining the landslide parameters
Satellite imagery Slope Gradient
interpretation and aerial photo Geological Structure
Litology
Landuse
Road Distance
Past landslide inv map Calculate landslide density River Distance
for each class parameter
Verified

Field Landslide density for

observation each class parameter

Combined No
with pair-wise

Yes

BSA
Geology Hydrology Geomorphology Human Induced

Standardization and Weighting

Report of recent
pair wise analysis
landslide occurrences

Weighted value for each Landslide suscet index

parameter map 2
Field
IMPROVED METHOD
Pair wise analysis observation
Reclassify
for group parameter

Landslide
Weighted Value for each Recent landslide
suscept map 2
group parameter inventory map

Pair wise analysis Prediction rate

for goal 2

Landslide suscept index map 1

Prediction rate
graph 2
Reclassify

Landslide susceptibility Predicted rate Predicted rate Comparing and

map 1 1 graph 1 analyzing

Conclusions and A
recommendation

24
3.3.8. Classifying the landslide susceptibility map
After deciding the best susceptibility index map, it is important to divide the map into a
few susceptibility classes. There are four classification system to realize the necessity ;
quantiles, natural breaks, equal interval and standard deviation (Ayalew and
Yamagishi,2005). Ayalew and Yamagishi found some characteristics of those systems
related to calculate the probability. Quantile system tends to place widely different
value in the same class. For the data value with big fluctuation, the natural breaks give
the better result; unfortunately this system is not suitable for the case which depicts the
probability map. Next, Equal intervals, the common system in Indonesia, emphasizes
one class relative to the others. It becomes unhelpful because it does not reflect the real
susceptibility. The last method is by means of standard deviation. This system
generates the class break supported by mean value which the number of classes are
determined by the system. Finally, the standard deviation method was chosen as the
classification method for landslide susceptibility maps. The mean value plus or minus a
half of standard deviation will produce the first class boundary. The next boundary is
generated by adding the standard deviation with the previous boundary.

3.3.9. Extracting Landslide Magnitude

Because of limited data availability, the calculation of landslide magnitude only used a
few available data. Malamud et al (2004) proposed some equations to estimate the
magnitude of landslide based on total area of landslides, number of events, and total
volume of landslide. Malamud et al fit a three-parameter inverse-gamma distribution; p
: (parameter primarily controlling power-law decay for medium and large values)
which is equal to 1.40 , a : (parameter primarily controlling location of maximum
probability) which is equal to 1.28x10-3km2, and s : (parameter primarily controlling
exponential rollover for small values) which is equal to -1.32x10-4km2
The first magnitude equation is based on number of landslide associate with the event
and the formula is
mL = log NLT (1)
Where mL is magnitude of landslide
NLT is total number of landslides

Magnitude of landslide also can be estimated by using area of landslide which is

formulated below :
mL = log ALT + 2.51 (2)
Where ALT is total area of landslides in km2

Equation 2 is extracted from combination between equation (1) and (3) below;
 a 
ALT = NLT ĀLT N 
= LT  + s  = NLT x 3,07 x 10-3 (3)
 p − 1 
Where ĀLT is average of total landslide area in km2
p is equal to 1.40
a is equal to 1.28x10-3km2,
ѕ is equal to -1.32x10-4km2

25
The other proposed equation to measure landslide magnitude is based on landslide
volume. This formula requires the average volume of landslide. Although volume
analysis is not done in this research, there is an assumption to estimate the average
volume which is showed in equation below:

VLT = V L N LT = 7.30 x10 −6 N 1LT.1222 (4)

Where VLT is total volume of landslides in km3

V L is average volume of landslides in km3

By combining equation 1 and 4, landslide magnitude is obtained based on volume

landslide which is used equation below :

mL = 0,89 log VLT + 4.58 (5)

From those equations, the number of events becomes the key to generate magnitude of
landslide. Using three-parameter inverse-gamma distribution, Malamud et al gave the
estimation of area and volume of landslide in relation to number of events. The
Malamud’s method becomes the main formula to extract magnitude of landslide in this
research.

26
CHAPTER 4. RESEARCH AREA

4.1. Geographic position

Wonosobo Regency is located in the middle part of Central Java Province.
Geographically, Wonosobo Regency is situated at 109º45’ - 110º04’ East and 07º20’ -
07º48’ South. The total area of Wonosobo Regency is ± 100.400 Ha divided into 15
sub districts which are Wadas Lintang, Kaliwiro, Kalibawang, Kepil, Sapuran,
Kalikajar, Selomerto, Leksono, Sukoharjo, Wonosobo, Kertek, Mojotengah,
Watumalang, Garung and Kejajar. Administrative map of Wonosobo Regency is also
presented in the Figure 4-1. The geographic condition is varying from flat to
mountainous terrain of which the lowest altitude is 270 msl and the highest altitude is
2,250 msl.
In regard to the number of landslide occurrences (see figure 4.4.), Wadas Lintang Sub
District has been selected for the research area.

Figure 4-1 : Administrative Map of Wonosobo Regency (Source Local Government)

Boundaries of research area administratively shall be as follow:

- Northern part is adjacent to Kaliwiro Sub District.
- Eastern part is adjacent to Purworejo Regency.
- Southern part is adjacent to Purworejo Regency.
- Western part is adjacent to Kebumen Regency.

4.2. Rainfall activity

To build the average monthly rainfall, rainfall data was extracted from 4 stations
(Wadas Lintang, Limbangan, Sapuran and Kaliwiro stations ) surrounding the research
27
area where the Wadas Lintang station is located in the centre of study area. Next, the
main data was extracted from this station supported by the others. The cart in figure 4.2
shows the average monthly rainfall taken from 4 surrounding stations.

600
502 488 490
481
500
430
385
Rainfall (mm)

400

300 244
191
200 146

100 59 40 40
0
ay

r
ne

ly
ch
y

t
il

r
r

er
ry

be
us

be
be
r
ar

Ju
Ap

ob
ua

ar

Ju
nu

em
g

em
m
M

Au

ct
br

te
Ja

ov
O

es
Fe

p
Se

D
Figure 4-2 Average Monthly Rainfall of Wadas Lintang sub district 1980 - 2008

It is noticed that the peak amount of rainfall occurred in January, March, November
and December, and the lowest amount of rainfall occurred in August and September.

4.3. Geological and geomorphological condition of research area

Based on geological map scale 1: 100.000 sheet Kebumen, it was known that Wadas
Lintang Sub District consists of 7 formations. The formations are presented in table 4-1
Table 4-1 Geology formation of research area
CODE FORMATION LITOLOGY MATRIX
Amphibol,mica,glauchane schists,
Km Schits and Phyllite
phylite
sandstone,claystone,tuffs,marls,cal influenced by
Tmp Penosogan Formation
carenite turbidity current
tufasandstone,
Halang Formation
Tmpb Breccia: andesite,basalt,limestone intercalationsandst
Breccia
one,basalticlava
grained sandstone, breccia: andesit
Tmw Waturanda Formation sandstone, tuff
basaltic
Tuff Member glass crystal tuff, sandstone,
Tmwt
Waturanda For tuffaceous marls
Breccia :
Tomt Totogan Formation claystone,sandstone,limestone, scaly clay
basalts
tuffaceous
Polymict breccia :
Tpp Peniron formation sandstone,tuff
andesit,claystone, limestone
intercalations
WB Water body

Source : Geological map of Kebumen

28
Spatially, the distribution of litology formation is presented in Figure 4-3. Despite the
litology, the geological map also show that there are some geological structures
located on research area. Two fault were crossing the study area; Kalianget Fault which
cross from southern to the northern part and Segayam Fault crossing the northern west
part. Some lineaments also appear in some parts. It can be recognized by using satellite
imagery and also depicted in the geological map.

Figure 4-3 Litology map of research area

Topographic condition of research area is dominated by hilly area covering 31.18%
from total area. Hilly area are widely spreads on the research area. The eastern part is
covered by mountainous area with steep slope class 45 – 65%. There are only a few
parts of wadas lintang sub district which have a very steep slope. The flat and
undulating areas took place near by the reservoir and Medono River. The visualization
of research area is depicted visual in figure 4-4 and the composition of slope classes is
presented in table 4-2.

Figure 4-4 Topographic visualization of research area

29
Figure 4-4 was made by combining hill-shade visualization and digital elevation model
which is showed by means of ArcScene 9.3. Hill-shade was generated based on digital
elevation model and then were put into ArcScene 9.3. Its base height was set by using
the base height of DEM and the appearance becomes 3D visualization.
Table 4-2 the composition of slope classes in the research area.
Description Slope Gradient Classes Hectares Percentage
Flat 0 - 3% 2518.17 19.20
Undulating 3 - 8% 1773.16 13.52
Moderately sloping 8 - 15% 3474.62 26.50
Hilly 15 - 30% 4088.74 31.18
Moderately steep 30 - 45% 1025.48 7.82
Steep 45 - 65% 211.36 1.61
Very steep > 65% 22.69 0.17
Total 13114.22 100.00
Source : Data Analysis 2009 based on USDA Classification

4.4. Landuse of Wadas Lintang sub district

Almost of research area is exploited as plantation, agriculture and settlement areas. The
planted pine forest is lying on the hilly and mountainous areas. The agriculture areas
take place from the hilly area to flat area such as field crop, paddy filed and shifting
cultivation. Mixed garden dominated by fruit and albizzia trees is widely spread from
flat to steep areas and the barren land and shrub come to pass on the steep and very
steep area. In the southern part, the wadas lintang reservoir is placing. The composition
of landuse can be seen in table 4-3.

Table 4-3 .The composition of landuse in the research area

Number Landuse Hectares Percentage
1 Barren Land 46.68 0.36
2 Field Crop 685.15 5.22
3 Forest 2351.61 17.93
4 Mixed Garden 3505.49 26.74
5 Paddy Field 1741.46 13.28
6 Reservoir 1344.94 10.26
7 River 28.07 0.21
8 Settlement 1816.27 13.85
9 Shifting Cultivation 1094.38 8.34
10 Shrub 500.17 3.81
Total 13114.22 100.00
Source: Data Analysis 2009

4.5. Reported landslides of Wonosobo regency

This sub section explains the reason why the author chooses Wadas Lintang Sub
District as the study area. Landslide events used are based on the report of local
authority of Wonosobo Regency. Based on figure 4-5, it was known that Wadas
Lintang sub district had the highest occurrences of landslide events. The number of
landslide occurrences is the highest one among another sub districts. Two crossing
major faults are assumed as the causal factor.

30
 60
53
50
50

Occurrences 40 37

30 27
24
22
20
18 17
20
14
11
8 7 7
10
1
0

Figure 4-5 Landslide occurrences in Wonosobo Regency, 2000 – 2008

Source: Local Government of Wonosobo Regency

31
CHAPTER 5. LANDSLIDE CHARACTERISTICS
The contents of this chapter are the explanations about the activities taken to produce
the landslide inventory map. The other activities that had been done were analyzing the
rainfall as well as soil properties and landslide magnitude in the research area. One
selected landslide sites was also used to depict the landslide profile and to estimate the
volume of soil displaced and slope morphology analysis. All of data resulted by those
activities were collected, verified and done by direct field observation.

5.1. Soil Properties Analysis

The researcher collected 60 soil samples taken from landslide sites. They were brought
and investigated in laboratory of Agricultural Faculty of Gadjah Mada University. All
of those can be used to extract the soil texture content, unfortunately just 58 samples
could be investigated to produce liquid and plastic limit data.
The results of soil content had been plotted to soil triangle by putting percentages of
the sand and clay contents. It proposed to determine the texture classes. Figure 5-1
depicts the distribution of texture classes.
100

90

80

70

60
clay
% clay

50
silty
clay sandy
40
clay
silty
clay loam clay loam
30 sandy clay
loam Figure 5-1 Soil texture
20 loam
silt loam distribution of landslide
10
sandy loam loamy sites
silt sand
sand
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% sand

By avoiding the homogeneity of research area, Figure 5-1 shows that landslide sites
were dominated by clay texture. Almost of clay fraction percentage is more than 30%.
Soils hold a large amount of clay fraction has fairly different physical characteristics
from one made up mostly of sand or silt fraction. The higher the percentage of clay
fraction, the lower the permeability and the higher the probability of sliding. Generally,
clay minerals are quite resistant in dry conditions, but rapidly lose their strength in wet
conditions.

Extracted liquid and plastic limits were processed to produce the plasticity index which
was formulated as liquid limit minus plastic limit. Next procedure is plotting Liquid
Limit and Plasticity index into Casagrande Plasticity Chart as shown in figure 5-2.

32
 100

90

80

70
Plasticity Index
Very Plactic Clay
60

50

40

30

20

10
Plactic Silt Organic Clay /
0
Very Plastic Silt
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Liquid Limit

Figure 5-2 Casagrande Plasticity Chart of soil samples

Some general relationship between the limits and engineering properties (Lambe and
Whitman,1951) is given in the table below:

Table 5-1 Relationship between the limits and engineering properties

Characteristic Comparing soils at equal Comparing soils at equal
Liquid limit with plasticity plasticity index with Liquid limit
index increasing increasing
Permeability decrease increase
Rate of volume change decrease -
Shear Strength increase decrease
Source : Lambe and Whitman, 1951

Figure 5-2 shows that many samples have value of liquid limit more than 50 and based
on table 5-1, the higher liquid limit corresponds to lower shear strength. As we know
that the soil with low shear strength have a high possibility to landslide. When high
rainfall event occurs, the exceeding of saturated soil moisture content passes over the
liquid limit, and it triggers the soil to become harmful for collapsing.

5.2. Generating the landslide inventory map

Landslide inventory map is the most important thing that must be clearly done to
generate landslide susceptibility map by means of statistical analysis. Several sources
had been extracted to identify landslide sites by using aerial photo year 1993 scale 1 :
50.000, aerial photo year 1994 scale 1 : 20.000 as well as SPOT Image year 2006.
Reported landslide was also used to look for the location of landslide occurrences. The
final result was produced by combining those tentative results validated by means of
field observation.

5.2.1 Recognizing landslides by using aerial photos

Identifying landslides by using aerial photos was done by means of stereo-pair image
as well as anaglyph map. Based on stereo-pair and anaglyph map, the sites of

33
landslides were visually identified. The significant indicators showing the occurrences
were irregular slope and vegetation anomalies. It was too difficult to recognize
landslide by using aerial photo year 1993 because of its small scale. Unfortunately the
aerial photo year 1994 which had a higher scale just covered a middle part of research
area and there only was found 3 sites of landslide which have relatively large sizes.
It was difficult to decide that aerial photo’s interpretations were really landslide sites.
There was no convincing evidence presenting the indication of landslide. Those areas
were covered by pine forest and settlement and the interviewing with local inhabitants
showed that they did not really sure about landslide occurrences in those sites. So, the
researcher decided not to use the resulted interpretations to avoid the mistakes of
landslide’s identification.

Figure 5-3 Temporal Landslide investigation 1(a) aerial photo 1994,(b) SPOT 2006, (c) Field
Observation 2009
5.2.2 Recognizing landslides by using SPOT Imagery
Beside aerial photo’s interpretation, identifications of landslide occurrences by means
of GIS and Remote Sensing were also done by using satellite imagery. The available
data of satellite imagery was only SPOT Image year 2006. Similar with the procedure
in using aerial photos, the prepared process was building stereo pair map by combining
SPOT image and digital elevation model. We recognized 14 landslides where were
distributed at 10 villages. Vegetation anomalies were identified by considering the
absolute contrast of tone and they were combined with the irregular slope. The lack of
detail satellite image caused that only the large areas of landslide could be identified.
Verification was done by field work, which showed that there were 12 actual landslides
from 14 interpreted landslides. One of actual landslides is presented in Figure 5-4.

(a) (b)

Figure 5-4 Temporal landslide investigation 2 (a) SPOT 2006, (b) Field
Observation, 2009

One of the problems in landslide identification by using image interpretation in

Indonesia is that many steep slopes have experienced to landslide at least once. To

34
determine the recent ones it must be verified by field investigations and interviewing
with local communities. Field check convinced that there were 2 misinterpreted
landslides. The first one happened in the pine forest area where there was slashing
activity in the image’s date taken. The second one showed that it was a landuse
conversion from pine forest into shifting cultivation in the steep slope area as depicted
in Figure 5-5.
(a) (b)

Figure 5-5 Misinterpretation Landslide investigation (a) SPOT 2006, (b) Field Observation

5.2.3 Field observation as a final mapping process

One of the functions of field observation is to verify and measure the landslide sites.
The reported landslides were in tabular data and did not give the spatial distribution, so
all of reported landslide must be directly verified and measured in the field. The
polygon shapes of landslides had been presented in spatial data as required in
generating landslide susceptibility map by means of statistical analysis. The field
observation of the researcher is depicted in Figure 5-6.

(a) (b)

Figure 5-6 Field observation (a) direct measurement, (b) taking soil sample of landslide sites
Not only interpreted and reported landslides but also the unreported landslides were
identified and measured (see Figure 5-7). The data of unreported landslide was
investigated by interviewing with the local communities and the chiefs of sub villages
who really know the location of landslides in their areas. It was proposed to collect
landslide sites not just at the settlement areas and to identify the landslide sites as many
as possible. The other benefit of interviewing activity is to easily recognize the dates
and the boundaries of landslide occurrences. The boundaries became obscure when the
fast plant growth covered the location and when the rebuilding activities hide the scarp
of landslides.

35
Figure 5-7 Unreported landslides (a) in the mix garden (b) forest, (c) shifting cultivation area
From field work activities, it was known that there are 71 sites of landslides. They were
differed into 51 rotational slides and 20 translational slides. The pictures of rotational
slides had been given in previous figure and the pictures of translational slides seen in
the figure below.
(a) (b)

Figure 5-8 The damages caused by translational slides in the settlement area. (a)
wall break, (b) floor cracks

The boundaries of this type could be recognized in the ground as presented in figure 5-9
(a) (b)

Scarp

0.5 m

0.4 m
Rupture zone
Rupture zone

Figure 5-9 The boundaries of translational slides (a)land drops down,(b) land breaks away

Based on the analysis of geomorphological condition, the distribution of landslide was

presented in Figure 5-10. This figure shows that most of landslide occurrences were
taken place in slope range 15 – 30%. It could be happened because this class (15-30%)
dominates the research area which covers about 31.18% of total area. The areas with
slope angle more than 30% just cover less than 10% of total area. The class 15-30% is
steep enough for occurrences rotational slides. The extensive human activities

36
triggering landslide are limited until this slope class. The slope class >65% is relatively
resistant to slide because ground conditions are mostly covered by bed rock.
50.00
45.00
40.00

Area of Landslide 35.00

30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0-3% 3-8% 8 - 15 % 15 - 30 % 30 - 45 % 45 - 65 % > 65 %
Slope

Figure 5-10 Geomorphological Distribution of Landslide in Wadas Lintang

The author also separated landslides based on the sources; they were separated into 38
reported landslides, 21 unreported landslides and 12 interpretation’s sites. Local
authorities stated that there were 50 events of landslide in Wadas Lintang Sub Districts.
After the field observation, not all of those could be classified as landslide, for instant;
bridge collapse because of its scraped footprint, the fence failure because of its weak
materials. The non landslides categorized were eliminated from the list of landslide
occurrences. Finally, to construct and verify the susceptibility map, landslide inventory
maps was separated based on types of landslides and periods of events.

The illustration of landslide distribution in Wadas Lintang Sub District was depicted in
Figure 5-11 and the detail attribute data of landslide occurrences can be seen in
appendix 1.

37
 Landslide in Kalidadap Landslide in Kalidadap Landslide in Tirip

Landslide in Kumejing Landslide in Wadas Lintang

Landslide in Kaligowong Landslide in Penerusan

Translational

Figure 5-11 Landslide distribution map and pictures

38
5.3. Landslide Profile
Generating landslide profile had been done by detailed measuring and depicting at
landslide site. The limited time became main problem to make landslide profile for
each occurrence. The reactive landslide of Dadap Gede (a part of Wadas Lintang sub
District) was chosen as an example of constructing landslide profile. This site was
selected because of its fresh occurrence and clear performance. The size of this site is
0.577 ha which is covered by cassava and banana trees. The recent slope morphology
of Dadap Gede’s site is ranging from 0 to more than 65%. By generating DEM, it was
known that the slope morphology before sliding was dominated by class > 45%. Local
inhabitants stated that the sliding happened after high rainfall occurrences in 2008. The
spring which flows crossing the sites could be one of the causal factors. The water is
coming from seepage in the upper area which is planted with paddy field.
The other processes are generating transect line, calculating the removal deposit and
geomorphological analysis. The basic principle is by knowing the height of surface
before and after the landslide events. It recognizes the area and volume of surface that
had been change by removal or addition of surface material.
The condition after the events was directly measured by using geodetic instruments
such compass, clinometers, and Laser Range Finder and the condition before the events
was assumed similar with contour map extracted from topographic map. The software
used was ArcGIS ver 9.3, 3Dimension and Cut/Fill Volumetric Analyses.
Landslide profile of Dadap Gede was illustrated in Figure 5-12

Crown

Body

Slide direction

Figure 5-12 Landslide profile of Dadap Gede

39
5.4. Volumetric Analysis
Next, estimating the removal soil was done by means of volumetric analysis. Two
DEM data (before and after sliding) were combined to produce volume estimation map.
The process to produce volumetric estimation map was shown in Figure 5-13.
DEM before
0 40 80

Meters

Volumetric Analysis
DEM after

Volumetric Estimation Map

Figure 5-13 Volumetric Analysis process

Supporting the volumetric estimation, some transect lines were built to show the
surface conditions in Dadap Gede’s landslide as presented in Figure 5-14.

Surface before sliding

Surface after sliding

(m)

(m)

(m)

Distance (m)
Figure 5-14 Transect lines of Dadap Gede’s
Landslide

Distance (m) 40
The Figure 5-14 shows that a middle part of area crossed by transects B had a loss of
surface material more than 6 meter height. Transect B, C and D showed there was some
surface material added to the south parts. The result of volumetric analysis stated that
the material cut was estimated equal to 2,246.13 m3 located in 0.4824 ha and the
material filled was predicted equal to 118.8 m3 located in 0.0946 Ha. It means that just
a small amount of soil loss was moving to filled area. Most of soil loss disappeared
because of human activities and erosion as depicted in figure 5-11.
The result of volumetric analysis was verified by the formula proposed by Simonett in
Malamud et al, (2004). The formula is presented below:

VL = 0.024 AL1.368
Where VL is volume of landslide in km3
AL is area of landslide in km2
Calculation shows that
VL = 0.024 * 0.005771.368
= 0.0000020773 km3 = 2,077.3 m3

In this case, using volumetric analysis or landslide volume equation gives a relatively
similar result, about 8 percent different (equal to 168.8 m3)

5.5. Slope morphology analysis

Analysis of morphology also had been done to estimate the topographical changes at
the landslide site. It could be done by generating slope maps which extracted from
DEM data. The slope maps depicting the topographical condition before and after the
sliding were presented in Figure 5-15.
0 40 80

Meters

Before sliding After sliding

Figure 5-15 Slope condition before and after sliding at Dadap Gede

Topographical condition of Dadap Gede was significantly changing after the landslide
event. As presented in figure 5.11, the ground surface changes from relatively regular
pattern onto irregular pattern. In the upper part, the slope class changed from 30 – 40%
class into 4 different classes; 0 – 3%, 3 – 8%, 8- 15%, 15-30%, and 30-45%. The very
steep area (>65%) in the middle part became less steep areas and the moderately
sloping area (8-15%) in the lower part became moderately steep (30-45%) and steep
(45-65%) areas. In short, the landslide events can change the topographical condition
on the certain areas from steeper onto less steep.

41
5.6. Magnitude of landslides
Landslide magnitude of research area was extracted by means of area affected, number
of events and volume of soil displaced. The used formulas were explained in chapter 3.
The area affected and a number of events were obtained from landslide inventory map,
and volume of soil displaced was estimated by using Malamud’s equation which
predicts the volume by means of number of events. The research area is about 131 km2
where there are 71 landslide sites during 2000- 2009 with density 0.542 occurrence per
square kilometer. Based on the area size, the landslide density of the research area is
equal to 0.0086
Table 5-2 Landslide magnitudes in the research area
Sources of Basic
Equations Magnitudes Basic values
values

1 mL = log NLT 1.8512 NLT = 71 Landslide inventory

2 mL = 0,89 log VLT + 4.58 1.8573 VLT =8.726.10-4 VLT =7.30x10-6 NLT 1.1222

3 mL = log ALT + 2.51 1.8483 ALT =0.21797 ALT = NLT x 3,07 x 10-3

4 mL = log ALT + 2.51 2.5649 ALT =1.13486 Landslide Inventory

Where mL is magnitude of landslide, NLT is total number of landslides, ALT is total area of landslides in
km2, and VLT is total volume of landslides in km3

Based on Table 5-2, the magnitudes presented in equation 1,2, and 3 vary in the range
mL = 1.848 – 1.8573. For these examples, using the total area affected, total number of
events, and total volume soil displaced gives similar magnitudes, less than 0.01
different. When using landslide area based on inventory data (equation 4), the
magnitude resulted is quite different with equation 1,2, and 3, less than 0.72 different.
The dissimilar values were caused by the differences value between predicted landslide
area and actual landslide area. The actual landslide area is significantly larger than
predicted one. So far, we can estimate the magnitude of landslide in the range 1.8483 –
2.5649.
Actually, the magnitude of landslide based on its volume also can be generated if there
is detail volume data for each site.

5.7. The probability of occurrence rainfall triggering landslides

It is quite important to know the relationship between rainfall data and yearly landslide
events. The first step was building the rainfall return periods. The Gumbel extreme
value distribution method was used to extract the temporal probability shown the
coherence between the rainfall probability occurrences and its return period. This
method only considers the maximum value of daily rainfall in a year. The rainfall data
used came from Wadas Lintang station primarily because this station was taken place
in the centre of research area. The empty data of this station had been completed from
surrounding stations. Calculating process which uses Gumbel equation produces the
rainfall return period in the Table 5-3 below

42
Table 5-3 Return Period (TR) of Annual Rainfall in Wadas Lintang
Hydrology Data Sorted Rank Left Prob Right Prob TR y
Years Max Daily (mm) 1-LP 1/(RP) -ln(-ln(LP))
1980 110 85 1 0.03 0.97 1.03 -1.22
1981 147 85 2 0.07 0.93 1.07 -1.00
1982 144 90 3 0.10 0.90 1.11 -0.83
1983 102 97 4 0.13 0.87 1.15 -0.70
1984 140 102 5 0.17 0.83 1.20 -0.58
1985 106 105 6 0.20 0.80 1.25 -0.48
1986 220 106 7 0.23 0.77 1.30 -0.38
1987 125 110 8 0.27 0.73 1.36 -0.28
1988 97 123 9 0.30 0.70 1.43 -0.19
1989 136 125 10 0.33 0.67 1.50 -0.09
1990 170 126 11 0.37 0.63 1.58 0.00
1991 142 128 12 0.40 0.60 1.67 0.09
1992 128 128 13 0.43 0.57 1.76 0.18
1993 151 129 14 0.47 0.53 1.88 0.27
1994 128 134 15 0.50 0.50 2.00 0.37
1995 150 136 16 0.53 0.47 2.14 0.46
1996 123 140 17 0.57 0.43 2.31 0.57
1997 158 142 18 0.60 0.40 2.50 0.67
1998 167 144 19 0.63 0.37 2.73 0.78
1999 129 147 20 0.67 0.33 3.00 0.90
2000 178 150 21 0.70 0.30 3.33 1.03
2001 134 151 22 0.73 0.27 3.75 1.17
2002 162 158 23 0.77 0.23 4.29 1.33
2003 210 162 24 0.80 0.20 5.00 1.50
2004 126 167 25 0.83 0.17 6.00 1.70
2005 90 170 26 0.87 0.13 7.50 1.94
2006 85 178 27 0.90 0.10 10.00 2.25
2007 105 210 28 0.93 0.07 15.00 2.67
2008 85 220 29 0.97 0.03 30.00 3.38
Source: Rainfall data analysis

Described in the Table 5-3 above, the highest amount of daily rainfall per each year
was 220 mm occurred in 1986 and the lowest ones were 85 mm occurred both in 2006
and in 2008. The maximum rainfall in the year 2007 was 105 mm, and it was assumed
that the rainfall value induced landslides in year 2007. The return period of this rainfall
was 1.25 years, and it means that in the next 1.25 year from year 2007 the same peak
will happen and induce the landslide occurrences.

Gumbel method also can be used to estimate the rainfall data in the future. From those
we can build an estimating equation of rainfall data as painted in the Figure 5-16
below.

43
 4.00

y = 0.0334x - 4.0127
3.00

2.00
Y = -LN(-LN(LP))

1.00

0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250

Rainfall (mm)
-1.00

-2.00
Figure 5-16 Relationship between Left Probability and amount of Rainfall

Related to landslide events, It can be assumed that rainfall in 2003 (210mm) triggered
the largest area of landslides in 2003 (73.58 Ha). So, return period of rainfall can be
used as the temporal probability of landslides.

44
CHAPTER 6. LANDSLIDE SUSCEPTIBILITY ASSESSMENT
The main goal of this research is to build landslide susceptibility map by means of
statistical analysis and pair-wise comparison method. The first step that should be done
was selecting the landslide influencing factors which were put in landslide
susceptibility assessment. Based on field observation, there were two types of mass
movement in research area, so the landslide susceptibility map was decided to separate,
but the author also builds the susceptibility map by merging all of landslide types.
Three analyses had been done to compare the final results which were described in this
chapter.

6.1 Selecting the landslide influencing factors of research area

The estimating of influencing factors was also conducted by using sensitivity analysis.
Each factor was eliminated in the calculating landslide susceptibility index and
furthermore verification is done by means of success rate. The sensitivity analysis had
been done for both rotational slides and translational slides. After the process, the result
of sensitivity analysis for rotational slides is presented in Figure 6-1.

Includes all factors

Without river
Without litology
Without lineament
Without landuse
Without slope
Without road

Figure 6-1 Success rate of rotational susceptibility index based on sensitivity analysis

It is quite difficult to see the differences of the sensitivity analysis result. The solution
of this problem is by calculating the area under the curve. The area under the curve
which includes all factors is equal to 92.89%. By eliminating river, the area under the
curve is 92.05%, followed by curve without road factor; 91.49%, without lineament
91.24%, without slope 90.89%, without lithology 90.59% and area of curve without
landuse 80.06%. From those calculations, landuse factor becomes the most influence
factor and the lowest one is distance to river. The influences of each factor also had
been determined by assessing the range of weight value per each factor. Weight values
were extracted by calculating the landslide densities of each class parameter and the
range value is the summary of absolute minimum and maximum values of weight
values. Table 6-1 illustrates the weight values of each class parameter for rotational
slides.

45
Table 6-1 The weight values of each class parameter induced rotational slides
Weighting Values (Rotational Type)
Theme Class Denclass Densmap Weight Theme Class Denclass Densmap Weight
Landuse River
Baren Land 0.121601 0.008226 2.6934 0-20 0.004508 0.00823 -0.6019
Field Crop 0.015347 0.008226 0.6236 20-40 0.004899 0.00823 -0.5188
Forest 0.000127 0.008226 -4.1709 40-60 0.005569 0.00823 -0.3906
Mixed Garden 0.002851 0.008226 -1.0596 60-80 0.006604 0.00823 -0.2201
Paddy Field 0.000126 0.008226 -4.1788 80-100 0.007318 0.00823 -0.1174
River 0.000001 0.008226 -9.0151 >100 0.010453 0.00823 0.2391
Settlement 0.001166 0.008226 -1.9537 Range 0.8410
Shifting Cultivation 0.031265 0.008226 1.3352 Road
Shrub 0.067538 0.008226 2.1054 0-20 0.009129 0.008226 0.1042
Range 11.7085 20-40 0.008621 0.008226 0.0469
40-60 0.008644 0.008226 0.0496
Lineament 60-80 0.008441 0.008226 0.0258
0-20 0.004184 0.00823 -0.6765 80-100 0.008476 0.008226 0.0299
20-40 0.009027 0.00823 0.0924 >100 0.008008 0.008226 -0.0269
40-60 0.016993 0.00823 0.725 Range 0.1311
60-80 0.02427 0.00823 1.0815 Slope
80-100 0.030143 0.00823 1.2982 0-3 0.001029 0.008228 -2.079
>100 0.00774 0.00823 -0.0614 3- 8 0.003097 0.008228 -0.9771
Range 1.9747 8 -15 0.005548 0.008228 -0.3941
Litology 15-30 0.010271 0.007383 0.3301
Km 0.000001 0.008226 -9.0151 30-45 0.02076 0.008228 0.9255
Tmp 0.004061 0.008226 -0.7059 45-65 0.032591 0.008228 1.3765
Tmpb 0.009249 0.008226 0.1172 >65 0.033693 0.008228 1.4097
Tmw 0.020056 0.008226 0.8912 Range 3.4887
Tmwt 0.000001 0.008226 -9.0151
Tompt 0.000001 0.008226 -9.0151
Tpp 0.005543 0.008226 -0.3948

Range 9.9063

Based on both Table 6-1 and Figure 6-1, the most influence factor is landuse, followed
by lithology, slope, lineament and river. The road factor has the lowest value of
significant factors. However since there were many researches which emphasized the
influence of road network, the road distance is still used in building susceptibility map.
Many landslide occurrence located near the road indicate the influence of this factor to
landslide occurrences. Figure 6-2 shows the landslide occurred near to the road in
research area.

Figure 6-2 Landslide occurrences triggered by road expanded

46
The sensitivity analysis was also executed for translational slides, and the results were
presented in table and Figure 6-3.

Includes all factors

Without river
Without litology
Without lineament
Without landuse
Without slope
Without road

Figure 6-3 Success rate of translational slides susceptibility index based on sensitivity analysis
Including all factors produces area under the curve which is equal to 97.07% of total area. The
area under the curve by eliminating river is equal to 96.64%, followed by curve without
lineament ; 96.47%, without road factor; 96.41%, without slope 95.89%, without lithology
94.44% and area of curve without landuse 93.85%. From those calculations, landuse factor
becomes the most influence factor and the lowest one is distance to river. Similar with the
process applied in rotational slides, the influences of each factor could be seen in weight value
table. Table 6-2 presents the weight values of each class parameter for translational slides.
Table 6-2 The weight values of each class parameter induced translational slides
Weighting Values (Translational slides)
Theme Class Denclass Densmap Weight Theme Class Denclass Densmap Weight
Landuse River
Baren Land 0.000001 0.000309 -5.7333 0-20 0.000088 0.000309 -1.256
Field Crop 0.000001 0.000309 -5.7333 20-40 0.000275 0.000309 -0.1166
Forest 0.000001 0.000309 -5.7333 40-60 0.000305 0.000309 -0.013
Mixed Garden 0.000029 0.000309 -2.3660 60-80 0.000256 0.000309 -0.1882
Paddy Field 0.000121 0.000309 -0.9376 80-100 0.000189 0.000309 -0.4916
River 0.000001 0.000309 -5.7333 >100 0.000391 0.000309 0.2354
Settlement 0.001832 0.000309 1.7798 Range 1.4914
Shifting Cultivation 0.000001 0.000309 -5.7333 Road
Shrub 0.000001 0.000309 -5.7333 0-20 0.000728 0.000309 0.857
20-40 0.000973 0.000309 1.147
Range 7.5131 40-60 0.001012 0.000309 1.1863
Lineament 60-80 0.000761 0.000277 1.0106
0-20 0.00251 0.000309 2.0947 80-100 0.000464 0.000309 0.4065
20-40 0.001675 0.000309 1.6902 >100 0.000078 0.000309 -1.3766
40-60 0.001301 0.000309 1.4375 Range 2.5629
60-80 0.000691 0.000309 0.8048 Slope
80-100 0.000809 0.000309 0.9625 0-3 0.000543 0.000309 0.5638
>100 0.000249 0.000309 -0.2159 3-8 0.000477 0.000309 0.4342
Range 2.3106 8-15 0.000392 0.000309 0.2379
Litology 15-30 0.000193 0.000277 -0.3613
Km 0.000001 0.000309 -5.7333 30-45 0.000001 0.000309 -5.7333
Tmp 0.000486 0.000309 0.4529 45-65 0.000001 0.000309 -5.7333
Tmpb 0.002043 0.000309 1.8888 >65 0.000001 0.000309 -5.7333
Tmw 0.000001 0.000309 -5.7333 Range 6.2971
Tmwt 0.000001 0.000309 -5.7333
Tompt 0.000318 0.000309 0.0287
Tpp 0.000001 0.000309 -5.7333
Wb
Range
7.6221

47
Based on Table 6-2 and Figure 6-2, the most influencing triggering factors of
translational slides are landuse, litology and slope, followed by lineament, road and
river. All of the factors show the significant influences causing landslides. Although
river factor has the lowest influence, it was still kept as the parameter. Some evidences
showing the landslide occurrences in the river bank are presented in Figure 6-4. Hence,
causal factors elimination is not necessary in this case.

Stream

Figure 6-4 Landslide occurrences triggered by river bank erosion in toe part

6.2 Bivariate statistical analysis.

Landslide Susceptibility index map was built by summarizing the weight values in the
same land unit by using the formulation as follow: The Susceptibility Index = Total
Weight Value of all factors used. The description for each type of landslide is presented
in sub section below.

6.1.1 Bivariate statistical analysis for rotational slides

According to table 6.1, some analyses had been extracted. The results indicate some
landuse types such as barren land, field crop, shifting cultivation and shrub have
positive correlation with the rotational slide occurrences. Reservoir and river classes
have the lowest weighting value, and it is acceptable because there was no landslide in
that classes. In addition, the surrounding areas of settlement also have a positive
relation. In distance to lineament parameter, we see that all of class parameters had a
positive correlation with rotational landslides except 0 – 20 m and > 100 m classes.
Theoretically, the nearer distance to lineament has the higher susceptibility of the area.
The other parameter, lithology, indicates that only Halang Formation (Tmpb) and
Waturanda Formation (Tmw) had a positive coherence with rotational slides. It means
that the material deposits of both formation have induced landslide in the research area.
Halang Formation consists of Brescia and Waturanda Formation consists of grained
sandstone and brescia. From the distance to river parameter, only more than 100 m
class has the positive correlation. Actually, in some cases, the cliff of river is
susceptible for rotational slides. The acceptable result of distance to road parameter can
be seen in table above, which all of class parameters have a positive correlation except
> 100 m class. Based on slope gradient, rotational slide has a positive correlation with
some classes; 15 – 30%, 30-45%, 45-65% and > 65%. Theoretically, the areas which
has slope > 65% relatively resistance to slides. In this research the areas with > 65%
slope were affected by surrounding slope class areas. Landslide Susceptibility index
map is presented in Figure 6-5.

48
 Figure 6-5 Landslide Susceptibility index map of Rotational Slides by using BSA

6.1.2 Bivariate statistical analysis for translational slides

Some analyses had been extracted according to the result shown in table 6.2. Based on
landuse weight, only settlement areas had a positive correlation prone to translational
slides. It happens because these mass movements were recognized in settlement areas
according to local authority’s report. In distance to lineament factor, all of classes
present the positive coherence with translational slides except class > 100 m. Based on
litology parameter, the table shows that Penosogan (Tmp), Halang (Tmpb) and
Totogan (Tompt) formation had a positive correlation with translational slides. From
the distance to river weight, there are two classes with positive correlation; 40 – 60 m,
and > 100 m classes. The acceptable result of distance to road parameter can be seen in
table above, which all of class parameters have a positive correlation except > 100 m
class. Translational slides occurred more dominant in the gentle slope, where classes 0
– 3 % and 8 – 15% become the most susceptible area. Furthermore, a landslide
Susceptibility index map was generated as shown in figure 6-6.

49
 Figure 6-6 Landslide Susceptibility index map of Translational slides by using BSA

6.1.3 Bivariate statistical analysis for mixed types

In this scenario, the author didn’t separate the types of mass movement. The weighting
values extracted from BSA are presented in the Table 6-3 below
Table 6-3 The weight values of each class parameter induced mixed types of landslides
Theme Class Denclass Densmap Weight Theme Class Denclass Densmap Weight
Landuse River
Baren Land 0.121601 0.008535 2.6566 0-20 0.004595 0.008539 -0.6197
Field Crop 0.015347 0.008535 0.5867 20-40 0.005175 0.008539 -0.5008
Forest 0.000127 0.008535 -4.2077 40-60 0.005874 0.008539 -0.3741
Mixed Garden 0.002879 0.008535 -1.0867 60-80 0.006860 0.008539 -0.2189
Paddy Field 0.000247 0.008535 -3.5425 80-100 0.007507 0.008539 -0.1288
River 0.000001 0.008535 -9.0519 >100 0.010845 0.008539 0.2391
Settlement 0.002999 0.008535 -1.0459 Range 0.8588
Shifting Cultivation 0.031265 0.008535 1.2983 Road
Shrub 0.067538 0.008535 2.0685 0-20 0.009857 0.008535 0.1440
20-40 0.009594 0.008535 0.1170
Range 11.7085 40-60 0.009656 0.008535 0.1234
Lineament 60-80 0.009209 0.008535 0.0760
0-20 0.006694 0.008539 -0.2434 80-100 0.008941 0.008535 0.0465
20-40 0.010702 0.008539 0.2258 >100 0.008086 0.008535 -0.0540
40-60 0.018294 0.008539 0.7619 Range 0.1980
60-80 0.024961 0.008539 1.0727
80-100 0.030951 0.008539 1.2878
>100 0.007989 0.008539 -0.0666
Range 1.5312

50
 Lithology Slope
Km 0.000001 0.008535 -9.0519 0-3 0.001572 0.008537 -1.6921
Tmp 0.004547 0.008535 -0.6297 3-8 0.003574 0.008537 -0.8707
Tmpb 0.011292 0.008535 0.2799 8-15 0.005940 0.008537 -0.3627
Tmw 0.020056 0.008535 0.8544 15-30 0.010472 0.008537 0.2043
Tmwt 0.000001 0.008535 -9.0519 30-45 0.020760 0.008537 0.8886
Tompt 0.000318 0.008535 -3.2899 45-65 0.032591 0.008537 1.3396
Tpp 0.005543 0.008535 -0.4316 >65 0.033693 0.008537 1.3729

Range 9.9063 Range 3.0650

Barren land, field crop, shifting cultivation and shrub had a significantly positive
coherence with landslide. In distance to lineament parameter, all of classes present the
positive coherence except 0 – 20 m and > 100 m classes. Based on lithology parameter,
the table shows that only Halang (Tmpb) and Waturanda (Tmw) formations have
correlation with landslide. From the distance to river parameter, all of the classes didn’t
have significant influences for landslide except class > 100 m. It was contrary with
road parameter where only class > 100 has a positive correlation with landslides. Based
on Slope gradient, both types of landslide have a positive correlation with some
classes; 15 - 30 %, 30 - 45%, and > 65%.
Further step on this part was generating landslide susceptibility index map shown in
figure 6-7.

Figure 6-7 Landslide Susceptibility index map of mixed types by using BSA

51
6.3 Multivariate statistical analysis by using logistic regression
In this method, susceptibility maps were also built for each type and for all types
similar with the way of how landslide susceptibility map generated by using BSA. In
this part, the approach used is statistical analysis of raster data obtained from checklist
of causal factors associated with individual landslide occurrences. All of causal factors
and landslide occurrences are crossed to produce the matrix of presence and absence
landslide unit. Sample units were taken from this matrix. Several samples of presence
landslides avoiding many unique condition areas with only a few pixels were taken into
account as sample units. The number of presence landslide should be equal to the number
of absence landslide. For the absence landslide unit were determined purposively, where
the units tend to slide were omitted or reduce in number compared by the safe units prone
to landslide. Logistic regression analysis was used to build landslide susceptibility index.
As described in the formula (see chapter 3), the first step in this method is extracting
intercept and B value of each class parameter. This step was processed separately from
spatial software, and the mean of SPSS software was chosen. Next procedure is
calculating linear combination (Z) by summarizing the intercept and B values (formula is
presented in chapter 3). The last step is computing the probability value (Pr). Both Z and
Pr value can be calculated in ILWIS software.

6.2.1 Multivariate statistical analysis for rotational slide

Three data sets had been exploited to get the best data set. The overall statistics of those
data sets were described in the table 6-4
Table 6-4 Summary of training datasets for rotational slides in MSA
Model Summary of Training Set
Data -2 Log likelihood Cox & Snell R Nagelkerke R Chi-square Overall Percentage Correct
Sets Square Square
1 278.109a 0.507 0.676 290.271 82.9
2 269.159a 0.518 0.691 299.222 84.4
3 259.077a 0.530 0.706 309.304 85.9

The third dataset was chosen to run his model because it was the highest among the
others. The key for standard analysis of the test is generally the chi-square value
showing the significant test for logistic regression (Ayalew and Yamagishi, 2005). The
chi-square value is fairly higher than that of the others and it can be concluded that the
causal factors have a sufficient influence on the landslide occurrences. The higher R
square signifies how the model fits the data. R square prior to 1 means that the model
fit perfectly, whereas 0 indicates there is no relation with the data (Ayalew and
Yamagishi, 2005). Based on table 6.4, the chosen data set has 0.530 for R square and
309.304 for Chi-square. It means that the selected data set have significant influence on
the landslide occurrences and can fit the data. The extracted accuracy of the third
dataset is presented in Table 6-5 below.
Table 6-5 Classification of dataset for rotational slides in MSA
Predicted
Observed OCCURENCE_ Percentage Correct
0 1
Step 1 0 173 32 84.4
OCCURENCE_
1 26 179 87.3
Overall Percentage 85.9

52
The calculation of logistic regression in SPSS also provides the regression coefficients
for all class parameters. Together with intercept value, those coefficients were used to
construct the landslide probability map. The coefficients are presented in table 6-6.
below.

Table 6-6 The coefficients of of dataset for rotational slides in MSA

Variables in the Equation
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Step 1a LANDUSE 9.929 8 0.27
Barren land -0.726 0.832 0.76 1 0.383 0.484
Field Crop 0.217 0.603 0.129 1 0.719 1.242
Forest -20.925 7103 0 1 0.998 0
Mixed Garden 1.198 0.569 4.441 1 0.035 3.314
Paddy Field -20.639 6138 0 1 0.997 0
River -0.756 15090 0 1 1 0.47
Settlement -0.349 0.751 0.216 1 0.642 0.705
Shifting Cultivation 0.455 0.574 0.628 1 0.428 1.577
Shrub 0

LINEAMENT 6.119 5 0.295

> 100 -1.353 0.9 2.259 1 0.133 0.259
0 - 20 -2.132 1.808 1.391 1 0.238 0.119
20 - 40 -2.338 1.442 2.63 1 0.105 0.096
40 - 60 0.001 1.164 0 1 0.999 1.001
60 - 80 -1.177 1.112 1.121 1 0.29 0.308
80 - 100 0

LITOLOGY 13.83 6 0.032

Km -21.194 13610 0 1 0.999 0
Tmp -0.037 0.507 0.005 1 0.943 0.964
Tmpb -1.44 0.636 5.12 1 0.024 0.237
Tmw 0.975 0.464 4.426 1 0.035 2.652
Tmwt -21.196 11810 0 1 0.999 0
Tomt -20.164 11970 0 1 0.999 0
Tpp 0

RIVER 19.103 5 0.002

> 100 -1.653 0.652 6.421 1 0.011 0.192
0 - 20 -0.791 0.745 1.128 1 0.288 0.453
20 - 40 -1.353 0.855 2.503 1 0.114 0.258
40 - 60 0.733 0.933 0.618 1 0.432 2.082
60 - 80 0.516 0.906 0.324 1 0.569 1.675
80 - 100 0

ROAD 12.38 5 0.03

> 100 -0.972 0.637 2.332 1 0.127 0.378
0 - 20 -0.393 0.779 0.254 1 0.614 0.675
20 - 40 0.611 0.911 0.449 1 0.503 1.841
40 - 60 1.093 0.952 1.318 1 0.251 2.984
60 - 80 0.657 0.907 0.524 1 0.469 1.929
80 - 100 0

SLOPE 57.173 6 0
> 65 -2.404 1.456 2.724 1 0.099 0.09
0-3 -4.331 0.776 31.137 1 0 0.013
15 - 30 0.709 0.523 1.839 1 0.175 2.032
3-8 -2.132 0.558 14.603 1 0 0.119
30 - 45 -1.5 0.515 8.483 1 0.004 0.223
45 - 65 -0.89 0.743 1.435 1 0.231 0.411
8 - 15 0
Constant 3.978 1.4 8.074 1 0.004 53.397

According to table 6-6, in Landuse classes, there is no big significant influence among
all classes. While, mixed garden and shifting cultivation are the highest classes
susceptible to landslide. This could happen because the distribution of sites spread
evenly in many classes of landuse except forest and paddy field classes. It also was
depicted in lineament classes, where just a little bit difference among all classes. The

53
big differences appear in litology classes, whereas Tmw formation shows its control for
rotational slides. It could be compared with the lower value in Km, Tmwt, and Tompt
formation. The relatively higher values for river class appear in location with distance
40 – 80m and for road class come into view in location with distance 20 – 80 m.
Distance to lineament versus landslide distribution did not show any particular trend.
The model indicated that landslide frequency increases gradually with an increase in
slope angle until the range of 15 – 30% and then decreases beyond that range. By using
logistic regression formula, the final probability values were extracted and then
mapped in rotational susceptibility index which presented in figure 6-8

Figure 6-8 Susceptibility index map of Rotational Slides by using MSA

6.2.2 Multivariate statistical analysis for translational slides

Three data sets had been exploited to get the best data set. The overall statistics of those
data sets were described in the table 6-8
Table 6-7 Summary of training datasets for translational slides in MSA
Model Summary of Training Set
Data -2 Log Cox & Snell Nagelkerke R Chi-square Overall Percentage
Sets likelihood R Square Square Correct
1 16.162a 0.724 0.965 211.190 96.3
2 17.431a 0.722 0.963 209.922 97.6
3 11.088a 0.733 0.977 216.344 98.8

The third dataset was chosen to run this model because it was the highest among the
others. As described on rotational part, the selected dataset for translational slides also
has significant influence on the landslide occurrences where the R square equal to
0.733. The chi-square is also the highest one which equal to 216.344 and it means that

54
the data set is relatively sufficient enough to be used. The extracted accuracy of the
third dataset is presented in table 6-8 below.
Table 6-8 Classification table of dataset for Translational slides in MSA
Observed Predicted
OCCURENCE_ Percentage Correct
0 1
Step 1 OCCURENCE_ 0 81 1 98.8
1 1 81 98.8
Overall Percentage 98.8

The calculation of logistic regression in SPSS also provides the regression coefficients
for all class parameters. Together with intercept value, those coefficients were used to
construct the landslide probability map. The coefficients are presented in Table 6-9.
Table 6-9. The coefficients of of dataset for Translational slides in MSA
Variables in the Equation
PARAMETER B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Step 1a LANDUSE 0 8 1
Baren Land -79.762 19660 0 1 0.997 0
Field Crop 62.407 15490 0 1 0.997 1.27E+27
Forest 65.866 77420 0 1 0.999 4.03E+28
Mixed Garden 18.307 11380 0 1 0.999 8.92E+07
Paddy Field 65.333 12740 0 1 0.996 2.37E+28
River 61.031 21390 0 1 0.998 3.20E+26
Settlement 141.179 13700 0 1 0.992 2.06E+61
Shifting Cultivation -1.885 16730 0 1 1 0.152
Shrub
LINEAMENT 0 5 1
>100 -23.967 107600 0 1 1 0
0 - 20 51.441 107600 0 1 1 2.19E+22
20 - 40 53.179 108000 0 1 1 1.25E+23
40 - 60 13.942 83040 0 1 1 1135000
60 - 80 -22.061 109500 0 1 1 0
80-100 0
LITOLOGY 0 6 1
Km 134.265 81100 0 1 0.999 2.04E+58
Tmp 96.131 7380 0 1 0.99 5.61E+41
Tmpb 203.467 11630 0 1 0.986 2.32E+88
Tmw 58.99 76130 0 1 0.999 4.16E+25
Tmwt 117.876 28880 0 1 0.997 1.56E+51
Tomt 34.546 21170 0 1 0.999 1.01E+15
Tpp 0
RIVER 0 5 1
>100 -39.477 67950 0 1 1 0
0 - 20 -9.696 67910 0 1 1 0
20 - 40 -19.367 69300 0 1 1 0
40 - 60 -21.84 68730 0 1 1 0
60 - 80 -21.271 69350 0 1 1 0
80 - 100 0
ROAD 0.433 5 0.994
>100 1.361 2.071 0.432 1 0.511 3.901
0 - 20 78.655 5250 0 1 0.988 1.44E+34
20 - 40 63.553 5965 0 1 0.991 3.99E+27
40 - 60 0.867 2.316 0.14 1 0.708 2.379
60 - 80 -14.669 1525 0 1 0.992 0
80 - 100 0
SLOPE 0.78 6 0.993
>65 84.528 35980 0 1 0.998 5.13E+36
0-3 -13.803 1525 0 1 0.993 0
15 - 30 1.733 1.962 0.78 1 0.377 5.659
3-8 15.712 1664 0 1 0.992 6665000
30 - 45 -17.231 6645 0 1 0.998 0
45 - 65 -19.792 77840 0 1 1 0
8 - 15 0
Intercept -160.935 86170 0 1 0.999 0

55
According to table 6.9, in Landuse classes, settlement area becomes the most
significant values for landslide occurrences. It is related to landslide inventory map
which was collected during field work. This type of landuse can be recognized clearly
on settlement area indicated by properties damages. The signs of translational slides
type can also be seen in paddy field area where terraces became collapse. Based on
lineament factor, the location nearer to the lineament results the more susceptible areas.
The similar condition also happened on the road factor. It is related to the occurrences
in settlement area where the settlement areas are mainly situated near by the road.
Similar condition also can be found in river distance, the assumption is that the nearer
to stream, the more susceptible to the mass movement. The location took place in class
80-100 m is the highest susceptible area for translational slides among locations in
other classes. Slope factor also shows the regular pattern where translational slides will
be more susceptible in undulating (3-8%) area. Translational slides type occurs rarely
in the location where setting from hilly to very steep slope. The B values had been
continued to be processed by using probability formula, and then the final weight value
for each pixel was depicted as translational slides susceptibility index which presented
in figure 6-9

Figure 6-9 Susceptibility index map of translational slides by using MSA

6.2.3 Multivariate statistical analysis for mixed types
Three data sets had been exploited to get the best data set
Table 6-10 Summary of training datasets for both types in MSA
Model Summary of Training Set
Data -2 Log Cox & Snell Nagelkerke R Chi-square Overall Percentage
Sets likelihood R Square Square Correct
1 1325,882a 0.420 0.559 856.145 77.7
2 1311.499a 0.425 0.566 870.528 78.2
3 1316.223a 0.423 0.564 865.804 78.5

56
The third data set was chosen to run this model, and the attribute was described below.
Table 6-11 Classification table of dataset for mixed types in MSA
Observed Predicted
OCCURENCE_ Percentage Correct
0 1
Step 1 OCCURENCE_ 0 575 212 73.1
1 126 661 84.0
Overall Percentage 78.5

Table 6-12 The coefficients of dataset for mixed types in MSA

Variables in the Equation
PARAMETER B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Step
1a LANDUSE 161.999 8 0
Baren Land 3.835 1.07 12.853 1 0 46.285
Field Crop 0.123 0.335 0.135 1 0.713 1.13E+00
Forest -22.304 2909 0 1 0.994 0.00E+00
Mixed Garden -0.903 0.271 11.078 1 0.001 4.05E-01
Paddy Field -3.819 0.422 81.939 1 0 2.20E-02
River -1.84 1.237 2.212 1 0.137 1.59E-01
Settlement -0.871 0.285 9.334 1 0.002 4.19E-01
Shifting Cultivation 0.291 0.291 1 1 0.317 1.338
Shrub
LINEAMENT 49.974 5 0
>100 -1.425 0.369 14.889 1 0 0.24
0 - 20 0.142 0.608 0.055 1 0.815 1.15E+00
20 - 40 0.095 0.582 0.026 1 0.871 1.10E+00
40 - 60 0.497 0.548 0.823 1 0.364 1.645
60 - 80 0.074 0.526 0.02 1 0.888 1.077
80-100 0
LITOLOGY 8.507 6 0.203
Km -19.229 17510 0 1 0.999 0.00E+00
Tmp 0.115 0.192 0.359 1 0.549 1.12E+00
Tmpb -0.445 0.299 2.224 1 0.136 6.41E-01
Tmw 0.277 0.202 1.878 1 0.171 1.32E+00
Tmwt -20.726 7252 0 1 0.998 0.00E+00
Tomt -0.741 0.603 1.512 1 0.219 4.76E-01
Tpp 0
RIVER 4.186 5 0.523
>100 0.002 0.218 0 1 0.994 1.002
0 - 20 0.209 0.266 0.62 1 0.431 1.233
20 - 40 0.121 0.264 0.211 1 0.646 1.129
40 - 60 0.391 0.265 2.187 1 0.139 1.479
60 - 80 0.301 0.27 1.244 1 0.265 1.351
80 - 100 0
ROAD 30.262 5 0
>100 -0.698 0.231 9.145 1 0.002 0.498
0 - 20 0.004 0.277 0 1 0.989 1.00E+00
20 - 40 0.165 0.28 0.348 1 0.555 1.18E+00
40 - 60 0.139 0.281 0.243 1 0.622 1.149
60 - 80 0.363 0.292 1.549 1 0.213 1.438
80 - 100 0
SLOPE 40.004 6 0
>65 -2.585 0.742 12.15 1 0 7.50E-02
0-3 -0.903 0.22 16.859 1 0 0.405
15 - 30 0.024 0.186 0.017 1 0.897 1.024
3-8 -0.359 0.197 3.332 1 0.068 0.699
30 - 45 0.111 0.285 0.151 1 0.697 1.117
45 - 65 1.398 0.67 4.358 1 0.037 4.047
8 - 15 2.311 0.521 19.684 1 0 10.087
Intercept -160.935 86170 0 1 0.999 0

57
Table 6.12 shows that barren land is the most influence class of landuse which
controlled the landslide occurrences. That class was followed by barren land, shifting
cultivation and field crop classes. In lithology classes, Tmw and Tmp formation give
the significant influence for landslides. Mixing both types of landslide makes all of
classes in river and road distance become quite similar.
However, selecting sample for absence landslide becomes difficult because presence
landslides spread evenly in all classes. The root problem is the different characteristics
of both types. Rotational slides commonly occur in relatively steep area (from 15 –
65%) whereas translational slides take place in flat and undulating area (0 – 8%). The
other condition shows that rotational could be triggered by road expanses where the
areas near to the road become more prone to slide. It is quite different with translational
slides where the road distance has no significant influence for mass movements but
influenced by lineament.
Building susceptibility map was still done to know the effect of combining both types
of landslides. Generating probability values was processed and the results were mapped
into susceptibility index map which presented in figure 6-10

Figure 6-10 Susceptibility index map of mixed types by using MSA

58
6.4 Improved Method (BSA and pair-wise)
This method was built based on analyzing the weight value in bivariate statistical
analysis. The weight values in each parameter had been observed to decide the
influence level of parameters (explained in previous chapter). The author just
recognized the level of influences based on BSA’s weight value. All of comparisons
are based on pair wise method published by Saaty, 1980 in term of Analytical
Hierarchy Process. In this method, the all factors used were classified into a few
groups. The first group consists of landuse and distance to road parameters, because
both of these were induced by human activities. The second one includes lineament and
lithology parameters which were extracted from geological map. The next group
presenting the hydrological condition contains of distance to river parameter and the
last group is geomorphology group which only consist of slope gradient parameter.
The level of influence for groups and parameters were determined by the range of
weighting value. The range value is the range between the minimum and maximum
weight value. The range values were used under assumption that the higher the range
values show the bigger differences of influence among the variables. The groups which
have quite similar range value were categorized in the same level.
The standardization of each class parameter is compared each other to determine the
level of influence. Some classes with quite similar values in BSA were classified in the
same level. Normalized priority value for each class parameter had been extracted by
means of pair wise comparison method. This comparison method had also been done to
define the initial weight value for each parameter in the same group as well as the
initial value for each group.
For example:
• Barren land has weight equal to 2.80; shrub: 2.21; Forest: -4.06. Barren land and
shrub were categorized in the same class which more influence than forest.
• Landuse parameter has range of weight which is equal to 11.70; road: 0.28. It
means landuse is more influence than road.
• Human Induced group has range of weight equal to 12.10; Geology group : 11.80;
Geomorphology group : 4.2. The human induced and geology group were classified
in the same level which more influence than geomorphology group.
Another disparity between BSA and improved method is on type of weight value. The
values in BSA spread from minus into plus value based on the landslide density,
whereas the weight value in improved method is probability value which spread from 0
to 1. The final weight values were automatically calculated by means of Spatial Multi
Criteria Evaluation, a hierarchical model of ILWIS.
The final weight value for each class parameter is produced by multiplying the group
weight value, parameter weight value and normalized priority value of class parameter.
For example: class parameter barren land, group value: 0.5, parameter value: 0.75 and
class parameter value: 1.00
Final weight value of barren land = 0.5 * 0.75 * 1.00
= 0.375
The total probability value is the summarizing of all class parameters which took place
in the same pixel. Detail manual calculation of weighting values by means of Pair –
Wise Comparison Method (AHP) can be seen in appendix 14 and 15.

59
6.4.1 Improved Method for Rotational Slides

Based on weighting values in BSA, the levels of the influence of parameters were
generated. The human induced, geological and geomorphological factors have a similar
range of weighting value. Thus, those factors were classified in the same level. The
hydrological factor which has the less influence was categorized in the lowest level.
Pair wise comparison method had been done to extract the weight value presented in
table 6-13:
Table 6-13. The weight value for each group and parameter for rotational slides by
using pair wise comparison – SMCE
Num Groups and parameters The weight value Inconsistency Ratio
1 Human Induced 0,30
- Landuse 0.75
- Road Distance 0.25 0.00000
2 Geological Factors 0,30
- Lineament 0.25
- Litology 0.75
3 Hydrological Factor 0,10
- River Distance 1.00
4 Geomorphology Factor 0,30 a value above 0.1 is an indication for
- Slope Gradient 1.00 inconsistencies in pair wise
comparison

Human and geological factor were classified in the same level, because of their similar
range of weight value (human induced: 11.83 point >> landuse: 11.70 -- road: 0.13 and
geological factor: 11.87 point >> litology 9.90 -- lineament 1.97, see Table 6-1).
Geomorphological factor was defined similar with the level of previous factors. Slope
gradient is the key of the sliding types. Hydrological factor got the lowest level since
the range of weight value is the smallest one (0.84 point).
Based on calculation results, the final weight values for all class parameters are
presented in table 6-14. Based on table 6-14, barren land and shrub become the
susceptible areas for landslide for landuse parameter. Tmw formation is the highest
susceptible area among litology classes, and all classes of road distance turn into
susceptible area except class >100 m. In lineament parameter, classes 60-100m also
take into account as susceptible areas and for slope parameter, the classes more than
30% are the prone area to rotational slides.
The levels of weight values are quite similar with it in BSA. The differences appear
when some quite different values in BSA were categorized in the same value because
of their small dissimilarities.
Combination of all described classes above will produce the most susceptibility area
for rotational slides.

60
Table 6-14 . Final weight values of rotational slides by using Pair-wise comparison.
Land Use Lineament
Eigent Final Eigent Final
Class N.EV P.EV G.EV Class N.EV P.EV G.EV
Vector Weight Vector Weight
Barren Land 0.267 1.000 0.750 0.300 0.225 00-20 0.052 0.164 0.250 0.300 0.012
Field Crop 0.132 0.489 0.750 0.300 0.110 20-40 0.129 0.405 0.250 0.300 0.030
Forest 0.030 0.111 0.750 0.300 0.025 40-60 0.129 0.405 0.250 0.300 0.030
Mix Garden 0.062 0.231 0.750 0.300 0.052 60-80 0.318 1.000 0.250 0.300 0.075
Paddy Field 0.030 0.111 0.750 0.300 0.025 80-100 0.318 1.000 0.250 0.300 0.075
River 0.016 0.063 0.750 0.300 0.014 >100 0.052 0.164 0.250 0.300 0.012
Settlement 0.062 0.231 0.750 0.300 0.052 1.000
Shifting
Cultivation 0.132 0.489 0.750 0.300 0.110 River
Eigent Final
Class N.EV P.EV G.EV
Shrub 0.267 1.000 0.750 0.300 0.225 Vector Weight
1.000 00-20 0.069 0.161 1.000 0.100 0.016
Litology 20-40 0.069 0.161 1.000 0.100 0.016
Eigent Final
Class N.EV P.EV G.EV
Vector Weight 40-60 0.069 0.161 1.000 0.100 0.016
Km 0.044 0.099 0.750 0.300 0.022 60-80 0.187 0.440 1.000 0.100 0.044
Tmp 0.108 0.247 0.750 0.300 0.056 80-100 0.187 0.440 1.000 0.100 0.044
Tmpb 0.231 0.538 0.750 0.300 0.121 >100 0.419 1.000 1.000 0.100 0.100
Tmw 0.423 1.000 0.750 0.300 0.225 1.000
Tmwt 0.044 0.099 0.750 0.300 0.022 Slope
Eigent Final
Class N.EV P.EV G.EV
Tompt 0.044 0.099 0.750 0.300 0.022 Vector Weight
Tpp 0.108 0.247 0.750 0.300 0.056 0-3 0.026 0.107 1.000 0.300 0.032
1.000 3-8 0.052 0.207 1.000 0.300 0.062
Road 8-15 0.052 0.207 1.000 0.300 0.062
Eigent Final
Class N.EV P.EV G.EV
Vector Weight 15-30 0.111 0.449 1.000 0.300 0.135
00-20 0.188 1.000 0.250 0.300 0.075 30-45 0.253 1.000 1.000 0.300 0.300
20-40 0.188 1.000 0.250 0.300 0.075 45-65 0.253 1.000 1.000 0.300 0.300
40-60 0.188 1.000 0.250 0.300 0.075 >65 0.253 1.000 1.000 0.300 0.300
60-80 0.188 1.000 0.250 0.300 0.075 1.000
80-100 0.188 1.000 0.250 0.300 0.075 N.EV = Normalized Eigent Vector
>100 0.063 0.333 0.250 0.300 0.025 P.EV = Parameter’s Eigent Vector
1.000 G.EV = Group’s Eigent Vector

Based on total weight values, the susceptibility map for rotational slides had been
made. The susceptibility index map of rotational slide is depicted in figure 6-11

61
Figure 6-11 Susceptibility index map of rotational slides by using Improved Method

6.4.2 Improved Method for Translational slides

Human induced and geological factor have the biggest contribution causing mass
movement. It signifies by means of their range of weighting value which just shows a
little different. Geomorphological factor took place in the lower level followed by
hydrological factor. Pair wise comparison method had been done to extract the weight
value presented in Table 6-15.
Table 6-15 The weight value for each group and parameter for translational slides by
using pair wise comparison – SMCE.
Num Groups and parameters The weight value Inconsistency Ratio
1 Human Induced 0,39
- Landuse 0.75
- Road Distance 0.25 0.014393
2 Geological Factors 0,39
- Lineament 0.25
- Litology 0.75
3 Hydrological Factor 0,07 a value above 0.1 is an indication for
- River Distance 1.00 inconsistencies in pair wise
4 Geomorphology Factor 0,15 comparison
- Slope Gradient 1.00

According to Table 6-2, human induced and geological factor were classified in the
same level, because of their similar range of weight value (human induced: 10.07 point
>> landuse: 7.51 -- road: 2.56 and geological factor: 9.93 point >> litology 7.62 --
lineament 2.31.). Geomorphological factor was defined as the second most important
factor which has 6.29 point. Hydrological factor got the lowest level since the range of
weight value is the smallest one (1.49 point).

62
Based on Table 6-16, settlement becomes the most susceptible areas for translational
slides in landuse parameter. Tmpb formation is the highest susceptible area among
litology classes, and all classes of road distance turn into susceptible area except class
>100 m. In lineament parameter, classes 20-60m also takes into account as susceptible
areas and for slope parameter, the classes from 0 to 15 % are the prone area to
translational slides. Combination of all described classes above will produce the most
susceptibility area for translational slides.
The levels of translational slide’s weight values in improved method are quite similar
with it in Bivariate Statistical Analysis. The differences appear when some quite
different values in BSA were categorized in the same value.
Based on calculation results, the final weight values for all class parameters are
presented in table 6-16.
Table 6-16 Final weight values of translational slides by using Pair-wise comparison
method
Land Use Lineament
Eigen Final Eigen Final
Class N.EV P.EV G.EV Class N.EV P.EV G.EV
Vector Weight Vector Weight
Barren Land 0.046 0.116 0.750 0.391 0.034 00-20 0.420 1.000 0.250 0.391 0.098
Field Crop 0.046 0.116 0.750 0.391 0.034 20-40 0.193 0.450 0.250 0.391 0.044
Forest 0.046 0.116 0.750 0.391 0.034 40-60 0.193 0.450 0.250 0.391 0.044
Mix Garden 0.119 0.306 0.750 0.391 0.090 60-80 0.078 0.183 0.250 0.391 0.018
Paddy Field 0.225 0.583 0.750 0.391 0.171 80-100 0.078 0.183 0.250 0.391 0.018
River 0.046 0.116 0.750 0.391 0.034 >100 0.036 0.086 0.250 0.391 0.008
Settlement 0.381 1.000 0.750 0.391 0.293 1.000
Shifting
Cultivation 0.046 0.116 0.750 0.391 0.034 River
Eigen Final
Class N.EV P.EV G.EV
Shrub 0.046 0.116 0.750 0.391 0.034 Vector Weight
1.000 00-20 0.046 0.151 1.000 0.067 0.010
Litology 20-40 0.113 0.366 1.000 0.067 0.025
Eigen Final
Class N.EV P.EV G.EV
Vector Weight 40-60 0.308 1.000 1.000 0.067 0.067
Km 0.065 0.165 0.750 0.391 0.048 60-80 0.113 0.366 1.000 0.067 0.025
Tmp 0.179 0.459 0.750 0.391 0.135 80-100 0.113 0.366 1.000 0.067 0.025
Tmpb 0.383 1.000 0.750 0.391 0.293 >100 0.308 1.000 1.000 0.067 0.067
Tmw 0.065 0.165 0.750 0.391 0.048 1.000
Tmwt 0.065 0.165 0.750 0.391 0.048 Slope
Eigen Final
Class N.EV P.EV G.EV
Tompt 0.179 0.459 0.750 0.391 0.135 Vector Weight
Tpp 0.065 0.165 0.750 0.391 0.048 0-3 0.251 1.000 1.000 0.151 0.151
1.000 3-8 0.251 1.000 1.000 0.151 0.151
Road 8-15 0.251 1.000 1.000 0.151 0.151
Eigen Final
Class N.EV P.EV G.EV
Vector Weight 15-30 0.108 0.438 1.000 0.151 0.066
00-20 0.112 0.427 0.250 0.391 0.042 30-45 0.046 0.184 1.000 0.151 0.028
20-40 0.268 1.000 0.250 0.391 0.098 45-65 0.046 0.184 1.000 0.151 0.028
40-60 0.268 1.000 0.250 0.391 0.098 >65 0.046 0.184 1.000 0.151 0.028
60-80 0.268 1.000 0.250 0.391 0.098 1.000
80-100 0.055 0.211 0.250 0.391 0.021 N.EV = Normalized Eigent Vector
>100 0.030 0.114 0.250 0.391 0.011 P.EV = Parameter’s Eigent Vector
1.000 G.EV = Group’s Eigent Vector

63
Based on final weight values, the susceptibility map for rotational slides had been
made. The susceptibility index map of translational slides is depicted in figure 6-12

Figure 6-12 Susceptibility index map of translational slides by using Improved Method

6.4.3 Improved Method for mixed types

Human induced and geological factor have the biggest contribution causing mass
movement. It signifies by means of their range of weighting value which just shows a
little different. Geomorphological factor took place in the lower level followed by
hydrological factor. Pair wise comparison method had been done to extract the weight
value presented in table 6-17.
Table 6-17 The weight value for each group and parameter for translational slides by
using pair wise comparison – SMCE.
Num Groups and parameters The weight value Inconsistency Ratio
1 Human Induced 0,39
- Landuse 0.75
- Road Distance 0.25 0.014393
2 Geological Factors 0,39
- Lineament 0.25
- Litology 0.75
3 Hydrological Factor 0,07 a value above 0.1 is an indication for
- River Distance 1.00 inconsistencies in pair wise
4 Geomorphology Factor 0,15 comparison
- Slope Gradient 1.00
According to Table 6-3, human induced and geological factor were classified in the
same level, because of their similar range of weight value (human induced: 11.90 point
>> landuse: 11.70 -- road: 0.20 and geological factor: 11.43 point >> litology 9.90 --

64
lineament 1.53.). Geomorphological factor was defined as the second most important
factor which has 3.06 point. Hydrological factor got the lowest level since the range of
weight value is the smallest one (0.85 point).
Based on calculation results, the final weight values for all class parameters are
presented in table 6-18.
Table 6-18 Final weight values of mixed types by using Pair-wise comparison method
Land Use Lineament
Eigen Final Eigen Final
Class N.EV P.EV G.EV Class N.EV P.EV G.EV
Vector Weight Vector Weight
Barren Land 0.267 1.000 0.750 0.391 0.293 00-20 0.052 0.164 0.250 0.391 0.016
Field Crop 0.132 0.489 0.750 0.391 0.143 20-40 0.129 0.405 0.250 0.391 0.040
Forest 0.030 0.111 0.750 0.391 0.033 40-60 0.129 0.405 0.250 0.391 0.040
Mix Garden 0.062 0.231 0.750 0.391 0.068 60-80 0.318 1.000 0.250 0.391 0.098
Paddy Field 0.030 0.111 0.750 0.391 0.033 80-100 0.318 1.000 0.250 0.391 0.098
River 0.016 0.063 0.750 0.391 0.018 >100 0.052 0.164 0.250 0.391 0.016
Settlement 0.062 0.231 0.750 0.391 0.068 1.000
Shifting
Cultivation 0.132 0.489 0.750 0.391 0.143 River
Eigen Final
Class N.EV P.EV G.EV
Shrub 0.267 1.000 0.750 0.391 0.293 Vector Weight
1.000 00-20 0.069 0.161 1.000 0.067 0.011
Litology 20-40 0.069 0.161 1.000 0.067 0.011
Eigen Final
Class N.EV P.EV G.EV
Vector Weight 40-60 0.069 0.161 1.000 0.067 0.011
Km 0.031 0.103 0.750 0.391 0.030 60-80 0.187 0.440 1.000 0.067 0.030
Tmp 0.136 0.449 0.750 0.391 0.131 80-100 0.187 0.440 1.000 0.067 0.030
Tmpb 0.301 1.000 0.750 0.391 0.293 >100 0.419 1.000 1.000 0.067 0.067
Tmw 0.301 1.000 0.750 0.391 0.293 1.000
Tmwt 0.031 0.103 0.750 0.391 0.030 Slope
Eigen Final
Class N.EV P.EV G.EV
Tompt 0.063 0.212 0.750 0.391 0.062 Vector Weight
Tpp 0.136 0.449 0.750 0.391 0.131 0-3 0.026 0.107 1.000 0.151 0.016
3-8 0.052 0.207 1.000 0.151 0.031
1.000 8-15 0.052 0.207 1.000 0.151 0.031
Road 15-30 0.111 0.449 1.000 0.151 0.068
Eigen Final
Class N.EV P.EV G.EV
Vector Weight 30-45 0.253 1.000 1.000 0.151 0.151
00-20 0.256 1.000 0.250 0.391 0.098 45-65 0.253 1.000 1.000 0.151 0.151
20-40 0.256 1.000 0.250 0.391 0.098 >65 0.253 1.000 1.000 0.151 0.151
40-60 0.256 1.000 0.250 0.391 0.098 1.000
60-80 0.094 0.370 0.250 0.391 0.036
80-100 0.094 0.370 0.250 0.391 0.036 N.EV = Normalized Eigent Vector
>100 0.042 0.167 0.250 0.391 0.016 P.EV = Parameter’s Eigent Vector
1.000 G.EV = Group’s Eigent Vector

Based on table 6-18, barren land and shrub become the most susceptible areas for
translational slides in landuse parameter. Tmpb and Tmw formations are the highest
susceptible area among litology classes. For road distance parameter, the classes from 0
to 60 m turn into susceptible areas. In lineament parameter, classes 60-100m also take
into account as susceptible areas and for slope parameter, three classes such as 30-45%,
45-65% and >65% are the prone area to translational slides. Combination of all

65
described classes above will produce the most susceptibility area for translational
slides.
The levels of weight values in improved method are quite similar with it in Bivariate
Statistical Analysis. The differences appear when some quite different values in BSA
were categorized in the same value because of their small dissimilarities.
Based on final weight values, the susceptibility map for rotational slides had been
made. The susceptibility index map of mixed types is depicted in figure 6-13.

Figure 6-13 Susceptibility index map of mixed types by using Improved Method

6.5 Verifying landslide susceptibility index map

Verifying and validating all landslide susceptibility maps is absolutely needed to
decide the best result. It also explicitly gives the best method that should be used for
landslide susceptibility assessment in the research area.
As explained in chapter 3, prediction rate was used to validate the maps produced by
BSA, MSA, and improved method. Landslide susceptibility index maps were crossed
with recent landslide inventory maps which were not used to build landslide
susceptibility map. The recent inventory map for rotational slide consists of 14 sites
with total pixels 222 and the one for translational slides includes 9 sites with total
pixels 915.
Firstly, the accuracy of mixed types was calculated. The susceptibility can be presented
in one map once which involves all types of landslides, if the accuracy is adequate.
Basically, both types of landslides can not mix into one susceptibility map because of
their different characteristics, but it must be done in order to get the evidence for
separating the maps. The results of prediction rate were present in graph form which
shows the curve relating the percentage of landslides and predicted area. Figure 6-14

66
shows the poor accuracies of the prediction rate for mixed types. MSA gives the best
prediction with accuracy equal to 46.10%, followed with BSA (26.49%) and improved
method (26.12%). The poor accuracies are caused by the definitely difference
characteristics between rotational and translational slides. It means that building the
susceptibility map should be done in separate.

MSA
BSA
Improved Method

Figure 6-14 Comparing the prediction rate of 3 methods for mixed types
Based on the assumption that both types of landslides can not be mixed into one
susceptibility map, the prediction rates for each types are generated. The figure 6.15
and 6.16 below explain the prediction rates for each landslide type for each method.

MSA
BSA
Improved Method

Figure 6-15 Comparing the prediction rate of 3 methods for rotational slides

According to figure 6-15, in the prediction rate of rotational slides using MSA, the area
under the curve is 0.8158 which gives accuracy 81.58%. It is better that those of BSA
(65.37%) and Improved method (53.05%). The result of MSA has a relatively high
accuracy, and it becomes the best among all methods. Their low accuracy apparently
could happen because the patterns of recent landslides (2007 – 2009) were changing,
compared with past landslide (2000 – 2006) pattern.
Based on landslide inventory map, many of past rotational slides occurred in barren
land, shrub and shifting cultivation areas, whereas many of recent landslides took place

67
in settlement, mix garden and shifting cultivation. The past events of landslides have
widely distributed for all classes of road distance, whereas most of the recent rotational
landslides took place in classes from 0 -100m and there were only a few pixels in class
> 100m. The significant changes of recent landslides cause the accuracy of
susceptibility map decrease.
The comparison among prediction rate also had been extracted to know the accuracy of
three methods for building translational slides susceptibility map as presents in figure
6-16

MSA
BSA
c)
Improved Method

b)

a)

Figure 6-16 Comparing the prediction rate of 3 methods for translational slides

Based on figure 6-16, some additional descriptions are given for blue line as follow:
a) The curve line of MSA method jumps from 0% to 21.42% of percent-landslide. It
appears because 21.42% area of landslide which has probability value equal to 1.0
is covered only in 0.02% of percent map.
b) The horizontally straight line from 0 to 15.04% of percent map explains that there
is no new landslide area covered by 15.04% of whole area.
c) The vertically straight line from 25.36% to 99.25% of percent-landslide shows that
99.25% area of landslide is already covered by 18.94% of percent-map.
The longer vertically straight line shows that there are more pixels of landslide sites
which have same probability values. The horizontally straight lines presents that there
is no new landslide occurrence in certain percentage of map.
Based on that explanation, we can assume that present translational slides occur in
many areas with same probability values. Combined with susceptibility index map (see
figure 6-9), we can conclude that there are many homogeneity values of susceptibility
index map for translational slides. It will also be proof by value’s distribution presented
in figure 6-19
The area under the curve of MSA method is 0.8656 which gives accuracy 86.56%. It is
better than those by using BSA (82.18%) and improved method (83.40%)
6.6 Defining the best method for assessing the landslide susceptibility
In accordance with verification process above, although the differences are not so high,
Multivariate becomes the best method to generate the landslide susceptibility map in
the research area. It is proved in generating susceptibility map for rotational slide as
well as for translational slides. Another rule is that susceptibility maps of both landslide
types should be separated, and it purposes to accurately represent the areas prone to
landslide types.
68
Some descriptions below are given to explain the characteristic of improve method in
relation with other methods.
- To determine the levels of classes, parameters, and groups, improved method
considers the initial weight given from density of landslide in class per density of
landslides in whole study area (basic principle of BSA).
- Some classes with a little bit differences of initial weight values were categorized
in the same level. This process is not only done for class parameter but also for
parameters as well as group parameters.
- Improved method converts the minimum and maximum weighted values in BSA
into probability values which spread from 0 to 1.
- After generating the susceptibility index map, it was known that improved method
reduces the number of high susceptible pixels. It becomes enhanced when the
accuracy of the susceptibility map is quite better than BSA. Thus, by less size of
high susceptible area, the improved method still gives a similar accuracy with BSA.
- This method doesn’t consider the correlation among causal factors triggering
landslides. It appears to be the fatal weakness of the improved method, if we
compare it with multivariate statistical analysis. In multivariate analysis, all
instability factors responsible for landslides were treated together. Their
interactions support to define the future probability of landslides. It is fairly
different with other methods, which compute the frequency of landslides with
respect to each input factor separately.

6.7 Determining the classification of susceptibility maps

Landslide index maps have the values from 0 to 1, which there are so many values
extracted. The classification of those values is necessary to be done to produce more
simple susceptibility map, so dividing process was taken to generate the map into a few
susceptibility classes. Standard deviation method was chosen to classify the
susceptibility. The class breaks were determined by supported mean value.
The description of classification for rotational slides is presented in figure 6-17.
5E+05

0.219

0.628

1.000
4E+05

Mean
3E+05
Number of Pixels
2E+05

Low Susceptibility Moderate Susceptibility High Susceptibility

1E+04
0.00

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00

Value
Figure 6-17 Class breaks of rotational susceptibility map

69
Standard deviation for rational slides is equal to 0.41, with mean value equal to 0.42
presented in dot-line pattern in the graph. The range values are: low class; 0.00–0.219,
moderate class; 0.219 – 0.628 and high class; 0.628 – 1.000. According to the value of
class break, the susceptibility maps were generated and presented in figure 6-18.

Figure 6-18 Final susceptibility map for rotational slides

Based on standard deviation, susceptibility classification for translational slides was
generated which is illustrated in figure 6-19.
1E+06

0.346

0.709

1.000
8E+05

Mean
6E+05
Number of Pixels
4E+05

Low Susceptibility Moderate Susceptibility High Susceptibility

2E+05
0.00

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00

Value
Figure 6-19 Class breaks of translational slides susceptibility map

70
Standard deviation for translational slides is equal to 0.363, with mean value equal to
0.164 presented in dot-line pattern in the graph. The range values for susceptibility
classes are: low class; 0.00–0.346, moderate class; 0.346–0.709 and high class; 0.709
– 1.000. According to the value of class break, the landslide susceptibility maps were
generated.
The map represented the classes’ susceptibility of translational slides is depicted in
figure 6-20.

Figure 6-20 Final susceptibility map for translational slides

Although building the susceptibility map for mixed landslides is not recommended,
determining the classification of susceptibility map is still done. It proposes to know
the differences of spatial distribution with other types of landslide.
Based on standard deviation method, the susceptible areas for mixed landslides were
categorized into 4 (four) classes. The number of susceptibility classes for mixed
landslides is more than that for either rotational slides or translational slides. It could
happen because of the different pattern of the spatial distribution.
Standard deviation value is equal to 0.276, with mean value equal to 0.332. The range
values for susceptibility classes are: low class; 0.00–0.194, moderate class; 0.194–
0.471, high class; 0.471 – 0.747 and very high class; 0.747 - 1.000. The class breaks of
susceptibility map for mixed landslides are illustrated in figure 6-21.

71
 3E+05

0.194

0.471

0.747

1.000
2.5E+05

Mean
2E+05

Low Susceptibility
Number of Pixels
1E+05 1.5E+05

Moderate Susceptibility High Susceptibility Very High Susceptibility

5E+04
0.00

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00

Value
Figure 6-21 Class breaks of susceptibility map for mixed landslides
According to susceptibility classes resulted from standard deviation method, the
landslide susceptibility maps were generated. The reservoir area is colored differently
to easily recognize data analyzed and water body areas. The map of susceptible area for
mixed landslide is presented in figure 6-22.

Figure 6-22 Landslide susceptibility map for mixed types

The susceptibility map of mixed types shows that some high susceptibility areas look
obvious as linear features. It could appear because the weight values of road classes

72
and settlement areas surrounding the roads are higher which it influences the final
weight values.

6.8 Comparison of spatial predictions

The aim of this comparison is to generate the similarities of spatial susceptibility
distribution among three methods used. All classes of susceptibility maps resulted by
three method were crossed while the comparisons were done for each method.
The first step is to generate the class susceptibility for each landslide type in each
method. The classification is determined by using class break of the best method
(logistic regression). It must be done to uniform the number of susceptibility classes.
For example; based on standard deviation, the susceptibility map of rotational slide by
using logistic regression has 3 classes. It is different with what classified in improved
method where there is 4 susceptibility classes.
Another problem appears in the susceptibility index value of bivariate statistical
analysis. The BSA’s values are ranging from less than 0 to more than 1, while the class
breaks are distributed only for probability value (from 0 to 1). The proposed solution is
using the conversion process. All of susceptibility index values were added by absolute
minimum value, so the lowest value in BSA is equal to 0. The next step is converting
the resulted values to probability values. The resulted values were divided by the
resulted maximum value, so the highest value is equal to 1.
The next process is generating the susceptibility classes for each method by using
standard deviation value of the best method. Then the results were crossed to extract
the areas which were classified as the same class. The matrix of spatial prediction for
rotational slides is presented in the table 6-19.

Table 6-19 the matrix showing the areas classified as the same class of rotational
susceptibility (in percentage of study area)
Methods BSA Logistic regression Improved method
BSA 100.00% 41.58% 28.32%
Logistic Regression 41.58% 100.00% 18.80%
Improved method 28.32% 18.80% 100.00%
In addition of matrix above, the area classified as the same class of three methods is
equal to 02.15% of research area.

The matrix of spatial prediction for translational slides susceptibility is also generated
which is presented in the table 6-20

Table 6-20 the matrix showing the areas classified as the same class of translational
slides susceptibility (in percentage of study area)

Methods BSA Logistic regression Improved method

BSA 100.00% 36.34% 71.65%
Logistic Regression 36.34% 100.00% 43.97%
Improved method 71.65% 43.97% 100.00%
In addition of matrix above, the area classified as the same class of three methods is
equal to 28.76% of research area.

73
According to table 6-19 and table 6-20, the result of logistic regression has more
similarities of spatial distribution with improved method than with BSA. By using
assumption that the logistic regression is the best susceptibility assessment method in
the research area, the matrix shows that improved method has the more accurate result
than BSA. Combination between BSA and pair wise method in improved method
increases the accuracy of susceptibility map.
Although building susceptibility map for mixed landslides is not recommended, the
comparison of spatial prediction is perceived to be done. Different with susceptibility
map either for rotational and translational slides, There are 4 (four) susceptibility
classes in susceptibility map of mix landslides. It could happen because of well
distributed of susceptibility index values. The comparison of spatial distribution is
presented in the table 6-21 below.

Table 6-21 the matrix showing the areas classified as the same class of mix landslide
susceptibility (in percentage of study area)

Methods BSA Logistic regression Improved method

BSA 100.00% 18.54% 09.36%
Logistic Regression 18.54% 100.00% 33.09%
Improved method 09.36% 33.09% 100.00%
In addition of matrix above, the area classified as the same class of three methods is
equal to 1.43% of research area.
By analyzing three previous tables, we can assume that although prediction rates show
that the result’s accuracies of three methods are quite similar, the spatial distributions
of susceptibility classes are fairly different. It can be seen in the relatively low
percentage of the area classified as same classes. So, determining the appropriate
methods of susceptibility assessment is the critical step for defining the prone areas of
landslides.

6.9 Defining the areas prone to landslide in Wadas Lintang Sub District
Some combinations of landslide causal factors establish the susceptible area for mass
movements. There are few differences of combination causal factors between rotational
slides and translational slides. It could happen based on landslide investigations which
show that both of types have different characteristics (the levels of class parameters) of
landslide density for each factor.
For rotational slides, the areas prone to landslide are the regions covered by shifting
cultivation, shrub, mixed garden and field crop. Based on litology, Tmw formation is
the highest susceptibility area which contents of grained sandstone, breccia, and andesit
basaltic. Based on road distance, the areas with distance to road from 20 m to 80 m are
more susceptible for landslide. Slope gradient from 15 – 30 % also has the significant
influence to trigger rotational slides.
Crossing map between the class susceptibility maps and village’s boundaries map had
been done to extract the prone area administratively, and several villages become the
more susceptible area for mass movements. Table 2-2 shows the susceptibility area of
rotational slides.

74
Table 6-22 Susceptible classes of rotational slide of each village in the research area
Area of Susceptibility Class (Ha)
Village Reservoir % Total Area
High % Moderate % Low %
Somogede 475.15 63.17 58.29 7.75 217.94 28.97 0.84 0.11 752.22
Ngalian 475.50 55.01 146.95 17.00 241.89 27.99 0.00 0.00 864.34
Trimulyo 439.08 51.08 93.52 10.88 326.99 38.04 0.00 0.00 859.59
Lancar 676.16 49.76 101.95 7.50 550.98 40.55 29.67 2.18 1358.76
Gumelar 342.63 40.62 113.71 13.48 387.14 45.90 0.00 0.00 843.48
Panerusan 260.44 38.66 77.72 11.54 335.10 49.74 0.38 0.06 673.64
Besuki 468.07 38.49 98.72 8.12 649.37 53.40 0.00 0.00 1216.16
Kumejing 298.58 33.68 95.50 10.77 371.50 41.91 120.82 13.63 886.40
Kaligowong 166.04 32.17 135.36 26.22 214.76 41.61 0.01 0.00 516.17
Karang Anyar 218.09 32.16 91.14 13.44 290.60 42.85 78.40 11.56 678.23
Plunjaran 251.01 30.70 92.55 11.32 170.04 20.79 304.14 37.19 817.74
Tirip 209.10 29.01 118.20 16.40 393.53 54.59 0.00 0.00 720.83
Wadaslintang 108.09 24.50 52.78 11.96 241.69 54.78 38.67 8.76 441.23
Sumberejo 125.90 20.60 103.49 16.94 208.13 34.06 173.53 28.40 611.05
Erorejo 120.14 18.85 50.41 7.91 287.76 45.16 178.87 28.07 637.18
Kalidadap 113.57 16.45 63.76 9.23 513.19 74.32 0.00 0.00 690.52
Sumbersari 38.67 7.07 21.43 3.92 66.38 12.14 420.20 76.86 546.68
Total 4786.22 36.50 1515.48 11.56 5466.99 41.69 1345.53 10.26 13114.22

According to table 6-22, all of villages in study area have the areas with high
susceptibility to rotational slides. The ranks of prone areas are arranged depend on its
ratio between percentage of high susceptibility and village’s total area. The villages
with prone area more than 40% are Samogede (63.17%), Ngalian (55.01%), Trimulyo
(51.08%), Lancar (49.76%), and Gumelar (40.62%).

The areas prone to translational slides are quite different compared with susceptible
areas for rotational slides. In this type, the susceptible areas are covered by mixed
garden, paddy field and settlement area. Based on litology, Tmpb formation is the
highest susceptible area which contents of breccia, basalt, andesit and limestone. River
and road have a significant influence causing the mass movements where areas nearer
to either river or road have the higher susceptibility to translational slides. This pattern
also occurred for lineament distance where the areas took place from 0 – 60 m have the
higher susceptibility. Commonly, translational slides had occurred in the flat (0-3%)
and undulating areas (3-8%) which have the highest susceptibility, and it is fairly
dissimilar with the areas prone to rotational slides. Basically, translational slides can
occur on every class of slope but the classes from 0 – 8% are the most susceptible areas
in this sub district. Some reasons of these conditions are:
• Settlement areas building on flat-undulating slopes give the more weight for the
soil below. It is increasing the slip of the soil which contents of clay fraction.
• In paddy field areas (commonly take place on slope classes 0-8%), the inundating
water increases the water-table above slide surface. It reduces the soil strength and
causes the soil above slide surface becomes harmful for sliding. .
• Both of the reasons are supported with lithology conditions containing of basalt and
clay-stone materials and positive correlation with lineament distance.
Extracting the susceptibility areas of villages is done by crossing the translational slide
susceptibility and administrative maps. The extracted attribute is shown in table 6.23.

75
Table 6-23 Susceptible classes of translational slides of each village in the research
area
Area of Susceptibility Class (Ha)
Village Reservoir % Total Area
High % Moderate % Low %
Kaligowong 191.56 37.11 19.75 3.83 304.85 59.06 0.01 0.00 516.17
Tirip 257.50 35.72 19.53 2.71 443.80 61.57 0.00 0.00 720.83
Sumberejo 215.51 35.27 10.40 1.70 211.61 34.63 173.53 28.40 611.05
Wadaslintang 126.79 28.74 11.66 2.64 264.11 59.86 38.67 8.76 441.23
Plunjaran 175.60 21.47 9.20 1.13 328.80 40.21 304.14 37.19 817.74
Trimulyo 154.99 18.03 6.65 0.77 697.95 81.20 0.00 0.00 859.59
Panerusan 104.93 15.58 6.13 0.91 562.20 83.46 0.38 0.06 673.64
Karang Anyar 82.44 12.16 5.49 0.81 511.90 75.48 78.40 11.56 678.23
Ngalian 94.19 10.90 4.42 0.51 765.73 88.59 0.00 0.00 864.34
Kumejing 96.17 10.85 7.01 0.79 662.40 74.73 120.82 13.63 886.40
Kalidadap 74.74 10.82 4.79 0.69 610.99 88.48 0.00 0.00 690.52
Erorejo 61.75 9.69 2.40 0.38 394.16 61.86 178.87 28.07 637.18
Lancar 98.95 7.28 3.42 0.25 1226.72 90.28 29.67 2.18 1358.76
Somogede 47.78 6.35 0.90 0.12 702.70 93.42 0.84 0.11 752.22
Sumbersari 28.68 5.25 1.38 0.25 96.42 17.64 420.20 76.86 546.68
Gumelar 38.17 4.53 3.95 0.47 801.36 95.01 0.00 0.00 843.48
Besuki 32.16 2.64 1.70 0.14 1182.30 97.22 0.00 0.00 1216.16
Total 1881.91 14.35 118.78 0.91 9768.00 74.48 1345.53 10.26 13114.22

The villages with high susceptible area more than 20% are Kaligowong (37.11%), Tirip
(35.72%), Sumberejo (35.67%), Wadas lintang (28.74%), and Plunjaran (21.47%).

76
CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS

7.1 Conclusions
Based on the result of this research about landslide susceptibility assessment in Wadas
Lintang Sub District, several conclusions can be extracted. The detail descriptions of
each conclusion have been elaborated in previous chapters.
1. The distribution of landslide events is depicted in the landslide inventory map. The
landslide inventory had been generated by interpreting SPOT imagery as well as
reported landslide. All of tentative data had been verified by field observation
supported by interviewing local communities. The final result of landslide
distribution shows that there are 71 landslide sites which could be differed into two
types of mass movement; rotational slides and translational slides. The types of
landslide were recognized by observing the character of the mass movements and
the dates of occurrences were extracted from report of landslide occurrences
published by local authority of Wonosobo Regency. The dates of occurrences for
unreported landslide were collected by interviewing local inhabitants..
2. The probability of occurrences rainfall triggering landslides can be assumed as the
temporal probability of landslides. The values were generated by means of Gumbel
method. The result of this method has an equation Y = 0.0334X – 4.0127, R2 =
0.9811, x is rainfall, and R is correlation coefficient value which show the high
correlation between this model and rainfall data used. Yearly, landslide temporal
probability of Wadas lintang sub district during 2000 – 2008 are 10 years, 2 years,
5 years, 15 years, 1.58 years, 1.11 years, 1.07 years, 1.25 years and 1.07 years.
3. Number of events was used as a basis to estimate area and volume of landslide in
Malamud’s equations. Those formulas were used to extract the landslide
magnitude. The result shows that the magnitude of landslide in research area during
2000 – 2009 is in the range 1.848 – 2.565.
4. Based on laboratory investigation, the soil textures in landslide sites were
dominated with a high percentage of clay fraction. The plasticity index plotted in
Casagrande chart proves that the plastic and very plastic clay dominates the sites of
landslide. These characteristics supported by high rainfall events cause the soil to
become harmful for sliding.
5. The comparison among three methods proofs that the improved method is less
accurate than multivariate statistical analysis to predict the future landslides. From
the calculation of prediction rate, multivariate statistical analysis gives the best
result. The area under the curve of rational slides by using Logistic regression-
MSA is equal to 81.58%. It appears to be the highest accuracy compared with BSA
(65.37%) and improved method (53.05%). Based on prediction rate of translational
slides, the accuracy of logistic regression – MSA is also the highest one which is
equal to 86.56%. It is relatively higher than BSA (82.18%) and improved method
(83.40%).
The less accuracy of improved method is caused by several reasons. This method is
based on the density of landslide per each class parameter applied in bivariate
statistical analysis while the correlation among factors is not taken into account.
The other reason is that the converting process from weight value in BSA into
probability value (from 0 to 1) had caused the reduction of weight values. The
subjectivity in determining the level of groups, parameters and class parameter also

77
 become the influence factors which can diminish the final weights of class
parameters.
6. The prone areas of landslide in Wadas Lintang Sub District are determined by the
combination of several factors based on landslide types. For rotational slides, the
areas prone to landslide are the regions covered by shifting cultivation, shrub,
mixed garden and field crop. Based on litology, Tmw formation is the highest
susceptibility area which contains grained sandstone, breccia, and andesit basaltic.
Based on road distance, the areas with distance to road ranging from 20 m to 80 m
are more susceptible to landslide. Slope gradient from 15 – 30 % also has the
significant influence to trigger rotational slides. The most influencing factors of
rotational slides are quite different with those of translational slides. In translational
slides, the areas covered by mixed garden, paddy filed and settlement area are more
vulnerable. Tmpb formation from litology map shows the significant influence to
this mass movements, and the regions with slope gradient 0 - 8% becomes less
safety. Distance to lineament, river or road shows the tendency to influence
translational slides whereas areas nearer to lineament, road and river become more
susceptible. The combinations among all described factors of each type become
the highest susceptible for each type of landslide.
7. From the final landslide susceptibility maps, the total high susceptibility area of
rotational slides is equal to 36.50% of whole research area. The villages with ratio
more than 40%, are listed as follow: Samogede (63.17%), Ngalian (55.01%),
Trimulyo (51.08%), Lancar (49.76%), and Gumelar (40.62%). The high susceptible
location of translational slides is equal to 14.35% of entire research area where the
villages with ratio of high susceptible area more than 20% are Kaligowong
(37.11%), Tirip (35.72%), Sumberejo (35.67%), Wadas lintang (28.74%), and
Plunjaran (21.47%).

7.2 Limitations
Although this research had been conducted and gained some result, some limitations
have to be mentioned as follow:
1. The lack of satellite imagery data becomes the main problem of this research. The
available imagery is only SPOT year 2006 with 15 m spatial resolution. It can only
be used to identify the past landslide occurrences (2000-2006), and there is no
image interpretation for recent landslides (2007-2009). Because of the size of
SPOT’s spatial resolution, only the relatively big landslide sites could be
recognized. It will be more detail if we can use the higher spatial resolution such as
Quick-bird, IKONOS and small format aerial photos.
2. Because of the lack of the map, soil data is only used for determine the soil
tendency of landslide sites in the research area. The tendency is extracted by means
of laboratory investigation. It will be better if soil data is involved as a parameter in
building susceptibility map.
3. Limited data becomes the main problem for extracting magnitude of landslide, so
the author just used the simple formulas which were published by Malamud et al.
More detail data is purposed to generate the better landslide magnitude.

78
7.3 Recommendations
Based on this research, some recommendations have been suggested. Generally, the
recommendation are separated into two approaches, for future studies which adapting
this research and for mitigation plans.
1. In relation with building landslide susceptibility map, a detail remote sensing data
is urgently needed to recognize the location of landslides. SPOT imagery is useful
only for identifying the landslide with relatively large size. IKONOS and Quick-
bird imageries will helpfully support the detail distinguishing of landslides in study
area.
2. There are only 6 (six) factors used in building landslide susceptibility map. Several
factors related to influence landslide occurrences should be added into the model.
Soil factors are perceived have a big contribution to cause landslide. In this
research, soil factors are used only to know the tendency of landslide sites and it is
not used as a causal factor. Lineament density, drainage density and distance to
settlement also can be used as the causal factors. In short, more accurate analysis
can be obtained if more related factors are added.
3. The new assessment method of this research is combining bivariate statistical
analysis and pair wise comparison which has less accurate result than multivariate
statistical analysis. It will be better if multivariate can be combined with heuristic
method
4. Expanding infrastructures such as road and settlement areas should consider the
landslide influencing factors of research area. Some evidences show that cutting the
gentle slope for building settlement turn out to be the causal factor triggering
landslide.
5. Susceptibility map for rotational slides shows that many regions of study area are in
the high susceptibility. It is too difficult to make communities staying out from
these areas. Slope stabilization methods should be implemented to reduce the
possibility of landslide occurrences. Structural mitigation activities such as sub
drains, retaining wall, gabion, etc are assumed can diminish the mass movement.
Biotechnical mitigation such as planting the deep root vegetation can also be an
effective way of slope stabilization
6. In addition to structural mitigation, non structural mitigation can also reduce the
effect of mass movement. Increasing the awareness of local communities to
mitigate the mass movement is believed as the key to reduce the occurrences and
the effects of landslide.

79
REFERENCES
Abbot, P. L. (2004). Natural Disaster. New York, San Diego State University, Mc Graw Hill.

Ayalew, L. and Yamagishi, H. (2005). "The application of GIS-based logistic regression for
landslide susceptibility mapping in the Kakuda-Yahiko Mountains, Central Japan. .".
(Geomorphology) 65:: 15-31.

Ayenew, T. and Barbieri, G. (2005). "Inventory of landslides and susceptibility mapping in the
Dessie area, northern Ethiopia. .". (Eng Geol )77: 1-15.

Bakosurtanal (2005). "Peta Multi Rawan Bencana Alam Provinsi Jawa Tengah." Retrieved 10th
May, 2009, from www. Bakosurtanal.go.id

Barlow, J., Franklin, S. and Martin, Y. (2006). "High spatial resolution satellite imagery, DEM
derivates and images segmentation for the detection of mass wasting processes.".
Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing. 72(6): 687-692.

Bnpb (2008). "Data kejadian bencana tahun 2008 di Indonesia." Retrieved 10 May 2009, from
http://dibi.bnpb.go.id

Brabb, E. E. (1984). "Innovative approaches to landslide hazard and risk mapping, ." Canadian
Geotechnical Society. . I: 403-324.

Carrara, A., Cardinali, M., Guzzetti, F., Pasqui, V. and Reichenbach, P. (1991). "GIS techniques
and statistical models in evaluating landslide hazard." Journal. Earth Surface Processes and
Landform 16 (5): 427-445.

Cassale, R., Fantheci, R. and Flageollet, J. C. (1993). "Temporal occurrence and forecasting of
landslides in European community." Journal of Science Research Development final report 1. .. ..

Castellanos, E. and Van Westen, C. J. (2003). "Landslide Hazard Assessment Using The Heuristic
Models." ITC, Enschede, The Netherland. . . .

Castellanos, E. and Van Westen, C. J. (2007). "Generation of a landslide risk index map for Cuba
using spatial multi-criteria evaluation." Springer-Verlag. Landslide 4 311-325.

Cruden, D. and Varnes, D. J. (1996). Landslide Types and processes . Landslide : Investigation
and Mitigation. A. K. Turner and R. L. Schuster. Washington DC. . Special Report 247.36 - 75.

Dai, F., Lee, C., Li, J. and Xu, Z. (2001). "Assessment of landslide susceptibility on the natural
terrain of Lantau Island, Hong Kong. .". (Environmental Geolology)40: 381-391.

Ermini , L., Catani, F. and Casagli, N. (2005). "Artificial Neural Networks applied to landslide
susceptibility assessment. .". . (Geomorphology )66: 327-343.

Firdaini (2008). Land capability and landslide hazard assessment for landuse priority in Gintung
watershed, Purworejo Regency, Central Java, Indonesia. GeoInformation for Spatial Planning
and Risk Management. Jogjakarta - Enschede, Gadjah Mada - ITC. Master.

Guzzetti, F., Reichenbach, P., Cardinali, M., Galli, M. and Ardizzone, F. (2005). "Probabilistic
landslide hazard assessment at the basin scale." Elsevier. Geomorphology 72 272- 299.

80
Handy, R. L. and Spangler, M. G. (2007). Geotechnical Engineering, Soil and Foundation. .
McGraw Hill Companies.

Hosmer, D. W. and Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied Logistic regression -2nd edition. New York,
John Wiley and sons.

Lambe, W. T. and Whitman, R. V. (1951). Soil Testing for Engineers. New York, John Willey and
sons, inc.

Lee, E. M. and Jones, D. K. C., Eds. (2004). Landslide Risk Assessment. London, Thomas Telford.

Lee, S. and Choi, J. (2004). "Landslide Susceptibility mapping using GIS and Weight of Evidence
Model." International Journal. Geographical Information Science. 18(8): 789-148.

Magliulo, P., Di Lisio, A., Russo, F. and Zelano, A. (2008). "Geomorphology and landslide
susceptibility assessment using GIS and bivariate statistics: a case study in southern Italy."
Springer Science. Natural Hazards. (Natural Hazards)47: 411-435.

Malamud, B. D., Turcote, D. L., Guzzetti, F. and Reichenbach, P. (2004). "Landslide Inventories
and their statistical properties." Wiley InterScience. (Earth Surface Processes and Landforms)29:
687-711.

Malczewski, J. (1999). GIS and Multicriteria Decision Analysis. New York, John Wiley and sons,
inc.

Mallingreu, J. P. (1977). "A proposed land cover / land use classification and its use with remote
sensing data in indonesia." The Indonesian Journal of Geography. . (.)7: 5-77.

Marhaento, H. (2006). Landslide Hazard Analysis using heuristic-statisctic Method in

combination with multi temporal landslide data., a case study in Loano Sub District, Purworejo
District Central Java Indonesia. GeoInformation for Spatial Planning and Risk Management.
Jogjakarta - Enschede, Gadjah Mada - ITC. Master.

Marques, F. M. S. F. (2008). "Magnitude-frequency of sea cliff instabilities.". . (Natural Hazards

Earth System)8: 1161-1171.

Nichol, J. and Wong, M. S. (2005). "Detection and interpretation of landslides using satellite
images." Wiley InterScience. Land degradation & development. 16: 243–255.

Parodi, G. (2005). "Frequency Analysis." Guatemala, ITC - WRS. . . .

Ruff.M. and Czurda.K. (2007). "Landslide susceptibility analysis with a heuristic approach in the
Eastern Alps, Vorarlberg, Austria." Elsevier. Geomorphology. 94: 314-324.

Saaty, T. (1980). The Analytical Hierarchy Process. New York, McGraw-Hill.

Saha, A. K., Gupta, R. P., Sarkar, I., Arora, M. K. and Csaplovics, E. (2005). "An approach for
GIS-based statistical landslide susceptibility zonation—with a case study in the Himalayas."
Springer-Verlag.

Skidmore, A., Ed. (2002). Environmental Modeling with GIs and Remote Sensing. London and
New York, Taylor and Francis.

81
Soeters, R. and Van Westen, C. J. (1996). "Slope instability recognition, analysis and zonation.
In: Turner AK, Schuster RL (eds) Landslides, investigation and mitigation. Transportation
Research Board, National Research Council, Special Report 247,National Academy
Press,Washington,USA, (129-177).". . . .

Spiker, E. C. and Gori P.L. (2000). National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy-A Framework
for Loss Reduction, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-450, . In Committee on the
Review of the National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy, National Research Council, 2004,
Partnerships for Reducing Landslide Risk: Assessment of the National Landslide Hazards
Mitigation Strategy, . Washington, D.C.: 49.

Stark, C. P. and Hovius, N. (2001). "The characterization of landslide size distributions.". .

(Geophys. Res. Lett)28(6): 1091-1094.

Suzen, M. L. and Doyuran (2004). "A comparison of the GIS based landslide susceptibility
assessment methods: multivariate versus bivariate." Springer-Verlag. Environmental Geology. 45:
665–679.

Van Westen, C. J. (1993). "Application of Geographic Information System to landslide Hazard

Zonation.". . (Earth Resources Survey, Technical University of Delft). .

Van Westen, C. J. (1994). "GIS in landslide hazard zonation: a review, with examples from the
Andes of Colombia. In Mountain environment & Geographic Information System / edited by Price
M.F. and Heywood D.I., 1994.".. .. .. ..

Van Westen, C. J. (1994a). "Application of Geographic Information System to Deterministic

Landslide Hazard Zonation. In Boletin de Vias, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede
Manizales: revista de Vias transportes Geotecnia, 21 (1994) 79.". . . .

Van Westen, C. J., Rengers , N. and Soeters, R. (2003). "Use of geomorphological information in
indirect landslide susceptibility assessment. .". (Nat Hazards )30:: 399-413.

Van Westen, C. J., Van Ash, T. W. J. and Soetoers, R. (2005). "Landslide hazard and risk
zonation-why is it still so difficult ?". Bull Eng Geol Env 65: 167-184.

Varnes, D. J. (1984). "Landslide Hazard Zonation; A Review of Principles and Practice."

UNESCO Press. . . 63.

Voskuil, R. P. G. A. (2008). Landslides types, causes and identification. E. ITC, ITC, Enschede.

Wuryanta, A., Sukresno and Sunaryo (2004). "Identifikasi Tanah Longsor dan upaya
penanggulangannya, study kasus di Kulon Progo, Purworejo dan Kebumen." IBB Surakarta.
Prosiding Wkspose, BP2TPDAS. (.). .

Yin, K. J. and Yan, T. Z. (1988). Statistical prediction model for slope instability of
metamorphosed rocks., . Proceedings of the 5th international symposium on landslides,
Lausanne, Switzerland.

Zhou, C., Lan H., Lee, C. F., Wang, S. and Wu Faquan (2003). "Rainfall induced landslide
stability analysis in response to transient pore pressure, a case study of natural terrain landslide
in Hongkong, ." Journal of Science in China, . Technological Sciences. 23, : ..

82
APPENDICES

83
 Appendix 1 Attribute of landslide inventory map

Num Villages Sub Villages Soil Source Types X Y Years Area

1 Besuki Sikapat Code2 Reported Rotational 373061 9167290 2003 (Ha)
0.148
2 Besuki Sipait 4 Reported Rotational 372574 9164828 2005 0.183
3 Besuki Sipait 4c Unreported Rotational 373232 9164938 2005 0.042
4 Besuki Sipait 4d Unreported Rotational 372431 9164824 2005 5.082
5 Erorejo Erorejo 5 Reported Translational 367531 9162334 2009 1.148
6 Erorejo Erorejo 6 Reported Translational 367100 9162628 2009 0.144
7 Gumelar Gumelar Interpretation Rotational 374201 9168788 2003 8.468
8 Gumelar Keagungan 7 Reported Translational 372871 9170266 2007 5.587
9 Kalidadap Kalidadap LU_32 Interpretation Rotational 366538 9170915 2003 2.296
10 Kalidadap Kalidadap Interpretation Rotational 365487 9169575 2003 5.500
11 Kalidadap Kalidadap Interpretation Rotational 366402 9169631 2003 3.507
12 Kalidadap Kalidadap Interpretation Rotational 365194 9169510 2004 4.918
13 Kalidadap Kalidadap 10 Reported Translational 365790 9171748 2004 0.089
14 Kalidadap Sodong 11 Reported Translational 365941 9170814 2008 0.136
15 Kalidadap Sodong 11b Unreported Rotational 365805 9170690 2008 0.045
16 Kalidadap Waturip 12 Reported Translational 364903 9170568 2009 0.069
17 Kalidadap Kalidadap 10b Unreported Translational 366385 9171884 2009 0.555
18 Kalidadap Kalidadap 10c Unreported Translational 365665 9171532 2009 1.165
19 Kalidadap Waturip 12b Unreported Rotational 364630 9170466 2009 0.281
20 Kaligowong Kaligowong 110 Interpretation Rotational 364416 9159793 2003 5.520
21 Kaligowong Silempet 15 Reported Translational 363821 9161194 2006 0.432
22 Kaligowong Semawung 14 Reported Translational 363096 9161432 2007 0.136
23 K. Anyar Andong Lwk 16c Unreported Rotational 369671 9161794 2003 0.074
24 K. Anyar Ngemplak 16 Reported Rotational 367501 9162672 2004 0.068
25 K. Anyar Andong Lwk 16b Unreported Rotational 369837 9162120 2008 0.083
26 Kumejing Kumejing LU_25 Interpretation Rotational 362793 9163904 2003 4.899
27 Lancar Lancar LU_34 Interpretation Rotational 361466 9166859 2003 7.960
28 Lancar Lancar Interpretation Rotational 362896 9167380 2003 3.321
29 Lancar Kalianget 37 Reported Rotational 365454 9165992 2008 0.044
30 Ngalian Larangan 22b Unreported Rotational 370308 9170406 2000 0.326
31 Ngalian Larangan 22c Unreported Rotational 370638 9170364 2000 0.071
32 Ngalian Larangan 22d Unreported Rotational 370678 9170328 2000 0.041
33 Ngalian Ngalian Interpretation Rotational 367417 9169683 2004 6.514
34 Ngalian Larangan 22 Reported Rotational 370480 9170890 2004 1.504
35 Ngalian Blawong 18 Reported Rotational 369663 9170260 2004 0.085
36 Ngalian Gedongan 19 Reported Translational 369907 9169452 2004 0.027
37 Ngalian Lemiring 20 Reported Rotational 370034 9168592 2004 0.042
38 Ngalian Larangan 22e Unreported Rotational 370539 9170166 2004 0.075
39 Ngalian Lemiring 20b Unreported Rotational 370152 9169178 2004 0.111
40 Ngalian Lemiring 20c Unreported Rotational 369218 9168326 2004 0.457
41 Ngalian Pukiran 24 Reported Rotational 368657 9169826 2005 0.054
42 Ngalian Lemiring 23 Reported Rotational 369917 9168310 2007 0.061
43 Panerusan Penerusan 30 Reported Rotational 370129 9613906 2003 0.046
44 Panerusan Penerusan 31 Reported Rotational 370518 9163680 2003 0.164

84
Num Villages Sub Villages Soil Source Types X Y Years Area
45 Panerusan Panerusan Code Interpretation Rotational 372310 9163122 2004 (Ha)
2.851
46 Panerusan Penerusan 27 Reported Translational 370811 9164572 2004 0.093
47 Panerusan Penerusan 32 Reported Rotational 370901 9162880 2004 0.403
48 Panerusan Penerusan 32a Unreported Rotational 369835 9163840 2004 0.031
49 Panerusan Penerusan 28 Reported Rotational 370508 9164080 2006 0.529
50 Panerusan Penerusan 29b Unreported Translational 370121 9164212 2006 0.267
51 Panerusan Penerusan 29 Reported Rotational 370493 9164522 2008 0.370
52 Panerusan SMA 1 57 Reported Rotational 369870 9163610 2008 0.045
53 Panerusan Penerusan 30a Unreported Rotational 370368 9613908 2008 0.278
54 Panerusan Unknow 32c Unreported Rotational 369754 9164160 2008 0.053
55 Plunjaran Siobor 34 Reported Translational 367732 9165044 2004 0.053
56 Plunjaran Karang Rejo 33 Reported Translational 366521 9165570 2007 0.114
57 Somogede Somogede Interpretation Rotational 365825 9169215 2003 1.598
58 Somogede Kaburitan 36 Reported Rotational 365784 9168280 2007 0.184
59 Sumberejo Bersole 38 Reported Rotational 366885 9159550 2003 0.082
60 Sumberejo Medasih 40 Reported Rotational 367934 9159236 2006 0.416
61 Tirip Limbangan 44b Unreported Rotational 371032 9168322 2000 1.010
62 Tirip Tirip 26 Reported Translational 371646 9165462 2001 0.038
63 Tirip Limbangan 44 Reported Rotational 370992 9168646 2002 0.109
64 Tirip Kedawung 43 Reported Translational 371412 9165758 2006 1.091
65 Tirip Limbangan 45 Reported Translational 370865 9167922 2006 1.285
66 Tirip Limbangan 45b Unreported Rotational 370452 9167512 2009 0.107
67 Trimulyo Gawaran 48 Reported Translational 368978 9166692 2004 0.086
68 Trimulyo Kalisat 52 Reported Rotational 367137 9166094 2008 0.053
69 Wadaslintang Cangkring 54 Reported Translational 368988 9165032 2006 0.223
70 Wadaslintang Wadaslintang 32b Unreported Rotational 369401 9164306 2007 0.062
71 Wadaslintang Dadap Gede 56 Reported Rotational 369658 9165384 2008 0.577

85
Appendix 2 Laboratory investigation

UNIVERSITAS GADJAH MADA

FAKULTAS PERTANIAN
JURUSAN ILMU TANAH
Bulaksumur. Yogyakarta. 55581 Telp. 0274-548814

Hasil Analisis Tanah Order Sdr. Bonaventura

Sebanyak 60 Contoh

Attenberg Values Soil Fraction

Soil Moisture
Number Sample Code LL PL Clay Silt Sand
Contents
% % % % %
1 1 10,52 58.16 44.83 26.1 35.62 38.28
2 2 9,38 66.43 50.36 38.07 36.24 25.7
3 4 21,75 64.09 54 38.99 38.79 22.22
4 5 10,21 64.31 50.97 36.2 29.54 34.26
5 6 25,32 63.14 49.23 71.57 25.78 2.65
6 12 16,01 49.84 36.67 42.74 38.07 19.19
7 14 10,18 69.54 18.59 54.96 34.41 10.63
8 15 18,97 46.01 44.29 31.05 39.59 29.35
9 16 32,36 80.79 87.61 12.13 0.26
10 18 8,88 71.68 56.85 62.9 33.93 3.17
11 20 11,81 61.94 51.14 65.93 20.1 13.97
12 22 15,09 68.71 65.8 26.69 7.51
13 23 31,75 76.46 62.85 59.36 22.45 18.19
14 24 8,39 67.64 51.82 45.47 31.75 22.78
15 25 26,64 76.21 53.86 40.99 52.03 6.98
16 26 27,04 73.04 56.96 44.41 53.5 2.09
17 27 16,66 70.09 50.55 40.17 47.75 12.08
18 28 29,36 76.54 55.94 45.24 53.43 1.32
19 29 11,77 78.06 51.87 60.01 33.19 6.8
20 30 21,32 61 48.49 47.67 45.11 7.22
21 31 10,02 56.54 48.71 55.19 31.67 13.14
22 32 26,22 73.84 57.75 51.63 46.43 1.95
23 33 13,12 53.62 40.4 28.98 32.06 38.96
24 34 25,08 72.84 53.43 70.32 11.76 17.92
25 36 9,49 56.75 44.78 26.11 37.09 36.8
26 37 27,25 70.69 50.12 67.53 25.17 7.3
27 38 17,97 70.55 49.26 61.88 28.33 9.8

28 40 16,50 64.85 48.43 86.82 5.71 7.47

86
 Attenberg Values Soil Fraction
Soil Moisture
Number Sample Code LL PL Clay Silt Sand
Contents
% % % % %
29 43 9,78 50.23 48.03 55.39 30.31 14.3
30 44 24,06 88.34 50.47 63.36 19.36 17.28
31 48 29,83 80.28 55.88 69.61 26.85 3.54
32 52 22,89 62.04 47.28 45.32 36.15 18.53
33 54 7,23 49.63 39.53 34.23 33.89 31.88
34 56 21,66 59.9 44.86 61.62 30.05 8.33
35 110 11,24 45.1 33.19 9.82 20.86 69.32
36 10B 5,92 52.09 39.37 41.81 31.99 26.2
37 10C 6,40 50.77 32.46 62.39 17.36 20.25
38 11B 27,99 66.85 49.94 65.87 29.76 4.37
39 16B 15,48 52.82 42.37 34.61 42.14 23.25
40 16C 9,93 58.06 46.47 13.2 22.69 64.11
41 20B 18,68 55.39 44.53 64.33 22.59 13.08
42 20C 20,15 64.83 48.49 59.01 26.19 14.8
43 22B 12,04 59.53 56.38 66.51 21.86 11.63
44 29B 13,06 65.01 53.92 62.57 26.06 11.37
45 30B 24,60 69.66 50 55.56 32.54 11.9
46 32A 16,63 79.28 59.34 55.95 34.16 9.89
47 32C 18,81 71.12 56.36 55.5 31.37 13.13
48 44B 12,97 67.87 52.68 55.73 26.63 17.64
49 45B 31,83 72.33 53.93 61.57 14.93 23.49
50 4C 24,26 49.91 48.08 48.06 40.34 11.6
51 6B 32,43 61.23 56.43 56.49 30.02 13.49
52 7\8 32,55 72.65 55.11 65.17 17.12 17.71
53 D1 11,77 75.89 56.29 45.06 33.62 21.32
54 H1 25,77 81.48 64.26 43.98 43.05 12.98
55 LU24 23,24 58.34 48.1 24.3 32.69 43.01
56 LU25 15,31 97.49 69.17 66.25 27.17 6.59
57 LU26 19,47 64.55 48.54 40.35 35.33 24.32
58 LU32 23,56 72.85 56.7 56.76 38.27 4.97
59 LU34 26,19 67.85 50.14 38.32 45.83 15.85
60 LU35 26,11 60.88 46.28 63.44 16.21 20.35

Mengetahui. Yogyakarta. 9 November 2009

Ketua Jurusan Ilmu Tanah. Ketua Komisi Pengabdian Masyarakat.

DTO DTO

Dr.Ir. Abdul Syukur. SU. Dr.Ir. Benito H. Purwanto. M.Sc.

87
Appendix 3 Aerial photo map

88
Appendix 4 SPOT Image Map

89
Appendix 5 Elevation Map

90
Appendix 6 Landform Map

91
Appendix 7 Landuse Map

92
Appendix 8 Lithology Map

93
Appendix 9 Road Distance map

94
Appendix 10 River Distance map

95
Appendix 11 Lineament Distance map

96
Appendix 12 Slope Gradient Map

97
Appendix 13 Landslide inventory map

98
Appendix 14 Calculation of weight value by means of pair-wise comparison method (AHP)

Manual Calculation of Pair Wise Comparison (based on AHP) for Rotational Slides

Human Geology Hydro Geomorf Multiply n Eigenvector NewVec λmax mean CI CR

Human 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 root
1.32 0.30 1.20 4.00 λmax 4 0 0
Geology 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 1.32 0.30 1.20 4.00
Hydro 0.33 0.33 1.00 0.33 0.04 0.44 0.10 0.40 4.00
Geomorf 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 1.32 0.30 1.20 4.00
4.39 1.00 16.00

Human Induced
LU Road Multiply n Eigenvector NewVec λmax mean CI CR
LU 1.00 3.00 3.00 root
1.73 0.75 1.50 2.00 λmax 2 0 0
Road 0.33 1.00 0.33 0.58 0.25 0.50 2.00
2.31 1.00 4.00

Geology
Lito Linea Multiply n Eigenvector NewVec λmax mean CI CR
Lito 1.00 3.00 3.00 root
1.73 0.75 1.50 2.00 λmax 2 0 0
Linea 0.33 1.00 0.33 0.58 0.25 0.50 2.00
2.31 1.00 4.00

99
Land Use
BL FC Forest MG PF River Settle SC Shrub Multiply n root Eigen NewVec N. EV λmax mean CI CR
BL 1.000 3.000 7.000 5.000 7.000 9.000 5.000 3.000 1.000 99225.000 3.591 vector
0.267 2.516 1.000 9.408 λmax
9.386 0.048 0.070
FC 0.333 1.000 5.000 3.000 5.000 7.000 3.000 1.000 0.333 175.000 1.775 0.132 1.229 0.489 9.298
Forest 0.143 0.200 1.000 0.333 1.000 3.000 0.333 0.200 0.143 0.000 0.402 0.030 0.279 0.111 9.339
MG 0.200 0.333 3.000 1.000 3.000 5.000 1.000 0.333 0.200 0.200 0.836 0.062 0.580 0.231 9.319
PF 0.143 0.200 1.000 0.333 1.000 3.000 0.333 0.200 0.143 0.000 0.402 0.030 0.279 0.111 9.339
River 0.111 0.143 0.333 0.200 0.333 1.000 0.200 0.143 0.111 0.000 0.218 0.016 0.158 0.063 9.743
Settle 0.200 0.333 3.000 1.000 3.000 5.000 1.000 0.333 0.200 0.200 0.836 0.062 0.580 0.231 9.319
SC 0.333 1.000 5.000 3.000 5.000 7.000 3.000 1.000 0.333 175.000 1.775 0.132 1.229 0.489 9.298
Shrub 1.000 3.000 7.000 5.000 7.000 9.000 5.000 3.000 1.000 99225.000 3.591 0.267 2.516 1.000 9.408
13.426 1.000 84.472

Litology
Km Tmp Tmpb Tmw Tmwt Tompt Tpp Multiply n root Eigen NewVec N. EV λmax mean CI CR
Km 1.000 0.333 0.200 0.143 1.000 1.000 0.333 0.003 0.440 vector
0.044 0.309 0.099 7.096 λmax
7.165 0.027 0.036
Tmp 3.000 1.000 0.333 0.200 3.000 3.000 1.000 1.800 1.088 0.108 0.769 0.247 7.137
Tmpb 5.000 3.000 1.000 0.333 5.000 5.000 3.000 375.000 2.332 0.231 1.672 0.538 7.236
Tmw 7.000 5.000 3.000 1.000 7.000 7.000 5.000 25725.000 4.266 0.423 3.108 1.000 7.353
Tmwt 1.000 0.333 0.200 0.143 1.000 1.000 0.333 0.003 0.440 0.044 0.309 0.099 7.096
Tompt 1.000 0.333 0.200 0.143 1.000 1.000 0.333 0.003 0.440 0.044 0.309 0.099 7.096
Tpp 3.000 1.000 0.333 0.200 3.000 3.000 1.000 1.800 1.088 0.108 0.769 0.247 7.137
10.092 1.000 50.153
Road
00-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-100 >100 Multiply n root Eigen NewVec N. EV λmax mean CI CR
00-20 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 3.000 3.000 1.201 vector
0.188 1.125 1.000 6.000 λmax
6.000 0.000 0.000
20-40 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 3.000 3.000 1.201 0.188 1.125 1.000 6.000
40-60 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 3.000 3.000 1.201 0.188 1.125 1.000 6.000
60-80 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 3.000 3.000 1.201 0.188 1.125 1.000 6.000
80-100 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 3.000 3.000 1.201 0.188 1.125 1.000 6.000
>100 0.333 0.333 0.333 0.333 0.333 1.000 0.004 0.400 0.063 0.375 0.333 6.000
6.405 1.000 36.000

100
Lineament
00-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-100 >100 Multiply n root Eigen NewVec N. EV λmax mean CI CR N Default
00-20 1.000 0.333 0.333 0.200 0.200 1.000 0.004 0.405 vector
0.052 0.318 0.164 6.077 λmax
6.077 0.015 0.019 1 Value 0

20-40 3.000 1.000 1.000 0.333 0.333 3.000 1.000 1.000 0.129 0.785 0.405 6.077 2 0
40-60 3.000 1.000 1.000 0.333 0.333 3.000 1.000 1.000 0.129 0.785 0.405 6.077 3 0.58
60-80 5.000 3.000 3.000 1.000 1.000 5.000 225.000 2.466 0.318 1.935 1.000 6.077 4 0.9
80-100 5.000 3.000 3.000 1.000 1.000 5.000 225.000 2.466 0.318 1.935 1.000 6.077 5 1.12
>100 1.000 0.333 0.333 0.200 0.200 1.000 0.004 0.405 0.052 0.318 0.164 6.077 6 1.24
7.743 1.000 36.462 7 1.32
8 1.41
River 9 1.45
00-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-100 >100 Multiply n root Eigen NewVec N. EV λmax mean CI CR 10 1.49
00-20 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.333 0.333 0.200 0.022 0.530 vector
0.069 0.415 0.161 6.030 λmax
6.058 0.012 0.014 11 1.51
20-40 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.333 0.333 0.200 0.022 0.530 0.069 0.415 0.161 6.030 12 1.48
40-60 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.333 0.333 0.200 0.022 0.530 0.069 0.415 0.161 6.030 13 1.56
60-80 3.000 3.000 3.000 1.000 1.000 0.333 9.000 1.442 0.187 1.134 0.440 6.054 14 1.57
80-100 3.000 3.000 3.000 1.000 1.000 0.333 9.000 1.442 0.187 1.134 0.440 6.054 15 1.59
>100 5.000 5.000 5.000 3.000 3.000 1.000 1125.000 3.225 0.419 2.576 1.000 6.149
7.700 1.000 36.347

Slope
0-3 3-8 8-15 15-30 30-45 45-65 >65 Multiply n root Eigen NewVec N. EV λmax mean CI CR
0-3 1.000 0.333 0.333 0.200 0.143 0.143 0.143 0.000 0.252 vector
0.026 0.191 0.107 7.339 λmax
7.165 0.027 0.036
3-8 3.000 1.000 1.000 0.333 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.008 0.502 0.052 0.371 0.207 7.149
8-15 3.000 1.000 1.000 0.333 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.008 0.502 0.052 0.371 0.207 7.149
15-30 5.000 3.000 3.000 1.000 0.333 0.333 0.333 1.667 1.076 0.111 0.806 0.449 7.245
30-45 7.000 5.000 5.000 3.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 525.000 2.447 0.253 1.794 1.000 7.091
45-65 7.000 5.000 5.000 3.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 525.000 2.447 0.253 1.794 1.000 7.091
>65 7.000 5.000 5.000 3.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 525.000 2.447 0.253 1.794 1.000 7.091
9.672 1.000 50.153

101
Manual Calculation of Pair Wise Comparison (based on AHP) for translational slides

Human Geology Hydro Geomorf Multiply n Eigenvector NewVec λmax mean CI CR

Human 1.00 1.00 5.00 3.00 15.00 root
1.97 0.39 1.57 4.02 λmax
4.0433814 0.0144605 0.01446
Geology 1.00 1.00 5.00 3.00 15.00 1.97 0.39 1.57 4.02
Hydro 0.20 0.20 1.00 0.33 0.01 0.34 0.07 0.27 4.06
Geomorf 0.33 0.33 3.00 1.00 0.33 0.76 0.15 0.61 4.07
5.04 1.00 16.17

Human Induced
LU Road Multiply n Eigenvector NewVec λmax mean CI CR
LU 1.00 3.00 3.00 root
1.73 0.75 1.50 2.00 λmax 2 0 0
Road 0.33 1.00 0.33 0.58 0.25 0.50 2.00
2.31 1.00 4.00

Geology
Lito Linea Multiply n Eigenvector NewVec λmax mean CI CR
Lito 1.00 3.00 3.00 root
1.73 0.75 1.50 2.00 λmax 2 0 0
Linea 0.33 1.00 0.33 0.58 0.25 0.50 2.00
2.31 1.00 4.00

102
Land Use
Class BL FC Forest MG PF River Settle SC Shrub Multiply n root Eigen NewVec N.EV λmax mean CI CR
BL 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.333 0.200 1.000 0.143 1.000 1.000 0.010 0.596 vector
0.046 0.414 0.116 9.026 λmax
9.118 0.015 0.021
FC 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.333 0.200 1.000 0.143 1.000 1.000 0.010 0.596 0.046 0.414 0.116 9.026
Forest 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.333 0.200 1.000 0.143 1.000 1.000 0.010 0.596 0.046 0.414 0.116 9.026
MG 3.000 3.000 3.000 1.000 0.333 3.000 0.200 3.000 3.000 48.600 1.540 0.119 1.096 0.306 9.246
PF 5.000 5.000 5.000 3.000 1.000 5.000 0.333 5.000 5.000 15625.000 2.924 0.225 2.085 0.583 9.261
River 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.333 0.200 1.000 0.143 1.000 1.000 0.010 0.596 0.046 0.414 0.116 9.026
Settle 7.000 7.000 7.000 5.000 3.000 7.000 1.000 7.000 7.000 1764735.000 4.944 0.381 3.578 1.000 9.397
SC 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.333 0.200 1.000 0.143 1.000 1.000 0.010 0.596 0.046 0.414 0.116 9.026
Shrub 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.333 0.200 1.000 0.143 1.000 1.000 0.010 0.596 0.046 0.414 0.116 9.026
12.985 1.000 82.060

Litology
Class Km Tmp Tmpb Tmw Tmwt Tompt Tpp Multiply n root Eigen NewVec N.EV λmax mean CI CR
Km 1.000 0.333 0.200 1.000 1.000 0.333 1.000 0.022 0.581 vector
0.065 0.455 0.165 7.022 λmax
7.057 0.009 0.012
Tmp 3.000 1.000 0.333 3.000 3.000 1.000 3.000 27.000 1.601 0.179 1.263 0.459 7.065
Tmpb 5.000 3.000 1.000 5.000 5.000 3.000 5.000 5625.000 3.433 0.383 2.752 1.000 7.180
Tmw 1.000 0.333 0.200 1.000 1.000 0.333 1.000 0.022 0.581 0.065 0.455 0.165 7.022
Tmwt 1.000 0.333 0.200 1.000 1.000 0.333 1.000 0.022 0.581 0.065 0.455 0.165 7.022
Tompt 3.000 1.000 0.333 3.000 3.000 1.000 3.000 27.000 1.601 0.179 1.263 0.459 7.065
Tpp 1.000 0.333 0.200 1.000 1.000 0.333 1.000 0.022 0.581 0.065 0.455 0.165 7.022
8.958 1.000 49.397
Road
Class Road1 Road2 Road3 Road4 Road5 Road6 Multiply n root Eigen NewVec N.EV λmax mean CI CR
00-20 1.000 0.333 0.333 0.333 3.000 5.000 0.556 0.907 vector
0.112 0.693 0.427 6.203 λmax
6.137 0.027 0.034
20-40 3.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 5.000 7.000 105.000 2.172 0.268 1.622 1.000 6.057
40-60 3.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 5.000 7.000 105.000 2.172 0.268 1.622 1.000 6.057
60-80 3.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 5.000 7.000 105.000 2.172 0.268 1.622 1.000 6.057
80-100 0.333 0.200 0.200 0.200 1.000 3.000 0.008 0.447 0.055 0.342 0.211 6.204
>100 0.200 0.143 0.143 0.143 0.333 1.000 0.000 0.241 0.030 0.185 0.114 6.241
8.111 1.000 36.820

103
Lineament
Class 00-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-100 >100 Multiply n root Eigen NewVec N.EV λmax mean CI CR N Default
00-20 1.000 3.000 3.000 5.000 5.000 7.000 1575.000 3.411 vector
0.420 2.618 1.000 6.231 λmax
6.143 0.029 0.035 1 Value 0

20-40 0.333 1.000 1.000 3.000 3.000 5.000 15.000 1.570 0.193 1.178 0.450 6.090 2 0
40-60 0.333 1.000 1.000 3.000 3.000 5.000 15.000 1.570 0.193 1.178 0.450 6.090 3 0.58
60-80 0.200 0.333 0.333 1.000 1.000 3.000 0.067 0.637 0.078 0.478 0.183 6.097 4 0.9
80-100 0.200 0.333 0.333 1.000 1.000 3.000 0.067 0.637 0.078 0.478 0.183 6.097 5 1.12
>100 0.143 0.200 0.200 0.333 0.333 1.000 0.001 0.293 0.036 0.226 0.086 6.253 6 1.24
8.119 1.000 36.858 7 1.32
8 1.41
River 9 1.45
Class 00-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-100 >100 Multiply n root Eigen NewVec N.EV λmax mean CI CR 10 1.49
00-20 1.000 0.333 0.200 0.333 0.333 0.200 0.001 0.338 vector
0.046 0.282 0.151 6.149 λmax
6.058 0.012 0.014 11 1.51
20-40 3.000 1.000 0.333 1.000 1.000 0.333 0.333 0.833 0.113 0.682 0.366 6.030 12 1.48
40-60 5.000 3.000 1.000 3.000 3.000 1.000 135.000 2.265 0.308 1.862 1.000 6.054 13 1.56
60-80 3.000 1.000 0.333 1.000 1.000 0.333 0.333 0.833 0.113 0.682 0.366 6.030 14 1.57
80-100 3.000 1.000 0.333 1.000 1.000 0.333 0.333 0.833 0.113 0.682 0.366 6.030 15 1.59
>100 5.000 3.000 1.000 3.000 3.000 1.000 135.000 2.265 0.308 1.862 1.000 6.054
7.366 1.000 36.347

Slope
Class 0-3 3-8 8-15 15-30 30-45 45-65 >65 Multiply n root Eigen NewVec N.EV λmax mean CI CR
0-3 1.000 1.000 1.000 3.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 375.000 2.332 vector
0.251 1.770 1.000 7.045 λmax
7.064 0.011 0.014
3-8 1.000 1.000 1.000 3.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 375.000 2.332 0.251 1.770 1.000 7.045
8-15 1.000 1.000 1.000 3.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 375.000 2.332 0.251 1.770 1.000 7.045
15-30 0.333 0.333 0.333 1.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 1.000 1.000 0.108 0.775 0.438 7.191
30-45 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.333 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.003 0.429 0.046 0.325 0.184 7.040
45-65 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.333 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.003 0.429 0.046 0.325 0.184 7.040
>65 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.333 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.003 0.429 0.046 0.325 0.184 7.040
9.282 1.000 49.446

104
Appendix 15 Landslide Susceptibility Maps for Rotational Slides

105
Appendix 16 Landslide Susceptibility Maps for translational slides

106