Geomorphology 389 (2021) 107803

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geomorphology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geomorph

Dynamic characterization of a slow-moving landslide system – Assessing the

challenges of small process scales utilizing multi-temporal TLS data
M.J. Stumvoll a,⁎, E.M. Schmaltz b, T. Glade a
a
ENGAGE – Geomorphological Systems and Risk Research, Faculty of Earth Sciences, Geography and Astronomy, University of Vienna, Universitätsstraße 7, 1010 Vienna, Austria
b
Federal Agency for Water Management, Institute for Land and Water Management Research, Pollnbergstraße 1, 3252 Petzenkirchen, Austria

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

Article history: Slow-moving landslides play an important role in both theoretical slope evolution and practical landslide
Received 28 July 2020 hazard and risk research. Related dynamics therefore are of major interest, including the investigation of
Received in revised form 15 May 2021 surficial changes. Yet, very slow process rates impede their quantitative analysis over short time periods,
Accepted 24 May 2021
the actual change not uncommonly lying within the error margins of the respective methodological ap-
Available online 28 May 2021
proaches. This study aims in investigating the surface dynamics of a small, retrogressive, slow-moving
Keywords:
(cm-dm/a) earth slide-earth flow system in the Flysch Zone of Lower Austria via multi-temporal, high-
Slow moving landslide resolution terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) data. 7 epochs covering a 10 years' observation period were uti-
Morphological mapping lized to apply both detailed morphological mapping and the computation of digital elevation models
Terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) (DEMs) of difference (DoDs). Data was analysed to 1) determine and delineate (recently active) process
Flysch Zone areas, 2) to describe their characteristics, rates and tendencies comparatively via mapping and DoDs - but
Lower Austria also 3) to assess the applicability of TLS regarding vegetation cover and to 4) evaluate the added value of
this comparative approach when it comes to interpreting landslide dynamics on such detailed scale. Two
small Subsystems of the respective landslide, I (~3300 m2) and II (2100 m2), exhibit the highest activity
within the observation period. Results show 1) areas of changes in surface height correspond with changes
in the distribution and characterization of morphological landslide features, indicating landslide activity.
2) Both Subsystems exhibit different results regarding the magnitude of changes in surface height (DoDs)
and feature assembly (mapping), but show similarity regarding the frequency of both changes in surface
height and feature evolution, identifying them as rotational and translational process types interrelated
with the main landslide system. 3) Findings suggest TLS based DoD computations to be able to detect real
surface change on detailed scale (0.05 m raster, ±0.05 error range, 0.05 m steps) in areas of optimum con-
ditions regarding vegetation cover, but also that 4) real surface change could be assessed in areas of less op-
timum conditions (±020 m error range, 0.20 m steps) where real surface change was overshadowed by
changes in vegetation cover via comparatively analysing both DoD and mapping results.
© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction Dunnicliff, 1995; Jaboyedoff et al., 2013; Whiteley et al., 2019 to

Slow moving landslides on soil mantled slopes depict an impor-
tant component in hillslope development – a role only seldom rec-
ognized (Crozier, 2010). They, too, can play a major role when it
comes to harming living beings, habitats and human constructions
(Glade et al., 2005). Major interest lies in understanding both re-
cent surficial and sub-surface dynamics, a task which is tackled
with a variety of different techniques (Corominas et al., 2014;
⁎ Corresponding author at: ENGAGE – Geomorphological Systems and Risk Research,
Faculty of Earth Sciences, Geography and Astronomy, University of Vienna,
Universitätsstraße 7, 1010 Vienna, Austria.
E-mail address: margherita.stumvoll@univie.ac.at (M.J. Stumvoll).
name a few only), as well as their long-term behaviour. Sub-
surface investigations are expensive in both material and mainte-
nance and only seldomly cover more than a few years (see e.g.
Bednarczyk, 2018), whereas the investigation of surficial changes
is becoming more feasible due to an increasing availability of
(free) data and the respective hardware and software (Kniess
et al., 2014). Yet, regarding slow processes of only a few
centimetres to decimetres a year, the quantitative analysis of surfi-
cial changes and their interpretation still depicts a large variety of
challenges. Device, time of acquisition, initial data resolution,
multi-temporal data registration, data errors and gaps due to
landcover (changes) and anthropogenic overprinting as well as
the temporal scale of observation determine the accuracy of the

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2021.107803
0169-555X/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
M.J. Stumvoll, E.M. Schmaltz and T. Glade
data and interpretation, respectively. The slower the process, the
more accurate the data needs to be and, respectively or the longer
the observation period.
In the last years, terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) became a well-
established technique for the observation of land surface changes,
especially regarding mass wasting processes (Abellan et al., 2016;
Jaboyedoff et al., 2012; Telling et al., 2017). In landslide monitoring,
TLS is applied to generate high-resolution digital elevation models
(DEMs) and DEMs of difference (DoDs) by multi-temporal data (see e.g.
Mukupa et al., 2017; Travelletti et al., 2014). High spatio-temporal resolu-
tions entail a sophisticated procedure of data processing. However, pro-
cess rates are hard to quantify by multiple TLS observations for the case
of slow-moving landslides. Due to a large variety of uncertainties in data
acquisition and post-processing, actual change not uncommonly lies
within the error margins of the respective methodological approaches.
The various challenges that come with the acquisition of TLS point clouds,
their spatial registration and filtering (see e.g. Barbarella et al., 2017;
Schürch et al., 2011), cause the generation of related DoDs to be complex
(Corsini et al., 2013) and the quantification of process rates to be limited
to no less than a few centimetres per observation period (Corsini et al.,
2013; Prokop and Panholzer, 2009). In their study, Prokop and
Panholzer (2009) pointed out that it was not possible to determine move-
ment rates of <0.05 m per observation period when monitoring slow
moving landslides. Similar precisions were achieved by Kasperski et al.
(2010) and Hsieh et al. (2016). Whilst previous studies using TLS focused
on improving the detection of slow processes (e.g. Abellán et al., 2009;
Corsini et al., 2013; Travelletti et al., 2008), multi-temporal TLS observa-
tions – especially of slow-moving earth slides with vegetation cover - re-
main a challenge (Abellán et al., 2009; Huang et al., 2019; Prokop and
Panholzer, 2009).
Quantitative data on active landslides spanning a temporal
scale of more than a few years such as the mentioned TLS observa-
tions and studies are still fairly rare, especially on local scales. Ex-
tremely short observation periods impede the reliability of results
when it comes to data correlation, analysis and interpretation. To
overcome this temporal restriction with respect to the evaluation
of landslide dynamics, detailed (geo)morphological mapping can
support the interpretation of quantitative observations (Bishop
et al., 2012; Knight et al., 2011). Large-scale (geo)morphological
mapping – also in the sense of mapping landslide features
(forms) based on morphometric aspects - is commonly applied in
landslide research (Glenn et al., 2006; Whitworth et al., 2011),
but rather seldom for multi-temporal data (see e.g. Amanzio
et al., 2019; Anders et al., 2013). The consideration of multi-
temporal information in form of consecutive DEMs is commonly
used for the compilation of landslide inventories (for a very con-
cise review on landslide inventory mapping see Guzzetti et al.,
2012; Reichenbach et al., 2005) or for landslide description and in-
terpretation (Wolter et al., 2016; Zanutta et al., 2006). Few studies
focus on the generation of detailed, large-scale geomorphological
maps, including the mapping of morphological features (Griffiths
et al., 2011; Parry, 2011; Seijmonsbergen and De Graaff, 2006).
Even less focus on a multi-temporal mapping on this scale and on
consecutive changes of one individual landslide (e.g. Wolter
et al., 2020).
However, the benefits of a combination between highly-resolved
TLS based DoDs and a compilation of detailed maps focusing on the de-
tection and mapping of geomorphic features and feature changes were
largely disregarded so far, in particular with respect to interpreting the
development of slow-moving landslides.
This study aims in investigating the surface dynamics of a small,
retrogressive, slow-moving (cm-dm/a) earth slide-earth flow sys-
tem in the Flysch Zone of Lower Austria via both multi-temporal de-
tailed mapping of morphological features and DoD computations
based on high-resolution TLS data. The following research questions
were tackled:
2
Geomorphology 389 (2021) 107803
a) What data accuracy can be achieved for both singular and multi-
temporal TLS observations? Where are sources of error and how
do they propagate throughout data post-processing?
b) Which quantitative statements can be made about local landslide
dynamics via DoD calculation? Can the DoDs depict real surface
changes?
c) Which statements can be made via detailed, multi-temporal mapping
of morphological landslide features on the basis of the TLS data? Both
as stand-alone technique and as addition to DoD calculations?
d) Which qualitative statements can be made on the classification of this
landslide in comparatively analysing multi-temporal mapping and
DoD calculations? What are the related implications for this landslide
and the utilization of respective techniques on similar sites?
Data was analysed to 1) determine and delineate (recently active)
process areas, 2) to describe their characteristics, rates and tendencies
comparatively via mapping and DoDs - but also 3) to assess the applica-
bility of TLS for this kind of processes, especially with respect to vegeta-
tion cover and to 4) evaluate the added value of this comparative
approach when it comes to interpreting landslide dynamics on such de-
tailed scale.
2. Study area
The study site is located in Konradsheim, Waidhofen a.d. Ybbs in
Lower Austria (Fig. 1a). The slope under investigation is part of the
Redtenbach catchment (~10 km2; Fig. 1b), draining the Redtenbach val-
ley from west to east, with a height difference of 655 m. The south-east
facing Hofermühle catchment (~0.15 km2) drains into the Redtenbach
(Fig. 1c). The Hofermühle catchment can be considered exemplary for
others within the Redtenbach valley as well as similar catchments in
the Flysch Zone regarding both natural conditions (geological and cli-
matic prepositioning), recent artificial and anthropogenic overprinting
(landuse and changes in hillslope hydrology) as well as complex land-
slide process behaviour. It was therefore chosen as long-term monitor-
ing site to better assess these kinds of complex dynamics.
The upper part of the Hofermühle catchment is located on a rather
shallow part of the hillslope ranging from 5°–20° and is used as pasture.
In the lower third of the catchment, the slope increases significantly to
15°–30° and up to 45° and is covered with forest and shrubs. The re-
cently most active part with regard to land sliding is indicated in
Fig. 1d. Different types of processes are interrelated; the upper part ex-
periences earth sliding processes with slow but steady process rates
(~mm-cm/a). Respective materials concentrate in the Hofermühle tor-
rent, having led to sporadic but fast earth- to mudflow processes
down to the Redtenbach valley bottom in the past already (Kotzmaier,
2013; Sausgruber, 2013). Two predominantly active zones within the
area shown in Fig. 1d, the Subsystems I and II, are analysed in more de-
tail in this study.
The study area is situated in a very complex geological transition
zone of Helvetic, Penninic and Austroalpine (Oberostalpin) tectonic
units (see Fig. 1a). Whereas the southern part of the Redtenbach catch-
ment is dominated by formations of the Austroalpine (transition to the
northern calcareous alps; dolomite, marls and calcareous marls), the
northern part consists of Helvetic and Penninic formations (Flysch and
Klippen Zone; clays, marls and sandstones) (Schnabel, 1999; Schnabel
et al., 2002; Thenius, 1974). The Flysch Zone is exceptionally prone to
shallow and deep sliding processes, which has been highlighted in mul-
tiple studies (Petschko et al., 2013; Schwenk, 1992; Steger et al., 2020;
Tilch, 2014 to name only a few). This is due to the high clay content
and the weathering grade of the respective lithology. In combination
with the lithological preconditions, extreme rainfall and high snow
melt rates have been identified as the main triggers of slope failure pro-
cesses in the Flysch Zone of Lower Austria (Schweigl and Hervás, 2009).
Being situated at the northern fringe of the northern to eastern
M.J. Stumvoll, E.M. Schmaltz and T. Glade Geomorphology 389 (2021) 107803

Fig. 1. Location of study site and areas of investigation. a) Location of the Redtenbach catchment within the geological transition zone of Helvetic, Penninic and Austroalpine units in the SW
of Lower Austria, Austria (geological map after Weber (1997)). b) Location of the Hofermühle study site within the Redtenbach catchment. TLS scan positions and direction are indicated in
blue. c) Hydrological catchment of the Hofermühle torrent. d) Main areas of investigation, defined as Subsystems I and II. Relief shadings in a–c) are based on a Austrian 10 m DEM (BMDW,
2015) and a 1 m ALS-DEM (NOEL GV, 2009), respectively. Relief shading in d) is based on a 0.05 m TLS-DEM (2019-12-05) generated for this study. Orthophoto in c) is provided by the
Federal State Government of Lower Austria (NOEL GV, 2011).

calcareous alps, the study area exhibits mean yearly precipitation rates
of ~1195 mm; highest monthly mean precipitation sums are found in
summer (May to August ~526 mm, July having highest mean sums of
~148 mm). Mean monthly temperatures below zero can be found De-
cember to February, including snowfall and frost; highest mean
monthly temperatures are reached June to August. Mean yearly temper-
ature is between 7.0 °C and 9.1 °C (period 1900–2019; Histalp data from
Waidhofen a. d. Ybbs, Auer et al. (2007)).
Reports, on-field investigation and personal communication with
local authorities proved the Hofermühle catchment to be heavily influ-
enced by anthropogenic overprinting. The Hofermühle catchment is
largely covered by grassland used for cattle farming in the recent
years (Fig. 1c). The area is getting mowed approx. 3 times a year, facili-
tating the application of TLS. The route of the Hofermühle torrent is
framed by trees and bushes on both sides. Tree stocking and density in-
crease in the lower and steeper part of the catchment. Coniferous trees

3
M.J. Stumvoll, E.M. Schmaltz and T. Glade
mark the orographic right, having been used for reforestation after land-
slide events end of the 1970s (Sausgruber, 2016). Deciduous trees make
up the orographic left. Artificial drainages and water basins have been
installed by the locals throughout the last 30 to 50 years in an attempt
to stabilize the area. Whereas, the exact position and age as well as
the condition of most of these drainage systems apart from those re-
cently installed is unclear (personal communication with local farmers).
Consequently, these anthropogenic overprints have a considerable im-
pact on the land cover and the slope hydrology, which are both of
major importance when it comes to hillslope development in associa-
tion with landslide processes (Papathoma-Köhle and Glade, 2013;
Schmaltz et al., 2017; Sidle and Bogaard, 2016; Sidle and Ochiai, 2006;
Sidle et al., 2006).
Verbal communication gave evidence to past activity in the upper
part to the orographic right of the torrent by the end of the 1970s
(Sausgruber, 2016). The respective area got drained. In 2011, slow slid-
ing processes started in the area to the upper orographic left of the tor-
rent (see Fig. 1c, d). In 2013 processes increased in both speed and
dimension, leading to the development of earth flow processes, most
likely initiated by heavy rainfall events. No explicit precipitation data
is available for these events (Sausgruber, 2013); yet, respective interre-
lations are tackled in recent research.
The site was surveyed by the Geological Department of the Federal
State Government of Lower Austria (NOEL GV) as well as by the Torrent
and Avalanche Control (WLV) Lower Austria West. The overall possible
active landslide area was estimated to cover approx. 0.05 km2
(Sausgruber, 2013; Sausgruber, 2016). In 2018/2019 a dam was
installed by the WLV at the outlet of the Hofermühle torrent, in Decem-
ber 2019 7 shallow trenches were excavated across the area of the 2011/
2013 events (Fig. 1c) to drain surficial water. No further remedial mea-
sures were taken.
3. Material and methods
The following research strategy was applied. Between 2015 and
2019 the study site was continuously surveyed with TLS. Including
ALS data from 2009, the observation period covers a total of 10
years. After registration, point cloud data - 7 time steps in total -
was used to generate both mesh and raster-based DEMs. Models
were used to compute DEMs of difference (DoDs) as well as differ-
ent standard GIS-based raster analyses (slope, curvature,
hillshade, contour, hydrology). Detailed morphological mapping
(1:1000) based on the raster analysis of the first epoch 2009 was
utilized to determine the main landslide area. Within this area,
two Subsystems of recently most active process behaviour were
delineated and the respective areas mapped on very detailed
scale (1:200) regarding landslide features for each consecutive
epoch. Mapping results were interpreted qualitatively for the dif-
ferent epochs with the aid of quantitative statements, including
the DoDs (surface and volume displacement) calculations as well
as surface profiles.
3.1. Available data sets
We use a 1 × 1 m DEM from an airborne laser scanning (ALS (EPSG:
31256)) survey in 2009 (NOEL GV, 2009) for both the registration of the
TLS data and for data analysis. An Orthophoto from 2011 was also pro-
vided by the Federal State Government of Lower Austria (NOEL GV,
2011) and used for the morphological mapping of the 2009 epoch. An
expert's report of the WLV (Sausgruber, 2013) was used to validate
the interpretation of the 2009 data.
3.2. TLS observations and data processing
Between 2015 and 2020 15 TLS campaigns were conducted with a
Riegl VZ 6000 terrestrial laser scanner (hardware specifications are
4
Geomorphology 389 (2021) 107803
provided in Riegl LMS (2020)). After quality check and data pre-
processing, 6 of the 15 campaigns (epochs) have been used for this
study (Table A1). The scan positions are located on the opposite valley
side in a height of ~637 m (EAST) and ~654 m (WEST) (see Fig. 1b).
The upper part of the study area is in ~1100 m, the lower part in ~550
m distance from both scan positions. For details on time of acquisition
and other specifications, please refer to Table A1.
With regard to initial point cloud resolution, an angular distance of
0.004° is used for both horizontal (Phi [°]) and vertical (Theta [°])
point spacing for most scans. This corresponds with the findings of
Lichti and Jamtsho (2006), who suggest the point spacing resolution
to be based on 86% of the beam diameter (0.12 m in 1000 m distance,
refer to Riegl LMS (2020)). Higher resolution may result in a blurry rep-
resentation of finer details as the foot print of the laser beam of two
neighbouring point measurements overlap (Buckley et al., 2008; Lichti
and Jamtsho, 2006). 0.004° angular distance provides the highest possi-
ble resolution (~0.055 m mean point distance) with only minimal laser
beam footprint overlap for the mean distance (~800 m) between main
study area and scan positions. Further information on the angular dis-
tance of the point spacing parameters, as well as the corresponding
point spacing in [m] in 1000 m distance from the scan position are pro-
vided in Table A1.
5 reflector targets (cylinder, 0.10*0.11 m) were installed on 2018-
06-06 and their position measured with a high definition GNNS (Leica
1200; APOS real-time position correction via SIM card; uncertainty for
both x and y lower than 0.015 m; EPSG: 32633). Reflectors were only
used for coarse geo-referencing of the TLS campaigns.
For the registration of the TLS-point clouds, existing transfor-
mation matrices of all scan positions were removed initially. TLS
campaigns with reflector targets available were used for coarse
registration. Coordinates of the 5 reflector targets enabled a global
registration. The 2009 ALS point cloud data was re-projected (BEV,
2020) and used as static base data. All TLS scan positions with no
reflector targets available were manually registered onto one of
the coarsely and globally registered TLS positions. In order to pre-
pare the data for fine registration using the Multi Station Adjust-
ment (MSA - ICP-Algorithm (Besl and McKay, 1992) implemented
in ©Riegl RiSCAN Pro), the point cloud density of all scans was tran-
sitionally reduced using a 0.5 m octree filter (cf. Table A1) and the
standard vegetation filter. From these strongly homogenized point
clouds, Plane Patches (minimum 3 points per plane; maximum
standard deviation 0.05 m) were generated. All scan positions
were registered and fixed stepwise on to the ALS data. The individ-
ual MSA computations consisted of 5 iterative steps (cf. Table A1).
The fine registration accounted for a registration accuracy of
~0.0124 to 0.0233 m standard deviation for the final MSA step
(0.0233 m onto the ALS data; highest TLS standard deviation
0.0174 m).
If available, 2 scan positions of one epoch were combined. Origi-
nal point clouds of all epochs were filtered using a 0.05 m octree fil-
ter. Vegetation cover was filtered using RiSCAN Pro Terrain Filter. To
improve this step, the 2009 ALS data was used as base data for each
of the 6 TLS point clouds. With this approach the selection of non-
ground points was highly effective, only minor manual refinement
was needed. The point clouds were triangulated (mesh) and used
for DoD computation. Additionally, DEMs were generated from the
TLS-point clouds with a raster cell size of 0.05 m. A linear interpola-
tion method was used to fill gaps. The point clouds were further
resampled to a cell size of 0.10 m and 0.50 m. These were used for
further analyses regarding the morphological mapping and profile
generation.
3.3. Mapping of morphological features
To avoid confusion, the term “morphological mapping” is applied
here to describe the procedure of mapping landslide features such as
M.J. Stumvoll, E.M. Schmaltz and T. Glade
scarps and steps on the basis of morphometric slope analysis and inter-
pretation. Pre-processing of the DEMs as well as a morphological map-
ping procedure was performed for each of the 7 epochs from 2009 to
2019. For the ALS data, raster calculations were based on 1 m raster
size. In contrast, different raster sizes were used for the TLS data sets.
These spatial calculations included multidirectional hillshades (0.05 m
raster), contour lines (0.50 m interval for 0.05 m raster), curvature (ver-
tical/horizontal for 0.05 m, 0.10 m and 0.50 m raster), slope (for 0.05 m,
0.10 m and 0.50 m raster; 8 classes), slope breaks (1.00 m interval),
multiple flow direction and accumulation (0.50 m raster) on the hydro-
logically corrected DEMs.
The procedure for mapping on a scale of 1:25,000 suggested by Leser
and Stäblein (1978) was adapted. Classes and symbols were modified to
map landslide features on a higher scale of 1:200 (TLS) to 1:1000 (ALS)
including the following feature classes:
• changes in slope curvature (vertical: concave and convex),
• scarps, steps and banks (category: scarp, step, bank; type: main,
minor, artificial, assumed),
• single forms (depression; bulge),
• areas of stepped or undulating relief (category: stepped, undulating),
• process areas (category: landslide, fluvial; type: depletion, transport,
accumulation).
Mapping of the entire Hofermühle catchment (Fig. 1c) was per-
formed for epoch 1, whilst detailed mapping focused on Subsystems
I and II for all consecutive epochs. GIS raster calculations were used
to differentiate between changes of slope (close succession of paral-
lel slope contour lines), steps (abrupt changes in slope) and scarps
(steps alongside consecutive alterations in both convex and concave
changes in slope). Scarps are understood to be in clear relation to a
sliding process (breakout niche) whereas steps do represent all fea-
tures a) related to sliding which cannot be defined as scarp and
b) not being related to sliding and being more distinct than a mere
change of slope. A height difference of more than 3.00 m (ALS) or
0.50 m (TLS) over 0.50 to 1.00 m horizontal distance was considered
to differentiate between main and minor scarp or step. Distinct
forms of connected convex and concave changes in slope
emphasising smaller depressions or bulges were described by the
class ‘single forms’. ‘Surface roughness’ was used in epoch 1, only.
Fig. 2. ALS and TLS raster data (epoch 1: 1.00 m cell length, epochs 2–7: 0.05 m cell length) used for morphological mapping in Subsystem I (a–g) and Subsystem II (h–n).
5
Geomorphology 389 (2021) 107803
As the scale for mapping was lower (~1:1000) than for the TLS data
(~1:200), individual relief features were summarized and defined
as stepped or undulating.
After mapping of these features, recently active process areas were
defined for each epoch. Mapping of the 2011/2013 active area (main
landslide) was only done in detail for epoch 1 and this area is excluded
from mapping and calculations due to dense vegetation and DEM uncer-
tainties in epochs 2 to 6. For epoch 7, artificial changes were mapped in
this area.
3.4. Quantification of changes in surface height
Seven epochs were used for the computation of DoDs or volume
change, respectively. The calculation was performed in RiSCAN Pro
(mesh-based) for consecutive epochs as well as for the whole pe-
riod of observation (2009–2019). The respective point cloud
areas were triangulated and mesh-based differential models
were generated for each epoch utilizing the Surface and Volume
calculation. The main landslide area was excluded from all DoD
calculations in both Subsystems due to vegetation-based data un-
certainties. Rectangular columns with a grid size of 0.05 m are
used to compute the volume between two epochs and a hypothet-
ical plane. The differences of these two volumes are subtracted to
create Cut and Fill volumes and were further calculated consider-
ing an increasing threshold value step of 0.05 m (I) and 0.20 m
(II), respectively. Values between ±0.05 m (I) and, respectively
or ±0.20 (II) were considered as data noise, in order to minimise
related subsequent errors in the interpretation of the DoDs. Due
to intensive data noise (grass cover, shrubbery) and insufficient
point density, 2 epochs of Subsystem II were not used for DoD
calculation.
For Subsystem I, two slope profiles were generated each for epochs 1
to 7 utilizing a 0.10 m raster cell size. For epoch 1 (ALS data, originally
1.00 m cell size), raster data was interpolated to match the TLS profile
graph steps. The surface roughness of the slope profiles was computed
with the root-mean-square height (RMSH) method (Shepard et al.,
2001) as an indicator for (initial) surface displacements along the pro-
file line.
M.J. Stumvoll, E.M. Schmaltz and T. Glade Geomorphology 389 (2021) 107803

Fig. 3. Hofermühle catchment and main study area containing Subsystem I and II. a) Morphological map for the entire catchment (based on epoch 1, 2009). Detail of morphological map
containing Subsystem I and II for epoch 1, 2009 (b) and epoch 7, 2019-12-05 (c). Legend symbols and structure are adapted following Leser and Stäblein (1978).

Fig. 4. Morphological map for the consecutive epochs 1 to 7 (a–g) of Subsystem I. Features of the preceding step are indicated in light grey. Landslide process area [main] is only displayed
for orientation in b–g.

6
M.J. Stumvoll, E.M. Schmaltz and T. Glade
For data analyses and compilation of figures, we used © Riegl RiSCAN
Pro Processing Software, © ESRI ArcGIS Pro and the following Python
(Version 3.8) packages: numpy (1.16.5; Oliphant, 2015), pandas
(0.25.1; The Pandas Development Team, 2020), matplotlib (3.1.3;
Hunter, 2007).
4. Results
4.1. Computation of DEMs
The interpolation of the TLS point clouds allowed the compilation of
raster grids with a cell length of 0.05 m. Shaded reliefs of the respective
DEMs are displayed in Fig. 2 for both Subsystems. Whilst Subsystem I is
clearly visible for each epoch (Fig. 2a–g), some epochs in Subsystem II
show areas where raster interpolation is lumped by the existing vegeta-
tion cover, comprised by shrubs and trees. (Fig. 2h–n). Epochs 3 and 4
therefor were not used for DoD calculation, since unacceptable error
rates can be expected for these areas (Fig. 2j,k).
4.2. Morphological mapping and changes
Morphological feature mapping of epoch 1 identifies fluvial and
landslide processes to be predominant considering the entire wa-
tershed. The fluvial processes include incision (mid and upper
part), bank erosion (lower part) and artificial drainage (Fig. 3a).
Clearly distinguishable step and scarp features mark the areas of
Fig. 5. Morphological map for the consecutive epochs 1 to 7 (a–g) of Subsystem II. Features of the preceding step are indicated in light grey. Mapping within the landslide process area
[active] was only performed for epochs where there was adequate TLS surface information, see Fig. 2h–n.
7
Geomorphology 389 (2021) 107803
landslide process activity. For Epoch 1, active sliding processes
are predominant at the orographic left close to the Hofermühle
torrent. Two distinct shell-shaped main scarps can be identified
at 604 m (upper) and 588 m (lower) over lengths of approx. 28
m to 30 m (Fig. 3b). Areas between those scarps are defined as
landslide depletion, transport and, where convex, accumulation
zone. The respective area is henceforth specified as main landslide
area (see process area: landslide [main] for 2019 in Fig. 3c). Two
Subsystems I and II were defined around the upper and lower
main scarp, including nearby undulating terrain. Consecutive fea-
ture mapping focused on these Subsystems. The main landslide
area was not investigated further due to low TLS ground point
density with the exception of epoch 7, where mitigation measures
of the WLV improved TLS ground point density (Fig. 3c, see also
Fig. 1c).
Subsequent TLS-based time steps starting with epoch 2 (2015-
11-19) cover a total period of 1477 days, with 301 (epoch 2–3),
693 (epoch 3–4), 97 (epoch 4–5), 104 (epoch 5–6) and 282 days
(epoch 6–7) between the individual surveys, respectively. The ac-
tive landslide area distinctively shifted upslope in epoch 2 (and
the subsequent records) compared to the reference data set from
2009 (epoch 1). Whilst a detected step feature in upslope direction
of Subsystem I depicted the upper limit of the active landslide area
in epoch 1, it appears as main scarp with an active area and minor
scarp features situated above in epochs 2 to 7 (compare Fig. 4a
with Fig. 4b–g). The recorded development of this area between
M.J. Stumvoll, E.M. Schmaltz and T. Glade
epochs 2 and 7 indicates the development of a new head scarp and,
respectively or retreating of the main scarp in upslope direction
throughout the entire observation period. Moreover, it is
recognisable that the development of the main scarp subsequently
follows minor scarps or steps (cf. Fig. 4e–g). The number of mapped
steps and minor scarps increases at the upper limit of the active
landslide area of Subsystem I from epoch 2 onwards, whereas the
active landslide area itself expands continuously throughout the
observation period (epoch 2: 1310 m2 ; epoch 7: 1570 m 2, respec-
tively). This becomes particularly apparent in epochs 3, 6 and 7 re-
garding both the spatial extension of the active zone and the
number of detected morphological features in the upslope part.
Surficial disturbances are also reflected by the high alternation
and number of detected convex and concave slope breaks, which
is predominantly visible in the mapping of epoch 7.
Similar to the observations of Subsystem I, the detected features
observed in Subsystem II show a retreat of the main scarp in upslope
direction (compare Fig. 5a with Fig. 5b–g). Subsystem II indicates a
considerable extension of the active landslide area, particularly to
the east, measuring additional 15 m in width and 45 m in length
for epoch 7 compared to the reference data set of epoch 1. This is
amplified by a partly retreat of the main scarp, initiated in epoch
Fig. 6. Changes in surface elevation between consecutive epochs (a–f) and the entire observation period (g) for Subsystem I. Change of surface elevation is displayed as maximum (positive
or negative) height difference [m] for each period, excluding values between - 0.05 and 0.05 (noise). Additional class between ±0.05 and ±0.10m to improve visualization of very small
changes. Features of the latest step are indicated in light grey.
8
Geomorphology 389 (2021) 107803
4 (Fig. 5d) with a shift of 0.10–0.40 m in upslope direction and fur-
ther developed in the subsequent epochs (Fig. 5e–g) with upslope
shifts between 0.20 and 0.40 m. The number of mapped features to
the east of the active zone subsequently increased from epoch 2 to
epoch 7 (Fig. 5b–g), indicating increased disturbances of the land
surface. The accompanied in-field mappings reveal furthermore
that most of the features indicated as steps from the TLS-survey ap-
pear to be small cracks or fissures that continue to increase in
length to the east of the main scarp. No reliable mapping informa-
tion on this scale is available within the area delineated as active.
Only for epochs 5 and 6 the movement of deposited mass material
emanating from the main landslide scarp was detectable and is
reflected by alternating steps and slope breaks in the active area
(Fig. 5e, f).
4.3. Changes in surface height
Considering elevation differences excluding noise (<0.05 m and
>−0.05 m) a negative volume (Cut) of 93.68 m3 and a positive vol-
ume (Fill) of 64.37 m 3 was detected between epochs 1 and 2 for
Subsystem I (Fig. 6a). The highest negative elevation difference
M.J. Stumvoll, E.M. Schmaltz and T. Glade Geomorphology 389 (2021) 107803

Fig. 7. Changes in surface elevation between consecutive epochs (a–f) and the entire observation period (g) for Subsystem II. No DoD calculations for epochs b) 2–3 and c) 3–4. Change of
surface elevation is displayed as maximum (positive or negative) height difference [m] for each period, excluding values between ±0.20 m (error range). Details of epoch 2–5 (d) are given
in h) and i), displaying change of surface elevation excluding values between ±0.05 m (error range applied for Subsystem I, see Fig. 6). Additional class between ±0.05 and ±0.10 m to
improve visualization of very small changes. Features of the latest step are indicated in light grey. Please note the different scales.

between these two epochs is >0.30 m. Negative volume differences
concentrate in the upper third of Subsystem I, with a spatial exten-
sion of approx. 18 m to 37 m in cross- and upslope directions. The
eastern downslope part of Subsystem I indicates an area with pos-
itive volume differences. Much lower values of elevation change
are observable between epochs 2 and 3 (Fig. 6b) with minor settle-
ments predominantly in the active area along the detected minor
scarps (minimum of −0.10 m). In contrast, the changes between
epochs 3 and 4 (693 days) increase again (Fig. 6c), likewise to the
changes detected between epochs 1 and 2 (approx. 2400 days).
General changes are rather negligible for all subsequent epochs
(Fig. 6d–f), with only minor positive and negative elevation
changes. However, the difference between epochs 5 and 6
(Fig. 6e) exhibits the material displacement by a smaller landslide
that occurred within this period with approx. 4.70 m in length
and ~1.50 m in width. For the entire observation period a total neg-
ative volume of 193.17 m3 (cumulative 182.23 m3) and a total pos-
itive volume of 76.52 m 3 (cumulative 88.57 m 3 ) was calculated
(Fig. 6g).
Subsystem II was analysed similarly (Fig. 7). A higher error
range of ±0.20 m and a respective step size was applied due to
both higher magnitudes of change and higher uncertainties due
to TLS ground point density and coverage. Similar to Subsystem I,
main changes in surface height appear between epochs 1 and 2. De-
pletion is concentrated within the area defined as active via map-
ping. Considering only changes higher than ±0.20 m, these
changes account for a positive volume of 40.97 m 3 and a negative
volume of 214.62 m 3 (Fig. 7a). DoDs for epochs 2–3 and 3–4 were
neglected due to TLS data gaps. An enlargement of the active pro-
cess area to the east between epochs 2 and 5 (Fig. 7d) is supported
by a negative volume change of 72.48 m3. The negative trend seems
to increase between epochs 5 and 6 (negative volume of 74.94 m3,
Fig. 7e) and to be reversed between epochs 6 and 7 (positive vol-
ume of 50.20 m 3 , Fig. 7f). In total, 293.44 m 3 negative and 34.43
m 3 positive volume change was calculated for the entire observa-
tion period, the displacements ranging from +0.60 to −1.60 m
(Fig. 7g). Whilst these changes would be visible, too utilizing an
error range of ±0.05 m, changes in vegetation cover (grass) super-
impose real surface change. This especially becomes evident con-
sidering epoch 2–5. Utilizing an error range of ±0.05 m enables
to reflect real negative surface changes relating to feature changes
to the east of the main scarp, which could be determined via map-
ping (Fig. 7h). On the other hand, the same error range would sug-
gest positive surface change in the lower part of Subsystem II,

9
M.J. Stumvoll, E.M. Schmaltz and T. Glade Geomorphology 389 (2021) 107803

Fig. 8. Slope profiles 1 (a–c) and 2 (d–f), for location of profiles see Fig. 4g in Subsystem I. Profile graph (exaggeration of 2) with detail (a, d), changes in elevation (b, e) and the respective
surface roughness (c, f) is given for epoch 1 (2009) and 7 (2019-12-05). Intermediate and consecutive epochs are represented by colour intensity (blue: negative elevation change; red:
positive elevation change). Profiles are based on raster data with a cell size of 0.10 m for both TLS data and ALS data (interpolated from 1.00 m raster cell size) for each epoch.

which is actually only due to grass cover (Fig. 7i). No features were For Subsystem I two slope profiles of 69 m in length (for location
mapped here, no real change appeared. see Fig. 4g) were generated for each consecutive epoch 1 to 7 (Fig. 8).

Fig. 9. Cumulative surface displacement (a) and surface displacements including the difference of Cut and Fill (b) for all days from the first TLS record 2015-11-19 for Subsystem I. Ranges
indicate the change of values when different thresholds are considered for noise.

10
M.J. Stumvoll, E.M. Schmaltz and T. Glade
Both profiles go from north to south through the active process area
defined in Fig. 4 and the changes in surface elevation presented in
Fig. 6.
The first profile (Fig. 8a) shows negative changes in elevation
(blue) between epoch 1 and epoch 7 (highlighted by solid lines).
The changes for each epoch in between are represented by in-
crease or decrease in colour intensity. The respective negative
changes for the entire period go up to ~0.50 m in the upper and
up to >2.00 m in the lower part (details see Fig. 8b). Roughness
calculations for the profile section indicate that the area of depos-
ited mass shows a high surface roughness (Fig. 8c), suggesting a
high frequency of redistribution of soil material. Regarding the
negative changes in surface elevation, a similar result is visible
for the upper part of profile 2 (Fig. 8d). At profile distance of 40
m the negative values change to positive values of up to 0.40 m
(Fig. 8e) followed downslope by negative values of 0.20 m. In con-
trast to profile 1, distinctive changes of surface roughness are
rather negligible (Fig. 8c).
As indicated in the analysis of elevation changes of the active area
in Subsystem I and the corresponding slope profiles (cf. Figs. 6, 8, re-
spectively), the largest changes in elevation can be detected when
periods are considerably longer between two subsequent records –
due to accuracy only considering TLS data (19-11-2015 to 05-12-
2019, epochs 2 to 7) (Fig. 9). The highest changes for Cut are detect-
able for epoch 3 with a decreasing trend for the later epochs 4 to 7. In
contrast, changes for Fill show slightly increasing trend from epoch 2
onwards.
5. Discussion
5.1. TLS-DEMs application and the value of a comparative methodological
approach
Ground point information and density of the 6 TLS campaigns
used in this study facilitated the generation of both morphological
Fig. 10. a) Main study area captured from scan position EAST on 9th August 2018 (epoch 4). b) Subsystem I, displacement of material visible in epoch 6 (Figs. 4f, 6e) recorded on 3rd August
2019. c) main study area including indication of b) and simplified landslide scarps. d) Subsystem I, route of excavator wheel ruts, recorded on 5th December 2019 (epoch 7; Figs. 4g, 6f).
e) Subsystem II, depletion zone including simplified landslide scarps, recorded on 8th March 2019. f) Subsystem II, step feature (Fig. 5g) detectable in upper right part of photograph,
captured on 5th December 2019 (epoch 7), landslide scarps are indicated by white dotted line.
11
Geomorphology 389 (2021) 107803
maps and DoDs, yet with restrictions and differing accuracy. A ras-
ter resolution of 0.05 m based on initial angular point cloud spac-
ing of approx. 0.055 m could be achieved for the areas of main
interest. Whilst this seems reasonable for Subsystem I, the resolu-
tion of Subsystem II was less harmonious due to a flatter incident
angle (Barbarella et al., 2017; Schürch et al., 2011) and less ground
point density due to vegetation cover and shadowing (see also
Fig. 2).
The most important limiting factor of data accuracy for the main
study area is the vegetation cover. For areas of higher and denser
vegetation (trees, bushes), TLS data coverage and ground point den-
sity were inadequate for high-resolution DEM generation. The data
could not be utilized to investigate the main landslide area, which
therefore was neither mapped nor calculated regarding surface
changes. Yet, even the grassland cover of Subsystems I and II im-
pede data accuracy. The upslope part (Subsystem I) is used as pas-
ture and mowed three to four times a year. Even with freshly cut
grass a certain factor of uncertainty remains, as grass cover could
still be as high as 0.05 m. To further provide an acceptable data qual-
ity for our purposes, TLS campaigns used in this study were sorted
out very carefully regarding the time of acquisition. Thus, most
data sets were acquired in the months with low or sparse vegetation
cover (November to February) and where deciduous trees are with-
out leaves. Still, whilst Subsystem I was observable very well from
either scan position (Fig. 2a–g), Subsystem II could only be detected
sufficiently when using both (Fig. 2h–n, see Fig. 1b and Table A1).
Epochs 3 and 4 depict exceptions regarding the date of recording.
Due to exceptionally high and enduring air temperatures and
drought (cf. Hiebl et al., 2019), grassland cover in epoch 4 was
dried out or partly not visible, which remarkably increased the
ground point density of the respective TLS-records (Fig. 10a), at
least for Subsystem I.
Regarding the error range of only ±0.05 m applied for the DoDs of
Subsystem I, artificial changes could be utilized to confirm this
threshold to be valid via field experience. Epochs 5 to 6 (Figs. 4f,
M.J. Stumvoll, E.M. Schmaltz and T. Glade
6e) show a small modification in both feature and surface elevation
changes in Subsystem I. Field observation confirmed a small dis-
placement of material of appropriate expanse and height (Fig. 10b).
Field work and trench digging in fall 2018 (Fig. 10c) is detectable in
the DoD from epoch 4–5 (Fig. 6d). De-forestation and mass trenching
in the main landslide area due to mitigation measures of the WLV
(Fig. 1d) were conducted with a walking excavator. Wheel ruts of
up to 0.10 m in depth could be retraced in the field (Fig. 10d). They
are clearly distinguishable via the negative elevation changes in
Fig. 6f, in unnatural knicks and deformations of existing scarp and
step features both in mapping (Fig. 4g) and in slope profile analysis
(Fig. 8d).
The downslope part (Subsystem II) only gets partly mowed.
Within the active landslide area high grass cover of up to 0.20 to
0.30 m is customary within the vegetation period and gets pushed
down by snow in winter. This exceptionally becomes evident
when comparing the DoD calculations for epochs 5–6 and 6–7
(Fig. 7e,f). Whilst there is a negative change in surface height be-
tween November 2018 and February 2019, a positive change is cal-
culated from February to December 2019. Field observations
proved the negative change of up to ~0.80 m for epoch 5–6 to be
partly due to pressed down grass (see also Fig. 10c,e), therefor
probably partly having happened in the preceding period already.
The positive change for epoch 6–7 on the other side is mainly due
to fresh grass cover and smaller bushes (being responsible for pos-
itive values of up to 0.40–0.60 m). The approx. height of this cover
was adopted regarding the respective error range (±0.20 m) of the
DoDs in order to depict real surface change (see Fig. 7). Unfortu-
nately, this poses a major problem: This error range suffices for
the active process area of Subsystem II due to high magnitudes of
changes in surface height (up to −1.60 m, see Fig. 7). It is possible
to detect areas of depletion and to make statements about the dy-
namics, regardless the low scale. Applying the same error range
to Subsystem I would have made the calculation and interpretation
of respective DoDs impossible due to the much smaller magnitude
of changes in surface height (max. of ~±0.50 m in 10 years (Fig.
6a), changes of less than 0.20 m in the intermediate epochs (Fig.
6b–f)). What is more, an important development of Subsystem II
– the increasing distinction of a step feature forming from the tip
of the main scarp towards east – is unrecognisable when using an
error range of ±0.20 m (Fig. 7h). In other parts of Subsystem II,
even outside of the active area, changes of ±0.20 m are most likely
due to grass (Fig. 7i, see also Fig. 10f).
This problem affirms the strength of combing DoD calculations
with morphological mapping, especially on this scale and for this
type of landslide processes. Only in interpreting the changes of
landslide feature location, distinction and development being dis-
covered via detailed mapping, real changes in surface height calcu-
lated via DoDs can be determined by applying appropriate error
ranges of “no change”. DoDs would not have sufficed and the inter-
pretation of changes, especially when comparing both Subsystems,
would have been much more inaccurate. The case has been made
that, even though the same TLS data was used for both mapping
and DoD calculation, the mapping could help distinguish real sur-
face change for this type of process and conditions.
5.2. Characterization of landslide dynamics
The landslide events described in chapter 2 for the years 2011
and 2013 are evidently distinguishable in the extreme change of
feature distribution and characteristics between epochs 1 (2009)
and 2 (2015-11-19) (Figs. 4a, b, 5a, b), as well as in the related
morphometric changes (Figs. 6a, 7a) for both Subsystem I and II.
Subsequent epochs indicate a deceleration of process rates and,
respectively or more subtle dynamics on different parts of the area
affected.
12
Geomorphology 389 (2021) 107803
For Subsystem I, the location of a new main head scarp 15 m
above the initial one was already detectable as step feature in
epoch 1. The related elevation difference can clearly be recognized
in Profile 1 and 2 (Fig. 8). The area upslope showed undulating re-
lief in epoch 1. In epoch 2, scarp and step features had developed
out of the more distinct slope curvature changes. Even though
the features are not as pronounced as in epoch 7 and their individ-
ual orientation differs, together they already indicate the shell-
shaped course of a new possible head scarp. The location of these
features corresponds with a negative change in surface elevation
(depletion) recognisable in the upper parts of Subsystem I in
Fig. 6a, indicating a retrogressive development of the initial head
scarp. The area in the lower right section of Subsystem I is marked
by a positive change in surface elevation (Fig. 6a). This accumula-
tion is recognisable, too via mapping of a parallel sequence of both
convex and concave vertical slope curvature changes (Fig. 4b). The
mapping sequence shows the tendency of development for the
area of accumulation, yet is not as distinctly recognisable as
depletion-related features. Taking the entire observation period
into account, mapping suggests the upper and lower right part of
Subsystem I to be most active and, respectively or increasing in ac-
tivity. This is in line with the DoD analyses (Fig. 6). Interpretation
of these changes indicate Subsystem I to be defined as separate,
retrogressive rotational earth slide orientated northwest-
southeast. The increase in scarp feature length (widening) over
the years suggests an enlargement of the surface of rupture – a dis-
tinct characteristic of multiple, retrogressive rotational landslides
(Cruden and Varnes, 1996; Dikau et al., 1996). The landslide foot
is partly confined, as there is no clear surface of rupture visible. De-
pletion of the upper part is rather mirrored in a compressed, bulg-
ing area at the foot (see Hutchinson, 1988 in Cruden and Varnes,
1996). Comparing the sum off Fill and Cut values for each consecu-
tive period, each period with the exception of epoch 6–7 is
characterised by a total negative volume balance. A cumulative
total difference of −93.66 m 3 was calculated for 10 years. This
could be transferred into a hypothetical yearly balance of −9.40
m 3 year −1 ; material is partly accumulating in the depletion zone
of the main landslide area, therefore leaving Subsystem I. Develop-
ment of the main head scarp between epochs 1 and 2 suggest a re-
treat of approx. 15 m in 6 years (2.5 m year −1 ) (Fig. 4a). After
Cruden and Varnes (1996) and Dikau et al. (1996), the velocity
could be classified as slow. Taking the development of the upper
new scarp features into account and assuming ~45 m in 10 years
(Fig. 4g) suggests a rate of 4.5 m year −1 , therefore still classified
as slow. Yet, these rates are a crude simplification as they are clearly
represented by different periods of activity (see also Fig. 9), includ-
ing the initial activation of the main landslide in 2011/2013, and by
different parts of the affected mass. Additionally, the retreatment
of the scarp cannot be equated with the entire landslide, including
the main area. Cruden and Varnes (1996) pointed out, that rates of
movement can differ within the landslide mass. Internal distortion
of the material as well as the observation period itself further impede
statements regarding overall landslide velocity.
Regarding Subsystem II a major change that becomes evident
via mapping is the shift of the main scarp by 15–20 m between
epochs 1 and 2, indicating a different development than within
Subsystem I (Fig. 5a). Formerly being situated within the main
landslide body, half of the main scarp shifted upslope and changed
its form from shell- to V-shaped, whilst the other half is not
recognisable any more. This suggests the main scarp detected in
2009 to be younger than the one in Subsystem I for the same
year. Hence, both subsystems appear to be disconnected from
each other yet connected to the main landslide and, respectively
or relying on different slope hydrological influences. Additionally,
the propagation of the head scarp in Subsystem II does not follow
the slope direction. The adjacent area to the east gets increasingly
M.J. Stumvoll, E.M. Schmaltz and T. Glade
disturbed in the consecutive epochs (Fig. 5b–g). The successive
development of a step feature next to the head scarp could suggest
further enlargement of the active area to the east, which could also
be proven via DoD calculation (see Fig. 7h); yet, this step feature
would not have been recognisable only via DoD calculations due
to differing error thresholds with respect to Subsystem I. Subsystem
II shows no clear feature distribution typical for rotational sliding. In-
terpretation is hampered, of course, as the lower part of the respec-
tive system could not be investigated via mapping. Between epochs
1 and 2, a total negative volume of 214.62 m3 was calculated. Whilst
this depletion can clearly be recognized in the DoDs even consider-
ing an error range of ±0.20 m (Fig. 7a), the style of depletion is
different. Rather than showing a clear surface of rupture, the
displaced mass shows a broken-up characteristic, not following a
distinct shell-shaped head scarp – speaking for translational sliding
(see Hutchinson, 1988 in Cruden and Varnes, 1996). Additionally,
there does not seem to be a clear accumulation zone in form of a
toe or foot; material rather gets broken up further downslope until
it meets with the main landslide mass. Taking the entire observation
period into account, a total negative volume balance of −260 m3 was
calculated, which can be transferred to −26 m 3 year −1 – therefor
~2.5-times as much as Subsystem I. The evolution of the main scarp
between epochs 1 and 2 suggest displacement of material of ~15–
20 m in ~6 years, therefore ~2.5–3.3 m year−1 – which is similar or
even less than in Subsystem I. However, as with Subsystem I, the
retreatment of the scarp cannot be equated with the entire landslide
mass, especially due to the development of the scarps' shape (see
also Fig. 5b,d).
Taking the entire observation period of 10 years into account, the re-
spective Subsystems both showed differing behaviour when it comes to
both the process magnitude and type of landslide feature distribution.
What they have in common is the time or frequency of dynamics.
Both showed major changes between epochs 1 and 2 as well as smaller
changes between epochs 2 to 5. From epochs 5 to 7, only minor changes
appear – considering the influence of snow and vegetation for Subsys-
tem II as discussed in chapter 5.1. It can be assumed, that both Subsys-
tems were activated simultaneously or shortly after the events of
2011/2013 due to loss of material and related instabilities. The subse-
quent deceleration of process rates after 2015 and, respectively or the
more subtle dynamics on different parts of the area affected are typical
for complex landslide behaviour (Cruden and Varnes, 1996). Towards
deciphering respective behaviour, results confirm the necessity of
long-term data acquisition and of detailed process assessment via
high-resolution, multi-temporal investigations – as well as the strength
of this comparative approach. Respective characteristics of feature de-
velopment could be used as indicator for future landslide development
– for both local processes and similar study locations, which needs to be
investigated in future studies.
6. Conclusions
An area affected by complex, slow moving landslide processes was
investigated via multi-temporal, large-scale morphological mapping as
well as DoD calculations. The respective analyses are based on high-
resolution, multi-temporal TLS and ALS data, covering a total period of
10 years. Seven epochs were mapped in detail (scale of 1:200) for two
Subsystems with DEMs of 0.05 m (TLS) and 1 m (ALS) raster resolution
regarding landslide feature development. Consecutive mesh-based DoD
computations were performed on a 0.05 m grid size, excluding changes
in elevation between ±0.05 m (Subsystem I) and ±0.20 m (Subsystem
II) as noise.
The results led to the following conclusions regarding methodologi-
cal aspects:
- With respect to landcover and process rate, TLS data accuracy did
not suffice to investigate densely vegetated parts (trees/bushes) or
13
Geomorphology 389 (2021) 107803
areas shadowed by these when it comes to slow, respectively small
processes investigated here.
- For grass covered areas, the time of TLS data acquisition is extremely
relevant. Mowed pasture in spring after snow cover and without
vegetation shadowing are optimum conditions.
- Initial mean TLS point cloud resolution of 0.055 m justifies an ini-
tial DEM raster resolution of 0.05 m, which is mandatory to dis-
play changes on this process scale. Yet, small changes in surface
height of less than ±0.05 m still need to be ruled out in areas of
optimum TLS ground point acquisition due to low grass cover
changes (Subsystem I) and changes less than ±0.20 m in areas
of high grass cover changes (Subsystem II) to capture real surface
change.
- Surface height changes on a 0.05 m step scale could be validated
via artificial changes and field experience (Subsystem I) and rep-
resent real surface change. High grass cover changes superimpose
small, real surface changes (Subsystem II) typical for slow-
moving landslides.
- Morphological mapping and DoD calculations are based on the
same data – but the interpretation of mapped features is required
to evaluate DoD results. Information on real surface change in
areas of high grass cover would be lost if DoDs and mapping re-
sults are not analysed comparatively.
Based on the methodological aspects the following conclusions can
thus be made concerning landslide characterization:
- The complexity of the Hofermühle landslide is reflected by two of its
Subsystems. Whilst Subsystem I can clearly be defined as rotational
earth slide, Subsystem II rather shows characteristics of translational
sliding. Even though both exhibit different magnitudes regarding
surface height changes and feature appearance, therefore
supporting their individual categorization, they too show a similar
magnitude of changes regarding feature development and a similar
frequency of process activity. This supports the implication of their
interrelation with the main landslide (earth slide – earth flow); the
differing spatio-temporal scale of these interrelations represents
the complexity of the entire landslide.
- Results indicate landslide activity to have been highest between
2009 and 2015; rates have subsequently decelerated since then.
This speaks a) for the initial initiation of the Subsystems to be
based on two major events in 2011 and 2013 and b) for an adaption
of the entire system in the following years. Yet, recent dynamics
could be detected and speak for ongoing landslide activity.
- Mapping of landslide features enabled an improved interpretation of
process dynamics for and in-between TLS epochs; only the approach
utilized in this study was able to detect respective complex
dynamics.
The findings of this study indicate that a comparative analysis of
both highly resolved DoDs and morphological mapping based on con-
secutive, TLS based DEMs not only improves and facilitates the interpre-
tation of slow-moving landslide dynamics; it enables the detection of
real surface changes even in areas where TLS ground point density
would not facilitate the detection of DoD based changes on a scale typ-
ical for slow-moving landslides in the first place. Additionally, it is sug-
gested that this approach could improve our perception of process
development in areas which are going to be affected by the retrogres-
sive landslide in the next years. It is further suggested that results, re-
spectively the approach could be transferred to similar sites; this will
be investigated in future studies. Additionally, recent research is focus-
ing on both the analysis of sub-surface properties, including geotechni-
cal parameters and groundwater fluctuations, as well as the impact of
precipitation to investigate the dispositional and triggering factors of
former, recent and possibly future process behaviour.
M.J. Stumvoll, E.M. Schmaltz and T. Glade Geomorphology 389 (2021) 107803

Declaration of competing interest provisioning and project support (NoeSLIDE), and the Torrent and
Avalanche Control Lower Austria West, especially Eduard Kotzmaier, for
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial providing internal reports, additional information and project support
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ- (MillSLIDE). The authors would like to thank the Faculty of Earth Sciences,
ence the work reported in this paper. Geography and Astronomy at the University of Vienna for financial
support to purchase relevant field equipment. The authors further kindly
Acknowledgements thank the land owners, particularly Johannes Oberbramberger and family
for their enthusiastic support of and interest in our work. Sincere thanks
The authors express their gratitude to the Federal State Government of to the colleagues of the ENGAGE working group at the University of Vienna
Lower Austria, especially Joachim Schweigl and Michael Bertagnoli for data as well as all students involved in field work.

Appendix A

Table A1
TLS data used for this study. Original data: information on initial point spacing ([deg] and in 1000 m distance] for both Theta and Phi. Estimation on footprint size in 1000 m distance and
related point overlapping (positive value: no/negative value: yes) and the respective negative or positive distance left between two footprints [m]. For MSA: information on strongly ho-
mogenized point count and the number of plane patches used for MSA. Registration via MSA: information on search radius [m], the max. tilt angle [deg], the min. change of error 1 and 2
[m] and the outlier threshold, the standard deviation and the corresponding number of plane patches for each MSA step. Final Data: final point count of each epoch after terrain and octree
filtering for the areas of Subsystems I and II (see Fig. 1d).

Scan campaign [Epoch] 2015-11-19 2016-09-15 2018-08-09 2018-11-14 2019-02-26 2019-12-05

Scan posion WEST EAST EAST EAST WEST EAST WEST WEST EAST WEST

Original point count [points] 22,402,659 15,779,708 133,771,132 94,219,274 55,050,408 34,731,439 46,844,829 49,251,773 29,060,415 36,916,201
Original data

Theta [deg]
0.009 0.157 0.016 0.279 0.003 0.052 0.004 0.070 0.004 0.070 0.004 0.070 0.003 0.052 0.004 0.070 0.003 0.052 0.003 0.052
Point spacing in 1000m distance [m]
Phi [deg]
0.004 0.070 0.003 0.052 0.001 0.017 0.004 0.070 0.004 0.070 0.004 0.070 0.004 0.070 0.004 0.070 0.004 0.070 0.004 0.070
Point spacing in 1000m distance [m]
Footprint in 1000m distance [m]
0.120 0.019 0.120 0.080 0.120 -0.034 0.120 -0.025 0.120 -0.025 0.120 -0.025 0.120 -0.034 0.120 -0.025 0.120 -0.034 0.120 -0.034
Theta overlapping (+ no/- yes) & respecve spacing [m]
Footprint in 1000m distance [m]
0.120 -0.025 0.120 -0.034 0.120 -0.051 0.120 -0.025 0.120 -0.025 0.120 -0.025 0.120 -0.025 0.120 -0.025 0.120 -0.025 0.120 -0.025
Phi overlapping (+ no/ - yes) & respecve spacing [m]

Point Count aer Octree 0.5 and Terrain Filter [points] 7,991,592 6,803,084 24,775,036 2,712,401 1,222,940 1,090,666 781,373 896,863 933,784 672,645
MSA
for

Extract plane patches (3, 0.02, 20,-15) [points] 118,002 167,698 377,290 107,179 41,019 56,482 33,368 44,395 61,251 32,553

msa I (4/ 4/ 1000000/ 0.01/ 0.005/ 2)

0.096 105,971 0.205 665,780 0.080 107,548 0.069 104,221 0.058 185,812 0.057 183,889 0.057 249,092 0.064 263,384 0.065 225,829
Standard deviaon [m] / plane patches
msa II (2/ 3/ 1000000/ 0.001/ 0.0005/ 2)
Registraon

0.049 19,171 0.060 55,089 0.111 303,001 0.049 66,096 0.043 63,956 0.039 112,718 0.040 113,424 0.038 155,638 0.042 159,554 0.042 134,072
Standard deviaon [m] / plane patches
via MSA

msa III (0.5/ 3/ 1000000/ 0.0001/ 0.00005/ 2)

0.037 1726 0.026 7912 0.037 40,625 0.025 12,151 0.024 11,010 0.024 18,274 0.025 17,945 0.024 24,180 0.026 24,688 0.024 19,825
Standard deviaon [m] / plane patches
msa IV (0.5/ 3/ 1000000/ 0.0001/ 0.00005/ 1)
0.025 1424 0.017 6692 0.024 33,206 0.017 10,226 0.016 9287 0.016 14,957 0.017 15,313 0.017 21,182 0.018 20,757 0.017 17,458
Standard deviaon [m] / plane patches
msa V (0.2/ 2/ 1000000/ 0.0001/ 0.00005/ 1)
0.023 132 0.011 689 0.016 2993 0.015 986 0.013 875 0.014 1426 0.013 1426 0.014 2041 0015 1825 - -
Standard deviaon [m] / plane patches

Point Count Subsystem I [octree 0.05m] 242,363 596,562 420,615 490,154 327,833 502,763
Final
data

Point Count Subsystem II [octree 0.05m] 35,734 123,070 37,022 97,791 72,263 107,297

für Eich- und Vermessungswesen, Wien, p. 9. http://www.bev.gv.at/pls/portal/docs/

References PAGE/BEV_PORTAL_CONTENT_ALLGEMEIN/0200_PRODUKTE/PDF/TRANSFORMA-
TION_GK_MGI_UTM_ETRS89.PDF.
Abellán, A., Jaboyedoff, M., Oppikofer, T., Vilaplana, J.M., 2009. Detection of millimetric de-
Bishop, M.P., James, L.A., Shroder, J.F., Walsh, S.J., 2012. Geospatial technologies and digital
formation using a terrestrial laser scanner: experiment and application to a rockfall
geomorphological mapping: concepts, issues and research. Geomorphology 137 (1),
event. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 9 (2), 365–372.
5–26.
Abellan, A., Derron, M.-H., Jaboyedoff, M., 2016. “Use of 3D point clouds in
BMDW, 2015. Digital elevation model (DEM) based on airborne laserscan data of the aus-
geohazards” special issue: current challenges and future trends. Remote
trian federal states; raster resolution 10m. ed. g. a. Bundesministerium für
Sens. 8 (2), 130.
Digitalisierung und Wirtschaftsstandort (BMDW), Austria data.gv.at (Open Data
Amanzio, G., Tiwari, A.K., Lavy, M., De Maio, M., 2019. Integration of terrestrial laser scan-
Österreich).
ning and GIS analysis for multi-temporal landslide monitoring: a case study of the
Mont de La Saxe (Aosta Valley, NW Italy). Advances in Natural and Technological Buckley, S.J., Howell, J.A., Enge, H.D., Kurz, T.H., 2008. Terrestrial laser scanning in geology:
Hazards Research, pp. 267–282. data acquisition, processing and accuracy considerations. J. Geol. Soc. 165 (3),
625–638.
Anders, N.S., Seijmonsbergen, A.C., Bouten, W., 2013. Geomorphological change detection
using object-based feature extraction from multi-temporal LiDAR data. IEEE Geosci. Corominas, J., van Westen, C., Frattini, P., Cascini, L., Malet, J.P., Fotopoulou, S.,
Remote Sens. Lett. 10 (6), 1587–1591. Catani, F., Van Den Eeckhaut, M., Mavrouli, O., Agliardi, F., Pitilakis, K.,
Auer, I., Böhm, R., Jurkovic, A., Lipa, W., Orlik, A., Potzmann, R., Schöner, W., Winter, M.G., Pastor, M., Ferlisi, S., Tofani, V., Hervás, J., Smith, J.T., 2014. Rec-
Ungersböck, M., Matulla, C., Briffa, K., Jones, P., Efthymiadis, D., Brunetti, M., ommendations for the quantitative analysis of landslide risk. Bull. Eng. Geol.
Nanni, T., Maugeri, M., Mercalli, L., Mestre, O., Moisselin, J.-M., Begert, M., Environ. 73 (2), 209–263.
Müller-Westermeier, G., Kveton, V., Bochnicek, O., Stastny, P., Lapin, M., Corsini, A., Castagnetti, C., Bertacchini, E., Rivola, R., Ronchetti, F., Capra, A., 2013. Integrat-
Szalai, S., Szentimrey, T., Cegnar, T., Dolinar, M., Gajic-Capka, M., Zaninovic, ing airborne and multi-temporal long-range terrestrial laser scanning with total sta-
K., Majstorovic, Z., Nieplova, E., 2007. HISTALP—historical instrumental clima- tion measurements for mapping and monitoring a compound slow moving rock
tological surface time series of the Greater Alpine Region. Int. J. Climatol. 27 slide. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 38 (11), 1330–1338.
(1), 17–46. Crozier, M.J., 2010. Landslide geomorphology: an argument for recognition, with exam-
Barbarella, M., Fiani, M., Lugli, A., 2017. Uncertainty in terrestrial laser scanner surveys of ples from New Zealand. Geomorphology 120 (1–2), 3–15.
landslides. Remote Sens. 9 (113), 1–27. Cruden, D.M., Varnes, D.J., 1996. Landslide types and processes. In: Turner, A.K., Schuster,
Bednarczyk, Z., 2018. Identification of flysch landslide triggers using conventional and R.L. (Eds.), Landslides: Investigation and Mitigation. Special Report. National
‘nearly real-time’ monitoring methods – an example from the Carpathian Mountains, Academey Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 36–75.
Poland. Eng. Geol. 244, 41–56. Dikau, R., Brunsden, D., Schrott, L., Ibsen, M. (Eds.), 1996. Landslide Recognition. Identifi-
Besl, P.J., McKay, N.D., 1992. A method for registration of 3-D shapes. IEEE Trans. Pattern cation, movement and causes. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Anal. Mach. Intell. 14 (2), 239–256. Dunnicliff, J., 1995. Keynote paper: monitoring and instrumentation of landslides. In: Bell,
BEV, 2020. Transformation von Gauß-Krüger(GK)-Koordinaten des Systems MGI in Uni- D.H. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Landslides, 10–14
versal Transversal Mercator(UTM)-Koordinaten des Systems ETRS89. Bundesamt February 1992. Balkemaa, Christchurch, New Zealand, pp. 1881–1895.

14
M.J. Stumvoll, E.M. Schmaltz and T. Glade
Glade, T., Anderson, M.G., Crozier, M.J., 2005. Landslide Hazard and Risk. Wiley,
Chichester.
Glenn, N.F., Streutker, D.R., Chadwick, D.J., Thackray, G.D., Dorsch, S.J., 2006. Anal-
ysis of LiDAR-derived topographic information for characterizing and differ-
entiating landslide morphology and activity. Geomorphology 73 (1–2),
131–148.
Griffiths, J.S., Le, E.M., Brunsden, D., Jones, D.K.C., 2011. Chapter fourteen - the Cherry Gar-
den Landslide, Etchinghill Escarpment, Southeast England. In: Smith, M.J., Paron, P.,
Griffiths, J.S. (Eds.), Geomorphological Mapping. Methods and Applications. Elsevier,
pp. 397–411.
Guzzetti, F., Mondini, A.C., Cardinali, M., Fiorucci, F., Santangelo, M., Chang, K.-T., 2012.
Landslide inventory maps: new tools for an old problem. Earth Sci. Rev. 112 (1),
42–66.
Hiebl, J., Chimani, B., Ganekind, M., Orlik, A., 2019. Österreichisches Klimabulletin 2018.
ZAMG - Zentralanstalt für Meteorologie und Geodynamik, Wien, p. 6.
Hsieh, Y.-C., Chan, Y.-C., Hu, J.-C., 2016. Digital elevation model differencing and error es-
timation from multiple sources: a case study from the Meiyuan Shan landslide in Tai-
wan. Remote Sens. 8 (3), 199.
Huang, R., Jiang, L., Shen, X., Dong, Z., Zhou, Q., Yang, B., Wang, H., 2019. An efficient
method of monitoring slow-moving landslides with long-range terrestrial laser scan-
ning: a case study of the Dashu landslide in the Three Gorges Reservoir Region, China.
Landslides 16 (4), 839–855.
Hunter, J.D., 2007. Matplotlib: a 2D graphics environment. Comput. Sci. Eng. 9 (3),
90–95.
Hutchinson, J., 1988. General report: morphological and geotechnical parameters of land-
slides in relation to geology and hydrogeology. In: Bonnard, C. (Ed.), Proceedings of
the 5th International Symposium on Landslides, 10–15 July 1988. A.A. Balkema, Lau-
sanne, Switzerland, pp. 3–35.
Jaboyedoff, M., Oppikofer, T., Abellán, A., Derron, M.-H., Loye, A., Metzger, R.,
Pedrazzini, A., 2012. Use of LIDAR in landslide investigations: a review. Nat.
Hazards 61 (1), 5–28.
Jaboyedoff, M., Horton, P., Derron, M.-H., Longchamp, C., Michoud, C., 2013. Monitoring
natural hazards. In: Bobrowsky, P.T. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Natural Hazards. Springer,
Dordrecht-Heidelberg-New York-London, pp. 686–696.
Kasperski, J., Delacourt, C., Allemand, P., Potherat, P., Jaud, M., Varrel, E., 2010. Application
of a Terrestrial Laser Scanner (TLS) to the study of the Séchilienne Landslide (Isère,
France). Remote Sens. 2 (12), 2785–2802.
Kniess, U., Travelletti, J., Daehne, A., Krzeminska, D., Bièvre, Grégory, Jongmans, D., Corsini,
A., Bogaard, T., Malet, J.-P., 2014. Innovative techniques for the characterization of the
morphology, geometry and hydrological features of slow-moving landslides. In: Van
Asch, T., Corominas, J., Greiving, S., Malet, J.-P., Sterlacchini, S. (Eds.), Mountain Risks:
From Prediction to Management and Governance. Advances in Natural and Techno-
logical Hazards Research. Springer, Dordrecht Heidelberg New York London,
pp. 57–82.
Knight, J., Mitchell, W. A., Rose, J., 2011. Chapter six - geomorphological field mapping. In:
Smith, M.J., Paron, P., Griffiths, J.S. (Eds.), Developments in Earth Surface Processes.
Elsevier, pp. 151–187.
Kotzmaier, E., 2013. Aktenvermerk Krojer Rutschung (Hofermühle) 03.05.2013. Wildbach
und Lawinenverbauung, Niederösterreich West, Melk, Austria.
Leser, H., Stäblein, G., 1978. Legende der Geomorphologischen Karte 1:25000 (GMK 25),
3. Fassung im GMK-Schwerpunktprogramm. In: Stäblein, G., Wöhlke, W. (Eds.),
Geomorphologische Detailaufnahme. Beiträge zum GMK-Schwerpunktprogramm I.
Selbstverlag des Instituts für Physische Geographie der Freien Universität Berlin, Ber-
lin, pp. 79–90.
Lichti, D.D., Jamtsho, S., 2006. Angular resolution of terrestrial laser scanners.
Photogramm. Rec. 21, 141–160.
Mukupa, W., Roberts, G.W., Hancock, C.M., Al-Manasir, K., 2017. A review of the use of ter-
restrial laser scanning application for change detection and deformation monitoring
of structures. Surv. Rev. 49 (353), 99–116.
NOEL, G.V., 2009. Digital elevation model (DEM) based on airborne laserscan data;
raster resolution 1m. In: Federal State Government of Lower Austria (Ed.), De-
partment for Hydrology and Geoinformation. St. Pölten, Lower Austria Refer-
ence Data.
NOEL, G.V., 2011. Digital orthophoto (2011-04-09). In: Federal State Government of
Lower Austria (Ed.), Department for Hydrology and Geoinformation. St. Pölten,
Lower Austria Reference Data.
Oliphant, T.E., 2015. Guide to NumPy. CreateSpace Independent Publishing
Platform.
Papathoma-Köhle, M., Glade, T., 2013. The role of vegetation cover change for
landslide hazard and risk. In: Renaud, G., Sudmeier-Rieux, K., Estrella, M.
(Eds.), The Role of Ecosystems in Disaster Risk Reduction. UNU-Press, Tokyo,
pp. 293–320.
Parry, S., 2011. Chapter fifteen - the application of geomorphological mapping in the as-
sessment of landslide hazard in Hong Kong. In: Smith, M.J., Paron, P., Griffiths, J.S.
(Eds.), Geomorphological Mapping. Methods and Applications. Developments in
Earth Surface Processes. Elsevier, pp. 413–441.
Petschko, H., Bell, R., Leopold, P., Heiss, G., Glade, T., 2013. Landslide inventories for reli-
able susceptibility maps in lower Austria. In: Margottini, C., Canuti, P., Sassa, K.
(Eds.), Landslide Science and Practice: Volume 1: Landslide Inventory and Suscepti-
bility and Hazard Zoning. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg,
pp. 281–286.
Prokop, A., Panholzer, H., 2009. Assessing the capability of terrestrial laser scan-
ning for monitoring slow moving landslides. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 9
(6), 1921–1928.
Reichenbach, P., Galli, M., Cardinali, M., Guzzetti, F., Ardizzone, F., 2005. Geomorphological
mapping to assess landslide risk: concepts, methods and applications in the Umbria
15
Geomorphology 389 (2021) 107803
Region of Central Italy. In: Glade, T., Anderson, M., Crozier, M.J. (Eds.), Landslide Haz-
ard and Risk. Wiley, Chichester, pp. 429–468.
Riegl LMS, 2020. Datasheet RIEGL VZ-6000. Riegl Laser Measurement Systems
GmbH, Austria, Horn (last accessed (2021-06-09)). http://www.riegl.com/
uploads/tx_pxpriegldownloads/RIEGL_VZ-6000_Datasheet_2020-09-14.
pdf.
Sausgruber, T., 2013. Hofermühlrutschung Waidhofen/ Ybbs (intern). Mit zwei Anhängen
(Kartierung), Forsttechnischer Dienst für Wildbach und Lawinenverbauung.
Geologische Stelle, Innsbruck, Austria.
Sausgruber, T., 2016. Protokoll zum Lokalaugenschein Hangprozess Hofermühle /
Hofermühlrutschung. Mit einem Anhang (Kartierung). Forsttechnischer
Dienst für Wildbach und Lawinenverbauung. Geologische Stelle, Innsbruck,
Austria.
Schmaltz, E.M., Steger, S., Glade, T., 2017. The influence of forest cover on landslide
occurrence explored with spatio-temporal information. Geomorphology 290,
250–264.
Schnabel, W., 1999. The flysch zone of the Eastern Alps. In: Mandl, G.W. (Ed.),
FOREGS '99 <Vienna>, Field trip guide Vienna - Dachstein - Hallstatt - Salz-
kammergut (UNESCO World Heritage Area), August 30th - September 2nd,
1999: 150 Years Geological Survey of Austria. Berichte der Geologischen
Bundesanstalt. Verlag der Geologischen Bundesanstalt (GBA), Wien,
pp. 27–35.
Schnabel, W., Krenmayr, H.-G., Mandl, G.W., Nowotny, A., Roetzel, R., Scharbert, S., 2002.
In: Schnabel, W. (Ed.), Geologische Karte von Niederösterreich 1:200.000.
Geologische Bundesanstalt, Wien, Österreich.
Schürch, P., Densmore, A.L., Rosser, N.J., Lim, M., McArdell, B.W., 2011. Detection of
surface change in complex topography using terrestrial laser scanning: appli-
cation to the Illgraben debris-flow channel. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 36
(14), 1847–1859.
Schweigl, J., Hervás, J., 2009. Landslide Mapping in Austria. Office for Official Publications
of the European Communities, European Commission OPOCE, Luxembourg.
Schwenk, H., 1992. Massenbewegungen in Niederösterreich 1953–1990. Jahrb. Geol.
Bundesanst. 135 (2), 597–660.
Seijmonsbergen, A.C., De Graaff, L.W.S., 2006. Geomorphological mapping and geophysi-
cal profiling for the evaluation of natural hazards in an alpine catchment. Nat. Haz-
ards Earth Syst. Sci. 6 (2), 185–193.
Shepard, M.K., Campbell, B.A., Bulmer, M.H., Farr, T.G., Gaddis, L.R., Plaut, J.J., 2001. The
roughness of natural terrain: a planetary and remote sensing perspective.
J. Geophys. Res. Planets 106 (E12), 32777–32795.
Sidle, R.C., Bogaard, T.A., 2016. Dynamic earth system and ecological controls of rainfall-
initiated landslides. Earth Sci. Rev. 159, 275–291.
Sidle, R.C., Ochiai, H., 2006. Landslides: processes, prediction, and land use. Water Re-
sources Monograph. American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC.
Sidle, R.C., Ziegler, A.D., Negishi, J.N., Nik, A.R., Siew, R., Turkelboom, F., 2006. Erosion pro-
cesses in steep terrain–truths, myths, and uncertainties related to forest management
in Southeast Asia. For. Ecol. Manag. 224 (1–2), 199–225.
Steger, S., Schmaltz, E., Seijmonsbergen, A.C., Glade, T., 2020. The Walgau – a land-
scape shaped by landslides. In: Embleton-Hamann, C. (Ed.), Landscapes and
Landforms of Austria. World Geomorphological Landscapes. Springer (2020)
(accepted).
Telling, J., Lyda, A., Hartzell, P., Glennie, C., 2017. Review of Earth science research using
terrestrial laser scanning. Earth Sci. Rev. 169, 35–68.
The Pandas Development Team, 2020. pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, Latest. Zenodo
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3630805.
Thenius, E., 1974. Geologie der österreichischen Bundesländer in kurzgefaßten
Einzeldarstellungen. Niederösterreich. Verhandlungen der Geologischen
Bundesanstalt: Bundesländerserie. Geologische Bundesanstalt, Wien,
Österreich.
Tilch, N., 2014. Identifizierung gravitativer Massenbewegungen mittles
multitemporaler Luftbildauswertung in Vorarlberg und angrenzender Gebiete.
Jahrbuch der Kaiserlich-Königlichen Geologischen Bundesanstalt. 154(1–4),
pp. 21–39.
Travelletti, J., Oppikofer, T., Delacourt, C., Malet, J.P., Jaboyedoff, M., 2008. Monitoring
landslide displacements during a controlled rain experiment using a long-range ter-
restrial laser scanning (TLS). Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote. Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 37
(B5), 485–490.
Travelletti, J., Malet, J.-P., Delacourt, C., 2014. Image-based correlation of Laser Scanning
point cloud time series for landslide monitoring. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 32,
1–18.
Weber, L., 1997. Flächendeckende Beschreibung der Geologie von Österreich 1:
500.000 im Vektorformat. Exzerpt (Basiskarte Geologie) aus der
Metallogenetischen Karte von Österreich 1:500.000. Geologische
Bundesanstalt, Wien, Österreich.
Whiteley, J.S., Chambers, J.E., Uhlemann, S., Wilkinson, P.B., Kendall, J.M., 2019. Geophys-
ical monitoring of moisture-induced landslides: a review. Rev. Geophys. 57 (1),
106–145.
Whitworth, M., Aderson, I., Hunter, G., 2011. Chapter seventeen - geomorphological as-
sessment of complex landslide systems using field reconnaissance and terrestrial
laser scanning. In: Smith, M.J., Paron, P., Griffiths, J.S. (Eds.), Geomorphological Map-
ping. Methods and Applications. Developments in Earth Surface Processes. Elsevier,
pp. 459–474.
Wolter, A., Stead, D., Ward, B.C., Clague, J.J., Ghirotti, M., 2016. Engineering geo-
morphological characterisation of the Vajont Slide, Italy, and a new interpreta-
tion of the chronology and evolution of the landslide. Landslides 13 (5),
1067–1081.
M.J. Stumvoll, E.M. Schmaltz and T. Glade Geomorphology 389 (2021) 107803

Wolter, A., Roques, C., Gröble, J., Ivy-Ochs, S., Christl, M., Loew, S., 2020. Integrated Zanutta, A., Baldi, P., Bitelli, G., Cardinali, M., V, A., 2006. Qualitative and quantitative pho-
multi-temporal analysis of the displacement behaviour and morphology of a togrammetric techniques for multi-temporal landslide analysis. Ann. Geophys. 49 (4–
deep-seated compound landslide (Cerentino, Switzerland). Eng. Geol. 270, 5), 1067–1080.
105577.

16