GJ

Article
Vol. 21, No. 6, p. 10331070, December 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4
pISSN 1226-4806 eISSN 1598-7477 Geosciences Journal

Landslide prediction, monitoring and early warning: a

concise review of state-of-the-art
Byung-Gon Chae1, Hyuck-Jin Park2*, Filippo Catani3, Alessandro Simoni4, and Matteo Berti4
1
Planning and Coordination Division, Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources, Daejeon 34131, Republic of Korea
2
Department of Geoinformation Engineering, Sejong University, Seoul 05006, Republic of Korea
3
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Florence, Firenze 50121, Italy
4
Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna 40126, Italy

ABSTRACT: Landslide is one of the repeated geological hazards during rainy season, which causes fatalities, damage to property
and economic losses in Korea. Landslides are responsible for at least 17% of all fatalities from natural hazards worldwide, and nearly
25% of annual casualties caused by natural hazards in Korea. Due to global climate change, the frequency of landslide occurrence
has been increased and subsequently, the losses and damages associated with landslides also have been increased. Therefore, accu-
rate prediction of landslide occurrence, and monitoring and early warning for ground movements are very important tasks to
reduce the damages and losses caused by landslides. Various studies on landslide prediction and reduction in landslide damage have
been performed and consequently, much of the recent progress has been in these areas. In particular, the application of information
and geospatial technologies such as remote sensing and geographic information systems (GIS) has greatly contributed to landslide
hazard assessment studies over recent years. In this paper, the recent advances and the state-of-the-art in the essential components
of the landslide hazard assessment, such as landslide susceptibility analysis, runout modeling, landslide monitoring and early warn-
ing, were reviewed. Especially, this paper focused on the evaluation of the landslide susceptibility using probabilistic approach and
physically based method, runout evaluation using volume based model and dynamic model, in situ ground based monitoring tech-
niques, remote sensing techniques for landslide monitoring, and landslide early warning using rainfall and physical thresholds.
Key words: landslide susceptibility, runout, landslide monitoring, early warning

Manuscript received May 7, 2017; Manuscript accepted July 7, 2017

1. INTRODUCTION metropolitan area. Various studies on landslide prediction and

Landslides represent a major threat to human life, properties,
infrastructures, and natural environments in most mountainous
regions of the world. Statistics from the Centre for Research on
Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) (Brussels, Belgium) show
that landslides are responsible for at least 17% of all fatalities
from natural hazards worldwide (Lacasse and Nadim, 2009). In
the case of Korea, landslides cause the loss of 23 lives each year,
which accounts for nearly 25% of annual casualties caused by
natural disasters. In 2002, 75 people were killed in landslide-
related incidents throughout the country, and in 2011, 18 people
were killed by rainfall-induced landslides in the central Seoul
*Corresponding author:
Hyuck-Jin Park
Department of Geoinformation Engineering, Sejong University, Seoul
05006, Republic of Korea
Tel: +82-2-3408-3965, Fax: +82-2-3408-4341, E-mail: hjpark@sejong.ac.kr
The Association of Korean Geoscience Societies and Springer 2017
reduction in landslide damage have been performed. In recent
years, landslide hazard analysis and risk assessment have
become a major subject in landslide studies and consequently,
much of the recent progress has been in these areas. In particular,
the application of information and geospatial technologies such
as remote sensing and geographic information systems (GIS)
has greatly contributed to landslide hazard assessment studies
over recent years. In addition, the importance of a quantitative
assessment for landslide hazard has been recognized, as it
provides the basis for management decisions and mitigation
actions and the associated allocation of resources. Landslide
hazard assessment, including hazard investigation and analysis,
refers to identifying and quantitatively describing the potential
landslide hazards, and consequently, evaluating the probability
of occurrence of landslides within a specified period of time.
Because landslide hazards have important spatial components
related to the initiation of the hazard and the areas affected
by landslides (van Westen et al., 2008), landslide initiation
1034 Byung-Gon Chae, Hyuck-Jin Park, Filippo Catani, Alessandro Simoni, and Matteo Berti
susceptibility analysis and runout modelling are the essential
components of hazard assessment. Landslide initiation susceptibility
analysis is the measurement of the probability of landslide of a
particular type being initiated at certain locations. In addition,
assessing landslide runout (travel distance) is another essential
step for landslide hazard assessment in order to delineate
potentially hazardous areas.
Landslide monitoring is also a key component of most landslide
hazard assessments, often with the objective of providing early
warning of an impending failure where lives, communities, or
infrastructure may be at risk (Eberhardt, 2012). Because we
cannot avoid landslide risk and must live with it, it is important
to understand and predict landslide behaviour. The role of
landslide monitoring and warning is to gather usable information
for avoiding or reducing the impact of landslide activity. After
recent catastrophic landslides around the world, landslide
monitoring and especially early warning, have gained enormous
interest. Therefore, in this paper, the essential components of
landslide hazard assessment, such as landslide susceptibility
analysis, runout modelling, landslide monitoring, and early
warning, will be discussed. Considerable advances have been
made in landslide hazard assessment techniques in the last
decades, and this manuscript presents the progress and the
state-of-the-art of landslide hazard assessment methods.
2. LANDSLIDE SUSCEPTIBILITY ANALYSIS
2.1. Landslide Initiation Susceptibility Assessment
The occurrence of landslides is controlled by various spatial
and climatic factors, such as geology, topography, hydrogeological
conditions, vegetation, and rainfall. This makes landslide
susceptibility assessment difficult, because diverse and large
amounts of spatial data must be acquired from the regional area
and considered in the analysis procedure.
Fig. 1. Landslide susceptibility analysis.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4
Landslide susceptibility assessment predicts the potential of
landslide occurrence by considering landslide-inducing factors
and analysing the spatial distribution of these factors. Landslide
susceptibility assessment methods can be classified into qualitative
(knowledge-driven) and quantitative (data-driven and physically
based) methods, depending on the way they treat landslide-
inducing factors and models (Fig. 1).
Generally, knowledge-driven approaches are based entirely
on the judgement of the experts who conduct the susceptibility
assessment (van Westen et al., 1999). Therefore, knowledge-
driven methods are seldom used for susceptibility assessment
over large areas because they lack a concrete physical concept of
slope failure (Xie et al., 2004). Quantitative analyses can be divided
into data-driven methods and physically based approaches. In
data-driven methods, the statistical relationships between the
locations of landslides that have occurred in the past and
landslide-inducing factors are evaluated, and then quantitative
predictions are made for landslide-free areas with similar
conditions. These methods constitute the so-called data-driven
approach because the data on past landslides is used to obtain
information on the relative importance of each factor. This
method assumes that conditions that have led to landslides in
the past will do so in future (Safeland, 2011). The three main
data-driven approaches commonly used are bivariate statistical
methods, multivariate methods, and artificial neural network
analysis. In bivariate statistical analysis, each conditioning factor
such as slope, geology, or land use is combined with the
landslide occurrence locations, and weight values are calculated
for each parameter class. In multivariate statistical methods, the
combined relationship between a dependent variable (landslide
occurrence) and a series of independent variables (conditioning
factors such as slope, geology) are evaluated. An artificial neural
network offers a computational mechanism that is able to
acquire, represent, and compute a map from one multivariate
space of information to another given set of data representing
http://www.springer.com/journal/12303
 Landslide prediction, monitoring, and early warning: a concise review of state-of-the-art
the relationships (Lu and Rosenbaum, 2003). An artificial neural
network is trained by the use of a set of associated input and
output values. As the data-driven methods have been used
widely, the details are not covered in this review. They are effective
tools for evaluating various spatially distributed landslide-
inducing factors over large areas. The most significant challenge
in using data-driven methods is the collection of data regarding
the landslide distribution and factor maps over large areas (van
Westen, 2000). In addition, data-driven landslide susceptibility
assessment methods consider only the relationships between
landslides and related factors, not the failure mechanism (Park
et al., 2013). Moreover, the statistical models generally ignore
the temporal aspects of landslides, and are unable to predict the
impact of changes in landslide-controlling conditions (e.g., water
table fluctuations and land use changes) (van Westen, 2004).
Physically based landslide susceptibility assessment methods
are based on modelling the process of landslide occurrence
using physical models of landslides. The methods estimate slope
instability by taking geometrical and geotechnical characteristics
into account. Thus, unlike data-driven methods, the physically
based approach can analyse slope stability regardless of landslide
occurrence by using physical slope models and on-site or
laboratory test results. The physically based method is a promising
approach for susceptibility analysis of shallow landslides because
of its capacity to reproduce the physical processes governing
landslide occurrence (Fell et al., 2008). Moreover, the general
grid-based structure and wide availability of GIS provide a
convenient framework allowing analysis over wide areas (Sorbino
et al., 2010). Thus, physically based approaches were used to
analyse landslide susceptibility over large areas using GIS (Luzi
and Pergalani, 1996; Zhou et al., 2003; Xie et al., 2004; Chen et
al., 2005; Salciarini et al., 2006; Huang et al., 2007; Godt et al.,
2008; Liu and Wu, 2008; Ho et al., 2012; Park et al., 2013).
Recently, physically based models have been used widely because
of their higher predictive capability and because they are the
most suitable for quantitative assessment of the effects of the
individual parameters that contribute to landslide initiation
(Corominas et al., 2014).
In the physically based approach, a physical slope model such
as an infinite slope model is used to determine the slope stability
by analysing the forces applied to the slope. The infinite slope
model (Fig. 1) is a simple but very useful model for shallow
sliding on a slip surface parallel to the slope of the ground. This
model assumes that landslides are infinitely long but have a
small depth compared with their length and width, and therefore,
this model is most appropriate for the analysis of shallow landslides
with planar failure surfaces. Because the failure surfaces for
rainfall-induced landslides are often shallow (the top few meters)
and are parallel to the ground surface (Lu and Godt, 2013), the
http://www.springer.com/journal/12303
1035
infinite slope model has been used to analyse susceptibility in
numerous previous studies of shallow landslides (Kamai, 1991;
Terlien, 1996; Pack et al., 1998; Frattini et al., 2004; Huang et al.,
2006; Rosso et al., 2006; Godt et al., 2008; D’Amato Avanzi et al.,
2009; Apip et al., 2010; Griffiths et al., 2011; Santoso et al., 2011;
Ho et al., 2012; Park et al., 2013; Ali et al., 2014; Alvioli et al.,
2014; Tsai et al., 2015). The infinite slope model has been used
previously in site-specific studies, but adoption of GIS methods
enables the use of this simple physical model for analysis and
modelling of slope stability conditions over broad areas (Park et
al., 2013).
The infinite slope model is based on a limit equilibrium
analysis that determines the balance between shear stress, which
is the forces tending towards movement along the supposed
failure plane, and shear strength, which is the forces resisting it,
and calculates a factor of safety (FS). That is, assuming that the
groundwater is located at a distance from the failure surface and
that groundwater flow is parallel to the slope (Fig. 2), FS can be
expressed by Equation (1) (Coduto et al., 2010):
c +  D –  w z w cos  tan
2
FS = -----------------------------------------------------------
-, (1)
 D sin cos 
where is the depth of the failure plane, is the unit weight of the
soil, is the unit weight of water, is the slope, is the effective soil
cohesion, and is the effective friction angle.
In this model, pore water pressure reduces the effective normal
stress and the shear strength of soil, ultimately causing slope
failure; thus, knowledge of the groundwater level is important
for predicting and preventing slope instability. It is practically
impossible, however, to measure the groundwater levels over an
extensive area. Therefore, previous studies have used a constant
or a randomly selected value for the groundwater level for the
entire study area (van Westen and Terlien, 1996; Zhou et al., 2003;
Xie et al., 2004; Griffiths et al., 2011). However, the groundwater
Fig. 2. Infinite slope model.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4
1036 Byung-Gon Chae, Hyuck-Jin Park, Filippo Catani, Alessandro Simoni, and Matteo Berti
level depends on the soil type, rainfall intensity, and hydraulic
conductivity of the soil, so the use of a constant or randomly
selected value for a large area is inappropriate.
Physically based models generally couple hydrogeological
models to evaluate the effects of pore water pressure with the
infinite slope stability model for the computation of the FS,
because hydrogeological models can evaluate an increase in
pore water pressure, which may be caused by rainfall infiltration.
Consequently, physically based models coupled with a
hydrogeological model can predict distributed shallow landslide
initiation locations by evaluating a reduction in the shear strength
of the soil caused by increasing pore water pressure.
The hydrogeological models can be classified into two
categories on the basis of the simplifying assumption: steady-
state and transient-state models (Montgomery and Dietrich,
1994; Terlien et al., 1995; Wu and Sidle, 1995; Pack et al., 1998;
Baum et al., 2002; Crosta and Frattini, 2003; Savage et al., 2004;
Godt et al., 2008). The commonly used hydrological model in
slope stability analysis is the steady-state shallow subsurface
flow model that is described in TOPMODEL (Beven and Kirky,
1979) and TOPOG (O’Loughlin, 1986). The steady-state model
assumes that rainfall infiltration is at its steady state, and saturated
water flows parallel to the slope surface (Montgomery and
Dietrich, 1994; Wu and Sidle, 1995). Thus, this model assumes a
uniform recharge state that simulates the spatial groundwater
level variation as a function of groundwater flow and rainfall
intensity over a long period rather than during a rainfall event.
However, this model cannot evaluate the short-term temporal
variation of pore pressure and temporal changes in FS because
of constant rainfall infiltration. Iverson (2000) attempted to
overcome the restrictive assumptions of steady water table level
by introducing the infiltration process in an infinite slope using
an approximated form of Richards’ equation (Arnone et al.,
2011). The transient-state model performs transient seepage
analysis using the linearized solution of Richards’ equation (Iverson,
2000; Baum et al., 2002) and provides more realistic analysis
results. However, one of the difficulties in applying the transient
hydrologic model in physically based analysis approach is that the
transient hydrologic model requires abundant spatial information.
A large number of physically based models have been developed
in recent years. SHALSTAB (shallow landsliding stability model),
SINMAP (stability index mapping) and TRIGRS (transient rainfall
infiltration and grid-based regional slope stability analysis) are
the most widely distributed slope stability analysis methods
based on the physically based model. SHALSTAB is a coupled
model that combines a stability model based on the infinite
slope equation with a steady-state hydrological model, assuming
that the subsurface flow is parallel to the slope (Beven and
Kirkby, 1979; O’Loughlin, 1986). This model assumes that rainfall
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4
infiltration is in equilibrium with the steady-state, saturated
water flow parallel to the slope surface, above an impervious
boundary. For each cell, it considers the steady-state discharge
as a function of the infiltration rate and a “contributing area”,
representing the upslope area that determines the subsurface
flux through the considered cell. The steady-state discharge is
combined with a general form for groundwater flow parallel to
the slope to estimate the relative water table depth and, as a
consequence, the relative pore water pressure. Because of its
simple hydrogeological model for the generation of steady-state
pore water pressure, SHALSTAB has been used widely in
numerous studies (Guimaraes et al., 2003; Fernandes et al., 2004;
Gorsevski et al., 2006; Huang and Kao, 2006; Rosso et al., 2006;
Sorbino et al., 2010; Listo and Vieira, 2012; Zizioli et al., 2013;
Dal Sasso et al., 2014; Pradhan and Kim, 2015; Teixeira et al.,
2015; Kim et al., 2016).
SINMAP is based on the infinite slope stability model with
groundwater pore pressures obtained from a topographically
based steady-state model of hydrogeology (Pack et al., 1998,
2001). SINMAP derives its terrain stability classification from
topographic, hydrological, and soil characteristics. The input
information (slope and specific catchment area) is obtained
from the analysis of digital elevation models (DEMs). These
parameters can be adjusted and calibrated with an interactive
visual procedure that adjusts them based upon observed
landslides. SINMAP allows uncertainty in the input parameters
through the specification of lower and upper bounds that define
the uniform probability distributions. Between these boundaries,
the parameters are assumed to vary at random with respect to
the probability distribution. By assuming uniform distributions
of the parameters over uncertainty ranges, this model calculates
the stability index (SI), which is defined as the probability that a
location is stable.
Both SINMAP and SHALSTAB predict that shallow landslides
will concentrate in areas of topographic convergence because
the ratio of the contributing area to the cross-sectional width
will be considered. Details, such as the flow-routing methods,
treatment of material properties, and use of results of the FS
calculations in identifying unstable slopes vary between the two
programmes, but their overall approach to assessing slope
stability is similar (Savage et al., 2004). SINMAP and SHALSTAB
are useful for preliminary assessment of stability over broad areas
where the assumptions of the underlying models are adequately
satisfied. Both models consider a simple steady-state hydrogeological
process under constant rainfall. This means that both models
are used to predict a spatially distributed slope stability, but are
limited to the temporal prediction of the slope stability because
of the steady-state description of hydrological fluxes. In addition,
steady-state models are limited to few unrealistic situations
http://www.springer.com/journal/12303
 Landslide prediction, monitoring, and early warning: a concise review of state-of-the-art
related to both rainfall characteristics and in situ conditions
(Iverson, 2000).
The TRIGRS model is designed for modelling the potential
occurrence of shallow landslides by incorporating transient
pressure responses to rainfall and downward infiltration (Baum
et al., 2008). TRIGRS combines an infinite slope stability calculation
and an analytic, one-dimensional solution for pore-pressure
diffusion in a soil layer of finite depth in response to time-
varying rainfall (Baum et al., 2002; Savage et al., 2003, 2004).
The infiltration models in TRIGRS are based on Iverson’s (2000)
solution of Richards’ equation for an infinitely deep impervious
basal boundary and the surface condition of constant flux for a
specified time and zero flux thereafter (Salciarini et al., 2006).
Iverson (2000) provides a theoretical framework for understanding
how hydrologic processes affect the location, timing, and rate of
landslide occurrence, based on a solution to the boundary problem
posed by Richards’ equation. Baum et al. (2002) generalized
Iverson’s original infiltration model solution for cases of unsaturated
conditions and variable rainfall intensity and duration to develop
the TRIGRS software package. TRIGRS has been adopted to
evaluate the spatio-temporal prediction of landslide occurrence
in many studies (Baum et al., 2005; Salciarini et al., 2006; Sorbino
et al., 2007; Godt et al., 2008; Vieira et al., 2010; Liao et al., 2011;
Zizioli et al., 2013; Raia et al., 2014; Bordoni et al., 2015b; Lee
and Park, 2016).
Transient models are able to improve the effectiveness of
susceptibility analysis, accounting for the transient effects of
varying rainfall on slope stability conditions, but they generally
need abundant and accurate spatial information (Sorbino et al.,
2010). Moreover, they are sensitive to some required input data
such as hydraulic properties of soils, initial steady-state groundwater
conditions, and soil depths, whose correct evaluation is often
possible only using empirical models or inverse deterministic
analyses (Salciarini et al., 2006; Sorbino et al., 2007; Godt et al.,
2008). Because different physically based models have been
suggested and used to obtain shallow landslide susceptibility
maps, comparative analyses using different physical slope models
were performed. Meisina and Scarabelli (2007) applied the
SINMAP and SHALSTAB models for slope stability analysis
and compared the results of these analyses with the locations of
the shallow landslides that occurred on November 2002 in the
area of Oltrepo Pavese (Northern Apennines), Italy. Sorbino et
al. (2010) applied SHALSTAB and TRIGRS to analyse the
source areas of huge rainfall-induced, shallow landslides that
occurred in May 1998 in the Campania Region, Italy. Zizioli et
al. (2013) used SINMAP, SHALSTAB and TRIGRS to obtain
landslide susceptibility maps of an area in the northern Apennines
where landslides are the cause of a large amount of damage to
infrastructure and agriculture. Michel et al. (2014) compared
http://www.springer.com/journal/12303
1037
SINMAP and SHALSTAB by mapping areas susceptible to
landslides in Brazil. The comparison between the different methods
aided in the identification of the most could be identified.
In recent years, several new physically based landslide
susceptibility analysis methods were proposed. Arnone et al.
(2011) and Lepore et al. (2013) developed the triangulated irregular
network (TIN)-based real-time integrated basin simulator (tRIBS)
model that allows the simulation of most spatial-temporal
hydrologic processes (infiltration, evapotranspiration, groundwater
dynamics, and soil moisture conditions) that can influence
landslide occurrence. This model considers the spatial variability
in precipitation fields, land-surface descriptors, and the corresponding
moisture to account for the effects of heterogeneous and
anisotropic soil. Montrasio (2000) and Montrasio and Valentino
(2008) proposed a SLIP model that translates the physical
phenomenon of the rainfall-induced process and focuses on the
destabilizing forces caused by the water downflow and the
contribution of partial saturation to the shear strength of the soil
(Montrasio et al., 2011). In this model, the partial saturation
contribution to the soil shear strength is included using the total
soil cohesion. Total cohesion includes the effective and apparent
cohesion related to the matrix suction as proposed by Fredlund
et al. (1996). Montrasio and Valentino (2008) approximated the
suction-related cohesion as a mathematical function of the
degree of saturation based on experimental data. Chae et al.
(2015) proposed the modified infinite slope model based on the
concept of the saturation depth ratio to analyse the slope stability
change associated with rainfall on a slope. A rainfall infiltration
test in unsaturated soil was performed using a column to
develop an understanding of the effect of the saturation depth
ratio following rainfall infiltration. The proposed model was applied
to practical examples to assess its feasibility and to develop a
regional landslide susceptibility map using a GIS.
In the physically based model, sufficient and accurate information
is required to obtain an accurate landslide susceptibility assessment.
Therefore, the quality and quantity of information for the input
parameters have been the main concerns in landslide susceptibility
analysis. This is because in practice, such data are often limited
in extent and have imperfections or variable quality (van Westen
et al., 2006). In particular, the strength parameters of slope
materials, such as cohesion and friction angle, are inherently
spatially heterogeneous, as the slope material is produced by a
natural process (Baecher and Christian, 2003; Carrara et al.,
2008; Chowdhury et al., 2010). In addition, the input parameters
used in the physically based approach should be obtained from
a very wide study area, likely with limited sampling; thus,
uncertainties are inevitably involved in the physically based
model analysis. Uncertainty in model parameter evaluation has
been recognized as an important cause of mismatch between
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4
1038 Byung-Gon Chae, Hyuck-Jin Park, Filippo Catani, Alessandro Simoni, and Matteo Berti
simulated and observed distributions of landslide occurrence
(Burton et al., 1998). Therefore, when performing susceptibility
analysis with physically based models, spatial variability and
uncertainties in ground conditions must be taken into account.
However, most previous physically based model studies have
used a deterministic analysis to estimate the potential or relative
instability of slopes, over a large area, without considering the
uncertainties in the input parameters. The deterministic analysis
is not appropriate for considering uncertainties and variability
because only a single fixed value is given for an uncertain
parameter. In particular, applying the deterministic approach to
an extensive study area can be particularly difficult or impossible
because of the uncertainties and difficulties in obtaining, checking,
and processing large spatial data sets (Zhou et al., 2003). The
variability and uncertainty can be quantitatively accounted for
by the application of probabilistic analyses. Therefore, probabilistic
analysis has been recognized as a formidable tool for dealing
with uncertainty.
In probabilistic analysis, strength parameters should be
considered as random variables to account for the uncertainties
involved in their determination. In addition, the statistical
parameters (such as mean and standard deviation) and probability
density function (PDF) of uncertain variables are determined
from the available field or laboratory data. Then, using the
statistical parameters and the PDF of uncertain parameters with
the performance function (i.e., a physically based model in this
study), the probabilistic analysis is carried out.
There are three most commonly used probabilistic analysis
methods: the first-order second-moment method (FOSM), the
point estimate method (PEM), and Monte Carlo simulations.
FOSM and PEM offer the advantage of allowing approximate
estimation of the probability of failure using only the means and
standard deviations even when additional information regarding
the random variables is lacking. However, the calculations become
impossible when the performance functions are complex.
Moreover, because these methods can only be used to obtain
approximate values for the probability of failure, they cannot be
used to determine the distributions for FSs, which are also
treated as random variables (Harr 1987; Park and West 2001). In
contrast, Monte Carlo simulations are one of the most widely
used methods of probabilistic analysis that in principle can be
applied to all models for which deterministic analysis is possible.
Monte Carlo simulations are considered as the most complete
probabilistic analysis method because all random variables and
the probability of failure that results from the reliability analysis
are represented by their PDFs through repeated calculations
(Park et al., 2013). Monte Carlo simulations are relatively easy to
implement on a computer and can accommodate a wide range
of functions, including those that cannot be expressed conveniently
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4
in an explicit form (Baecher and Christian, 2003). The detailed
explanations for the different probabilistic analysis are provided
in several studies (Harr, 1987; Baecher and Christian, 2003;
Chowdhury et al., 2010).
As many reports have pointed out, probabilistic analysis has
been adopted in site-specific slope stability analyses at hillslope
scale (Christian et al., 1994; Gokceoglu et al., 2000; Park and
West, 2001; El-Ramly et al., 2002; Park et al., 2005; Zhang et al.,
2005; Cho, 2009; Zhu et al., 2013; Ali et al., 2014; Li et al., 2014;
Dou et al., 2014). Recently, the adoption of GIS methods has
enabled the use of the probabilistic approach for spatially distributed
analysis and physically based modelling of landslide susceptibility
over broad areas. Santoso et al. (2011) applied the probabilistic
analysis approach in the physically based model approach, but
the strength parameters were not considered as random variables.
Some studies used probabilistic analysis approaches in physically
based model analyses, but the hydrogeological model was not
adopted, and subsequently a constant groundwater level was
assumed for the entire study area in these analyses (Zhou et al.,
2003; Shou and Chen, 2005; Shou et al., 2009). Other researchers
have modelled the uncertainties in input parameters using
uniformly distributed strength parameters with upper and lower
bounds, which is the simplest form of probabilistic analysis
(Dietrich et al., 2001; Meisina and Scarabelli 2007; Terhorst and
Kreja 2009; Yilmaz and Keskin 2009).
More complete probabilistic approaches for spatially distributed
and physically based landslide susceptibility analysis have been
proposed lately. Raia et al. (2014) proposed a probabilistic version
of the TRIGRS code using Monte Carlo simulation. In this study,
the slope materials’ properties, such as strength and hydraulic
parameters, are considered as uniformly distributed random
variables. Then the proposed approach was applied to a test area
and the results of the probabilistic and deterministic analyses
were compared. The study concluded that the predictive power
of the probabilistic analysis was improved by about 10% over the
deterministic analysis. Rossi et al. (2013) proposed a physically
based slope stability simulator with Monte Carlo simulation,
called HIRESSS (high resolution slope stability simulator). In
this study, the probabilistic approach was used to manage
uncertainties of the typical geotechnical parameters, which is a
common weak point of the deterministic model. The proposed
simulator was applied to three test areas, and the results showed
good reliability with managing very uncertain input data on a
large area and at a large scale. Park et al. (2013) and Lee and Park
(2016) adopted the Monte Carlo simulation as the probabilistic
approach in physically based and spatially distributed landslide
susceptibility analysis coupled with the hydrological infiltration
model. The proposed model was applied to study areas that
experienced a large number of landslides and the results of the
http://www.springer.com/journal/12303
 Landslide prediction, monitoring, and early warning: a concise review of state-of-the-art
probabilistic analysis showed superior performance over the
deterministic analysis.
2.2. Landslide Runout
Landslide runout is generally intended as the overall distance
covered by a landslide in the case of a catastrophic failure
(McDougall, 2016). It may refer to the entire horizontal path
length measured on a map (travel distance) or to distance measured
downstream a defined point (runout length) (Rickenmann,
2005). In both cases, it indicates the ability of a landslide to travel
much further than expected from simple frictional models
(Corominas, 1996; Davies T.R. and McSaveney, 2012; Johnson
et al., 2016). Although many landslide in many different materials
can exhibit a flow-like behavior and move over long distance
(Hungr et al., 2001), the term “runout” is commonly used to
describe the mobility of fast landslides that travel at extremely
rapid velocity (> 5 m/s; Cruden and Varnes, 1996). Fast landslides
such as rockfalls, debris flows and rock/soil avalanches show a
sudden acceleration of the initial failure leading to high
displacements. Because of their speed and low predictability,
fast landslides have strong destructive effects and can cause a
large number of causalities (Guzzetti, 2000; Petley, 2012). The
prediction of landslide runout is therefore essential for all levels
of hazard and risk zoning (Dai et al., 2002; Glade et al., 2005).
How do we recognize whether a given potential landslide can
become extremely rapid? Mostly based on experience and
comparison with precedents. Most shallow slides occurring on
steep slopes can become extremely rapid. They usually involve
loose granular regolith overlying stable substrate. Such failures
nearly always begin during heavy rain, ensuring perched saturation
of the loose layer. As fast movement occurs, soil situated
downslope of the initial failure is over-ridden, liquefied by rapid
undrained loading and incorporated in a growing debris
avalanche (Sassa, 1985). Debris mobilization may also occur along
established steep stream channels whenever loose sediment is
abundant (Berti and Simoni, 2005, Kean, 2013). The flowing
mixture of water and debris entrain further material and turn
into a surging, extremely rapid debris flow. Debris flows are
often recurrent phenomena that contribute to build a fan with
their deposits.
Soils dominated by fine clayey material are usually involved in
slides that do not evolve in faster than rapid (3 m/min) movement.
Extra-sensitive (“quick”) clay flow slides are a notable and well-
known exception (Ter-Stepanian, 2000). However, also clay
slopes may produce shallow failures evolving in extremely rapid
mudflows when mixing with surface water is sufficiently rapid
(Hungr et al., 2001).
Rock slides, rock falls and rock topples in good-quality rock
http://www.springer.com/journal/12303
1039
may become extremely rapid following sudden failure. In general,
when the rock mass become fragmented the movement may
become flow-like, forming extremely rapid rock avalanches
(Melosh, 1987). Hungr et al. (2005) describe the typical failure
behavior for various types of landslides that can be used as a
guideline.
Whatever the material involved, rapid gravitational processes
are frequent and are the most dangerous type of landslides. The
ability to predict their travel distance, and possibly other parameters
like velocity or peak discharge, entails substantial advantages for
hazard assessment and for the design of possible mitigation
measures.
Several methods have been developed to analyze the travel
distance and velocities of fast-moving landslides. They range
from empirical-statistical methods to dynamic methods (Rickenmann,
2005) that are continuum based models allowing the simulation
of the flow and related parameters along the slope, including
deposition.
Since early attempts to constrain the relationship between
travel distance (L) of landslides and the elevation difference
between the starting point and the ending point of deposition
(H), it appeared clear that the volume of the mass movement (V)
significantly influence its mobility (Corominas, 1996; Hunter
and Fell, 2003; Legros, 2002; Rickenmann, 1999). A plot of the
tangent of the travel angle (H/L) against landslide volume
generally shows that large landslides exhibit lower travel angles
than smaller landslides (Fig. 3). The large scatter usually associated
to such relationships derives from differences in material properties
and motion mechanisms, and morphology of the deposition
areas or presence of obstacles. Their application has to consider
an homogeneous set of data that is representative of the specific
landslide type (Corominas, 1996; Hurlimann et al., 2015; Rickenmann,
1999). However the use of mean values can give optimistic
results and it is advisable to use the lower envelope or the line
corresponding to a certain confidence level (e.g., 90%) (Hungr
et al., 2005).
Most empirical methods are simple enough to be implemented
in GIS to delineate the extent of potentially affected areas (Toyos
et al., 2007) for preliminary hazard mapping purposes. In the
case of debris flows, Zimmermann (1997) defined a lower envelope
of tan (H/L) as a function of the catchment area, that can be
used for preliminary assessments when volume estimates are
lacking. Alternatively, Prochaska et al. (2008) propose to use the
average channel slope to make preliminary runout predictions
for small and medium-sized debris flows that occur along
confined channels.
Recognizing the importance of sediment entrainment for
debris flows, Fannin and Wise (2001) proposed to use a sediment
budget along the flow path to estimate the total travel distance.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4
1040 Byung-Gon Chae, Hyuck-Jin Park, Filippo Catani, Alessandro Simoni, and Matteo Berti
Their method can be used regardless of the knowledge of the
expected debris flow volume and heavily relies on the quality of
field data (Miller and Burnett, 2008).
The approach proposed for lahars by Iverson et al. (1998)
correlates event volume (V) with inundated area (B) and cross-
sectional flow area (A) (Fig. 4). It is based on scaling arguments
and statistical analysis of past events data and can be used for
different types of fast-moving landslides, provided the semi-
Fig. 4. Definition of empirical scaling relationships describing the relation
between event volume (V), inundated area (B) and cross-sectional
flow area (A). Mobility coefficients ka and kb can be obtained based
on statistical analysis of past events.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4
Fig. 3. Relationship between landslide
mobility (H/L) and volume as described
by various authors for different types of
mass movements. *H ranging from 200
to 2000 m.
empirical relationships describing the scaling relationships
between volume V, B, and A are adapted. Many researchers have
demonstrated its applicability to debris flows (Crosta et al., 2003;
Berti and Simoni, 2007; D’Agostino et al., 2008; Simoni et al.,
2011) and other phenomena such as rock avalanches (Griswold
and Iverson, 2008). Some useful modification have been proposed
to enhance the capabilities of the method or to address specific
situations. Scheidl and Rickenmann (2010) added a module to
their TopRunDF for automated prediction of the flow path on
the fan while expressing the mobility coefficient (constant
describing the V-B relationship) as a function of the gradient of
the deposition area. The prediction model DFLOWZ (Berti and
Simoni, 2014) allows to simulate the propagation of both
confined and unconfined flows and to take into account the
uncertainties associated to the scaling relationships and their
impact on results. Griswold and Iverson (2008) complemented
the GIS tool LAHARZ (Schilling, 2014) with a module for
delineating possible debris flow source areas and, recently, Reid
et al. (2016) embedded into the same method the effects of
debris-flow growth along the channel due to entrainment.
Empirical, volume-based models easily allow the likelihood
of different debris flow runout lengths or inundated areas to be
estimated through frequency-magnitude relationships. While it
would be beneficial to map hazard zones as a function of event
volume, difficulties can arise in the estimation of a probable range
of flow volumes for a given channel or a given area (Corominas
et al., 2014; Jakob and Friele, 2010; Jakob and Jordan, 2001; Riley
et al., 2013; Stoffel, 2010). However, due to their simplicity,
speed and ease of application, empirical methods maintain their
relevance and can be conveniently used for preliminary hazard
assessment.
http://www.springer.com/journal/12303
 Landslide prediction, monitoring, and early warning: a concise review of state-of-the-art
Dynamic methods consider mass, momentum, and energy
conservation of a debris flow to simulate the propagation of the
flow using one-, two-, or three-dimensional models (O’Brien et
al., 1993; Hungr, 1995; Laigle et al., 2003; McDougall and Hungr,
2003). Most methods treat the debris flow as a continuum
assigning simple constitutive relationships that are capable to
reproduce the macroscopic behaviour of a given material. Several
single-phase rheological models have been proposed for simulating
the behavior of a propagating gravitational flow despite this
latter being almost invariably a non homogeneous and multiphase
mixture (Iverson, 2007; McArdell et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2008).
More rigorous, physically-based multi-phase models have been
proposed (Iverson and Denlinger, 2001) but their application is
still limited (Liu et al., 2016) due to complexity and abundance
of required parameters. Determining the rheological behavior
of natural materials remains difficult because they encompass
coarse, irregular particles over a very wide range of size and a
variable proportion of water (Ancey, 2007). Probably we will
assist to the progression of multi-phase models in the future but,
at the time of writing, mono-phase rheological models are
largely dominant in practical application and we will limit to
them our concise treatment.
Dynamic methods commonly describe gravitational flows as
a non-Newtonian fluid moving in a three dimensional terrain.
The flow resistance term is often described as a Bingham fluid
or, more generally, as a Coulomb viscous (Johnson, 1984) or
Herschel-Bulkley fluid (Coussot, 1997). These models are
theoretically more appropriate for relatively fine-grained “mud
flows” (Costa, 1984) as opposed to “stony debris flows” (Takahashi,
1991) that require the dilatant or inertial grain shearing model
(Bagnold, 1954; Takashi, 1991) to take into account the grain
collisions that dominate the flow behavior. Intermediate models
attempting to describe the combined effect of viscous, inertial
and turbulent flow regimes also exist (O’Brien et al., 1993).
Despite being originally developed for snow avalanches, the
Voellmy frictional model has been successfully and widely
applied to debris flows (Revellino et al., 2004; Naef et al., 2015).
It includes a Coulomb-type friction term which scales with the
normal stress, and a turbulent drag coefficient that scales with
the velocity squared.
However, given that mono-phase models do not describe the
physics of flowing materials, and that full-scale direct measurements
is impossible, the parameters of a given rheological model are
usually determined by back-analysis of events that are similar to
the case under consideration (Sosio et al., 2007). This is a major
limitation of dynamic methods in that actual debris flows or
mud flows exhibit considerable variability in behavior that occurs
during successive surges of a single event (Berti et al., 2000;
McCoy et al., 2010) and, even more so, between the different
http://www.springer.com/journal/12303
1041
events that take place within the same catchment (Kean et al.,
2013; Marchi et al., 2002; Navratil et al., 2013). Rheological
parameters derived from back-analysis of documented past
events are commonly used for prediction purposes (Jakob et al.,
2013; Hurlimann et al., 2008; Pirulli, 2010). Though such
strategy aims to effectively address the choice of rheological
parameters, it necessarily adds uncertainty to the results because
of the inter-event variability mentioned above. To date, no
systematic effort has been done to constrain the ranges of
rheological parameters as a function of the many variables that
influence the flow behavior (e.g., volume, grain size, solid
concentration), therefore back-analysis still appears as the only
viable option.
In general, the predictive use of dynamic methods requires
knowledge of the physical phenomena to be reproduced and a
good understanding of the rheological model. Similarly to
empirical methods, the design volume or, better, the volume-
frequency relationship is required to associate hazard values to
simulation results of a given catchment (Jakob, 2005). Alternatively,
the erosion/deposition dynamics of the flow have to be taken
into account. Attempts to simulate the entrainment process
have been made by Hungr and Evans (2004) by introducing a
user-specified quantity of entrainment (e.g., bed-normal depth
eroded per unit flow and unit displacement) along the path, and
other examples recently appeared in the literature (Hussin et al.,
2012; Frank et al., 2015). When including entrainment, models
become more difficult to constrain, as the entrainment area and
the entrainment depth, become additional input parameters.
Field-based geological observations can be used to estimate
these parameters, but more work is required to effectively
simulate the entrainment process with dynamic methods (van
Asch et al., 2008).
Amongst the most widely applied dynamic models, FLOW-
2D (3-D integrated Eulerian model) is designed for the analysis
of debris flows and mud flows on colluvial fans (Sosio et al.,
2007; Marchi et al., 2010; Quan Luna et al., 2014). The model is
based on the quadratic rheological approach as described earlier
in this section (O’Brien et al., 1993). The inflow volume is
described by an entering water hydrograph coupled to a time
dependent sediment-concentration graph. The Manning coefficient
should be assigned to each grid element to account for the hydraulic
roughness of the terrain surface to account for differences in
surface coverage.
Several other debris-flow simulation models were applied in
case studies and compared to real debris flows. They include
DAN-3D (Hungr, 1995; McDougall and Hungr, 2004; 2005),
RAMMS (Christen et al., 2010; 2012; Hussin et al., 2012), RASH-3D
(Pirulli and Sorbino, 2008), and TRENT-2D (Armanini et al.,
2009). Dynamic numerical models can be used to investigate
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4
1042 Byung-Gon Chae, Hyuck-Jin Park, Filippo Catani, Alessandro Simoni, and Matteo Berti
runout distance and inundation patterns as well as flow heights
and flow velocities. Many authors agree on the importance of an
accurate digital elevation model of the potential depositional
area given that the runout pattern is largely determined by the
local topography (Hurlimann et al., 2008; Rickenmann, 2016).
Comparative studies of the performance of simulation models
include those made by Rickenmann et al. (2006) and Schraml et
al. (2015). Making generalizations is not possible due to the
wide range of physical processes that can be simulated. A
simulation model may better reproduce the behavior of some
types of flow (e.g., stony turbulent debris flows) while reproducing
less accurately others (e.g., muddy viscous flows). Anyway, due
to the fact that most rheologies used by simulation models do
not actually describe the physics of the process, boundaries are
difficult to trace. It is not surprising, for example, that the Voellmy
rheology, initially developed for snow avalanches (Christen et
al., 2010) can be successfully used to simulate debris flows
(Hussin et al., 2012) and also rock avalanches (Sosio et al., 2008;
Deline et al., 2011). Rheological relationships, in fact, should be
simple with few, easily constrained parameters (Hungr et al., 2005)
to facilitate successful calibration on the basis of a sufficient
number of control parameters (e.g., inundated area, velocities,
depths) and, possibly, more than one event.
Probably, the most desirable development in the research
field of fast-moving landslide propagation is the collection of
field observations that can be used to systematically back-analyze
past events. Only this way, much needed guidelines for the
selection of rheological parameters can be established and the
performance of the models can be evaluated with respect to
landslide typology.
3. LANDSLIDE MONITORING
Landslide monitoring is essential for recognition of landslide
occurrence as well as for early warning. It observes slope
displacements in potential landslide sites and measures changes
in attribute values of landslide triggering factors to reduce
landslide-induced damage. Monitoring of kinematic, hydrological,
and climatic parameters plays a significant role in supporting
the development of slope stability models. Without understanding
movement patterns and responses to climate events, forecasting
is not possible (Angeli et al., 2000). This requires not only
monitoring of actual movements, but also environmental factors
and geotechnical parameters (Uhlemann et al., 2016). Landslide
monitoring helps to understand the landslide mechanism and
to suggest reliable thresholds for landslide forecasting and early
warning. Studies for landslide forecasting and early warning
have been performed actively in recent years, and the importance
of landslide monitoring is emphasized.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4
There are three major categories of landslide monitoring. The
first one is field observations of changing features of topography,
cracks, and water flow on the surface. This is a conventional
monitoring method in which geologists measure the changing
features at regular time intervals in the field. However, the
method has a limitation in providing information on impending
landslides or slope failures, because measuring changes at the
site in a short time interval such as a minute or an hour scale is
impossible. The second category is an in situ ground-based
observation of slope displacement, hydrological and physical
properties in the soil, as well as rainfall using various instruments.
The main instruments that are installed in the field include rain
gauges to measure precipitation; extensometers, inclinometers,
tiltmeters, and GPS to observe slope displacement and deformation.
Total stations, laser scanners, and acoustic emission (AE) sensors
are also used to measure slope deformation in the field, as well
as time domain reflectometers (TDR), tensiometers, and piezometers
to measure changes of hydrological and physical properties of
soils. The third category consists of remote sensing methods
including satellite image analysis, synthetic aperture radar (SAR)
interferometry, optical reflectometry, and light detection and
ranging (LiDAR). These methods are popular for monitoring
landslides in recent years because they can measure slope
displacement with high resolution in wide target areas in the
field. They also can measure ground deformation under bad
weather conditions and even on dark nights. Recently, monitoring
by SAR interferometry and LiDAR can be performed by using
ground-based SAR (GB-SAR) and LiDAR (GB-LiDAR), as well
as by airborne satellites and planes. In this paper, in situ ground-
based monitoring methods and remote sensing methods are
reviewed to understand current state-of-the-art of landslide
monitoring technologies.
3.1. In Situ Ground-based Monitoring Techniques
In situ ground-based monitoring usually observes precipitation,
slope displacement, and hydrological / physical properties of
soils such as the groundwater level, volumetric water content
(VWC), pore water pressure, and matric suction. The monitored
items are measured by instruments that are installed in the
boreholes and on the surface of potential landslide sites. The
instruments can measure the changes in observation factors in a
regular time interval and/or in real time. Because the measurement
interval can be easily controlled by the geologist, the changes in
observation factors can be measured in both short and long
time intervals.
The monitoring data are analysed basically to recognize slope
displacements. It is possible to determine the depth of a sliding
surface and to understand sliding rates of the slopes based on
http://www.springer.com/journal/12303
 Landslide prediction, monitoring, and early warning: a concise review of state-of-the-art
the monitoring data. Moreover, the analysis results give information
on the relationship between slope movements and hydrological
or physical conditions of the slope under various geological and
meteorological conditions. Therefore, in situ ground-based
monitoring enables decision-making on triggering factors of
landslides and suggesting thresholds of landslide triggering factors
such as rainfall, VWC, and suction stress at the monitoring site.
However, ground-based monitoring is site-specific monitoring
because it can observe landslides within the areas where the
monitoring sensors are installed. There is a limitation for effective
landslide monitoring extending over a wide area simultaneously.
In situ ground-based monitoring can be grouped into three
categories, namely monitoring of rainfall, slope displacement,
and hydrological and mechanical properties in soils. Because
rainfall represents the most common triggering factor, it is
important to analyse the relationship between rainfall condition
and landslide triggering based on rainfall measurement results.
Most previous studies suggested empirical or statistical rainfall
thresholds by rainfall measurement, using rain gauges in the
field (Caine, 1980; Wieczorek, 1996; Aleotti, 2004; Guzzetti et al.,
2008; Brunetti et al., 2010; Martelloni et al., 2012). It is emphasized
that a landslide induced by rainfall is controlled by the locality
and the time of rainfall (Franks, 1999; Tsaparas et al., 2002).
Corominas (1999) completed a systematic study on the relationship
between landslides in the upper basin of the Llobregat River,
Eastern Pyrenees and rainfall, and found that there were two
different rainfall patterns that were related to landslide occurrence
(He et al., 2010). According to Guzzetti et al. (2005) the joint
US-Japanese Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM)
launched in November 1997 (Kummerow et al., 2000) and the
planned co-operative United States National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) and Japan Aerospace and Exploration
Agency (JAXA) Global Precipitation Mission (GPM) might
provide spatial and temporal precipitation information with
sufficient detail to forecast the possible occurrence of landslides.
In recent years, most landslide monitoring involved rainfall
measurements integrated with slope displacement, and hydrological
and physical properties of soils (Luo et al., 2009; Yin et al., 2010;
Bittelli et al., 2012; Chae et al., 2012; Palis et al., 2016). The
integrated monitoring enables understanding of the relationships
between the multiple triggering parameters of landslides and
more reliable warning thresholds of landslide before landslide
occurrence or at the very early stage of landslide movement
(Fig. 5).
In the concept of displacement monitoring, GPS, a tiltmeter,
an inclinometer, and an extensometer are generally installed on
the surface or in the subsurface of a slope to study the deformation
behaviour of rainfall-triggered landslides. Malet et al. (2002),
Corsini et al. (2005), and Brückl et al. (2013) compared measurements
http://www.springer.com/journal/12303
1043
of two or three of the mentioned conventional deformation
monitoring techniques, showing good correlation between surface
and subsurface deformations in terms of movement occurrences.
Chelli et al. (2006) and Konak etl al. (2004) installed a GPS,
tiltmeter, and wire extensometer to determine the shape of the
sliding masses and identify the depth of the sliding masses in the
upper part of the landslide. They also attempted to determine
the absolute lateral and vertical movements, and the rate of
movement (velocity) of the different parts of the complex
landslide based on the displacement monitoring. Several studies
applied inclinometers to monitor landslide movement.
Stevens and Zehrbach (2000) interpreted 15 inclinometer
datasets that were monitored for six years. The purpose of
monitoring was to determine the existence and depth of shear
horizons and the velocity of the shear movement. In recent
years, movement measurements with high resolution and high
accuracy are required to provide data that may be used to verify
theories and models of landslide process as well as landslide
warning (Xie et al., 2004). High resolution tiltmeters provide the
same type of data as inclinometers, but at significantly higher
resolution, i.e., between 1 mrad (≈1 mm/m) and 1 nrad (≈1 nm/
m), depending on the tiltmeter model. Tiltmeters measure the
angle between the instrument body and the plumb line in two
horizontally perpendicular directions (Garcia et al., 2010). Chae
et al. (2015) installed tiltmeters to observe slope displacements
affected by rainfall infiltration into the soil. Because the sensors
were installed in a grid pattern both horizontally and vertically
in the slope, they can measure fine movements of the soil layer
with changes in the wetting front behaviour by rainfall infiltration
along the soil depth. The purpose of landslide monitoring in
Korea is to suggest a threshold of influence factor to trigger
landslides considering both geologic conditions and rainfall on
natural terrain. Yin et al. (2010) performed a real-time monitoring
of the Yuhuangge landslide at the Three Gorges Reservoir area.
The monitoring system included GPS with high-accuracy
double frequency to monitor ground displacement, TDR, and a
borehole inclinometer to monitor deep displacement, a piezometer
to monitor pore water pressure, precipitation, and reservoir water
level monitoring. Based on the landslide monitoring experience
at the Three Gorges Reservoir area, the early warning criteria on
landslides were established, in which a critical situation was classified
into four levels (Fig. 5). Uhlemann et al. (2016) combined
conventional techniques such as GPS, inclinometer, and tiltmeter
with newly-applied deformation monitoring techniques such as
AE monitoring using active waveguides (AEWG), and shape
acceleration array (SAA). High temporal resolution information
allowed the capture of S-shaped slope displacement time
behaviour, meaning phases of slope acceleration, deceleration,
and stability, in response to elevations in pore water pressures.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4
1044 Byung-Gon Chae, Hyuck-Jin Park, Filippo Catani, Alessandro Simoni, and Matteo Berti
Fig. 5. An example of integrated ground-based monitoring of land-
slides which has been installed at Yuhuangge landslide, the Three
Gorges Reservoir area, China. 1. Piezometer and TDR; 2. Borehole
inclinometer; 3. GPS; 4. Field station (after Yin et al., 2010).
Fig. 6. Array of monitoring instruments measuring landslide displacement. GSC is a steel corner reflector for satellite InSAR; MSE is a crack
extension meter by manual measurement (after Macciotta et al., 2016).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4
Macciotta et al. (2016) monitored the Ripley landslide by an
array of displacement measurement systems including GPS
units, a ShapeAccelArray (SAA), satellite (InSAR), and crack
extensometers, as well as an array of piezometers targeting pore
water pressures in the vicinity of the shear surface (Fig. 6). The
displacement monitoring system shows the annual cycle of
slope deformations and the average horizontal velocities during
the active displacement period. The purpose of the system is to
provide timely notice for landslide experts to evaluate the
hazard level associated with the Ripley landslide. Analyses of the
landslide displacement patterns and near-real-time monitoring
data are combined with previous studies of landslide-induced
railway track deflections and track quality standards to develop
early warning displacement thresholds and associated hazard
management protocols.
The third monitoring concept of rainfall-induced shallow
landslides is linked with a continuous monitoring of hydrological
and mechanical properties of the soil. Many previous studies
have demonstrated the possibility of monitoring techniques to
identify the soil’s hydrological and mechanical conditions during
the triggering of shallow landslides (Simoni et al., 2004; Matsushi
et al., 2006; Godt et al., 2008, Godt et al., 2009; Baum et al., 2010;
Bittelli et al., 2012; Damiano et al., 2012; Leung and Ng, 2013;
Springman et al., 2013; Bordoni et al., 2015b).
http://www.springer.com/journal/12303
 Landslide prediction, monitoring, and early warning: a concise review of state-of-the-art
The concept of hydrological and mechanical monitoring of
landslide was also implemented in other previous studies. The
unsaturated soil hydrology has been shown to be a key factor for
shallow landslide triggering (Lu and Godt, 2008; Tsai and Chen,
2010). Several authors maintain that the most important cause
for shallow landslides is the decrease in matric suction after a
rainfall and the development of positive pressures above the
groundwater table. Lu and Godt (2008) described the stability
analysis of an infinite slope, taking into account the suction
stress concept proposed by Lu and Likos (2006). Previous
studies also suggested that rainfall-induced slope failures can be
triggered by two potential mechanisms, namely: (i) reduction of
matric suction (Ng and Shi 1998; Collins and Znidarcic, 2004;
Rahardjo et al., 2007), and (ii) rise of the water table (Cho and Lee,
2002; Crosta and Frattini, 2003). Through analytical analysis, Li
et al. (2013) proved that slopes with an effective friction angle
greater than the slope angle are unlikely to be triggered by the
loss of matric suction. Water table may rise when the infiltrated
rainfall reaches an impermeable layer or the main groundwater
table. In addition, several researchers found that the groundwater
flow regime in a highly permeable layer overlain by a less permeable
layer may result in an exceptionally higher rise in pore water
pressure than under normal conditions (Montgomery et al., 2002;
Jiao et al., 2005; Jiao et al., 2006). Li et al. (2016) installed the
instrumentation of piezometers on the slope of the Yangbaodi
landslide in China to correlate the change in hydraulic head with
rainfall and to analyse the effect of hydrological and mechanical
conditions that trigger landslides. To identify the depth of the
failure plane, as well as other landslide features, and to test the
validity of a specific modelling approach, it is necessary to monitor
unsaturated soil properties and slope stability. Several techniques
have been proposed to monitor landslides and various experiments
have been performed to assess their reliability (Rahardjo et al.,
2011).
Among the available techniques, the use of TDR for mass
deformation studies is increasingly applied for landslides studies.
O’Connor and Dowding (1999) presented a description of the
technique, and several works have been published describing
applications in different settings. The TDR technique is more
commonly used for measuring soil water content and electrical
conductivity (Topp et al., 1980; Robinson et al., 2003; Bittelli et
al., 2012). Chae et al. (2015) installed TDRs and tensiometers to
observe slope displacements affected by rainfall infiltration into
the soil. Because the sensors were installed in the slope in a grid
pattern both horizontally and vertically, they can measure the
velocity of rainfall infiltration into the soil. They also analyse
changes in FS of the monitoring slope related to the rainfall
infiltration in the soil. In terms of relationship between rainfall
and pore water pressure to occur landslides and debris flows,
http://www.springer.com/journal/12303
1045
Berti and Simoni (2005) investigated mechanisms and prediction
methods for debris flow initiation by channel bed mobilization,
by monitoring rainfall and pore water pressure with sensors
buried in a loose channel bed. Comegna et al. (2007) attempted
long-term monitoring of landslide movements and pore water
pressure to analyse the mechanisms of mudslides in Italy.
3.2. Remote Sensing Techniques for Landslide Mon-
itoring
3.2.1. General framework
Traditional direct field monitoring techniques have the major
drawback of being in physical contact with the monitored
object. For this reason, the measurement systems may incur two
problems: i) they may influence the system and, therefore, the
measured quantities; ii) they may be influenced by the system.
Remote sensing methods, which adopt sensors able to measure
geophysical variables of the ground from distance, without direct
contact, almost completely overcome this limitation. This, together
with the huge advancement lately experienced by space- or air-
borne sensing platforms, has produced a notable increase in the
contribution of remote sensing to landslide hazard assessment,
monitoring and early warning. As recently verified by a review
work by Tofani et al. (2013a), based on a large survey carried out
in Europe, in 83% of the cases remote sensing is being used as a
routine tool for landslide detection, mapping and monitoring.
The study also reveals that 75% of the users takes advantage of a
combination of 2 or more techniques.
Despite the advantages, some major problems remain in the
adoption of remote sensing methods for landslide monitoring,
i.e., i) the lack of underground penetration capability, ii) the
lower frequency of acquisition with respect to direct automated
methods and iii) the atmospheric disturbance effects.
As the study of Tofani et al. (2013a) reveals, the main advantages
and limitations of the remote sensing methods are driven by the
landslide typology, and in particular by two important factors
which derive from the latter: landslide velocity and dimension.
According to this assumption, we may classify remote sensing
methods for landslide detection and monitoring based on the
distance between sensor and target, a parameter which strongly
influences both the scale and the frequency of the acquisition.
Along this line, we traditionally distinguish among ground-
based, air-borne and space-borne sensors, the main difference
being the platform used to bring the sensor in position and,
thus, the measurement frequency and the distance from the
target. From a functional and operational standpoint another
distinction can be made on the basis of the type of sensor,
between passive and active RS tools. Passive methods rely on the
measurement of natural energy reflected by the target, which is,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4
1046 Byung-Gon Chae, Hyuck-Jin Park, Filippo Catani, Alessandro Simoni, and Matteo Berti
in most of the cases, sun energy. Active sensors, instead, produce
their own energy by emitting electromagnetic signals and
registering the part which is reflected by the ground surface.
The difference is relevant as it will be detailed in the following.
3.2.2. Passive sensors
The first RS tool used in geomorphological studies, with
special reference to landslide recognition and mapping, was the
aerial photo-interpretation, which was traditionally carried out
by means of calibrated optical cameras, flown on airplanes, relying
high-resolution pictures of the ground (both in grayscale and
RGB), used since the end of WWII. In landslide studies, the usual
method of mapping was, firstly, manual photo-interpretation by
experienced geomorphologists which, after the mapping, added
geographic positioning by ground control point (GCP) calibration
in a following phase. After the development of modern GIS
systems, though, the geo-registration of the aerial images is carried
out with a seamless procedure from the aerial acquisition to the
digital positioning by onboard GNSSs down to the upload of
the final adjusted data in a GIS for vector digital mapping where
the contribution of the photo-interpreter is still fundamental
(Mantovani et al., 1996; Canuti et al., 2000).
In the ‘70s space-borne sensors became available for the
public and the research as well, with the start of the first multi-
spectral satellite missions, such as the Landsat (Sauchyn and
Trench, 1978; Temesgen et al., 2001; Barlow et al., 2003). This
represented a true milestone in geological and geophysical
sciences because, for the first time, data were being acquired
routinely at global scale and with a spectral information content
higher than simple RGB photography. From that point on, the
evolution of remote sensing science has been overwhelming
and nowadays the number of technical solutions for landslide
studies is vast.
Since, in general, the greater the observation distance, the larger
the area that can be monitored or mapped, whilst, conversely,
the smaller the resolution of the measurement, in terms of
either or both spectral and spatial accuracy, then, space-borne
sensors are recommended for working at regional scales whilst
ground-based approaches are best when the focus is on a single
unstable slope. This rule of thumb, however, is not always true
because, with the advancement of new technologies, the accuracy
of long-distance acquisitions is becoming higher every year.
In this general framework, the use of RS for landslide
monitoring has specific challenges because it requires revisiting
a given site with a frequency driven by the landslide dynamics,
which is not constant and may evolve progressively or
discontinuously (Corominas et al., 2014). The object of RS
monitoring may be the displacement field of the mass movement
itself or, in some cases, some external triggering factors which
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4
are easier to measure and predict, such as the rainfall amount.
We may distinguish, then, between triggering monitoring and
displacement monitoring.
The triggering monitoring, i.e., the ability to measure with a
suitable frequency an initiation event, has mainly been concentrated
on rainfall. The most notable example is provided by Hong et al.
(2006a) and following papers (Hong et al., 2006b, 2007; Hong
and Adler, 2007; Kirschbaum et al., 2009) which exploit the
TRMM-based Multi-Satellite Precipitation Analysis (TMPA,
Adler et al., 2000) product to provide a model for landslide
triggering worldwide. The authors use the precipitation data,
together with the activation time of a global database of landslides,
to set rainfall thresholds to be adopted in back-analysis,
susceptibility studies and, with some limitations, early-warning.
After the expected end of the TRMM mission, the future of such
type of applications will be based on new global weather satellite
missions such as the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM)
mission (http://gpm.gsfc.nasa.gov) or the European Sentinel
constellation. As an example, ERS-1/2, ENVISAT and Sentinel-1
synthetic aperture radar (SAR) images are being used to calibrate
inversion models able to provide Earth surface moisture at high
resolution (20 m), a product which can be directly uploaded in
numerical and statistical triggering models for shallow or deep-
seated landslides (Paloscia et al., 2013; Rossi et al., 2013; Santi et
al., 2015). In other cases, rainfall patterns able to initiate mass
movements may also be anticipated in time (forward analysis)
by exploiting satellite meteorological forecasts, numerical weather
models and downscaling tools as in the case of the prototype
application proposed by Mercogliano et al. (2013). Since direct
slope monitoring is not feasible, the ability to monitor and
forecast rainfall dynamics is fundamental for the early warning
of shallow landslides over medium to large scale areas (Baum et
al., 2010). Shallow landslides, with the specific reference to
debris-flow, in fact, may hardly be monitored by using remote
sensing because of their: i) velocity, which would overcome the
maximum time resolution of the RS tool, ii) absence of progressive
accelerating behavior, iii) pseudo-random space occurrence,
which implies that we do not know in advance the exact
location to monitor. When one of those three conditions is not
met, RS applications start to become possible for landslide early
warning based on displacement monitoring instead of triggering
measurement. Table 1 gives a general overview of the different
RS methods that can fit landslide types, according to the studies
cited herein and based on type, material and expected velocity.
Displacement monitoring can be, in turn, subdivided in
measurement of change (change/target detection), measurement
of surface displacement and measurement of underground
displacement. The latter is at the moment not feasible by using
traditional or innovative remote sensing techniques, mostly due
http://www.springer.com/journal/12303
 Landslide prediction, monitoring, and early warning: a concise review of state-of-the-art
to the lack of ground penetration capability by the available
sensors. Only microwaves have a little potential of penetrating
the soil, which is roughly proportional to the wavelength, but
this only concerns a few centimeters of depth which is obviously
not useful for displacement measurement and modeling. Radar
sensors are able to give a deeper underground reading only
when used at direct contact with the surface, as in the case of GPR
systems, but they are usually considered geophysical methods
and will not be discussed in this review. For an overview of GPR
capabilities in landslide studies, which in any case do not include
actual monitoring, we suggest to refer to Van Dam (2012).
Remote sensing methods have, conversely, a very high
effectiveness for the exploration of surface changes of any type.
If the detection may be carried out repeatedly with the suitable
frequency in time, then the RS method may also be used as an
actual monitoring tool.
Space-borne optical image analysis has been the first tool to
overcome traditional air-borne photogrammetry, essentially for
reasons of costs. A mandatory requirement for the use of optical
imagery in landslide monitoring is the shift from the traditional
manual interpretation and mapping to a semi-automated or
fully automated one. In fact, if the revisiting time is small enough
to be compatible with monitoring, then the image elaboration
has to be similarly fast. The rapid mapping of landslides through
change or target detection has been recently obtained by Stumpf
and Kerle (2011) that used a supervised classification of IKONOS,
Quickbird, Geoeye-1 and aerial images to map landslides. The
classification method was based on the joint application of object-
oriented analysis (OOA) and random forests and attained an
accuracy up to 87% in a supervised approach. A multi-temporal
approach of OOA on high resolution data has been proposed by
Lu et al. (2011), which have employed advanced image segmentation
techniques for a fast landslide identification and mapping. This
method has the potential to become an actual monitoring
technique when applied routinely at revisiting time compatible
with the landslide development (see also Table 1). There are at
present several VHR satellites operating for Earth observation
that can be suitable for rapid mapping and monitoring by using
change and target detection algorithms. Among them IKONOS
(DigitalGlobe; panchromatic 0.8 m, multispectral 3.3 m), Quickbird
(DigitalGlobe; panchromatic 0.6 m, multispectral 2.8 m), World
View-3 (DigitalGlobe; panchromatic 0.31 m, multispectral 1.24 m),
GeoEye-1 (DigitalGlobe; panchromatic 0.41 m, multispectral
2.0 m), Pleiades (ORFEO; panchromatic 0.5 m, multispectral
2.0 m), EROS-B (Israel Space Agency; 0.7 m panchromatic only).
It must be said, however, that despite the increase in acquisition
frequency and in the number of available post-processing tools,
the use of optical data for landslide analysis it is still more a
target/change detection technique rather than an actual real-
http://www.springer.com/journal/12303
1047
time monitoring tool, mainly because the latter would require
the measurement of displacement velocity and the quantification
of volumes, difficult to implement in a seamless operational
chain based on photogrammetry. A possible exception to that is
offered by UAV-photogrammetry based on structure from
motion.
Optical correlation methods, also referred to as structure-
from-motion SfM techniques, are the modern development of
traditional photogrammetric tools, enhanced by digital imaging
and numerical computation (Kaab, 2000; Delacourt et al., 2004;
Debella-Gilo et al., 2011; Travelletti et al., 2012; Westoby et al.,
2012; Lucieer et al., 2014; Stumpf et al., 2015). Nowadays, many
authors have started adopting SfM as tools to easily measure
and model surface displacements induced by mass movements
as well as for activating monitoring procedures in cases where
the continuous measurement is possible.
The ability to build accurate 3D models of a topographic
surface by using simple handheld camera methods extends the
potential of photogrammetry to near-vertical slope geometries
which were traditionally difficult to measure by airborne cameras.
An additional step in photogrammetry automation is offered by
the possibility of flying SfM cameras on UAVs with the specific
use of small, low-cost drones. An example of this type of application
to quickly obtain accurate DEMs over medium-sized areas is
presented by Lucieer et al. (2014) that use SfM and image
correlation techniques to generate terrain models from UAV
photography. The authors use multi-temporal data to analyze
and monitor the landslide behavior and find that the
methodology has a positioning accuracy in the order of 0.1 m,
the same as Westoby et al. (2012) found in their work. A simple
monitoring by UAV-photogrammetry has been carried out by
Niethammer et al. (2012), which used high resolution DEMs of
the Super-Sauze landslide (South French Alps) taken in 2007
and 2008 to analyze the areas affected by surface modification
and verified horizontal displacements between 7 and 55 m. A
recent review of UAV-based photogrammetric methods, including
a panoramic on regulations and regulatory bodies, is provided
by Colomina and Molina (2014).
The main advantages of terrestrial and UAV photogrammetry
are the low-cost and the easiness of use, that extend the capability of
using optical devices to monitoring purposes for small areas
with complex topography. They are not usable, however, for
large areas. In such cases, the adoption of airborne or spaceborne
optical cameras is preferred, either in the visible or in a larger
spectral window including infrared. As an example, Forzieri et
al. (2013) used a multi-sensor airborne approach to monitor an
area across the Northern Apennines (Italy) and found that each
acquisition costs around 250 $/km2 including pre-processing
and georegistration of data. If we consider economies of scale, in
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4
1048 Byung-Gon Chae, Hyuck-Jin Park, Filippo Catani, Alessandro Simoni, and Matteo Berti

Table 1. Remote sensing methods and main references for different types of landslides
Typology Material Velocity RS monitoring tools Notes
Basin scale application possible by using spaceborne
ES-VS PSI, DSI, GB-InSAR, AP(c), UAV-P sensors.
Earth
DInSAR(c), TLS, ALS, GB-InSAR, SOCD(c), SRM(b), Basin scale application feasible only through trigger
S-M GB-WR(b), AP(c), UAV-P monitoring (GB-WR, SRM) + numerical modeling.
(c)
S-M ALS, TLS, GB-InSAR, AP , UAV-P
Slides Debris
R-VR-ER GB-nonSAR, AP(c), UAV-P(c), SRM(b), GB-WR(b)
ES-VS PSI, DSI, GB-InSAR Non-vegetated areas only.
S-M GB-InSAR, AP(c), UAV-P
Rock
Usage of GB-nonSAR subject to runout lead time limita-
R-VR-ER GB-InSAR(a), GB-nonSAR, AP(c), UAV-P(c) tions.
S-M GB-InSAR, DInSAR(a)(c), DSI(a), UAV-P Mainly precursor monitoring.
Earth Usage of GB-nonSAR subject to runout lead time limita-
R-VR-ER TLS(a)(c), GB-InSAR(a), GB-nonSAR, UAV-P(c) tions.
Falls/Topples (a)(c) (a) (c) Usage of GB-nonSAR subject to runout lead time limita-
Debris R-VR-ER TLS , GB-InSAR , GB-nonSAR, UAV-P tions.
Usage of GB-nonSAR subject to runout lead time limita-
Rock R-VR-ER TLS(a)(c), GB-InSAR(a), GB-nonSAR, UAV-P(c) tions.
ES-VS PSI, DSI, GB-InSAR, UAV-P, AP
S-M DInSAR(c), GB-InSAR, SRM(b), GB-WR(b), UAV-P, AP(c) Usage of GB-InSAR with sub-apertures (Bardi et al., 2017).
Earth
(c)
, GB-InSAR(a), GB-nonSAR, SRM(b),
R-VR-ER DInSAR Usage of GB-nonSAR subject to runout lead time limita-
GB-WR(b), AP(c), UAV-P(c) tions.
Monitoring of slow homogeneous displacements of
ES-VS DSI, UAV-P debris cones and talus slopes. Non-vegetated areas only.
Flows (b) (b) Basin scale application feasible only through trigger
S-M GB-InSAR, SRM , GB-WR , UAV-P monitoring (GB-WR, SRM) + numerical modeling.
Debris
Basin scale application feasible only through trigger
R-VR-ER GB-nonSAR, SOCD(c), SRM(b), GB-WR(b), UAV-P§ monitoring (GB-WR, SRM) + numerical modeling. At
slope-scale, usage of GB-nonSAR subject to runout lead
time limitations.
ES-VS PSI, DSI Non-vegetated areas only.
Rock
S-M GB-InSAR, DInSAR(c), ALS(c), TLS(c), AP(c), UAV-P(c)
ES-VS PSI, DSI Non-vegetated areas only.
Earth S-M DInSAR(c), DSI(c), UAV-P, AP
Spreads R-VR-ER SOCD(c), SRM(b), GB-WR(b), UAV-P(c), AP(c)
ES-VS PSI, DSI Non-vegetated areas only.
Rock
S-M DInSAR(c), UAV-P(c), AP(c)
ES-VS PSI, DSI
Earth Basin scale application feasible only through trigger
S-M SRM(b), GB-WR(b)
monitoring (GB-WR, SRM) + numerical modeling.
Soil slips, ES-VS PSI, DSI Non-vegetated areas only.
solifluction (b) (b) Basin scale application feasible only through trigger
and soil creep Debris S-M SRM , GB-WR monitoring (GB-WR, SRM) + numerical modeling.
Basin scale application feasible only through trigger
R-VR-ER SOCD(c), SRM(b), GB-WR(b), UAV-P(c), AP(c) monitoring (GB-WR, SRM) + numerical modeling.
Rock ES-VS PSI, DSI, DInSAR(c) Non-vegetated areas only.
The classification is derived from Cruden and Varnes (1996) with some modifications to take into account lumped velocity classes, where
ES-VS = extremely slow, very slow (v < 1.6 m/yr); S-M = slow, moderate (1.6 m/yr < v < 1.8 m/hr), R-VR-ER = rapid, very rapid, extremely
rapid (v > 1.8 m/hr).
For complex landslides, please join single methods as required. ALS: aerial laser scanner; TLS: terrestrial laser scanner; UAV-P: drone photogram-
metry; AP: aerial photogrammetry; SOCD: satellite optical change detection; SRM: satellite rainfall measurement; GB-WR: ground-based weather
radar; DInSAR: satellite interferometry; PSI: persistent scatterers satellite multi-interferometry; DSI: distributed scatterers satellite multi-interfer-
ometry; GB-InSAR: ground-based SAR; GB-nonSAR: ground-based non-strictly SAR radar.
(a)
usage is only for precursor monitoring and inverse-velocity methods; (b)usage is only for external triggering monitoring; (c)usage is only for
delayed-time monitoring and long-term monitoring (change detection).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4 http://www.springer.com/journal/12303
 Landslide prediction, monitoring, and early warning: a concise review of state-of-the-art
case of monthly monitoring frequency, the costs could raise at
about 1000 $/km2 per year or higher. Even though the spatial
resolution obtained in the case of Forzieri et al. (2013) was very
high (0.25 m horizontal resolution for the ADS40 4-band
camera, 1 m DTM from LiDAR, 4 m for MIVIS hyperspectral)
this cost may well be unsustainable for routine monitoring
purposes, if compared to the use of very-high resolution (VHR)
satellite optical data (such as IKONOS, QuickBird, GeoEye,
WorldView, Pleiades, EROS) which have costs in the order of
15–50 $/km2 (depending on resolution, acquisition mode and
level or pre-processing) and rather regular revisiting times even
in non-tasking mode.
3.2.3. Active sensors
Optical cameras, on whatever support platform, are passive
sensors, requiring solar radiation in order to work. Furthermore,
they exploit a range of wavelengths (usually from 0.3 mm to 1.1
mm) which is particularly sensitive to atmospheric disturbance,
such as fog, mist, clouds or rain. In specific environments, such
as volcanoes and large mining sites, the optical methods may
also be hampered by the presence of ash and dust in the air.
Some of those limitations are overcome by the use of active
sensors, which generate their own energy instead of relying on
the reflected sun light. Among them, in landslide studies, lasers
and radars are the most used. As we have already introduced,
lasers are mostly used through scanners, both air-borne (ALS)
and terrestrial (TLS), which generate a multiple laser beam and
measure the energy which is reflected back from the target
(Jaboyedoff et al., 2012). ALS/TLS systems offer a 3D scan of the
target by providing distances measured along the Line-of-Sight
(LOS) that can be translated into [x,y,z] relative or absolute
triplets by simple topographical computations (see e.g., Petrie
and Toth, 2008). Multiple flights from different LOS in ALS or
from different observation positions in TLS allows for the
resolution of shadow areas and even of hanging walls in rock
slopes (Gigli and Casagli, 2011; Jaboyedoff et al., 2012; Gigli et
al., 2013). The main differences between TLS and ALS (also
referred to as LiDAR) refer to the acquisition geometry and
distance. In the case of ALS the LOS is almost vertical and there
is the need of fast acquisition rates during airplane routing that
limit ground resolution. This leads to the inability to measure
steep slopes, hanging slopes and shadowed areas and to a point
density in the range 0.1–100 pts/m2. In the case of TLS, instead,
both the distance of acquisition and the LOS are very flexible
and the problem of reproducing a model of a near-vertical cliff
may easily be solved. Point density is much higher, ranging from
50 to 10,000 pts/m2. As a consequence, also the nominal accuracy
is different and is, in average, of about one order of magnitude
higher in TLS than in ALS (RMSEZTLS~10–2m; RMSEZALS~10–1m)
http://www.springer.com/journal/12303
1049
(Jaboyedoff et al., 2012). Conversely, if the area to be scanned is
almost flat or has a notable extension, TLS has a limited usability
and ALS must be used.
The repetition of the same measurements at different times
allows for the use of ALS and TLS systems in landslide monitoring.
The most frequent application of ALS/TLS, however, concerns
the mapping and characterization of mass movements. This is
due to the fact that generating a full 3D model from multiple
laser-scans in complex topography needs millions of points and
a lot of post-processing, issues that hamper an easy use for real-
time displacement control. Glenn et al. (2006) used ALS to analyze
the morphology of 2 large landslides in Idaho (USA) at different
spatial scales and concluded that geomorphometry applied to
high resolution DEMs such as those generated by laser scanners
may help in reconstructing the kinematics and the geometry of
a mass movement. The accuracy of DEMs and 3D models derived
from ALS depends on a number of factors, such as the flight
altitude, the quality of LiDAR used, the configuration of the
topographic surface and the vegetation effects. In an interesting
work, Dewitte et al. (2008) compared the RMSE vertical accuracy
of DEMs generated by multi-temporal stereo-pairs to that of an
ALS-based DEM for the long-term monitoring of landslides in
West Belgium. They found that the total RMSEZstereo~0.4 m while
RMSEZALS~0.3 m, figures that are suitable for most of landslide
monitoring purposes on the long term. A similar accuracy is
found by Chen et al. (2006) that use a LiDAR generated DEM to
compute displaced mass volume at the Tsaoling landslide (China)
after the Chi-Chi earthquake of 1999. The reported accuracy is
0.2 m in open terrain and 0.2–0.5 m in vegetated areas. Recently,
Ghuffar et al. (2013) exploited the combination of both ALS and
TLS to study the dynamics of a landslide in Austria over a 10-
year time span. They make use of the range flow method to
compute the 3D motion (Spies et al., 2002), a novel application
in quantitative geomorphology that yields a dense 3D field-of-
motion vectors for the entire available time series. In most of the
cases, though, ALS scans are carried out once, without multi-
temporal capability. In such a case, they are very useful for modeling
and characterization as well as for detection and mapping (Glenn
et al., 2006; Schulz, 2007; Kasai et al., 2009) or for volume
measurement, fundamental for the quantitative assessment of
landslide intensity (Catani et al., 2016).
Due to its higher spatial resolution and to the ability of
covering near-vertical cliff faces, the use of TLS is much more
common than ALS for the study of rock masses affected by rock
falls (Abellan et al., 2006, 2009, 2010; Gigli and Casagli, 2011;
Gigli et al., 2013). In particular, Abellan et al. (2006) applied a
TLS analysis to a rock cliff affected by falls in Northern Spain
and used the measured data to characterize discontinuities and
to feed high-precision topography data to rockfall simulation
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4
1050 Byung-Gon Chae, Hyuck-Jin Park, Filippo Catani, Alessandro Simoni, and Matteo Berti
codes. Afterwards, in a notably important work, Abellan et al.
(2009) demonstrated that, even though raw multi-temporal TLS
scans are not capable of detecting millimeter-scale precursor
displacements in rock masses, this is feasible in post-processing,
by resorting to data filtering with nearest neighbor averaging.
For what concerns quantitative geomechanical modeling, Gigli
and Casagli (2011) devised a semi-automated method for
extracting rock slope discontinuities and other mechanical
parameters from TLS scans that may be used for improving the
spatial prediction of rock falls, toppling, wedge and block sliding.
The application, though, has no practical use for monitoring in
real time.
The main limitations of LiDAR systems for monitoring, then,
are: i) the lack of relative millimeter-accuracy capability when
comparing different acquisitions at different times, which hampers
slow displacement detection, unless permanent reflectors are
installed in situ; ii) the lack of high-frequency acquisition, due to
the complex pre- and post-processing needs and to the relevant
volume of point clouds in terms of data storage, which hampers
fast displacement monitoring; iii) the lack of a robust 24/7 operability,
due to the low signal to noise ratio generated by atmospheric
effects such as rain, fog, mist, clouds and dust.
Some of those limitations are avoided by resorting to a
different wavelength and a different processing technique, by
using radars and radar interferometry (see Ouchi, 2013 for a
complete technical review on radar and SAR systems). Microwaves,
in fact, are able to penetrate fog, clouds, light rain and even dust
in most of the cases. Furthermore, by using radar interferometry,
the analysis of data can be automated and fast with the
displacement measured at every new reading with a frequency
as low as 0.5 min (Bardi et al., 2017). Radar interferometry was
first used in geophysics by Massonnet et al. (1993, 1994) and
Massonnet and Feigl (1998) for the case of ground deformations
induced by earthquakes. The authors found the method capable
of detecting displacements over large areas (> 1000 km2) with
centimeter-scale accuracy. Since then, many other applications
have been found for mapping and measuring soil subsidence,
landslides, structure deformation, river and coastal dynamics.
The principle of differential radar interferometry (DInSAR) is
the comparison in range (sensor-target distance) between couples
of radar images acquired at different times over the same area.
The phase shift, suitably filtered, is proportional to the ground
displacement component parallel to the LOS of the satellite.
One of the first reports on landslide mapping through DInSAR
is provided by Fruneau et al. (1996) which used a series of SAR
images acquired in France by the ERS-1 satellite to detect a
landslide with 1-km2 size. The application is essentially about
mapping and detection rather than kinematics but can still be
considered a breakthrough in landslide science. A more in-
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4
depth investigation concerning the displacement time series
was carried out later on by Berardino et al. (2003) that exploited
7 ERS-2 images to build interferograms that, together with GPS
and EDM measurements, allowed for the reconstruction of 3
years of activity of the Maratea landslide (Italy). A similar approach,
based on ERS-1 data, was used by Singhroy et al. (2004) to map
displacements occurred between 1993 and 1997 at the Frank
slide in Alberta. In the same paper, the authors also attempt a
texture characterization of the debris by using a RADARSAT
image. A more detailed investigation on the geomorphometric
parameters of a landslide that can be extracted from DInSAR is
provided by Catani et al. (2005) that use JERS-1 radar data to
directly extract topographic derivatives (slope and curvature)
from the interferograms instead of recurring to a DEM. They also
measure deformations in a rockslide in the Italian Alps by using
the same JERS-1 SAR interferograms and find that the method
is able to measure ±5 cm displacements occurred in a time interval
of 44 days. The use of the L-band JERS radar, with a wavelength
longer than the C-band of ERS-1 and ERS-2 reduces spatial
accuracy but increases coherence in areas affected by rapid
displacements and covered by low-stand vegetation (Catani et al.,
2005; Strozzi et al., 2005). This is particularly important when
using DInSAR for landslide studies in mountainous areas and
natural landscapes. A compendium on how to best use L-band
DInSAR products for a correct radar-interpretation of ground
deformations in mapping and monitoring is provided by a
recent work of Schlogel et al. (2014) in which the authors detail
the different patterns that can be expected in the interferograms
for rapid landslides. ERS satellite data are also used by Rott and
Nagler (2006) that use DInSAR to measure slope deformations
at two different sites in the Swiss Alps and in Lichtenstein and find
RMSE of about 4mm/yr with respect to GPS measurements.
However, DInSAR is only usable for detecting movements of
the ground that occurred between the two acquisitions and
subject to the condition that the field of motion must be well
autocorrelated in space and have a smooth gradient in time.
Another limitation is that the maximum accuracy of DInSAR is
at the centimeter-scale whilst most of deep-seated landslides
move very slowly, at rates of a few millimeters per year (see
Table 1). In this range, DInSAR cannot be used as a monitoring
tool and it is necessary to resort to time-series analysis of InSAR
(TSA-InSAR).
There are two main types of TSA-InSAR, according to whether
they are based on the measurement of phase differences on
stable point reflectors (PSI methods) or on distributed reflectors
(DSI methods). A common characteristic of all TSA-InSAR
methods is that they exploit multiple interferograms to generate
long time series of ground displacement that cannot be produced
with single-interferogram DInSAR. PSI methods provide very
http://www.springer.com/journal/12303
 Landslide prediction, monitoring, and early warning: a concise review of state-of-the-art
accurate displacement measurements over specific sub-pixel
objects that can be identified one by one on the ground. This is
very helpful in urban areas and to study the development of
ground deformation affecting man-made structures. DSI methods
deliver slightly less accurate measurements, with respect to PSI,
and are usually related to multiple pixel clusters in areas with or
without strong reflectors. For this reason, they offer a higher
information density in non-urban areas and are less sensitive to
temporal decorrelation. Stable point methods (PSI) are the
PSInSARTM (Ferretti et al., 2000, 2001), the Interferometric Point
Target Analysis (IPTA, Werner et al., 2003), the Stable Point
Network (SPN, Crosetto et al., 2008), the Persistent Scatterer Pairs
(PSP, Costantini et al., 2008), the Stanford Method for Persistent
Scatterers (StaMPS, Hooper et al., 2004; Hooper, 2008). Distributed
scatterers methods (DSI) available on the market are the Small
Baseline Subsets (SBS, Berardino et al., 2002; Lanari et al., 2007),
the Coherent Pixels Technique (CPT, Blanco-Sanchez et al.,
2008), the SqeeSARTM (Ferretti et al., 2009, 2011), the Quasi-PS
(QPS, Perissin and Wang, 2012).
A more detailed report on the techniques and algorithms used
by the various TSA-InSAR methods is provided by Osmanoglu
et al. (2016).
The first example of application of TSA-InSAR to a landslide
is the PS-InSARTM methodological paper by Ferretti et al. (2001)
where a time series relative to the Ancona landslide (Italy) is
obtained by applying the PSI technique to a series of 34 C-band
ERS SAR images from 1993 to 1998. Displacements on the order
of 5 ± 0.4 mm/yr are measured on specific PS targets inside the
landslide boundaries. The Ancona landslide is studied with the
same method also by Colesanti et al. (2003). In this case,
displacement time series in the period of 1992–2000 (61 ERS
images) are compared to GPS and EDM data with good agreement.
The attained PS density is around 5 points/km2 in non urban
areas. By resorting to a different method (full-resolution SBAS)
Lanari et al. (2004) obtained a much more continuous land
coverage of the city of Naples (Italy) with a density which is
inversely proportional to the baseline and that is around 250
points/km2 in urban areas. Accuracy, compared to GPS stations,
is lower than in PS-InSAR being it around ±2 cm. The first
large-scale application of PSI data for landslide monitoring is
offered by Farina et al. (2005) in an important study funded by
ESA in which 350 ERS-1/2 scenes from 1992 to 2002 are used to
produce more than 590,000 PSI time series over an area of about
9000 km2 in central Italy. The accuracy of displacement monitoring
found by Farina et al. (2005) is around ±4 mm/yr, very good for
monitoring extremely slow landslides, and the average PS density
is of about 65 points/km2, decreasing to 37 points/km2 in hilly
and mountain areas. However, the distribution of stable scatterers
on the ground is not regular and most of them are located on
http://www.springer.com/journal/12303
1051
buildings so that only about 8% of the mapped landslides have
PS information. A much higher density can be obtained by
resorting to X-band satellites such as TerraSAR-X and Cosmo-
SkyMed (range and azimuth resolution of 1 m) or by mixing L,
C and X-band scenes as in Herrera et al. (2013) in which the
authors, by combining ALOS-PALSAR (L-band), ERS-ENVISAT
(C-band) and TerraSAR-X (X-band), increased the percentage
of landslides with PS information from 19% to 38%. A combination
of PS-InSAR and traditional underground displacement
monitoring systems for the large landslide of S. Stefano d’Aveto
(Italy) is presented by Tofani et al. (2013b). The authors compare
the measurements and propose a technique for the LOS
component projection on the real 3D displacement vector
measured by inclinometers. An interesting technique to analyze
PS time series is developed by Berti et al. (2013) that provide a
tool to classify displacement trends and the deviation from
expectation. When ground scatterers are not dense but the
movements are well autocorrelated in space, the SAR displacement
field may also be mapped by using a geostatistical interpolation
of PS data, as suggested by Lu et al. (2012) that use Getis-Ord
statistics for the detection of slope instability hot-spots. In other
cases, PS information may be used to define the state of activity
of slow moving landslides and to attempt quantitative hazard
and risk analysis as proposed by Lu et al. (2014) and Ciampalini
et al. (2016). A review and comparison of spaceborne SAR time-
series analysis methods is provided by Crosetto et al. (2016).
Despite all those important achievements, classical satellite
DInSAR and multi-temporal PS-InSAR remain of a limited
usefulness in the monitoring of rapid landslides. This is due
to the long revisiting time of SAR satellites. ERS-1/2, JERS-1,
RADARSAT-1 and ENVISAT only ensured, in optimal
conditions, temporal baselines of about 1 month. Present-day
satellites such as TerraSAR-X (11 days), TanDEM-L (8 days),
Sentinel-1 (6 days), Cosmo-SkyMed (1 day) have better capability
but nonetheless are not suitable for the monitoring of rapid
landslides. Furthermore, the near-vertical LOS of SAR satellites
is not always the best to measure displacements occurring on steep
slopes. Future improvements in spaceborne SAR interferometry
for landslide monitoring could be offered by the development of
constellations of a few SAR satellites in geostationary bistatic
configuration, where the spaceborne transmission-only radars
are complemented by low-altitude air-borne reception-only SARs
to cover large areas with a revisiting time of about 10 seconds
(Ouchi, 2013).
At present, though, the best solution for slope-scale monitoring
is the adoption of terrestrial interferometers, usually referred to
as ground-based radars, with (GB-InSAR) or without synthetic
aperture (GB-nonSAR). For SAR systems, the principle of use is
almost the same as satellites, with the main difference that the
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4
1052 Byung-Gon Chae, Hyuck-Jin Park, Filippo Catani, Alessandro Simoni, and Matteo Berti
synthetic aperture is carried out by exploiting sub-scenes collected
by the radar while moving along a linear rail. So, while in space
the revisiting of the same area is only possible after one entire
orbit has been completed, in GB-InSAR it depends on the
length of the linear rail and the cumulated acquisition time, a
matter of minutes. This gives terrestrial systems a much higher
capability for monitoring rapid landslides than space-borne
SARs. Furthermore, they may be installed for optimizing the
viewing geometry while satellite InSAR have incidence angle
and orbit that allow an acceptable sensitivity only towards vertical
and across-azimuth (roughly E-W) displacement components.
Detailed descriptions of terrestrial SAR systems used for ground
displacement measurement are given by Montserrat et al. (2014)
and Caduff et al. (2015).
Applications of GB-InSAR to landslide monitoring are as old
as those of space-borne InSAR. Two of the first such studies are
provided by Tarchi et al. (2003) and Pieraccini et al. (2003). In
both studies the authors use radar interferometers sliding along
linear rails to monitor landslide displacements in real-time.
Tarchi et al. (2003) measured 15 days of slow displacement of
the Tessina landslide with velocities in the order of 30 mm/hr by
using a frequency of acquisition of 14 minutes and a spatial
resolution of 2 m in both range and cross range. A similar
approach was then repeated in 6 different sites in Italy by
Antonello et al. (2004) that used the same hardware based on
the Linear SAR (LISA) apparatus developed by JRC. A more
detailed discussion on the implication of the use of GB-InSAR
for the monitoring of unstable slopes in various geomorphological
environments is provided later on by Casagli et al. (2010) that
apply an early warning scheme for the prediction of a landslide
in the Italian Alps and a large slope instability on the Stromboli
volcano. More recently, the use of GB-InSAR has evolved
towards a semi-automated use in early warning threshold and
alert setting by inverse velocity methods. The latter, despite being
suitable only for progressive failure modes, are increasingly used
in large open pit mining operations and for large rock instabilities.
Dick et al. (2014), in an important paper, analyze the application
of pixel-based displacement field as measured by slope-stability
SAR to apply real-time time-of-failure (TOF) prediction schemes
in open pit mines. For natural landslides, a detailed methodology to
implement early warning systems based on GB-InSAR integrated
to traditional monitoring tools is presented by Intrieri et al.
(2012). Finally, new approaches to overcome known problem of
terrestrial SAR are already available. A reduction in the time
delay between acquisitions for linear SARs can be obtained by
exploiting sub-apertures to focus on the most unstable parts of a
slope, as in the case reported by Bardi et al. (2017). This technique
can be useful to maintain all the advantages of synthetic
aperture whilst increasing the acquisition frequency. In case of
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4
slope geometries which are not perfectly suitable for near-
horizontal LOS, such as terraced slopes or open pit benches, a
solution is offered by the combination of terrestrial and spaceborne
SAR, where the latter contributes to the definition of sub-
vertical vector components within the displacement mass. One
such cases is reported in Bardi et al. (2016) for the large rock
instability at Aknes (Norway).
4. LANDSLIDE EARLY WARNING
Landslide early warning is essential for early or advance
recognition of landslide indicators, so that residents can be
evacuated from potential landslide areas to reduce the damage
caused by landslides. Early detection of landslides in a broad
natural terrain can be possible by the monitoring of rainfall and
changes in the soil physical properties in real time or near-real
time. Most landslide warning methods use triggering thresholds
that are determined based on rainfall and the soil physical
properties. A threshold is the minimum or maximum level of
some quantity needed for a process to take place or a state to
change (White et al., 1996). Therefore, it is important to secure
practical and reliable triggering thresholds for landslide early
warning.
Even when slow landslides are associated with low destructive
significance, monitoring and early warning are essential for
hazard management. Recent studies have reported the development
of early warning systems for natural and engineered slopes (Vaziri
et al., 2010; Intrieri et al., 2012; Thiebes et al., 2014; Atzeni et al.,
2015), and an international workshop held in Italy in 2013 focused
on the challenges, problems, and available tools to determine
warning criteria (Cloutier et al., 2014). In addition, many studies
dealt with early warning, instrumentation, and monitoring during
the Second World Landslide Forum (Margottini et al., 2013).
These recent efforts highlight the need for reliable monitoring
and early warning systems as a key part of cost-effective hazard
management (Macciotta et al., 2016).
As landslides occur under heavy rainfall condition in many
cases, a triggering threshold of landslide is related to the rainfall
and the hydrological conditions in soil. In general, a rainfall
threshold can be determined empirically (statistically) or physically
(deterministically) (Corominas, 2000; Aleotti, 2004; Wieczorek
and Glade, 2005; Guzzetti et al., 2007). Empirical thresholds are
defined by collecting rainfall data for meteorological events both
with and without landslides, whereas physical thresholds are
based on numerical models considering the relationship among
rainfall, pore water pressure, VWC, suction stress, and slope stability.
Guzzetti et al. (2008) grouped empirical rainfall thresholds into
three broad categories: (i) thresholds that combine precipitation
measurements obtained for specific rainfall events, (ii) thresholds
http://www.springer.com/journal/12303
 Landslide prediction, monitoring, and early warning: a concise review of state-of-the-art
that include the antecedent conditions (Terlien, 1998; Crozier,
1999; Glade et al., 2000; Chleborad, 2003; Aleotti, 2004), and (iii)
other thresholds, including hydrological (Reichenbach et al.,
1998; Jakob and Weatherly, 2003). Thresholds established using
precipitation measurements obtained from individual or multiple
rainfall events can be further subdivided into intensity-duration
(ID) thresholds, thresholds based on the total event rainfall (E),
rainfall event-duration thresholds (ED), and rainfall event-intensity
(EI) thresholds (Guzzetti et al., 2007). These thresholds are generally
obtained by drawing lower bound lines to the rainfall conditions
that resulted in landslides, plotted in Cartesian, semi-logarithmic, or
logarithmic co-ordinates. Deterministic-based models attempt
to spatially extend the slope stability models adopted in geotechnical
engineering (Iverson, 2000; Godt, 2004; Capparelli and Versace,
2011). Deterministic-based models can be applied to global, regional,
or local thresholds. Moreover, deterministic-based models can
determine the amount of precipitation needed to trigger slope
failures, and the location and time of the expected landslides,
making them of interest for landslide warning systems (Chung
et al., 2017).
Rainfall thresholds for the initiation of landslides have been
defined as global, regional, or local. A global threshold provides
a general minimum level below which landslides do not occur,
http://www.springer.com/journal/12303
1053
independent of local morphological, lithological, and land use
conditions and of local or regional rainfall pattern and history.
Global thresholds have been proposed by Caine (1980), Crosta
and Frattini (2001), and Cannon and Gartner (2005). Regional
thresholds are potentially suited for landslide warning systems
based on quantitative spatial rainfall forecasts, estimates, or
measurements and are defined for areas extending from a few to
several thousand square kilometres of similar climatic and
physiographic characteristics. Regional thresholds have been
proposed by Salciarini et al. (2006) and Melchiorre and Frattini
(2012). Local thresholds are applicable to single landslides or to
a group of landslides in areas extending from a few to some
hundreds of square kilometres and explicitly or implicitly consider
the local climatic regime, geomorphologic setting, and geological
conditions.
Guzzetti et al. (2008) suggested a global ID threshold for the
initiation of shallow landslides and debris flows based on worldwide
rainfall and landslide information. To account for climatic effects,
the rainfall intensity was normalized by the mean annual
precipitation (MAP) and the rainy-day normal (RDN, Wilson
and Jayko, 1997), and separate thresholds were established for
the normalized rainfall data. They compared the new single and
composite thresholds with five published global ID thresholds,
Fig. 7. Comparison between the global
ID thresholds defined by Guzzetti et al.
(2008) and published global (world-
wide) ID rainfall thresholds. 1. Caine
(1980); 2. Innes (1983); 3. Clarizia et al.
(1996); 4. Crosta and Frattini (2001); 5.
Cannon and Gartner (2005); 6. threshold
inferred from the entire set of ID rainfall
data (Guzzetti et al., 2008); 7. thresholds
inferred from the probability estimates
of the rainfall conditions, for two differ-
ent rainfall periods (D < 48 h, and D ≥ 48
h) (Guzzetti et al., 2008). Dashed line
shows 0.25 mm h-1 rainfall intensity
(after Guzzetti et al., 2008).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4
1054 Byung-Gon Chae, Hyuck-Jin Park, Filippo Catani, Alessandro Simoni, and Matteo Berti
including those proposed by Caine (1980); Innes (1983); Crosta
and Frattini (2001), and Cannon and Gartner (2005). The suggested
single and composite thresholds were lower or significantly lower
than the other published global thresholds, for most rainfall
durations (Fig. 7).
Aleotti (2004) studied the critical limit described by the
equation: I = 19D0.50 (where I is the rainfall intensity expressed
in mm/h and D is the rainfall duration expressed in h). Such a
limit is traced to envelop 90% of the points on the graph. In the
NI-D (normalized intensity-duration) diagram, the triggering
thresholds are given by the equations NI = 0.76D0.33 and NI =
4.62D0.79 (where NI is the normalized intensity with respect to
the annual precipitation, and MAP is expressed in %, [(mm/h)/
PMA] 100). Finally, the diagram normalized intensity-normalized
cumulative critical (NI-NCR) is proposed; the triggering threshold
is given by the expression: NI = 0.09ln[NCR] + 0.54 (where
NCR is the normalized cumulative critical rainfall, [mm/PMA]
100) (Fig. 8).
Several previous studies have suggested a regional threshold
of rainfall. Ponziani et al. (2012) discussed rainfall thresholds
and soil moisture modelling for operational hydrogeological
risk prevention in terms of early warning. Comparison with
rainfall thresholds used by the Umbria Region Civil Protection
Decentrate Functional Centre in Italy was also carried out to
evaluate the reliability of the procedures employed for landslide
warning. The main result of the analysis is the quantification of
the decreasing linear trend between the maximum cumulated
rainfall values over 24, 36, and 48 h and the soil moisture conditions
prior to landslide events. A linear trend between the rainfall
thresholds and the initial soil moisture conditions was found,
with correlation coefficients up to 0.60, showing the key role of
soil moisture on landslide triggering. Therefore, the correlation
Fig. 8. Definition of critical triggering thresholds in NI-NCR graph.
Curve [100] envelops all the available data; curve [90] encompasses
90% of the points in the graph (Aleotti, 2004).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4
established between the maxima cumulative rainfall values and
the soil moisture prior to the triggering of landslides would make
it possible to dynamically adjust the rainfall thresholds. Piciullo
et al. (2016) proposed a method based on a process chain to realize
an objective procedure for the definition and the evaluation of a
reliable threshold-based operational early warning system in the
Campania region, southern Italy. First, they adopted a consolidated
approach (Brunetti et al., 2010; Peruccacci et al., 2012; Gariano
et al., 2015; Melillo et al., 2015; Melillo et al., 2016) to define and
validate empirical, cumulated event rainfall-rainfall duration
(ED) thresholds for possible landslide occurrences. Afterwards,
they proposed a method for issuing warning levels, as a result of
the comparison between measured rainfall and established
thresholds. Finally, the authors assessed the performance of the
regional landslide early warning model (ReLWaM) employing
the event, duration matrix, performance (EDuMaP) method,
proposed by Calvello and Piciullo (2016).
Considering the relationship between rainfall and debris flow,
Jan et al. (2004) suggested a rainfall-based debris flow warning
model. A method to define a rainfall event and its antecedent
rainfall used to define the rainfall parameters such as the rainfall
intensity, the rainfall duration, the accumulated rainfall, and the
effective accumulated rainfall was proposed to analyse the risk
of debris flows caused by rainstorms. The product of the hourly
rainfall intensity and the effective accumulated rainfall was defined
as the rainfall triggering index (RTI) that was used to set up a
rainfall-based debris flow warning model. They proposed a
method to determine the lower critical RTI value and the upper
critical RTI value, based on the RTI values of historical rainfall
events. After the two critical RTI values are determined in a rainfall
event, one can estimate the instant debris flow occurrence
potential, with a diagram having instant RTI values at time t on
the ordinate and the variation of time t on the abscissa.
Based on the rainfall thresholds, some landslide early warning
systems have been developed. The Research Institute for Geo-
Hydrological Protection (IRPI), of the Italian National Research
Council (CNR), are implementing SANF, an early warning system
for forecasting possible rainfall-induced landslides in Italy (Rossi
et al., 2012). The system is based on two components. The first
component consists of: (i) a set of national, regional, and local
rainfall thresholds (of the ID type) for possible landslide imitation,
(ii) a database of sub-hourly rainfall measurements obtained by
a network of 1950 rain gauges in Italy, and (iii) quantitative
rainfall forecasts acquired through numerical modelling. Every
day, and for each individual rain gauge, the system compares the
measured and the forecast rainfall amounts against pre-defined
thresholds, and assigns a probability for possible landslide occurrence
to each rain gauge. This information is used to prepare synoptic-
scale maps showing where rainfall-induced landslides are expected,
http://www.springer.com/journal/12303
 Landslide prediction, monitoring, and early warning: a concise review of state-of-the-art
Fig. 9. Logical framework adopted for the SANF early warning sys-
tem for rainfall-induced landslides in Italy (Rossi et al., 2012).
within a period of time. The second component of the system
consists of synoptic assessments of landslide hazard and risk in
Italy, including small-scale zoning maps. The assessments are
obtained through statistical modelling of thematic and
environmental information, including national catalogues of
historical landslides and of historical landslides with human
consequences in Italy, in the period 1900–2005 (Fig. 9). The
combination of the hazard and risk zonation with the daily
forecasts for possible landslide occurrence allows the Italian National
Department for Civil Protection to improve management of
potential landslide risk conditions in Italy.
A landslide warning system, SIGMA (Sistema Integrato Gestione
Monitoraggio Allerta), is an integrated service for the management
and monitoring of alerts. SIGMA is based on a decisional
algorithm that combines the overcoming of different rainfall
thresholds and defines a corresponding alert level; the thresholds
are based on the rainfall amount accumulated considering time
intervals ranging from 1 to 243 days and make it possible to take
into account both shallow and deep-seated landslides (Martelloni
et al., 2012; Lagomarsino et al., 2013). The SIGMA warning
system combines rainfall forecasts with hourly rainfall measurements
http://www.springer.com/journal/12303
1055
recorded by an automated regional network of rain gauges.
Cumulative rainfall values are then compared with a series of
thresholds corresponding to increasing levels of rainstorm severity,
with which a warning level is associated. The system operates at
a spatial resolution of a few hundreds of square kilometres: the
hilly and mountainous territory of Emilia Romagna is partitioned
into 19 territorial units, each provided with a reference rain gauge
and its own rainfall thresholds.
As stated earlier, rainfall is the most important threshold of
landslide early warning. However, there can be differences in
landslide triggering under the same rainfall conditions. Early
warning for both shallow and deep landslides requires rainfall data
measured by rain gauges in landslide-prone areas. Nevertheless,
the effect of rainfall is difficult to assess quantitatively because it
depends on several factors, including the heterogeneity of the
soils. It is thus necessary to analyse the relationships between
soil properties and landslide triggering based on the physical
and mechanical thresholds in each case (Chae and Kim, 2012).
Physical thresholds have several limitations for application to
broad areas because of the variations in conditions pertaining to
each influential factor. To overcome these limitations, Glade (2000)
proposed a model of antecedent soil water status that considered
the factors related to both empirical thresholds, such as antecedent
rainfall, and physical properties, such as soil moisture and
potential evaporation. Huggel et al. (2010) also implemented an
empirical rainfall threshold function in their numerical model
and considered a time period of 10 years divided into smaller
intervals of 6 h. Sirangelo and Versace (1996) developed the
forecasting of landslides induced by rainfalls (FLaIR) model to
forecast landslide movements activated by rainfall within a
hydrological conceptual modelling framework. This model
considers the relationship between the mobility function and
landslide probability dependent on the antecedent rainfall. Because
the mobility function is defined as a function of the infiltration
rate, which is directly related to soil and topographical conditions,
the FLaIR model is partly based on physical approaches. The
system is composed of a monitoring module, taking into account
the recorded rainfall data, and a warning module, which employs
the forecasted rainfall data. In particular, this latter module
considers the data provided by meteorological models which
give rainfall forecasts for 6, 12, 18, and 24 h ahead. By using these
values, the system is able to indicate possible developments over the
coming 24 h (Capparelli and Tiranti, 2010). The FLaIR model was
later extended to mudflow movement (Sirangelo and Versace,
1996) and so it led to an early warning system called MoniFLaIR
(Sirangelo and Braca, 2004; Capparelli and Tiranti, 2010).
Chae and Kim (2012) analysed the relationship between slope
failure and the VWC gradient that is dependent on rainfall
conditions. In cases of slope failure, the VWC gradient was distributed
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4
1056 Byung-Gon Chae, Hyuck-Jin Park, Filippo Catani, Alessandro Simoni, and Matteo Berti
in the range of 0.107–0.249, whereas field monitoring results
without slope failure showed a gradient range of VWC between
0.003 and 0.073 in the Deoksan study area, Korea. The results
demonstrate that a large amount of rainfall and a high gradient
of VWC contributes to slope failure. Based on the results, they
suggested a threshold for VWC gradient for early warning of
landslides that are triggered by rainfall. The results showed that
a landslide tends to be triggered at a VWC gradient of over 0.1
in the study area.
Thiebes et al. (2014) integrated a limit equilibrium model into
a landslide early warning system. A physically based slope stability
model, the combined hydrology and stability model (CHASM)
was initially applied to a reactivated landslide in the Swabian
Alps to assess stability conditions, and was subsequently integrated
into a prototype of a semi-automated landslide early warning
system. For the assessment of slope stability and early warning
modelling, the CHASM combines the simulation of saturated
and unsaturated hydrological processes to calculate pore water
pressures, which are then incorporated into the computation of
slope stability by means of limit equilibrium analysis. The results of
the CHASM application demonstrate that for several potential
shear surfaces, the FS is relatively low, and subsequent rainfall
events could cause instability. To integrate and automate CHASM
within an early warning system, international geospatial standards
were used to ensure the interoperability of system components
and the transferability of the implemented system as a whole.
The CHASM algorithm is automatically run as a web processing
service, using fixed, predetermined input data, and variable input
data including hydrological monitoring data and quantitative
rainfall forecasts. When the pre-defined modelling or monitoring
thresholds are exceeded, a web notification service distributes
text and email messages to relevant experts, who then determine
whether to issue an early warning to local and regional stakeholders,
as well as providing appropriate action advice.
The soil-water characteristic curve (SWCC), which is related
to the pore water pressure and the water content, allows for the
characterization of hydrological and mechanical behaviour of
unsaturated soils. The hysteretic nature of SWCC (Lu and Likos,
2006; Fredlund et al., 2011; Likos et al., 2013; Lu et al., 2013),
linked to in situ processes because of different drying and wetting
cycles that the soils suffer under natural conditions, determines
the development of a main drying and a main wetting curve,
and thus it can have practical implications on water movement
in soils and on the mechanical behaviour of unsaturated soils in
terms of deformation and shear strength (Wheeler et al., 2003;
Likos et al., 2013; Bordoni et al., 2015a). Song et al. (2016) evaluated
the stability of an unsaturated slope on a natural terrain based
on the variation in suction stress induced in the soil by rainfall
infiltration with time. To apply the concept of slope stability
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4
analysis considering suction stress in unsaturated soil, the SWCC
and the suction stress characteristic curve of the unsaturated
soil obtained from the study area were estimated using the van
Genuchten (1980) and the Lu and Likos (2006) models. The FS
of the natural slope exhibited continuous fluctuations because
of changes in the suction stress caused by the evaporation and
infiltration of water in the unsaturated soil layer. Therefore, the
infinite slope stability of a slope in natural terrain can be
evaluated in real time by estimating the suction stress caused by
rainfall in the unsaturated soil, when the VWC or matric suction
in the soil is being monitored in the field.
Early warning systems for natural hazards are important tools
for disaster risk reduction. Early warning systems have been
developed for a number of different hazards, including tsunamis,
volcanoes, snow avalanches, landslides, and others (Zschau and
Kuppers, 2003). Early warning systems commonly consist of
different components, such as (i) sensors measuring geophysical,
atmospheric, hydrodynamic, and soil-related parameters, (ii)
telecommunication equipment transmitting the data to a (iii)
monitoring and analysis centre, (iv) decision procedures and
organizational structures that facilitate the translation of the
technical data into commonly understood information, and (v)
response of the people who might be affected. The awareness
and knowledge of the people exposed to a hazard are very important
for their adequate response to an early warning. (Huggel et al.,
2010).
As the types and mechanisms of landslide early warning
systems vary, a universal standard needs to be developed so that
uniformity in the implementation of an early warning system
and improvement in the community’s and stakeholders’
preparedness in landslide-prone areas can be obtained (Jacks et
al., 2010). To ensure the widespread applicability of the early
warning systems, a standard should provide consistent and clear
technical terms and definitions, as well as requirements and
general phases in the implementation of landslide early warning
systems. It should also regulate the standardization of commonly
used monitoring equipment, warning criteria, the style of evacuation
process, and types of disaster preparedness and response organization.
Although flexibility is required during the implementation, it
should adhere to the key elements contained within the standard.
Taking into account the four key elements of a people-centred early
warning system (UN-ISDR, 2006) and the hybrid sociotechnical
approach for disaster risk reduction (Karnawati et al., 2013), a
universal standard for landslide early warning systems that
comprises seven sub-systems was proposed by Fathani et al.
(2016) (Fig. 10). It should be clarified that the monitoring and
warning services that to date are considered as the core of the early
warning systems will remain an important part of the disaster
management programme.
http://www.springer.com/journal/12303
 Landslide prediction, monitoring, and early warning: a concise review of state-of-the-art
Fig. 10. A proposed algorithm for a standard landslide early warning system (Fathani et al., 2016).
5. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, the authors reviewed the recent advances and
the state-of-the-art in the essential components of the landslide
hazard assessment such as landslide susceptibility analysis, runout
modeling, landslide monitoring and early warning. Landslide
susceptibility assessment methods are classified into qualitative
(knowledge-driven) and quantitative (data-driven and physically
based) methods, depending on the way they treat landslide-
inducing factors and models. Knowledge-driven methods are
seldom used for susceptibility assessment over large areas because
they lack a concrete physical concept of slope failure. Meanwhile,
data-driven methods evaluate the statistical relationships between
the locations of landslides occurred in the past and landslide-
inducing factors, and then, quantitative predictions are made
for landslide free areas with similar conditions. Therefore, data-
driven methods have been used for evaluating various spatially
distributed landslide-inducing factors and analysing landslide
susceptibility. However, the difficulty in using data-driven methods
http://www.springer.com/journal/12303
1057
is the collection of data regarding the landslide distribution and
factor maps over large areas. In addition, data-driven methods
consider only the statistical relationships between landslides
and related factors, not the failure mechanism. On the other hands,
physically based landslide susceptibility assessment methods
are based on the modelling the process of landslide occurrence
using physical models of landslides. The physically based approach
can analyze slope stability regardless of landslide occurrence by
utilizing physical slope models. Therefore, physically based models
have been widely used because they have a higher predictive
capability and they are the most suitable for quantitatively assessing
the influence of individual parameters that contribute to landslide
initiation. In the physically based model, however, sufficient
and accurate information is required to obtain an accurate
landslide susceptibility assessment. But in most practical cases,
data are often limited in extent and have imperfections or
variable quality. Consequently, uncertainties are involved in the
analysis procedure and they are recognized as an important
cause of mismatch between simulated and observed distributions
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4
1058 Byung-Gon Chae, Hyuck-Jin Park, Filippo Catani, Alessandro Simoni, and Matteo Berti
of landslide occurrence. Therefore, the probabilistic analysis
method has been adopted to quantify the uncertainties. In this
manuscript, the overviews of probabilistic analysis application
in landslide susceptibility analysis at catchment scale are discussed.
When landslides transform in fast-moving flows, their ability
to travel can substantially increase and the prediction of runout
becomes essential to define hazard and risk zoning at all levels.
A major challenge in hazard assessment is to define the expected
magnitude of the event. In fact, regardless of the methodology
that will be chosen to simulate the behavior of the flow, a “design”
event must be defined. Historical information and geological/
geomorphological field surveys can be helpful to constrain a
range of expected magnitude. Anyway, it is usually difficult to
forecast how much material will transform into a flow and also
the potential to entrain material along the flow path should be
further investigated.
For preliminary estimates of runout, empirical-statistical
methods can be conveniently used due to their ease of application
and possible implementation in GIS environment. Provided
that the adopted methodology is tailored to the specific type of
landslide, results can be helpful to delineate the extent of potentially
affected areas. In some cases, they can also be associated to specific
confidence levels.
Dynamic methods require the selection of an appropriate
flow regime capable to describe the behavior of the flow during
propagation and deposition. They generally have the ability to
predict other flow parameters beside the extent of runout. Flow
velocities, flow heights and peak discharges can be used to improve
the assessment of hazard and can be useful to design possible
risk mitigation measures. Anyway, specific criteria to distinguish
appropriate flow regimes for the different types of fast-moving
landslides and the different types of involved materials are
generally lacking in the literature and trial and error procedures
are usually adopted to compare the results with field evidences
and/or historical information. Also the parameters of the selected
rheological model cannot be chosen based on well defined “a
priori” criteria, and calibration is required based on back-analysis
of past events. There is an urgent need to boost research efforts
aimed to broaden the systematic documentation of events and
their quantitative back-analysis using various rheological models.
Only such efforts will provide much needed guidelines for the
selection of appropriate rheologies and associated parameters
for the different types of fast-moving landslides. In this perspective,
the connection and the dialogue between field scientists and
model developers assumes an increasing importance and must
be used to advance our prediction skills and judge the reliability
of our results.
Landslide monitoring is essential for the recognition of landslide
occurrence as well as early warning. It observes slope displacements
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4
in potential landslides and measures changes to attribute values
of landslide triggering factors with the aim of reducing damage
by landslides. The monitoring of kinematic, hydrological, and
climatic parameters plays a significant role in supporting the
development of slope stability models. In situ ground-based
monitoring usually observes precipitation, slope displacement,
and hydrological / physical properties of soils such as groundwater
level, VWC, pore water pressure, and matric suction. In situ
ground-based monitoring can be grouped into three categories:
rainfall monitoring, slope displacement monitoring, and monitoring
of hydrological and mechanical properties of soils. Because rainfall
represents the most common triggering factor, it is important to
analyse the relationship between rainfall conditions and landslide
triggering based on the results of rainfall measurements. In the
concept of displacement monitoring, GPS, tiltmeters, inclinometers,
and extensometers are generally installed on the surface or in
the subsurface of a slope to study the deformation behaviour of
rainfall-triggered landslides. The third monitoring concept of
rainfall-induced shallow landslides is linked to continuous
monitoring of hydrological and mechanical properties of the soil.
Many studies demonstrated the ability of monitoring techniques
to identify the soil’s hydrological and mechanical conditions
during shallow landslide triggering.
Remote sensing methods have a very high effectiveness for
the exploration of surface changes. If the detection may be
carried out repeatedly with the suitable frequency in time, then
the RS method may also be used as an actual monitoring tool.
The traditionally used methods are based on optical airborne
photogrammetry and space-borne multispectral imaging. Since
then, several new tools and methods have become available that
relate mainly to the three groups which were introduced at the
beginning, i.e., ground-based, air-borne and space-borne. It must
be said, however, that despite the increase in acquisition frequency
and in the number of available post-processing tools, the use of
optical data for landslide analysis it is still more a target/change
detection technique rather than an actual real-time monitoring
tool, mainly because the latter would require the measurement
of displacement velocity and the quantification of volumes,
difficult to implement in a seamless operational chain based on
photogrammetry.
Lasers and radars are the most used as active sensors in
landslide studies. Lasers are mostly used through scanners, both
air-borne (ALS) and terrestrial (TLS), which generate a multiple
laser beam and measure the energy which is reflected back from
the target. The repetition of the same measurements at different
times allows for the use of ALS and TLS systems in landslide
monitoring. Some of monitoring limitations for laser scanning
are avoided by resorting to a different wavelength and a different
processing technique, by using radars and radar interferometry.
http://www.springer.com/journal/12303
 Landslide prediction, monitoring, and early warning: a concise review of state-of-the-art
Microwaves are able to penetrate fog, clouds, light rain and even
dust in most of the cases. Furthermore, by using radar interferometry,
the analysis of data can be automated and fast with the displacement
measured at every new reading with a frequency as low as 1
image every 0.5 min. The potential of classical 2-scene DInSAR
has been proven over a large range of areas and geophysical
conditions worldwide. However, it is only usable for detecting
movements of the ground that occurred between the two
acquisitions and subject to the condition that the field of motion
must be well auto-correlated in space and have a smooth gradient
in time. Another limitation is that the maximum accuracy of
DInSAR is at the centimeter-scale whilst most of deep-seated
landslides move very slowly, at rates of a few millimeters per
year. For slower movement detection, a multi-temporal PS-InSAR
technique has to be used, that relies on stable natural ground
reflectors.
At present, the best solution for slope-scale monitoring is the
adoption of terrestrial interferometers, usually referred to as
ground-based radars, with (GB-InSAR) or without synthetic
aperture. Terrestrial systems have a much higher capability for
monitoring rapid landslides than space-borne SARs. Furthermore,
they may be installed for optimizing the viewing geometry
while satellite InSAR have incidence angle and orbit that allow
an acceptable sensitivity only towards vertical and across-azimuth
displacement components.
Landslide early warning is essential for recognizing landslide
indicators early or in advance and for evacuating residents from
potential landslide areas to reduce the damage caused. Early
detection of landslides in a broad natural terrain can be possible
by the monitoring of rainfall and changes in the soil physical
properties in real time or near-real time. Most landslide warning
methods use triggering thresholds that are determined based on
rainfall and soil physical properties. A rainfall threshold can be
determined empirically or physically. Empirical rainfall thresholds
are grouped into three broad categories, namely: (i) thresholds
that combine precipitation measurements obtained for specific
rainfall events, (ii) thresholds that include the antecedent conditions,
and (iii) other thresholds, including hydrological thresholds.
Thresholds established using precipitation measurements obtained
from individual or multiple rainfall events can be further subdivided
into ID thresholds, thresholds based on the total event rainfall
(E), rainfall event-duration thresholds (ED), and rainfall event-
intensity (EI) thresholds.
Rainfall is the most important threshold of landslide early
warning. However, the effect of rainfall is difficult to assess
quantitatively because it depends on several factors, including
the heterogeneity of soils. It is thus necessary to analyse the
relationships between soil properties and landslide triggering
based on the physical and mechanical thresholds in each case.
http://www.springer.com/journal/12303
1059
Therefore, physical thresholds are based on numerical models
considering the relationship among rainfall, pore water pressure,
VWC, suction stress, and slope stability.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was partly supported by National Research
Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by Korea government
(MSIP) (No. NRF-2016R1A2B4008963) and the Basic Research
Project (Grant No. 17-3413) of the Korea Institute of Geoscience
and Mineral Resources (KIGAM) funded by the Ministry of
Science, ICT & Future Planning of Korea.
REFERENCES
Abellán, A., Vilaplana, J.M., and Martínez, J., 2006, Application of a
long-range Terrestrial Laser Scanner to a detailed rockfall study at
Vall de Núria (Eastern Pyrenees, Spain). Engineering Geology, 88,
136–148.
Abellán, A., Calvet, J., Vilaplana, J.M., and Blanchard, J., 2010, Detec-
tion and spatial prediction of rockfalls by means of terrestrial laser
scanner monitoring. Geomorphology, 119, 162–171.
Abellán, A., Jaboyedoff, M., Oppikofer, T., and Vilaplana, J.M., 2009,
Detection of millimetric deformation using a terrestrial laser scan-
ner: experiment and application to a rockfall event. Natural Haz-
ards Earth System Sciences, 9, 365–372.
Adler, R.F., Huffman, G.J., Bolvin, D.T., Curtis, S., and Nelkin, E.J.,
2000, Tropical rainfall distributions determined using TRMM com-
bined with other satellite and rain gauge Information. Journal of
Applied Meteorology, 39, 2007–2023.
Aleotti, P., 2004, A warning system for rainfall-induced shallow fail-
ures. Engineering Geology, 73, 247–265.
Ali, A., Huang, J., Lyamin, A.V., Sloan, S.W., Griffiths, D.V., Cassidy,
M.J., and Li, J.H., 2014, Simplified quantitative risk assessment of
rainfall-induced landslides modelled by infinite slopes. Engineer-
ing Geology, 179, 102–116.
Alvioli, M., Guzzetti, F., and Rossi, M., 2014, Scaling properties of rain-
fall induced landslides predicted by a physically based model. Geo-
morphology, 213, 38–47.
Angeli, M.G., Pausto, A., and Silvano, S., 2000, A critical review of land-
slide monitoring experiences. Engineering Geology, 55, 133–147.
Antonello, G., Casagli, N., Farina, P., Leva, D., Nico, G., Sieber, A.J., and
Tarchi, D., 2004, Ground-based SAR interferometry for monitor-
ing mass movements. Landslides, 1, 21–28.
Apip, T.K., Yamashiki, Y., Sassa, K., Ibrahim, A.B., and Fukuoka, H.,
2010, A distributed hydrological-geotechnical model using satel-
lite-derived rainfall estimates for shallow landslide prediction sys-
tem at a catchment scale. Landslides, 7, 237–258.
Arnone, E., Noto, L.V., Lepore, C., and Bras, R.L., 2011, Physically-
based and distributed approach to analyze rainfall-triggered land-
slides at watershed scale. Geomorphology, 133, 121–131.
Atzeni, C., Barla, M., Pieraccini, M., and Antolini, F., 2015, Early warn-
ing monitoring of natural and engineered slopes with ground-
based synthetic-aperture radar. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engi-
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4
1060 Byung-Gon Chae, Hyuck-Jin Park, Filippo Catani, Alessandro Simoni, and Matteo Berti
neering, 48, 235–246.
Baecher, G.B. and Christian, J.T., 2003, Reliability and Statistics in Geo-
technical Engineering. Wiley, New York, 618 p.
Bardi, F., Raspini, F., Ciampalini, A., Kristensen, L., Rouyet, L., Lauknes,
T.R., Frauenfelder, R., and Casagli, N., 2016, Space-borne and
ground-based InSAR data integration: the Åknes test site. Remote
Sensing, 8, 237.
Bardi, F., Raspini, F., Frodella, W., Lombardi, L., Nocentini, M., Gigli,
G., Morelli, S., Corsini, A., and Casagli, N., 2017, Monitoring the
rapid-moving reactivation of earth flows by means of GB-InSAR:
the April 2013 Capriglio landslide (Northern Appennines, Italy).
Remote Sensing, 9, 165.
Barlow, J., Martin, Y., and Franklin, S.E., 2003, Detecting translational
landslide scars using segmentation of Landsat ETM+ and DEM
data in the northern Cascade Mountains, British Columbia. Cana-
dian Journal of Remote Sensing, 29, 510–517.
Baum, R.L. and Godt, J.W., 2010, Early warning of rainfall-induced
shallow landslides and debris flows in the USA. Landslides, 7, 259–
272.
Baum, R.L., Godt, J.W., and Savage, W.Z., 2010, Estimating the timing
and location of shallow rainfall-induced landslides using a model
for transient, unsaturated infiltration. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 115, F03013.
Baum, R.L., Savage, W.Z., and Godt, J.W., 2002, TRIGRS – a fortran
program for transient rainfall infiltration and grid-based regional
slope-stability analysis. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report
02-0424. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2002/ofr-02-424
Baum, R.L., Savage, W.Z., and Godt, J.W., 2008, TRIGRS – a fortran
program for transient rainfall infiltration and grid-based regional
slope-stability analysis, Version 2.0. U.S. Geological Survey Open-
File Report 2008-1159. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1159
Baum, R.L., Coe, J.A., Godt, J.W., Harp, E.L., Reid, M.E., Savage, W.Z.,
Schulz, W.H., Brien, D.L., Chleborad, A.F., McKenna, J.P., and
Michael, J.A., 2005, Regional landslide-hazard assessment for Seat-
tle, Washington, USA. Landslides, 2, 266–279.
Berardino, P., Fornaro, G., Lanari, R., and Sansosti, E., 2002, A new
algorithm for surface deformation monitoring based on small
baseline differential SAR interferograms. IEEE Transactions on
Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 40, 2375–2383.
Berardino, P., Costantini, M., Franceschetti, G., Iodice, A., Pietranera,
L., and Rizzo, V., 2003, Use of differential SAR interferometry in
monitoring and modelling large slope instability at Maratea (Basili-
cata, Italy). Engineering Geology, 68, 31–51.
Berti, M. and Simoni A., 2005, Experimental evidences and numerical
modelling of debris flow initiated by channel runoff. Landslides, 2,
171–182.
Berti, M. and Simoni A., 2007, Prediction of debris flow inundation
areas using empirical mobility relationships. Geomorphology, 90,
144–161.
Berti, M. and Simoni, A., 2014, DFLOWZ: a free program to evaluate
the area potentially inundated by a debris flow. Computers & Geo-
sciences, 67, 14–23.
Berti, M., Corsini, A., Franceschini, S., and Iannacone, J.P., 2013, Auto-
mated classification of Persistent Scatterers Interferometry time
series. Natural Hazards Earth System Sciences, 13, 1945–1958.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4
Berti, M., Genevois, R., LaHusen, R., Simoni, A., and Tecca, P.R., 2000,
Debris flow monitoring in the Acquabona Watershed on the Dolo-
mites (Italian Alps). Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Part B:
Hydrology, Oceans and Atmosphere, 25, 707–715.
Beven, K.J. and Kirkby, M.J., 1979, A physically based, variable contrib-
uting area model of basin hydrology. Hydrological Sciences Bulle-
tin, 24, 43–69.
Bittelli, M., Valentino, R., Salvatorelli, F., and Pisa, P.R., 2012, Monitor-
ing soil-water and displacement conditions leading to landslide
occurrence in partially saturated clays. Geomorphology, 173, 161–
173.
Blanco-Sánchez, P., Mallorquí, J.J., Duque, S., and Monells, D., 2008,
The coherent pixels technique (CPT): an advanced DInSAR tech-
nique for nonlinear deformation monitoring. Pure and Applied
Geophysics, 165, 1167–1193.
Bordini, M., Meisina, C., Valentino, R., Lu, N., Bittelli, M., and Cher-
sich, S., 2015a, Hydrological factors affecting rainfall-induced shal-
low landslides: from the field monitoring to a simplified slope
stability analysis. Engineering Geology, 193, 19–37.
Bordoni, M., Meisina, C., Valentino, R., Bittelli, M., and Chersich, S.,
2015b, Site-specific to local-scale shallow landslides triggering
zones assessment using TRIGRS. Natural Hazards & Earth System
Sciences, 15, 1025–1050.
Bruckl, E., Brunner, F.K., Lang, E., Mertl, S., Muller, M., and Stary, U.,
2013, The Gradenbach observatory – monitoring deep-seated
gravitational slope deformation by geodetic, hydrological, and seis-
mological methods. Landslides, 10, 815–829.
Brunetti, M.T., Peruccacci, S., Rossi, M., Luciani, S., Valigi, D., and Guz-
zetti, F., 2010, Rainfall thresholds for the possible occurrence of
landslides in Italy. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 10,
447–458.
Burton, A., Arkell, T.J., and Bathurst, J.C., 1998, Field variability of
landslide model parameters. Environmental Geology, 35, 100–114.
Caduff, R., Schlunegger, F., Kos, A., and Wiesmann, A., 2015, A review
of terrestrial radar interferometry for measuring surface change in
the geosciences. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 40, 208–
228.
Caine, N., 1980, The rainfall intensity-duration control of shallow land-
slides and debris flows. Geografiska Annaler Series A: Physical
Geography, 62, 23–27.
Calvello, M. and Piciullo, L., 2016, Assessing the performance of
regional landslide early warning models: the EDuMaP method.
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 16, 103–122.
Cannon, S.H. and Gartner, J.E., 2005, Wildfire-related debris flow from
a hazards perspective. In: Jakob, M. and Hungr, O. (eds.), Debris
Flow Hazards and Related Phenomena. Springer, Berlin, p. 363–
385.
Canuti, P., Casagli, N., Catani, F., and Fanti, R., 2000, Hydrogeological
hazard and risk in archaeological sites: some case studies in Italy.
Journal of Cultural Heritage, 1, 117–125.
Capparelli, G. and Tiranti, D., 2010, Application of the MoniFLaIR
early warning system for rainfall-induced landslides in Piedmont
region (Italy). Landslides, 7, 401–410.
Capparelli, G. and Versace, P., 2011, FLaIR and SUSHI: two mathemat-
ical models for early warning of landslides induced by rainfall.
http://www.springer.com/journal/12303
 Landslide prediction, monitoring, and early warning: a concise review of state-of-the-art
Landslides, 8, 67–79.
Carrara, A., Crosta, G.B., and Frattini, P., 2008, Comparing models of
debris-flow susceptibility in the alpine environment. Geomorphol-
ogy, 94, 353–378.
Casagli, N., Catani, F., Del Ventisette, C., and Luzi, G., 2010, Monitor-
ing, prediction, and early warning using ground-based radar inter-
ferometry. Landslides, 7, 291–301.
Catani, F., Tofani, V., and Lagomarsino, D., 2016, Spatial patterns of
landslide dimension: a tool for magnitude mapping. Geomorphol-
ogy, 273, 361–373.
Catani, F., Farina, P., Moretti, S., Nico, G., and Strozzi, T., 2005, On the
application of SAR interferometry to geomorphological studies:
estimation of landform attributes and mass movements. Geomor-
phology, 66, 119–131.
Chae, B.G. and Kim, M.I., 2012, Suggestion of a method for landslide
early warning using the change in the volumetric water content
gradient due to rainfall infiltration. Environmental Earth Sciences,
66, 1973–1986.
Chae, B.G., Kim, K.S., Kim, J.K., Song, Y.S., Oh, H.J., Lee, C.O., Jeong,
S.W., Cho, Y.C., and Choi, J., 2015, Technology development of
landslide rapid detection based on a real-time monitoring. Report
GP2015-024-2015(1), Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral
Resources, Daejeon, 331 p.
Chelli, A., Mandrone, G., and Truffelli, G., 2006, Field investigations
and monitoring as tools for modelling the Rossena castle landslide
(Northern Appennines, Italy). Landslides, 3, 252–259.
Chen, C.Y., Chen, T.C., Yu, F.C., and Lin, S.C., 2005, Analysis of time-
varying rainfall infiltration induced landslide. Environmental
Geology, 48, 466–479.
Chen, R.F., Chang, K.J., Angelier, J., Chan, Y.C., Deffontaines, B., Lee,
C.T., and Lin, M.L., 2006, Topographical changes revealed by high-
resolution airborne LiDAR data: the 1999 Tsaoling landslide induced
by the Chi-Chi earthquake. Engineering Geology, 88, 160–172.
Chleborad, A.F., 2003, Preliminary evaluation of a precipitation thresh-
old for anticipating the occurrence of landslides in the Seattle,
Washington Area. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-463,
USGS, Denver, 39 p.
Cho, S.E., 2009, Probabilistic assessment of slope stability that consid-
ers the spatial variability of soil properties. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 136, 975–984.
Cho, S.E. and Lee, S.R., 2002, Evaluation of surficial stability for homo-
geneous slopes considering rainfall characteristics. Journal of Geo-
technical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 128, 756–763.
Chowdhury, R., Flentje, P., and Bhattacharya, G., 2010, Geotechnical
Slope Analysis. CRC, New York, 738 p.
Christen, M., Bartelt, P., and Kowalski, J., 2010, Back calculation of the
In den Arelen avalanche with RAMMS: interpretation of model
results. Annals of Glaciology, 51, 161–168.
Christen, M., Bühler, Y., Bartelt, P., Leine, R., Glover, J., Schweizer, A.,
Graf, C., McArdell, B.W., Gerber, W., Deubelbeiss, Y., Feistl, T., and
Volkwein, A., 2012, Integral hazard management using a unified
software environment: numerical simulation tool “RAMMS” for
gravitational natural hazards. Proceedings of the 12th Congress
Interpraevent 2012, Grenoble, Apr. 23–26, 1, p. 77–86.
Christian, J.T., Ladd, C.C., and Baecher, G.B., 1994, Reliability applied
http://www.springer.com/journal/12303
1061
to slope stability analysis. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 120,
2180–2207.
Chung, M.C., Tan, C.H., and Chen, C.H., 2017, Local rainfall thresh-
olds for forecasting landslide occurrence: Taipingshan landslide
triggered by Typhoon Saola. Landslides, 14, 19–33.
Ciampalini, A., Raspini, F., Lagomarsino, D., Catani, F., and Casagli, N.,
2016, Landslide susceptibility map refinement using PSInSAR data.
Remote Sensing of Environment, 184, 302–315.
Cloutier, C., Agliardi, F., Crosta, G.B., Frattini, P., Froese, C., Jaboyedoff,
M., Locat, J., Michoud, C., and Marui, H., 2014, The First Interna-
tional Workshop on Warning Criteria for Active Slides: technical
issues, problems and solutions for managing early warning systems.
Landslides, 12, 205–212.
Coduto, D.P., Yeung, M.R., and Kitch, W.A., 2010, Geotechnical Engi-
neering: Principles and Practices (2nd edition). Pearson, New York,
794 p.
Colesanti, C., Ferretti, A., Prati, C., and Rocca, F., 2003, Monitoring
landslides and tectonic motions with the Permanent Scatterers
Technique. Engineering Geology, 68, 3–14.
Collins, B.D. and Znidarcic, D., 2004, Stability analyses of rainfall
induced landslides. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmen-
tal Engineering, 130, 362–372.
Colomina, I. and Molina, P., 2014, Unmanned aerial systems for photo-
grammetry and remote sensing: A review. ISPRS Journal of Photo-
grammetry and Remote Sensing, 92, 79–97.
Comegna, L., Picarelli, L., and Urciuoli, G., 2007, The mechanics of
mudslides as a cyclic undrained-drained process. Landslides, 4,
217–232.
Corominas, J., 1996, The angle of reach as a mobility index for small
and large landslides. Canadian Geotechnical Journal ,33, 260–271.
Corominas, J., 1999, Reconstruction in recent landslide activity in rela-
tion to rainfall in the Llobregat River basin, Eastern Pyrenees, Spain.
Geomorphology, 30, 79–93.
Corominas, J., 2000, Landslides and climate. Proceedings of the 8th
International Symposium on Landslides, Cardiff, Jun. 26–30, 4, p.
1–33.
Corominas, J., van Westen, C., Frattini, P., Cascini, L., Malet, J.P.,
Fotopoulou, S., Catani, F., Van Den Eeckhaut, M., Mavrouli, O.,
Agliardi, F., Pitilakis, K., Winter, M.G., Pastor, M., Ferlisi, S., Tofani,
V., Hervas, J., and Smith, J.T., 2014, Recommendations for the
quantitative analysis of landslide risk. Bullettin of Engineering
Geology and the Environment, 73, 209–263.
Corsini, A., Pausto, A., Soldati, M., and Zannoni, A., 2005, Field moni-
toring of the Corvara landslide (Dolomites, Italy) and its relevance
for hazard assessment. Geomorphology, 66, 149–165.
Costantini, M., Falco, S., Malvarosa, F., and Minati, F., 2008, A new
method for identification and analysis of Persistent Scatterers in
series of SAR images. Proceedings of the International Geoscience
and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS 2008), Boston, Jul. 6–
11, 2, II-449-II-452.
Crosetto, M., Biescas, E., Duro, J., Closa, J., and Arnaud, A., 2008, Gen-
eration of advanced ERS and Envisat interferometric SAR prod-
ucts using the stable point network technique. Photogrammetric
Engineering & Remote Sensing, 74, 443–450.
Crosetto, M., Monserrat, O., Cuevas-González, M., Devanthéry, N., and
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4
1062 Byung-Gon Chae, Hyuck-Jin Park, Filippo Catani, Alessandro Simoni, and Matteo Berti
Crippa, B., 2016, Persistent scatterer interferometry: a review. ISPRS
Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 115, 78–89.
Crosta, G.B. and Frattini, P., 2001, Rainfall thresholds for triggering soil
slips and debris flow. Proceedings of 2nd EGS Plinius Conference
on Mediterranean Storms, Siena, Oct. 16–18, p. 463–487.
Crosta, G.B. and Frattini, P., 2003, Distributed modeling of shallow
landslides triggered by intense rainfall. Natural Hazards and Earth
System Science, 3, 81–93.
Crosta, G.B., Cucchiaro, S., and Frattini, P., 2003, Validation of semiem-
pirical relationships for the definition of debris-flow behaviour in
granular materials. Proceedings of the 3rd International Confer-
ence on Debris-Flow Hazards Mitigation: Mechanics, Prediction
and Assessment, Davos, Sep. 10–12, p. 821–831.
Crozier, M.J., 1999, Prediction of rainfall-triggered landslides: a test of
the antecedent water status model. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms, 24, 825–833.
Cruden, D.M. and Varnes, D.J., 1996, Landslide types and processes. In:
Turner, A.K. and Schuster, R.L. (eds.), Landslides – Investigation
and Mitigation. Transportation Research Board Special Report 247,
National Research Council, USA, p. 36–75.
D’Agostino, V., Cesca, M., and Marchi, L., 2010, Field and laboratory
investigations of runout distances of debris flows in the Dolomites
(Eastern Italian Alps). Geomorphology 115, 294–304.
D’Amato Avanzi, G., Falaschi, F., Giannecchini, R., and Puccinelli, A.,
2009, Soil slip susceptibility assessment using mechanical-hydro-
logical approach and GIS techniques: an application in the Apuan
Alps (Italy). Natural Hazards, 50, 591–603.
Dai, F.C., Lee, C.F., and Ngai, Y.Y., 2002, Landslide risk assessment and
management: an overview. Engineering Geology, 64, 65–87.
Dal Sasso, S.F., Sole, A., Pascale, S., Sdao, F., Bateman Pinzón, A., and
Medina, V., 2014, Assessment methodology for the prediction of
landslide dam hazard. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences,
14, 557–567.
Damiano, E., Olivares, L., and Picarelli, L., 2012, Steep-slope monitor-
ing in unsaturated pyroclastic soils. Engineering Geology, 137, 1–12.
Davies, T.R. and McSaveney, M.J., 2012, Mobility of long-runout rock
avalanches. In: Clague, J.J. and Stead, D. (eds.), Landslides – Types,
Mechanisms and Modeling. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
p. 50–58.
Debella-Gilo, M. and Kääb, A., 2011, Sub-pixel precision image match-
ing for measuring surface displacements on mass movements using
normalized cross-correlation. Remote Sensing of Environment,
115, 130–142.
Delacourt, C., Allemand, P., Casson, B., and Vadon, H., 2004, Velocity
field of the “La Clapière” landslide measured by the correlation of
aerial and QuickBird satellite images. Geophysical Research Let-
ters, 31, L15619.
Deline, P., Alberto, W., Broccolato, M., Hungr, O., Noetzli, J., Ravanel,
L., and Tamburini, A., 2011, The December 2008 Crammont rock
avalanche, Mont Blanc massif area, Italy. Natural Hazards and
Earth System Sciences, 11, 3307–3318.
Dewitte, O., Jasselette, J.C., Cornet, Y., Van Den Eeckhaut, M., Col-
lignon, A., Poesen, J., and Demoulin, A., 2008, Tracking landslide
displacements by multi-temporal DTMs: a combined aerial stereo-
photogrammetric and LIDAR approach in western Belgium. Engi-
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4
neering Geology, 99, 11–22.
Dick, G.J., Eberhardt, E., Cabrejo-Liévano, A.G., Stead, D., and Rose,
N.D., 2015, Development of an early-warning time-of-failure anal-
ysis methodology for open-pit mine slopes utilizing ground-based
slope stability radar monitoring data. Canadian Geotechnical Jour-
nal, 52, 515–529.
Dietrich, W.E., Bellugi, D., and De Asua, R.R., 2001, Validation of the
shallow landslide model, SHALSTAB, for forest management. In:
Wigmosta, M.S. and Burges, S.J. (eds.), Land Use and Watersheds:
Human Influence on Hydrology and Geomorphology in Urban
and Forest Areas. American Geophysical Union, Washington, p.
195–227.
Dou, H.Q., Han, T.C., Gong, X.N., and Zhang, J., 2014, Probabilistic
slope stability analysis considering the variability of hydraulic con-
ductivity under rainfall infiltration-redistribution conditions. Engi-
neering Geology, 183, 1–13.
El-Ramly, H., Morgenstern, N.R., and Cruden, D.M., 2002, Probabilis-
tic slope stability analysis for practice. Canadian Geotechnical Jour-
nal, 39, 665–683.
Fannin, R.J. and Wise, M.P., 2001, An empirical-statistical model for
debris flow travel distance. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 38,
982–994.
Farina, P., Colombo, D., Fumagalli, A., Marks, F., and Moretti, S., 2006,
Permanent Scatterers for landslide investigations: outcomes from
the ESA-SLAM project. Engineering Geology, 88, 200–217.
Fathani, T.F., Karnawati, D., and Wilopo, W., 2016, An integrated meth-
odology to develop a standard for landslide early warning systems.
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 16, 2123–2135.
Fell, R., Corominas, J., Bonnard, C., Cascini, L., Leroi, E., and Savage,
W.Z., 2008, Guidelines for landslide susceptibility, hazard and risk
zoning for land use planning. Engineering Geology, 102, 85–98.
Fernandes, N.F., Guimarães, R.F., Gomes, R.A., Vieira, B.C., Montgom-
ery, D.R., and Greenberg, H., 2004, Topographic controls of land-
slides in Rio de Janeiro: field evidence and modeling. Catena, 55,
163–181.
Ferretti, A., Fumagalli, A., Novali, F., Prati, C., Rocca, F., and Rucci, A.,
2011, A new algorithm for processing interferometric data-stacks:
SqueeSAR. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sens-
ing, 49, 3460–3470.
Ferretti, A., Prati, C., and Rocca, F., 2000, Nonlinear subsidence rate
estimation using permanent scatterers in differential SAR interfer-
ometry. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 38,
2202–2212.
Ferretti, A., Prati, C., and Rocca, F., 2001, Permanent scatterers in SAR
interferometry. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
Sensing, 39, 8–20.
Forzieri, G., Moser, G., and Catani, F., 2012, Assessment of hyperspec-
tral MIVIS sensor capability for heterogeneous landscape classifi-
cation. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 74,
175–184.
Forzieri, G., Tanteri, L., Moser, G., and Catani, F., 2013, Mapping natural
and urban environments using airborne multi-sensor ADS40-
MIVIS-LiDAR synergies. International Journal of Applied Earth
Observation and Geoinformation, 23, 313–323.
Frank, F., McArdell, B.W., Huggel, C., and Vieli, A., 2015, The impor-
http://www.springer.com/journal/12303
 Landslide prediction, monitoring, and early warning: a concise review of state-of-the-art
tance of entrainment and bulking on ebris flow runout modeling:
examples from the Swiss Alps. Natural Hazards and Earth System
Sciences, 15, 2569–2583.
Franks, C.A.M., 1999, Characteristics of some rainfall-induced land-
slides on natural slopes, Lantau Island, Hong Kong. Quaterly Jour-
nal of Engineering Geology, 32, 247–259.
Frattini, P., Crosta, G.B., Fusi, N., and Dal Negro, P., 2004, Shallow
landslides in pyroclastic soils: a distributed modelling approach for
hazard assessment. Engineering Geology, 73, 277–295.
Fredlund, D.G., Sheng, D., and Zhao, J., 2011, Estimation of soil suc-
tion from the soil-water characteristic curve. Canadian Geotechni-
cal Journal, 48, 186–198.
Fredlund, D.G., Xing, A., Fredlund, M.D., and Barbour, S.L., 1996, The
relationship of the unsaturated soil shear to the soil-water charac-
teristic curve. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 33, 440–448.
Fruneau, B., Achache, J., and Delacourt, C., 1996, Observation and
modelling of the Saint-Étienne-de-Tinée landslide using SAR inter-
ferometry. Tectonophysics, 265, 181–190.
Garcia, A., Hordt, A., and Fabian, M., 2010, Landslide monitoring with
high resolution tilt measurements at the Dollendorfer Hardt land-
slide, Germany. Geomorphology, 120, 16–25.
Gariano, S.L., Brunetti, M.T., Iovine, G., Melillo, M., Peruccacci, S., Ter-
ranova, O.G., Vennari, C., and Guzzetti, F., 2015, Calibration and
validation of rainfall thresholds for shallow landslide forecasting in
Sicily, Southern Italy. Geomorphology, 228, 653–665.
Ghuffar, S., Székely, B., Roncat, A., and Pfeifer, N., 2013, Landslide dis-
placement monitoring using 3D range flow on airborne and terres-
trial LiDAR data. Remote Sensing, 5, 2720–2745.
Gigli, G. and Casagli, N., 2011, Semi-automatic extraction of rock mass
structural data from high resolution LIDAR point clouds. Interna-
tional Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 48, 187–198.
Gigli, G., Morelli, S., Fornera, S., and Casagli, N., 2014, Terrestrial laser
scanner and geomechanical surveys for the rapid evaluation of
rock fall susceptibility scenarios. Landslides, 11, 1–14.
Glade, T., 2000, Modeling landslide-triggering rainfalls in different
regions of New Zealand-the soil water status model. Zeitschrift fur
Geomorphologie NE, 122, 63–84.
Glade, T., Anderson, M., and Crozier, M.J., 2005, Landslide Hazard and
Risk. Wiley, Chichester, 824 p.
Glade, T., Crozier, M.J., and Smith, P., 2000, Applying probability deter-
mination to refine landslide-triggering rainfall thresholds using an
empirical “Antecedent Daily Rainfall Model”. Pure and Applied
Geophysics, 157, 1059–1079.
Glenn, N.F., Streutker, D.R., Chadwick, D.J., Thackray, G.D., and Dorsch,
S.J., 2006, Analysis of LiDAR-derived topographic information for
characterizing and differentiating landslide morphology and activ-
ity. Geomorphology, 73, 131–148.
Godt, J.W., 2004, Observed and modeled conditions for shallow land-
sliding in the Seattle, Washington area. Ph.D. dissertation, Univer-
sity of Colorado, Boulder, 151 p.
Godt, J.W., Baum, R.L., and Lu, N., 2009, Landsliding in partially satu-
rated materials. Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L02403.
Godt, J.W., Baum, R.L., Savage, W.Z., Salciarini, D., Schulz, W.H., and
Harp, E.L., 2008, Transient deterministic shallow landslide model-
ing: requirements for susceptibility and hazard assessments in a
http://www.springer.com/journal/12303
1063
GIS framework. Engineering Geology, 102, 214–226.
Gokceoglu, C., Sonmez, H., and Ercanoglu, M., 2000, Discontinuity
controlled probabilistic slope failure risk maps of the Altindag (set-
tlement) region in Turkey. Engineering Geology, 55, 277–296.
Gorsevski, P.V., Gessler, P.E., Boll, J., Elliot, W.J., and Foltz, R.B., 2006,
Spatially and temporally distributed modeling of landslide suscep-
tibility. Geomorphology, 80, 178–198.
Griffiths, D.V., Huang, J.S., and Fenton, G.A., 2011, Probabilistic infinite
slope analysis. Computers and Geotechnics, 38, 577–584.
Griswold, J.P. and Iverson, R.M., 2008, Mobility statistics and auto-
mated hazard mapping for debris flows and rock avalanches. U.S.
Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 5276, 59 p.
Guimaraes, R.F., Montgomery, D.R., Greenberg, H.M., Fernandes, N.F.,
Gomes, R.A.T., and de Carvalho, O.A., 2003, Parameterization of
soil properties for a model of topographic controls on shallow
landsliding: application to Rio de Janeiro. Engineering Geology, 69,
99–108.
Guzzetti, F., 2000, Landslide fatalities and the evaluation of landslide
risk in Italy. Engineering Geology, 58, 2, 89–107.
Guzzetti, F., Peruccacci, S., Rossi, M., and Stark, C.P., 2007, Rainfall
thresholds for the initiation of landslides. Meteorology Atmospheric
Physics, 98, 239–267.
Guzzetti, F., Peruccacci, S., Rossi, M., and Stark, C.P., 2008, The rainfall
intensity-duration control of shallow landslides and debris flows:
an update. Landslides, 5, 3–17.
Harr, M.E., 1987, Reliability-based Design in Civil Engineering. McGraw-
Hill, New York, 291 p.
He, K., Wang, S., Du, W., and Wang, S., 2010, Dynamic features and effects
of rainfall on landslides in the Three Gorges Reservoir region, China:
using the Xintan landslide and the large Huangya landslide as the
examples. Environmental Earth Sciences, 59, 1267–1274.
Herrera, G., Gutiérrez, F., García-Davalillo, J.C., Guerrero, J., Notti, D.,
Galve, J.P., Fernández-Merodo, J.A., and Cooksley, G., 2013, Multi-
sensor advanced DInSAR monitoring of very slow landslides: the
Tena Valley case study (Central Spanish Pyrenees). Remote Sens-
ing of Environment, 128, 31–43.
Ho, J.Y., Lee, K.T., Chang, T.C., Wang, Z.Y., and Liao, Y.H., 2012, Influ-
ences of spatial distribution of soil thickness on shallow landslide
prediction. Engineering Geology, 124, 38–46.
Hong, Y. and Adler, R.F., 2007, Satellite remote sensing for global land-
slide monitoring. Eos Transactions AGU, 88, 357.
Hong, Y., Adler, R., and Huffman, G., 2006a, Use of satellite remote
sensing data in the mapping of global landslide susceptibility. Natu-
ral Hazards, 43, 245–256.
Hong, Y., Adler, R., and Huffman, G., 2006b, Evaluation of the poten-
tial of NASA multi-satellite precipitation analysis in global land-
slide hazard assessment. Geophysical Research Letters, 33.
Hong, Y., Adler, R.F., and Huffman, G., 2007, An experimental global
prediction system for rainfall-triggered landslides using satellite remote
sensing and geospatial datasets. IEEE Transactions on Geosciences
and Remote Sensing, 45, 1671–1680.
Hooper, A., 2008, A multi-temporal InSAR method incorporating both
persistent scatterer and small baseline approaches. Geophysical
Research Letters, 35.
Hooper, A., Zebker, H., Segall, P., and Kampes, B., 2004, A new method
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4
1064 Byung-Gon Chae, Hyuck-Jin Park, Filippo Catani, Alessandro Simoni, and Matteo Berti
for measuring deformation on volcanoes and other natural terrains
using InSAR persistent scatterers. Geophysical Research Letters, 31,
L23611.
Huang, J.C., Kao, S.J., Hsu, M.L., and Lin, J.C., 2006, Stochastic proce-
dure to extract and to integrate landslide susceptibility maps: an
example of mountainous watershed in Taiwan. Natural Hazards
and Earth System Science, 6, 803–815.
Huang, J.C., Kao, S.J., Hsu, M.L., and Liu, Y.A., 2007, Influence of spe-
cific contributing area algorithms on slope failure prediction in
landslide modeling. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, 7,
781–792.
Huggel, C., Khabarov, N., Obersteiner, M., and Ramirez, J.M., 2010,
Implementation and integrated numerical modeling of a landslide
early warning system: a pilot study in Colombia. Natural Hazards,
52, 201–518.
Hungr, O., 1995, A model for the runout analysis of rapid flow slides,
debris flows and avalanches. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 32,
610–623.
Hungr, O., Corominas, J., and Eberhardt, E., 2005, Estimating landslide
motion mechanism, travel distance and velocity. Landslide Risk
Management, 99–128.
Hungr, O., Evans, S.G., Bovis, M., and Hutchinson, J.N., 2001, Review
of the classification of landslides of the flow type. Environmental
and Engineering Geoscience, 7, 221–238.
Hunter, G. and Fell, R., 2003, Travel distance angle for rapid landslides
in constructed and natural soil slopes. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
40, 1123–1141.
Hurlimann, M., McArdell, B.W., and Rickli, C., 2015, Field and labora-
tory analysis of the runout characteristics of hillslope debris flows
in Switzerland. Geomorphology, 232, 20–32.
Hurlimann, M., Rickenmann, D., Medina, V., and Bateman, A., 2008,
Evaluation of approaches to calculate debris-flow parameters for haz-
ard assessment. Engineering Geology, 102, 152–163.
Hussin, H.Y., Quan Luna, B., van Westen, C.J., Christen, M., Malet, J.P.,
and van Asch, T., 2012, Parameterization of a numerical 2-D debris
flow model with entrainment: a case study of the Faucon catchment,
Southern French Alps. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sci-
ences, 12, 3075–3090.
Innes, J.L., 1983, Debris flows. Progress in Physical Geography, 7, 469–
501.
Intrieri, E., Gigli, G., Mugnai, F., Fanti, R., and Casagli, N., 2012, Design
and implementation of a landslide early warning system. Engineer-
ing Geology, 147, 124–136.
Iverson, R.M., 2000, Landslide triggering by rain infiltration. Water
Resources Research, 36, 1897–1910.
Iverson, R.M. and Denlinger, R.P., 2001, Flow of variably fluidized gran-
ular masses across three-dimensional terrain, 1. Coulomb mixture
theory. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 106, 537–552.
Iverson, R.M., Schilling, S.P., and Vallance, J.W., 1998, Objective delin-
eation of lahar-inundation hazard zones. Geological Society of
America Bulletin, 110, 972–984.
Jaboyedoff, M., Oppikofer, T., Abellán, A., Derron, M.H., Loye, A.,
Metzger, R., and Pedrazzini, A., 2012, Use of LIDAR in landslide
investigations: a review. Natural Hazards, 61, 5–28.
Jacks, E., Davison, J., and Wai, H.G., 2010, Guidelines on early warning
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4
systems and applications of nowcasting and warning operations.
WMO/TD No. 1559, World Meteorological Organization, Geneva,
22 p.
Jakob, M., 2005, Debris flow hazard analysis. In: Jakob, M. and Hungr,
O. (eds.), Debris-flow Hazards and Related Phenomena. Springer,
Berlin, p. 411–443.
Jakob, M. and Friele, P., 2010, Frequency and magnitude of debris flows
on Cheekye River, British Columbia. Geomorphology, 114, 382–395.
Jakob, M. and Jordan, P., 2001, Design flood estimates in mountain
streams the need for a geomorphic approach. Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering, 28, 425–439.
Jakob, M. and Weatherly, H., 2003, A hydroclimatic threshold for land-
slide initiation on the north shore mountains of Vancouver, British
Columbia. Geomorphology, 54, 137–156.
Jakob, M., McDougall, S., Weatherly, H., and Ripley, N., 2013, Debris-
flow simulations on Cheekye River, British Columbia. Landslides,
10, 685–699.
Jan, C.D. and Lee, M.H., 2004, A debris-flow rainfall-based warning
model. Journal of Chinese Soil and Water Conservation, 35, 273–
283.
Jiao, J.J., Ding, G., and Leung, C.M., 2006, Confined groundwater near
the rockhead in igneous rocks in the Mid-Levels area, Hong Kong,
China. Engineering Geology, 84, 207–219.
Jiao, J.J., Wang, X.S., and Nandy, S., 2005, Confined groundwater zone
and slope instability in weathered igneous rocks in Hong Kong.
Engineering Geology, 80, 71–92.
Johnson, B.C., Campbell, C.S., and Melosh, H.J., 2016, The reduction of
friction in long runout landslides as an emergent phenomenon.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 121, 881–889.
Kaab, A., 2000, Photogrammetry for early recognition of high moun-
tain hazards: new techniques and applications. Physics and Chem-
istry of the Earth, Part B: Hydrology, Oceans and Atmosphere, 25,
765–770.
Kamai, T., 1991, Slope stability assessment by using GIS. Research
Report, Science and Technology Agency of Japan. (in Japanese)
Karnawati, D., Fathani, T.F., Wilopo, W., and Andayani, B., 2013, Hybrid
socio-technical approach for landslide risk reduction in Indonesia.
In: Wang, F., Miyajima, M., Li, T., Shan, W., and Fathani, T.F. (eds.),
Progress of Geo-disaster Mitigation Technology in Asia. Springer,
Berlin, p. 157–169.
Kasai, M., Ikeda, M., Asahina, T., and Fujisawa, K., 2009, LiDAR-
derived DEM evaluation of deep-seated landslides in a steep and
rocky region of Japan. Geomorphology, 113, 57–69.
Kean, J.W., McCoy, S.W., Tucker, G.E., Staley, D.M., and Coe, J.A., 2013,
Runoff-generated debris flows: observations and modeling of surge
initiation, magnitude, and frequency. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Earth Surface, 118, 2190–2207.
Kim, M.S., Onda, Y., Uchida, T., and Kim, J.K., 2016, Effects of soil
depth and subsurface flow along the subsurface topography on
shallow landslide predictions at the site of a small granitic hillslope.
Geomorphology, 271, 40–54.
Kirschbaum, D.B., Adler, R.F., Hong, Y., and Lerner-Lam, A., 2009,
Evaluation of a preliminary satellite-based landslide hazard algorithm
using global landslide inventories. Natural Hazards and Earth Sys-
tem Sciences, 9, 673–686.
http://www.springer.com/journal/12303
 Landslide prediction, monitoring, and early warning: a concise review of state-of-the-art
Konak, G., Onur, A.H., Karakus, D., Köse, H., Koca, Y., and Yenice, H.,
2004, Slope stability analysis and slide monitoring by inclinome-
ters readings: Part 2. Mining Technology, 113, 171–180.
Kummerow, C., Simpson, J., Thiele, O., Barnes, W., Chang, A.T.C.,
Stocker, E., Adler, R.F., Hou, A., Kakar, R., Wentz, F., Ashcroft, P., Kozu,
T., Hong, Y., Okamoto, K., Iguchi, T., Kuroiwa, H., Im, E., Haddad,
Z., Huffman, G., Ferrier, B., Olson, W.S., Zipser, E., Smith, E.A.,
Wilheit, T.T., North, G., Krishnamurti, T., and Nakamura, K., 2000,
The status of the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM)
after two years in orbit. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Cli-
matology, 39, 1965–1982.
Lagios, E., Sakkas, V., Novali, F., Bellotti, F., Ferretti, A., Vlachou, K.,
and Dietrich, V., 2013, SqueeSARTM and GPS ground deformation
monitoring of Santorini Volcano (1992–2012): Tectonic implications.
Tectonophysics, 594, 38–59.
Lagomarsino, D., Segoni, S., Fanti, R., and Catani, F., 2013, Updating
and tuning a regional-scale landslide early warning system. Land-
slides, 10, 91–97.
Lanari, R., Mora, O., Manunta, M., Mallorqui, J.J., Berardino, P., and
Sansosti, E., 2004, A small-baseline approach for investigating
deformations on full-resolution differential SAR interferograms.
IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 42, 1377–
1386.
Lee, J.H. and Park, H.J., 2016, Assessment of shallow landslide suscepti-
bility using the transient infiltration flow model and GIS-based
probabilistic approach. Landslides, 13, 885–903.
Legros, F., 2002, The mobility of long-runout landslides. Engineering
Geology, 63, 301–331.
Lepore, C., Amone, E., Noto, L.V., Sivandran, G., and Bras, R.L., 2013,
Physically based modeling of rainfall-triggered landslide: a case
study in the Luquillo forest, Puerto Rico. Hydrology and Earth sys-
tem Sciences, 17, 3371–2287.
Leprince, S., Berthier, E., Ayoub, F., Delacourt, C., and Avouac, J.P.,
2008, Monitoring earth surface dynamics with optical imagery. EOS
Transactions AGU, 89, 1–2.
Leung, A.K. and Ng, C.W.W., 2013, Seasonal movement and ground-
water flow mechanism in an unsaturated saprolitic hillslope. Land-
slides, 10, 455–467.
Li, D.Q., Qi, X.H., Phoon, K.K., Zhang, L.M., and Zhou, C.B., 2014,
Effect of spatially variable shear strength parameters with linearly
increasing mean trend on reliability of infinite slopes. Structural
Safety, 49, 45–55.
Li, W.C., Dai, F.C., Wei, Y.Q., Wang, M.L., Minm, H., and Lee, L.M.,
2016, Implication of subsurface flow on rainfall-induced landslide:
a case study. Landslides, 13, 1109–1123.
Li, W.C., Lee, L.M., Cai, H., Li, H.J., Dai, F.C., and Wang, M.L., 2013,
Combined roles of saturated permeability and rainfall characteris-
tics on surficial failure of homogeneous soil slope. Engineering
Geology, 153, 105–113.
Liao, Z., Hong, Y., Kirschbaum, D., Adler, R.F., Gourley, J.J., and Woo-
ten, R., 2011, Evaluation of TRIGRS (transient rainfall infiltration
and grid-based regional slope-stability analysis)’s predictive skill for
hurricane-triggered landslides: a case study in Macon County, North
Carolina. Natural Hazards, 58, 325–339.
Likos, W.J., Lu, N., and Godt, J.W., 2013, Hysteresis and uncertainty in
http://www.springer.com/journal/12303
1065
soil-water retention curve parameters. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 140.
Listo, F.D.L.R. and Vieira, B.C., 2012, Mapping of risk and susceptibility of
shallow-landslide in the city of São Paulo, Brazil. Geomorphology,
169, 30–44.
Liu, C.N. and Wu, C.C., 2008, Mapping susceptibility of rainfall-trig-
gered shallow landslides using a probabilistic approach. Environ-
mental Geology, 55, 907–915.
Liu, W., He, S., and Li, X., 2016, A finite volume method for two-phase
debris flow simulation that accounts for the pore-fluid pressure
evolution. Environmental Earth Sciences, 75, 1–10.
Lu, N. and Godt, J., 2008, Infinite slope stability under steady unsatu-
rated seepage conditions. Water Resources Research, 44, W11404.
Lu, N. and Godt, J.W., 2013, Hillslope Hydrology and Stability. Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge, 437 p.
Lu, N. and Likos, W.J., 2006, Suction stress characteristic curve for
unsaturated soil. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 132, 131–142.
Lu, N., Kaya, M., Collins, B.D., and Godt, J.W., 2013, Hysteresis of
unsaturated hydromechanical properties of a silty soil. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 139, 507–510.
Lu, P. and Rosenbaum, M.S., 2003, Artificial neural networks and grey
systems for the prediction of slope stability. Natural Hazards, 30,
383–398.
Lu, P., Casagli, N., Catani, F., and Tofani, V., 2012, Persistent Scatterers
Interferometry Hotspot and Cluster Analysis (PSI-HCA) for detec-
tion of extremely slow-moving landslides. International Journal of
Remote Sensing, 33, 466–489.
Lu, P., Catani, F., Tofani, V., and Casagli, N., 2014, Quantitative hazard
and risk assessment for slow-moving landslides from Persistent
Scatterer Interferometry. Landslides, 11, 685–696.
Lu, P., Stumpf, A., Kerle, N., and Casagli, N., 2011, Object-oriented
change detection for landslide rapid mapping. IEEE Geoscience
and Remote Sensing Letters, 8, 701–705.
Lucieer, A., de Jong, S.M., and Turner, D., 2014, Mapping landslide dis-
placements using Structure from Motion (SfM) and image correla-
tion of multi-temporal UAV photography. Progress in Physical
Geography, 38, 97–116.
Luo, X., Wang, F., Zhang, Z., and Che, A., 2009, Establishing a monitor-
ing network for an impoundment-induced landslide in Three
Gorges Reservoir Area, China. Landslides, 6, 27–37.
Luzi, L. and Pergalani, F., 1996, Applications of statistical and GIS tech-
niques to slope instability zonation (1:50,000 Fabriano geological
map sheet). Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 15, 83–94.
Macciotta, R., Hendry, M., and Martin, C.D., 2016, Developing an early
warning system for a very slow landslide based on displacement
monitoring. Natural Hazards, 81, 887–907.
Malet, J.P., Maquaire, O., and Calais, E., 2002, The use of Global Posi-
tioning System for the continuous monitoring of landslides, Appli-
cation to the Super-Sauze earthflow (Alpes-deHaute-Provence, France).
Geomorphology, 43, 33–54.
Mantovani, F., Soeters, R., and van Westen, C.J., 1996, Remote sensing
techniques for landslide studies and hazard zonation in Europe.
Geomorphology, 15, 213–225.
Marchi, L., Arattano, M., and Deganutti, A.M., 2002, Ten years of
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4
1066 Byung-Gon Chae, Hyuck-Jin Park, Filippo Catani, Alessandro Simoni, and Matteo Berti
debris-flow monitoring in the Moscardo Torrent (Italian Alps).
Geomorphology, 46, 1–17.
Marchi, L., Cavalli, M., and D’Agostino, V., 2010, Hydrogeomorphic
processes and torrent control works on a large alluvial fan in the
eastern Italian Alps. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences,
10, 547–558.
Margottini, C., Canuti, P., and Sassa, K., 2013, Landslide Science and
Practice, Vol. 2: Early Warning, Instrumentation and Monitoring.
Springer, Berlin, 685 p.
Martelloni, G., Segoni, S., Fanti, R., and Catani, F., 2012, Rainfall
thresholds for the forecasting of landslide occurrence at regional
scale. Landslides, 9, 485–495.
Massonnet, D. and Feigl, K.L., 1998, Radar interferometry and its appli-
cation to changes in the Earth’s surface. Review of Geophysics, 36,
441–500.
Massonnet, D., Briole, P., and Arnaud, A., 1995, Deflation of Mount
Etna monitored by spaceborne radar interferometry. Nature, 375,
567–570.
Massonnet, D., Feigl, K., Rossi, M., and Adragna, F., 1994, Radar inter-
ferometric mapping of deformation in the year after the Landers
earthquake. Nature, 369, 227–230.
Massonnet, D., Rossi, M., Carmona, C., Adragna, F., Peltzer, G., Feigl,
K., and Rabaute, T., 1993, The displacement field of the Landers
earthquake mapped by radar interferometry. Nature, 364, 138–142.
Matsushi, Y., Hattanji, T., and Matsukura, Y., 2006, Mechanisms of shal-
low landslides on soil-mantled hillslopes with permeable and
impermeable bedrocks in the Boso Peninsula, Japan. Geomorphol-
ogy, 76, 92–108.
McCoy, S.W., Kean, J.W., Coe, J.A., Staley, M., Wasklewicz, T.A., and
Tucker, G.E., 2010, Evolution of a natural debris flow: in situ mea-
surements of flow dynamics, video imagery, and terrestrial laser
scanning. Geology, 38, 735–738.
McDougall, S., 2016, Landslide runout analysis – current practice and
challenges. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 54, 605–620.
McDougall, S. and Hungr, O., 2004, A model for the analysis of rapid
landslide motion across three-dimensional terrain. Canadian Geo-
technical Journal, 41, 1084–1097.
McDougall, S. and Hungr, O., 2005, Dynamic modelling of entrainment in
rapid landslides, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 42, 1437–1448.
Meisina, C. and Scarabelli, S., 2007, A comparative analysis of terrain
stability models for predicting shallow landslides in colluvial soils.
Geomorphology, 87, 207–223.
Melchiorre, C. and Frattini, P., 2012, Modelling probability of rainfall-
induced shallow landslides in a changing climate, Otta, Central
Norway. Climatic Change, 113, 413–436.
Melillo, M., Brunetti, M.T., Peruccacci, S., Gariano, S.L., and Guzzetti,
F., 2015, An algorithm for the objective reconstruction of rainfall
events responsible for landslides. Landslides, 12, 311–320.
Melillo, M., Brunetti, M.T., Peruccacci, S., Gariano, S.L., and Guzzetti,
F., 2016, Rainfall thresholds for the possible landslide occurrence in
Sicily (Southern Italy) based on the automatic reconstruction of
rainfall events. Landslides, 13, 165–172.
Melosh, H.J., 1987, The mechanics of large rock avalanches. Reviews in
Engineering Geology, 7, 41–50.
Mercogliano, P., Segoni, S., Rossi, G., Sikorsky, B., Tofani, V., Schiano, P.,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4
Catani, F., Casagli, N., and Tiranti, D., 2013, A prototype forecast-
ing chain for rainfall induced shallow landslides. Natural Hazards
& Earth System Sciences, 13, 771–777.
Metternicht, G., Hurni, L., and Gogu, R., 2005, Remote sensing of land-
slides: An analysis of the potential contribution to geo-spatial sys-
tems for hazard assessment in mountainous environments. Remote
Sensing of Environment, 98, 284–303.
Michel, G.P., Kobiyama, M., and Goerl, R.F., 2014, Comparative analy-
sis of SHALSTAB and SINMAP for landslide susceptibility map-
ping in the Cunha River basin, southem Brazil. Journal of soils and
sediments, 14, 1266–1277.
Michoud, C., Carrea, D., Costa, S., Derron, M.H., Jaboyedoff, M., Dela-
court, C., Maquaire, O., Letortu, P., and Davidson, R., 2015, Land-
slide detection and monitoring capability of boat-based mobile
laser scanning along Dieppe coastal cliffs, Normandy. Landslides,
12, 403–418.
Miller D.J. and Burnett K.M., 2008, A probabilistic model of debris-
flow delivery to stream channels, demonstrated for the Coast Range
of Oregon, USA. Geomorphology, 94, 184–205.
Monserrat, O., Crosetto, M., and Luzi, G., 2014, A review of ground-
based SAR interferometry for deformation measurement. ISPRS
Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 93, 40–48.
Montgomery, D.R. and Dietrich, W.E., 1994, A physically based model
for the topographic control on shallow landsliding. Water Resources
Research, 30, 1153–1171.
Montgomery, D.R., Dietrich, W.E., and Heffner, J.T., 2002, Piezometric
response in shallow bedrock at CB1: implications for runoff gener-
ation and landsliding. Water Resources Research, 38, 12.
Montrasio, L., 2000, Stability analysis of soil-slip. In: Brebbia, C.A. (ed.),
Risk Analysis II. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environ-
ment, 45, p. 357–366.
Montrasio, L. and Valentino, R., 2008, A model for triggering mecha-
nisms of shallow landslides. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sci-
ences, 8, 1149–1159.
Montrasio, L., Valentino, R., and Losi, G.L., 2011, Towards a real-time
susceptibility assessment of rainfall-induced shallow landslides on
a regional scale. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 11,
1927.
Naef, D., Rickenmann, D., Rutschmann, P., and McArdell, B.W., 2006,
Comparison of flow resistance relations for debris flows using a
one-dimensional finite element simulation model. Natural Haz-
ards and Earth System Science, 6, 155–165.
Navratil, O., Liebault, F., Bellot, H., Travaglini, E., Theule, J., Chambon,
G., and Laigle, D., 2013, High-frequency monitoring of debris-flow
propagation along the Réal Torrent, Southern French Prealps. Geo-
morphology, 201, 157–171.
Ng, C.W.W. and Shi, Q., 1998, Influence of rainfall intensity and dura-
tion on slope stability in unsaturated soils. Quarterly Journal of
Engineering Geology, 31, 105–113.
Niethammer, U., James, M.R., Rothmund, S., Travelletti, J., and Joswig,
M., 2012, UAV-based remote sensing of the Super-Sauze landslide:
evaluation and results. Engineering Geology, 128, 2–11.
O’Brien, J.S., Julien, P.Y., and Fullerton, W.T., 1993, Two dimensional
water flood and mudflow simulation. Journal of Hydraulic Engi-
neering, 119, 244–261.
http://www.springer.com/journal/12303
 Landslide prediction, monitoring, and early warning: a concise review of state-of-the-art
O’Connor, K.H. and Dowding, C.H., 1999, Geomeasurements by Puls-
ing TDR Cables and Probes. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 424 p.
O’Loughlin, E.M., 1986, Prediction of surface saturation zones in natu-
ral catchments by topographic analysis. Water Resources Research,
22, 794–804.
Osmanoğlu, B., Sunar, F., Wdowinski, S., and Cabral-Cano, E., 2016,
Time series analysis of InSAR data: methods and trends. ISPRS
Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 115, 90–102.
Ouchi, K., 2013, Recent trend and advance of synthetic aperture radar
with selected topics. Remote Sensing, 5, 716–807.
Pack, R.T., Tarboton, D.G., and Goodwin, C.N., 1998, The SINMAP
approach to terrain stability mapping. Proceedings of the 8th Congress
of the International Association of Engineering Geology, Vancouver,
Sep. 21–25, p. 1157–1165.
Pack, T.T., Tarboton, D.G., and Goodwin, C.N., 2001, Assessing terrain
stability in a GIS using SINMAP. Proceedings of the 15th Annual
GIS Conference (GIS 2001), Vancouver, Feb. 19–22.
Palis, E., Lebourg, T., Tric, E., Malet, J.P., and Vidal, M., 2016, Long-term
monitoring of a large deep-seated landslide (La Clapiere, South-East
French Alps): initial study. Landslides, 14, 155–170.
Paloscia, S., Pettinato, S., Santi, E., Notarnicola, C., Pasolli, L., and Rep-
pucci, A., 2013, Soil moisture mapping using Sentinel-1 images:
algorithm and preliminary validation. Remote Sensing of Environ-
ment, 134, 234–248.
Park, H.J. and West, T.R., 2001, Development of a probabilistic approach
for rock wedge failure. Engineering Geology, 59, 233–251.
Park, H.J., Lee, J.H., and Woo, I., 2013, Assessment of rainfall-induced
shallow landslide susceptibility using a GIS-based probabilistic approach.
Engineering Geology, 161, 1–15.
Park, H.J., West, T.R., and Woo, I., 2005, Probabilistic analysis of rock
slope stability and random properties of discontinuity parameters,
Interstate Highway 40, Western North Carolina, USA. Engineering
Geology, 79, 230–250.
Perissin, D. and Wang, T., 2012, Repeat-pass SAR Interferometry with
partially coherent targets. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and
Remote Sensing, 50, 271–280.
Peruccacci, S., Brunetti, M.T., Luciani, S., Vennari, C., and Guzzetti, F.,
2012, Lithological and seasonal control of rainfall thresholds for the
possible initiation of landslides in central Italy. Geomorphology,
139, 79–90.
Petley, D., 2012, Global patterns of loss of life from landslides. Geology,
40, 927–930.
Petrie, G. and Toth, C.K., 2009, Terrestrial laser scanners. In: Shan, J.
and Toth, C.K. (eds.), Topographic Laser Ranging and Scanning
Principles and Processing. CRC Press, Boca Raton, p. 87–128.
Piciullo, L., Gariano, S.L., Melillo, M., Brunetti, M.T., Peruccacci, S.,
Guzzetti, F., and Calvello, M., 2016, Definition and performance of
a threshold-based regional early warning model for rainfall-induced
landslides. Landslides, 1–14.
Pieraccini, M., Casagli, N., Luzi, G., Tarchi, D., Mecatti, D., Noferini, L.,
and Atzeni, C., 2003, Landslide monitoring by ground-based radar
interferometry: a field test in Valdarno (Italy). International Jour-
nal of Remote Sensing, 24, 1385–1391.
Pirulli, M., 2010, On the use of the calibration-based approach for
debris-flow forward-analyses. Natural Hazards and Earth System
http://www.springer.com/journal/12303
1067
Sciences, 10, 1009.
Ponziani, F., Pandolfo, C., Stelluti, M., Berni, N., Brocca, L., and Mora-
marco, T., 2012, Assessment of rainfall thresholds and soil mois-
ture modeling for operational hydrogeological risk prevention in
the Umbria region (central Italy). Landslides, 9, 229–237.
Pradhan, A.M.S. and Kim, Y.T., 2015, Application and comparison of
shallow landslide susceptibility models in weathered granite soil
under extreme rainfall events. Environmental Earth Sciences, 73,
5761–5771.
Prochaska, A.B., Santi, P.M., Higgins, J., and Cannon, S.H., 2008,
Debris-flow runout predictions based on the average channel slope
(ACS). Engineering Geology, 98, 29–40.
Rahardjo, H., Santoso, V.A., Leong, E.C., Ng, Y.S., and Hua, C.J., 2011,
Numerical analyses and monitoring performance of residual soil
slopes. Soils and Foundations, 51, 471–482.
Rahardjo, H., Ong, T.H., Rezaur, R.B., and Leong, E.C., 2007, Factors
controlling instability of homogeneous soil slopes under rainfall.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 133,
1532–1543.
Raia, S., Alvioli, M., Rossi, M., Baum, R.L., Godt, J.W., and Guzzetti, F.,
2014, Improving predictive power of physically based rainfall-induced
shallow landslide models: a probabilistic approach. Geoscientific
Model Development, 7, 495–514.
Reichenbach, P., Cardinali, M., De Vita, P., and Guzzetti, F., 1998,
Regional hydrological thresholds for landslides and floods in the
Tiber River Basin (Central Italy). Environmental Geology, 35, 146–159.
Reid, M.E., Coe, J.A., and Brien, D.L., 2016, Forecasting inundation
from debris flows that grow volumetrically during travel, with applica-
tion to the Oregon Coast Range, USA. Geomorphology, 273, 396–
411.
Revellino, P., Hungr, O., Guadagno, F.M., and Evans, S.G., 2004, Velocity
and runout simulation of destructive debris flows and debris avalanches
in pyroclastic deposits, Campania region, Italy. Environmental Geol-
ogy, 45, 295–311.
Rickenmann, D., 1999, Empirical relationships for debris flows. Natu-
ral Hazards, 19, 47–77.
Rickenmann, D., 2005, Runout prediction methods. In: Jakob, M. and
Hungr, O. (eds.), Debris-flow Hazards and Related Phenomena.
Springer, Berlin, p. 305–324.
Rickenmann, D., 2016, Debris-flow hazard assessment and methods
applied in engineering practice. International Journal of Erosion
Control Engineering, 9, 80–90.
Rickenmann, D., Laigle, D.M.B.W, McArdell, B.W., and Hubl, J., 2006,
Comparison of 2D debris-flow simulation models with field events.
Computational Geosciences, 10, 241–264.
Riley, K.L., Bendick, R., Hyde, K.D., and Gabet, E.J., 2013, Frequency-
magnitude distribution of debris flows compiled from global data,
and comparison with post-fire debris flows in the western US.
Geomorphology, 191, 118–128.
Robinson, D.A., Jones, S.B., Wraith, J.M., Or, D., and Friedman, S.P.,
2003, A review of advances in dielectric and electrical conductivity
measurement in soils using time domain reflectometry. Vadose
Zone Journal, 2, 444–475.
Rossi, G., Catani, F., Leoni, L., Segoni, S., and Tofani, V., 2013, HIR-
ESSS: a physically based slope stability simulator for HPC applica-
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4
1068 Byung-Gon Chae, Hyuck-Jin Park, Filippo Catani, Alessandro Simoni, and Matteo Berti
tions. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 13, 151.
Rossi, M., Peruccacci, S., Brunetti, M.T., Marchesini, I., Luciani, S.,
Ardizzone, F., Balducci, V., Bianchi, C., Cardinali, M., Fiorucci, F.,
Mondini, A.C., Reichenbach, P., Salvati, P., Santangelo, M., Barto-
lini, D., Gariano, S.L., Palladino, M., Vessia, G., Viero, A., Antronico, L.,
Borselli, L., Deganutti, A.M., Iovine, G., Luino, F., Parise, M., Pole-
mio, M., Guzzetti, F., Luciani, S., Fiorucci, F., Mondini, A.C., San-
tangelo, M., and Tonelli, G., 2012, SANF: National warning system
for rainfall-induced landslides in Italy. Landslide and Engineered
Slopes: Protecting Society through Improved Understanding, 2,
1895–1899.
Rosso, R., Rulli, M.C., and Vannucchi, G., 2006, A physically based
model for the hydrologic control on shallow landsliding. Water
Resources Research, 42.
Rott, H. and Nagler, T., 2006, The contribution of radar interferometry
to the assessment of landslide hazards. Advances in Space Research,
37, 710–719.
Salciarini, D., Godt, J.W., Savage, W.Z., Conversini, P., Baum, R.L., and
Michael, J.A., 2006, Modeling regional initiation of rainfall-induced
shallow landslides in the eastern Umbria Region of central Italy.
Landslides, 3, 181–194.
Santi, E., Paloscia, S., Pettinato, S., Notarnicola, C., Greifeneder, F., Hahn, S.,
Wagner, W., Vreugdenhil, M., and Reimer, C., 2015, Developing an
operational algorithm based on ANN for the retrieval of SMC from
the incoming metop SCA mission. 2015 IEEE International Geo-
science and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS 2015), Milan,
Jul. 26–31, p. 2024–2027.
Santoso, A.M., Phoon, K.K., and Quek, S.T., 2011, Effects of soil spatial
variability on rainfall-induced landslides. Computers & Structures,
89, 893–900.
Sassa, K., 1985, The mechanism of debris flows. Proceedings of the 11th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engi-
neering, San Francisco, Aug. 12–16, 3, p. 1173–1176.
Sauchyn, D.J. and Trench, N.R., 1978, LANDSAT applied to landslide
mapping. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 44,
735–741.
Savage, W.Z., Godt, J.W., and Baum, R.L., 2003, A model for spatially
and temporally distributed shallow landslide initiation by rainfall
infiltration. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on
Debris-flow Hazards Mitigation: Mechanics, Prediction, and Assess-
ment, Davos, Sep. 10–12, 1, p. 179–187.
Savage, W.Z., Godt, J.W., and Baum, R.L., 2004, Modeling time depen-
dent areal slope stability. Proceedings of the 9th International Sym-
posium on Landslides, Rio de Janeiro, Jun. 28-Jul., 2, p. 23–36.
Scheidl, C. and Rickenmann, D., 2010, Empirical prediction of debris-
flow mobility and deposition on fans. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms, 35, 157–173.
Schilling, S.P., 1998, LAHARZ; GIS programs for automated mapping
of lahar-inundation hazard zones. U.S. Geological Survey Open-
File Report 98-638, 80 p.
Schlögel, R., Doubre, C., Malet, J.-P., and Masson, F., 2015, Landslide
deformation monitoring with ALOS/PALSAR imagery: a D-InSAR
geomorphological interpretation method. Geomorphology, 231,
314–330.
Schulz, W.H., 2007, Landslide susceptibility revealed by LIDAR imag-
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4
ery and historical records, Seattle, Washington. Engineering Geol-
ogy, 89, 67–87.
Segoni, S., Rosi, A., Rossi, G., Catani, F., and Casagli, N., 2014, Analys-
ing the relationship between rainfalls and landslides to define a
mosaic of triggering thresholds for regional-scale warning systems.
Natural Hazards Earth System Science, 14, 2637.
Shou, K.J. and Chen, Y.L., 2005, Spatial risk analysis of Li-shan land-
slide in Taiwan. Engineering Geology, 80, 199–213.
Shou, K.J., Chen, Y.L., and Liu, H., 2009, Hazard analysis of Li-shan
landslide in Taiwan. Geomorphology, 103, 143–153.
Simoni, A., Mammoliti, M., and Berti, M., 2011, Uncertainty of debris
flow mobility relationships and its influence on the prediction of
inundated areas. Geomorphology, 132, 249–259.
Simoni, A., Berti, M., Generali, M., Elmi, C., and Ghirotti, M., 2004,
Preliminary result from pore pressure monitoring on an unstable
clay slope. Engineering Geology, 73, 117–128.
Singhroy, V. and Molch, K., 2004, Characterizing and monitoring rock-
slides from SAR techniques. Advances in Space Research, 33, 290–
295.
Sirangelo, B. and Braca, G., 2004, Identification of hazard conditions for
mudflow occurrence by hydrological model: application of FLaIR
model to Sarno warning system. Engineering Geology, 73, 267–276.
Sirangelo, B. and Versace, P., 1996, A real time forecasting model for
landslides triggered by rainfall. Meccanica, 31, 73–85.
Song, Y.S., Chae, B.G., and Lee, J., 2016, A method for evaluating the
stability of an unsaturated slope in natural terrain during rainfall.
Engineering Geology, 210, 84–92.
Sorbino, G., Sica, C., and Cascini, L., 2010, Susceptibility analysis of
shallow landslides source areas using physically based models. Nat-
ural Hazards, 53, 313–332.
Sorbino, G., Sica, C., Cascini, L., and Cuomo, S., 2007, On the forecasting of
flowslide triggering areas using physically based models. Proceed-
ings of the 1st North American Landslides Conference on Land-
slides, Vail, Jun. 3–8, 23, p. 305–315.
Sosio, R., Crosta, G.B., and Hungr, O., 2008, Complete dynamic model-
ing calibration for the Thurwieser rock avalanche (Italian Central
Alps). Engneering Geology, 100, 11–26.
Sosio, R., Crosta, G.B., and Frattini P., 2007, Field observations, rheo-
logical testing and numerical modeling of a debris-flow event. Earth
Surface Processes and Landforms, 32, 290–306.
Spies, H., Jähne, B., and Barron, J.L., 2002, Range flow estimation.
Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 85, 209–231.
Springman, S.M., Thielen, A., Kienzler, P., and Friedel, S., 2013, A long-
term field study for the investigation of rainfall-induced landslides.
Geotechnique, 63, 1177.
Stevens, W.R. and Zehrbach, B.E., 2000, Inclinometer data analysis for
remediated landslides. In: Marr, W.A. (ed.), Geotechnical Measure-
ments: Lab and Field. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, p.
126–137.
Stoffel, M., 2010, Magnitude-frequency relationships of debris flows – a
case study based on field surveys and tree-ring records. Geomor-
phology, 116, 67–76.
Strozzi, T., Farina, P., Corsini, A., Ambrosi, C., Thüring, M., Zilger, J.,
Wiesmann, A., Wegmüller, U., and Werner, C., 2005, Survey and
monitoring of landslide displacements by means of L-band satellite
http://www.springer.com/journal/12303
 Landslide prediction, monitoring, and early warning: a concise review of state-of-the-art
SAR interferometry. Landslides, 2, 193–201.
Stumpf, A. and Kerle, N., 2011, Object-oriented mapping of landslides
using Random Forests. Remote Sensing of Environment, 115,
2564–2577.
Stumpf, A., Malet, J.P., Allemand, P., Pierrot-Deseilligny, M., and
Skupinski, G., 2015, Ground-based multi-view photogrammetry
for the monitoring of landslide deformation and erosion. Geomor-
phology, 231, 130–145.
Tarchi, D., Casagli, N., Fanti, R., Leva, D.D., Luzi, G., Pasuto, A., Pierac-
cini, M., and Silvano, S., 2003, Landslide monitoring by using
ground-based SAR interferometry: an example of application to
the Tessina landslide in Italy. Engineering Geology, 68, 15–30.
Teixeira, M., Bateira, C., Marques, F., and Vieira, B., 2015, Physically
based shallow translational landslide susceptibility analysis in Tibo
catchment, NW of Portugal. Landslides, 12, 455–468.
Temesgen, B., Mohammed, M.U., and Korme, T., 2001, Natural hazard
assessment using GIS and remote sensing methods, with particu-
lar reference to the landslides in the Wondogenet area, Ethiopia.
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Part C: Solar, Terrestrial &
Planetary Science, 26, 665–675.
Ter-Stepanian, G., 2000, Quick clay landslides: their enigmatic features
and mechanism. Bulletin of Engineering Geology Environment,
59, 47–57.
Terhorst, B. and Kreja, R., 2009, Slope stability modelling with SINMAP
in a settlement area of the Swabian Alb. Landslides, 6, 309–319.
Terlien, M.T., 1996, Modelling spatial and temporal variations in rain-
fall-triggered landslides: the integration of hydrologic models, slope
stability models and geographic information systems for the hazard
zonation of rainfall-triggered landslides with examples from Man-
izales (Colombia). International Institute for Aerospace and Earth
Sciences (ITC), Enschede, Netherlands, Publication No. 32.
Terlien, M.T., 1998, The determination of statistical and deterministic
hydrological landslide-triggering thresholds. Environmental Geol-
ogy, 35, 124–130.
Terlien, M.T., van Westen, C.J., and van Asch, T.W., 1995, Determinis-
tic modelling in GIS-based landslide hazard assessment. In: Carrara,
A. and Guzzetti, F. (eds.), Geographical Information Systems in
Assessing Natural Hazards. Springer Netherlands, p. 57–77.
Thiebes, B., Bell, R., Glade, T., Jager, S., Mayer, J., Anderson, M., and
Holcombe, L., 2014, Integration of a limit equilibrium model into a
landslide early warning system. Landslides, 11, 859–875.
Tofani, V., Raspini, F., Catani, F., and Casagli, N., 2013, Persistent Scat-
terer Interferometry (PSI) technique for landslide characterization
and monitoring. Remote Sensing, 5, 1045–1065.
Tofani, V., Segoni, S., Agostini, A., Catani, F., and Casagli, N., 2013°,
Technical Note: Use of remote sensing for landslide studies in
Europe. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 13, 299–309.
Topp, G.C., Annan, J.L., and Davis, A.P., 1980, Electromagnetic deter-
mination of soil water content: measurements in coaxial transmis-
sion lines. Water Resources Research, 16, 574–582.
Toyos, G.P., Cole, P.D., Felpeto, A., and Marti, J., 2007, A GIS-based
methodology for hazard mapping of small volume pyroclastic den-
sity currents. Natural Hazards, 41, 99–112.
Travelletti, J., Delacourt, C., Allemand, P., Malet, J.P., Schmittbuhl, J.,
Toussaint, R., and Bastard, M., 2012, Correlation of multi-tempo-
http://www.springer.com/journal/12303
1069
ral ground-based optical images for landslide monitoring: Applica-
tion, potential and limitations. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry
and Remote Sensing, 70, 39–55.
Tsai, T.L. and Chen, H.F., 2010, Effects of degree of saturation on shal-
low landslides triggered by rainfall. Environmental Earth Sciences,
59, 1285–1295.
Tsai, T.L., Tsai, P.Y., and Yang, P.J., 2015, Probabilistic modelling of rain-
fall-induced shallow landslide using a point estimate method. Envi-
ronmental Earth Sciences, 73, 4109–4117.
Tsaparas, I., Rahardjo, H., Toll, D.G., and Leong, E.C., 2002, Con-
trolling parameters for rainfall-induced landslides. Computers and
Geotechnics, 29, 1–27.
Uhlemann, S., Smith, A., Chambers, J., Dixon, N., Dijkstra, T., Haslam,
E., Meldrum, P., Merritt, A., Gunn, D., and Mackay, J., 2016, Assessment
of ground-based monitoring techniques applied to landslide inves-
tigations. Geomorphology, 253, 438–451.
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), 2006,
Developing early warning system: a checklist. Proceedings of the
3rd International Conference on Early Warning: From Concept to
Action (EWC III), Bonn, Mar. 27–29, 10 p.
van Asch, T.W., Malet, J.P., van Beek, L.P., and Amitrano, D., 2007,
Techniques, issues and advances in numerical modelling of land-
slide hazard. Bulletin de la Societe Géologique de France, 178, 65–88.
Van Dam, R.L., 2012, Landform characterization using geophysics – recent
advances, applications, and emerging tools. Geomorphology, 137,
57–73.
Van Genuchten, M.T., 1980, A closed-form equation for predicting the
hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Science Society of
America Journal, 44, 892–898.
van Westen, C.J., 2000, The modelling of landslide hazards using GIS.
Surveys in Geophysics, 21, 241–255.
van Westen, C.J., 2004, Geo-information tools for landslide risk assess-
ment – an overview of recent developments. Proceedings of the Pro-
ceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Landslides, Rio de
Janeiro, Jun. 28-Jul., 2, p. 39–56.
van Westen, C.J. and Terlien, M.T.J., 1996, An approach towards deter-
ministic landslide hazard analysis in GIS. A case study from Manizales
(Colombia). Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 21, 853–868.
van Westen, C.J., Asch, T.W.J., and Soeters, R., 2006, Landslide hazard
and risk zonation – why is it still so difficult? Bulletin of Engineer-
ing Geology and the Environment, 65, 67–184.
Van Westen, C.J., Castellanos, E., and Kuriakose, S.L., 2008, Spatial data
for landslide susceptibility, hazard, and vulnerability assessment:
and overview. Engineering Geology, 102, 112-131.
van Westen, C.J., Seijmonsbergen, A.C., and Mantovani, F., 1999, Com-
paring landslide hazard maps. Natural Hazards, 20, 137–158.
Vaziri, A., Moore, L., and Ali, H., 2010, Monitoring systems for warn-
ing impending failures in slopes and open pit mines. Natural Haz-
ards, 55, 501–512.
Vieira, B.C. and Fernandes, N.F., 2010, Shallow landslide prediction in
the Serra do Mar, São Paulo, Brazil. Natural Hazards and Earth Sys-
tem Sciences, 10, 1829.
Werner, C., Wegmuller, U., Strozzi, T., and Wiesmann, A., 2003, Inter-
ferometric point target analysis for deformation mapping. 2003
IEEE, International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4
1070 Byung-Gon Chae, Hyuck-Jin Park, Filippo Catani, Alessandro Simoni, and Matteo Berti
(IGARSS 2003), Toulouse, Jul. 21–25, 7, p. 4362–4364.
Westoby, M.J., Brasington, J., Glasser, N.F., Hambrey, M.J., and Reyn-
olds, J.M., 2012, ‘Structure-from-Motion’ photogrammetry: a low-cost,
effective tool for geoscience applications. Geomorphology, 179,
300–314.
Wheeler, S.J., Sharma, R.J., and Buisson, M.S.R., 2003, Coupling of
hydraulic hysteresis and stress-strain behavior in unsaturated soils.
Geotechnique, 53, 41–54.
White, I.D., Mottershead, D.N., and Harrison, J.J., 1996, Environmen-
tal Systems: An Introductory Text (2nd edition). Chapman & Hall,
London, 616 p.
Wieczorek, G.F., 1996, Landslide triggering mechanism. In: Turner,
A.K. and Schuster, R.L. (eds.), Landslides Investigation and Mitiga-
tion, Special report. Transportation Research Board, National Acad-
emy Press, Washington, 247, p. 76–89.
Wieczorek, G.F. and Glade, T., 2005, Climatic factors influencing occur-
rence of debris flows. In: Jakob, M. and Hungr, O. (eds.), Debris
Flow Hazards and Related Phenomena. Springer, Berlin, p. 325–362.
Wilson, R.C. and Jayko, A.S., 1997, Preliminary maps showing rainfall
thresholds for debris-flow activity, San Francisco Bay region, Cali-
fornia. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-745F, USGS,
Denver, 20 p.
Wu, W. and Sidle, R.C., 1995, A distributed slope stability model for
steep forested basins. Water Resources Research, 31, 2097–2110.
Xie, M., Esaki, T., and Cai, M., 2004, A time-space based approach for
mapping rainfall induced shallow landslide hazard. Environmental
Geology, 46, 840–850.
Xie, M., Esaki, T., and Zhou, G., 2004, GIS-based probabilistic map-
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4
ping of landslide hazard using a three-dimensional deterministic
model. Natural Hazards, 33, 265–282.
Yilmaz, I. and Keskin, I., 2009, GIS based statistical and physical
approaches to landslide susceptibility mapping (Sebinkarahisar, Tur-
key). Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 68,
459–471.
Yin, Y., Wang, H., Gao, Y., and Li, X., 2010, Real-time monitoring and
early warning of landslides at relocated Wushan Town, the Three
Gorges Reservoir, China. Landslides, 7, 339–349.
Zhang, L.L., Zhang, L.M., and Tang, W.H., 2005, Rainfall-induced slope
failure considering variability of soil properties. In: Hicks, M.A.
(ed.), Risk and Variability in Geotechnical Engineering. Thomas
Telford Ltd., London, p. 183–188.
Zhou, G., Esaki, T., Mitani, Y., Xie, M., and Mori, J., 2003, Spatial prob-
abilistic modeling of slope failure using an integrated GIS Monte
Carlo simulation approach. Engineering Geology, 68, 373–386.
Zhu, H., Zhang, L.M., Zhang, L.L., and Zhou, C.B., 2013, Two-dimen-
sional probabilistic infiltration analysis with a spatially varying per-
meability function. Computers and Geotechnics, 48, 249–259.
Zimmermann, M., Mani, P., and Romang, H., 1997, Magnitude-fre-
quency aspects of Alpine debris flows. Eclogae Geologicae Helve-
tiae, 90, 415–420.
Zizioli, D., Meisina, C., Valentino, R., and Montrasio, L., 2013, Com-
parison between different approaches to modeling shallow land-
slide susceptibility: a case history in Oltrepo Pavese, Northern Italy.
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 13, 559.
Zschau, J. and Kuppers, A.N., 2003, Early Warning Systems for Natural
Disaster Reduction. Springer, Berlin, 834 p.
http://www.springer.com/journal/12303