Landslide susceptibility mapping along

national highway-1 in Jammu and

Kashmir State (India)

Gulzar Hussain, Yudhbir Singh,

Kanwarpreet Singh & G. M. Bhat

Innovative Infrastructure Solutions

ISSN 2364-4176
Volume 4
Number 1

Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2019) 4:1-17

DOI 10.1007/s41062-019-0245-9

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer
Nature Switzerland AG. This e-offprint is
for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2019) 4:59
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-019-0245-9

TECHNICAL PAPERS

Landslide susceptibility mapping along national highway‑1 in Jammu

and Kashmir State (India)
Gulzar Hussain1 · Yudhbir Singh1 · Kanwarpreet Singh2 · G. M. Bhat1

Received: 5 June 2019 / Accepted: 9 October 2019

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Abstract
A remote sensing and GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping (LSM) has been carried out using frequency ratio (FR)
and weight of evidence (WoE) methods to identify and delineate the potential failure zones along National Highway – 1.
The thematic layers of various landslide causative factors have been generated for modeling in GIS. In addition, a landslide
inventory along the road network was prepared using satellite imagery, Google earth, and extensive field visits. LSM clas-
sified the area into five susceptibility classes: very low, low, moderate, high, and very high classes. The validation result
further substantiates the study and inferred that area under success rate curve shows a satisfactory relation between land-
slide affecting factors and landslide occurrences in case of FR and WoE models having an accuracy of 86.57% and 76.86%,
respectively. A landslide density method has also been adopted for validation of LSM which showed acceptable results with
decreasing trend of landslide density from very high to very low susceptible zone for both FR and WoE models. The LSM
generated will be helpful for various stakeholders like planners, engineers, designers, and local public for future construc-
tion and maintenance in the study area.

Keywords  Remote sensing · Arc GIS · Ladakh · Frequency ratio · Weight of evidence

Introduction of a number of factors such as the interaction of various

Landslide is one of the most common phenomena which
claims life, settlement, and environment globally. Landslides
cause life and property losses around the world annually [1,
2]. Landslides have been recognized as a significant natural
disaster all over the world and particularly in hilly regions
especially in the Himalaya [1]. The hilly areas in Himalaya,
Western Ghats, and the Meghalaya Plateau in India cover
around 15% of the country (~ 0.49 million km2) which are
highly prone to landslide [3]. The failure mechanism of
slopes are not restricted to a single factor but is the interplay
* Kanwarpreet Singh
singhkanwarpreetnit@gmail.com
Gulzar Hussain
suhail490@gmail.com
G. M. Bhat
abhishek1@nith.ac.in
1
Postgraduate Department of Geology, University of Jammu,
Jammu, India
2
Civil Engineering Department, National Institute
of Technology, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh 177005, India
geological, geomorphological, physical, and anthropogenic
activities [4, 5]. In highly mountainous areas, a landslide is
common which can be triggered because of various causa-
tive factors like rainfall, seismicity, and rapid erosion by the
stream and water fluctuation [2, 6]. The gradual increase
in the frequency of landslides events is due to a population
explosion which forces for rapid developmental activities
in the area including road widening, construction of dams,
and settlements, etc. The naturally existing slopes may get
converted into excavated slopes which are more prone to
failure [7–9]. Both the intrinsic and extrinsic causative fac-
tors are required for the correct assessment of landslide sus-
ceptibility in an area [10–12]. For the hazard assessment
of an area, most of the studies around the world involve
only intrinsic factors because it is not easy to retrieve data
based on extrinsic factors. Hence, assessment of an area
in the context of landslide hazard where extrinsic factors
are neglected is termed as landslide susceptibility mapping
[12–14]. The landslide study has been widely adopted during
recent years due to technology advancement related to the
spatial information. The high-resolution satellite imageries
and GIS environment resulted in adaptation of the landslide

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Author's personal copy
59   Page 2 of 17
susceptibility assessment on medium to large scale by giv-
ing many reliable and appropriate models [15–21]. Various
qualitative and quantitative methods are available for land-
slides susceptibility assessment.
The qualitative method is generally based on the knowl-
edge of an expert and has been proved as highly produc-
tive for the assessment of the regional area [1, 22, 23]. The
quantitative methods emphasize objective measurements and
the statistical, mathematical, or numerical analysis of data
collected through polls, questionnaires, and surveys, or by
manipulating the pre-existing statistical data using various
computational techniques. The quantitative-based frequency
ratio method is one of the simple probabilistic models based
on the observed relationships between each landslide causa-
tive factor [24] and landslides and is successfully used by
number of researchers around the world for landslide sus-
ceptibility mapping [25–40]. A quantitative-based statisti-
cal approach of weight of evidence (WoE) is a Bayesian
approach which can assess the relationship of the dependent
variable to independent predictive variable. It is represented
by linear logarithm division of events (%) and non-events
(%) to estimate the relative importance of evidence through
statistical means. This approach has been adopted worldwide
by numerous researchers [41–48].
The present study deals with the landslide susceptibility
mapping along with the strategically important road net-
work of the country which is also the lifeline of the remote
districts of Jammu and Kashmir State including Ladakh
region. The selected road section is a major transport road
corridor connecting the Ladakh region with the rest of India.
This route is historically and culturally important. The route
passes near India–Pakistan border through high mountain
passes and most of the road clings to mountainsides. Various
types of landslides have been observed along this road sec-
tion which causes obstruction to the traffic flow every year
during monsoon season. A few of the man-made road cuts
were also observed along the stretch.
The landslide susceptibility map along the NH -1 has
been prepared using FR and WoE model, classifying the
selected region into different susceptibility zones ranging
from very low to very high. These landslide susceptibility
maps will be helpful for various stakeholders like planners,
engineers, geologist, and geotechnicians in future to pro-
vide smooth traffic flow along the transport road corridor by
mitigating slopes present in high and very high susceptible
zones.
Study area
The transport corridor of NH – 1 passes through an altitude
variation between 2980 m in the valley and 4500 m on peaks is
the only all-weather surface link (Fig. 1). The study area which
13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2019) 4:59
stretches for 120 km is confined to Kargil and Lamayuru sector
falls in the Indus tectonic zone and Trans-Himalaya zone of
Northwest Himalaya. The study area stands distinguishable
from the rest of the state Jammu and Kashmir in terms of
topography and physiography. The region is bounded by the
Karakoram to the north, and Himalayan mountains to the south
act as an orographic barrier and created an arid environment
[49]. The average annual rainfall is very scanty during summer
and experiences heavy snowfall in winter. However, there is
a great variation in summer (34.8 °C) and winter temperature
(− 27.9 °C) below the freezing point [50]. The area is charac-
terized by two prominent geomorphic units, i.e., gorges and
barren mountain ranges which goes up to 3000–4000 m from
the mean sea level. The area is partly drained by the main river
“Wakha Chu” fed up by small streams of various order flowing
in the north-westerly direction.
Database preparation
The collection and preparation of data is the basic funda-
mental of any research. The landslide susceptibility map-
ping of an area requires prior knowledge of its influencing
factors which need to be identified and mapped [51]. The
selection of landslide causative factors for susceptibility
assessment depends upon the type, scale, availability, and
method of data acquisition [52]. Nine intrinsic factors viz.
slope, aspect, curvature, relief, lithology, landuse landcover
(LULC), proximity to the river, proximity to the road, and
proximity to lineament were converted into thematic maps.
A digital elevation model (DEM) of the study area was gen-
erated from Survey of India (SOI) toposheets of 1: 50,000
scale at a contour interval of 20 m, by generating a tin of
30 m resolution which finally converted into DEM in GIS.
The slope gradient, slope aspect, curvature, and relief maps
are derived from the DEM in Arc GIS. The road corridor,
river, and its tributaries have also been digitized from SOI
toposheets. The geological map of the area has been digi-
tized as an input map for lithology based on the input base
map as proposed by researcher [53].
The lineaments of the area were delineated from the satel-
lite imagery and geological map. The LULC map is derived
from IRS LISS IV satellite imagery of 5.8 m resolution. All
the above mentioned thematic data layers have been resam-
pled into 30 m*30 m resolution raster format for analysis in
GIS platform.
Landslide inventory
The landslide inventory map has been considered as a
basis for LSM [54, 55] showing the locations of landslides
making their identification easy. In addition, it may be
used as reducing landslide hazard and risk on a regional
 Author's personal copy
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2019) 4:59 Page 3 of 17  59

Fig. 1  Digital elevation model of the study area with NH - 1 and landslide occurrences

scale [56]. A deep knowledge about the failure mechanism
of landslide can be obtained from a systematic landslide
inventory. There is no record available related to the past
landslide events along the NH in any department; however,
the extensive field visits have been conducted to formulate
landslide inventory map by considering landslides which
occurred in the past and currently active landslides hav-
ing failure potential. A LISS IV satellite imagery, Google
earth, and field visits results into the preparation of the
landslide inventory map. A huge damage to the property
and three people have been killed because of landslide
activities along the NH-1. A total of 60 landslides were
identified in the area and plotted as point feature on the
map (Fig. 2). The landslide affected area can be described
as point feature when the areal extent is small and cannot
be drawn on a map [57]. The different types of failures
observed in the area include rockfall, debris flow, and
debris/earth slide (Fig. 2).

13
 Author's personal copy
59   Page 4 of 17 Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2019) 4:59

Fig. 2  Field photograph of
landslide occurrences a, b, c,
d showing translational slide
along the road, e, f, g rock
failure, h debris slide

Landslide causative factors
Aspect
The slope aspect plays an important role in LSM because it
specifies the slope direction of the terrain and often shows
a good relation to the occurrence of landslides [52]. The
bedrock structure and exposition to the sun by combining
the effect of soil moisture and vegetation pattern show a
strong influence on the slope aspect [58, 59]. The aspect
map of study area has been categorized into eight different
classes on the basis of direction, i.e., North (337.5°–22.5°),
Northeast (22.5°–67.5°), East (67.5°–112.5°), South-
east (112.5°–157.5°), South (157.5°–202.5°), Southwest
(202.5°–247.5°), West (247.5°–292.5°), and Northwest
(292.5°–337.5°) as shown in Fig. 3a.

13
 Author's personal copy
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2019) 4:59 Page 5 of 17  59
Curvature
The slope curvature is an important parameter in LSM as it
controls the movement of surface hydrological regime, ero-
sion, and deposition rate as well as soil properties [60, 61].
The composite curvature has been used which is the combi-
nation of both profile and plane curvature. The combination
curvature involves negative values which are classified as
concave, positive values are classified as convex, and zero
values as flat as shown in Fig. 3b.
Lithology
Lithology of an area is a major intrinsic parameter for caus-
ing slope instability. The researchers [62] have considered
it as an important causative factor because unconsolidated
materials are directly related to instability. Some of the
researchers inferred that a landslide problem varies differ-
ently due to the diversity of lithological conditions along
NH-1 [63]. Different lithological units in an area have a dif-
ferent level of instability [12, 54]. The geological map of
the area proposed by authors [53] has been digitized for the
preparation of thematic layer map. However, the study is
confined to the road network; hence, only those formations
which are exposed to the road network are considered. The
road network in the study area traverse from Ladakh plutonic
complex comprises of slightly to moderately weathered and
jointed granodiorite at its western extremities followed by
quarternary deposits comprise of moraines and glacioflu-
vial deposits, Drass volcanic comprise basalt and andesite,
Sangelungma group comprise sandstone and shale, Undif-
ferentiated Kuling–Lilang group comprise of phyllite, slate,
and limestone as shown in Fig. 3c.
Landuse landcover (LULC)
Landuse landcover represents the vegetation pattern and
constructional practices of the area. The landuse landcover
map is derived from IRS LISS IV satellite imagery of 5.8 m
resolution by adopting band composition, supervised and
unsupervised classification method and categorized into five
types viz. sparse vegetation cover, dense vegetation cover,
water bodies, and settlements, and barren land. Most of the
area under investigation falls under barren land (Fig. 3d).
Relief
The study area comes under Trans-Himalaya and Indus
tectonic zone and is devoid of vegetation cover and com-
prised of incised valleys. The relief in the study area
is ranging between 2596–4167  m and is classified on
the basis of natural break classification [64] into five
classes: 2596–2939 m; 2939–3241 m; 3241 m–3511 m;
3511–3749 m; and 3749–4167 m (Fig. 3e).
Proximity to the river
The authors [65] considered that the proximity of an area to
drainage plays important role in landslides because the water
along these networks have highly influenced the stability of
the slopes due to toe cutting of these slopes. The study area
has been classified into six drainage buffer classes, and these
are 0–25 m, 25–50 m, 50–150 m, 150–200 m, and rest of
the area (Fig. 3f).
Proximity to the road
The proximity to the road has been considered as one of the
important parameters in landslide susceptibility mapping.
The inattention of the geological and geotechnical factors
during highway construction results into slope instability
[66]. Road construction without proper scientific study and
planning leads to landslide triggering due to human inter-
ference [67]. A road buffer has been created classifying the
study area into five classes 0–50 m, 50–100 m, 100–200, and
rest of the area (Fig. 3g).
Slope
Slope gradient has a greater impact on the geomorphology
and control over the surface and subsurface water flow [36,
52, 68]. The slope map of the area has been categorized into
five classes: 0°–15°, 15°–25°, 25°–35°, 35°–45°, and > 45°
as (Fig. 3h). Slope gradient measures the rate of change of
elevation in the direction of the steepest fall. The gravity-
induced shear stress of unconsolidated material will be the
higher, and failure events will be more in case of steeper
slopes, but in the case of a moderate and gentle slope, the
shear stress of unconsolidated material will be less.
Proximity to lineament
Lineaments are structural features representing planes of
weakness. The occurrence of landslides is expected to be
close to lineaments because it helps in promoting selec-
tive erosion and confined water movement. The lineament
map was prepared from the geological map and high-res-
olution satellite imagery (IRS LISS-IV). The present area
in terms of proximity to lineament has been categorized
into four groups viz. 0–100 m, 100–500 m, 500–1000 m,
and > 1000 m (Fig. 3i).
13
 Author's personal copy
59   Page 6 of 17 Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2019) 4:59

Fig. 3  a Aspect map, b curvature map, c lithology map, d landuse landcover map, e proximity to river map, f proximity to road map, g relief
map, h slope gradient map, (i) proximity to lineament map

13
 Author's personal copy
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2019) 4:59 Page 7 of 17  59

Fig. 3  (continued)

Frequency ratio model
The present study is based on a frequency ratio model (FR)
which is a probabilistic method based on the assumption that
future landslide will occur under similar circumstances as
that of the past landslides. The relationship between the
observed landslide and influencing factor provides an estab-
lished correlation between landslide location and influencing
factor in the study area [69, 70]. A quantitative relationship
between the influencing factor and landslide gives frequency
ratio. A frequency ratio value greater than unity shows a
strong correlation for landslide occurrence, whereas
FR value less than unity represents lesser chance of
landslide from given landslide initiating factor [24].
The frequency ratio (FR) can be expressed as:
Frequency Ratio =  SlideRatio∕ClassRatioWhere Slide
ratio = Numberoflandslidepixel∕Totalnumberoflandslidepixel
Class ratio = Numberofpixelineachclass∕

13
 Author's personal copy
59   Page 8 of 17
TotalnumberofpixelinwholeclassLandslide Susceptibility
Index (LSI) =  FR
∑ ity cum hazard zones. The frequency ratio and weight of
Weight of evidence model
The WoE model depends upon the Bayesian probability
approach; initially, it has been originally developed for min-
eral potential assessment [71]. The WoE approach is less
time-consuming as well as simple, and it can be applied
easily using GIS packages. The weight for each landslide
predictive factor (B) has been calculated based on the pres-
ence or the absence of landslides (L) within an area.
{ }
P BL
Wi+ = ln { } (1)
P BL̄
{̄}
P BL
Wi− = ln { } (2)
̄ expressed as under:LSI = FR(slope) + FR(aspect) + FR(curvature) +
P BL̄
where P = Probability N  = Natural logB = Presence of
potential landslide predictive factor B̄  = Absence of poten-
tial landslide predictive factorL = Presence of landslide
L̄  = Absence of landslideWi+ = Predictable variable is pre-
sent (Positive correlation) Wi− = Predictable variable is
absent (Negative correlation)
The difference between the two weights is called as the
weight contrast ( Wf  ), i.e.,
Wf = Wi+ − Wi−
(3)
The magnitude of the contrast depicts the overall spa-
tial association between the predictable variable and the
landslides. The weights have been attributed to the classes
of each selected thematic layer, respectively, to produce
weighted thematic maps in GIS, which were overlaid and
numerically added according to Eq. (4) to produce a land-
slide susceptibility index (LSI) map.
∑ deposits (1.52) comprise of glaciofluvial deposits and Drass
LSI = Wf (4)
Results
An increase in the landslide intensity along NH-1 has been
observed because of increase in the demand of development
activities affecting life and property in the area. The trend
from traditional approaches to the most advanced approaches
can be seen all over the world for landslide susceptibility
13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2019) 4:59
assessment for classifying an area into different susceptibil-
evidence models have been utilized for the preparation of
LSM in the present study.
Frequency ratio model
To analyze the role of each causative factor for landslide,
the thematic maps have been generated in GIS environment
into raster format of each 30 × 30 m size grids and further
classified into different classes. The total number of pixels in
each map is 128508 and the number of landslide inventory
contains 60 pixels in the study area. For calculating the class
ratio, the number of pixels in the individual class is divided
by a total number of pixel in whole factor map. The slide
ratio is obtained by division of number of pixels of the slide
in each class to total number pixels of the slide in whole fac-
tor map. The frequency ratio is then calculated by division
of slide ratio to the class ratio of each class of individual fac-
tor. The LSI is calculated using raster calculator in Arc GIS
by the summing up of frequency ratio of each factor and is
 
FR(relief) + FR(proximity to river) + FR(proximity to road) + FR(lithology) 
+ FR(landuse landcover) + FR(proximity to lineament)
The quantitative results of the FR approach are given in
Table 1. The relationship between slope aspect and landslide
reveals that FR values greater than 1 for NE, E, SE, and S
facing direction and FR values less than 1 for N, NW, W,
and SW facing directions clearly indicate NE, E, SE, and S
slope facing directions played an important role in initiating
the slope failures. The FR in case of curvature is greater than
1 for concave and convex and suggests that convex surface
is always exposed to the rain leading the continuous dila-
tion and contraction making the soil loose, while in case
of concave surface, the rainwater is usually trapped for a
longer period causing infiltration and shear failure [72]. The
FR value in case of geology cum lithology map is the high-
est for Nindum Formation (3.72) that comprises of weath-
ered shale, sandstone, siltstone, and limestone followed by
Ladakh Granitic Complex (2.37) comprises of granodior-
ite traversed by three to four major joint sets; Quarternary
volcanics (1.20). Nindum Formation comprised of shale,
sandstone with siltstone, etc., has shown the highest value of
FR, and these rocks are more prone to weathering and pro-
mote landslides. Ladakh Granitic Complex class of geology
which comprises of granodiorite rocks having average 3 to
4 major sets of joints has shown FR value less than Nindum
Formation but greater as compared to the remaining classes.
LULC map has been prepared from IRS-P6 LISS IV data-
set having 5.8 m resolution, classified into five categories
viz. water bodies, sparse vegetation, dense vegetation, set-
tlement, and barren land. The settlement has been shown
 Table 1  Correlation between landslides and conditioning factors using the FR and WoE model
S. no. Factors Class Causative factor Landslide Slide ratio Class ratio FR W+ W− Wf
pixel count pixel count

1 Aspect North 14,627 2 0.03 0.11 0.29 − 1.27637 0.117613 − 1.39399

Northeast 20,673 16 0.27 0.16 1.66 0.45711 − 0.10409 0.561198
East 15,303 8 0.13 0.12 1.12 0.064742 0.014368 0.050375
Southeast 11,214 7 0.12 0.09 1.34 0.242097 − 0.00207 0.244164
South 19,758 13 0.22 0.15 1.41 0.29474 − 0.04658 0.34132
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions

Southwest 21,928 9 0.15 0.17 0.88 − 0.17719 0.055254 − 0.23244

West 15,341 4 0.07 0.12 0.56 − 0.63089 0.088811 − 0.7197
Northwest 9664 1 0.02 0.08 0.22 − 1.55506 0.09205 − 1.64711
2 Curvature Concave 70,396 33 0.55 0.55 1.00 − 0.04428 − 0.00489 − 0.03939
Flat 55,166 25 0.42 0.43 0.97 − 0.07812 0.021861 − 0.09998
(2019) 4:59

Convex 2946 2 0.03 0.02 1.45 0.326048 − 0.01071 0.336758

3 Geology/lithology Ladakh granitic complex 8114 9 0.15 0.06 2.50 0.816983 0.172944 0.644039
Kuksho Formation 636 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.275203 − 0.2752
Maklishun Formation 444 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.273702 − 0.2737
Karit Formation 502 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Quaternary deposits 15,445 11 0.18 0.12 1.50 0.373959 0.195763 0.178196
Drass volcanics 17,800 10 0.16 0.14 1.14 0.136736 0.237015 − 0.10028
Nindum Formation 5177 9 0.15 0.04 3.75 1.266348 0.148842 1.117507
Ophiolite 1414 0 0.00 0.01 0.00 0 0.281306 − 0.28131
Shergole Formation 4926 0 0.00 0.04 0.00 0 0.309328 − 0.30933
Undifferentiated kuling group 74,050 21 0.35 0.58 0.60 − 0.54687 0.69802 − 1.24489
4 LULC Water bodies 1293 0 0.00 0.01 0.00 0 0.010113 − 0.01011
Author's personal copy

Dense vegetation 11,511 2 0.03 0.09 0.37 − 0.98851 0.059941 − 1.04845

Sparse vegetation 13,289 5 0.08 0.10 0.79 − 0.21585 0.022145 − 0.238
Barren area 101,282 52 0.87 0.79 1.08 0.094982 − 0.46308 0.558066
Settlements 1133 1 0.01 0.00 1.85 0.636778 − 0.00795 0.644729
5 Relief 2596–2925 m 21,464 20 0.33 0.17 2.00 0.642705 − 0.22271 0.865419
2925–3214 m 16,603 11 0.18 0.13 1.42 0.301661 − 0.06418 0.365845
3214–3484 m 30,942 16 0.27 0.24 1.11 0.053824 − 0.03469 0.088517
3484–3728 m 36,947 2 0.03 0.29 0.12 − 2.20299 0.305084 − 2.50807
3728–4167 m 22,552 11 0.18 0.18 1.04 0 − 0.00956 0.009557
Page 9 of 17 
59

13
 Table 1  (continued)
59  

S. no. Factors Class Causative factor Landslide Slide ratio Class ratio FR W+ W− Wf
pixel count pixel count

13
6 Proximity to river 25 m 5609 0 0.00 0.04 0.00 0 0.096143 − 0.09614
50 m 5587 1 0.02 0.04 0.38 − 1.00709 0.079157 − 1.08625
Page 10 of 17

100 m 10,670 6 0.10 0.08 1.20 0.137673 0.032835 0.104838

150 m 9731 16 0.27 0.08 3.52 1.210622 − 0.1799 1.390518
200 m 8851 10 0.17 0.07 2.42 0.835404 − 0.05944 0.894849
Rest of the area 88,060 27 0.45 0.69 0.66 − 0.46883 0.609652 − 1.07848
7 Proximity to road 50 m 12,148 28 0.47 0.09 4.94 1.548389 − 0.52931 2.077696
100 m 11,130 21 0.35 0.09 4.04 1.348228 − 0.34019 1.688419
200 m 20,442 10 0.17 0.16 1.05 − 0.00166 − 0.00907 0.007416
Rest of the area 84,788 1 0.02 0.66 0.03 -3.7268 1.061378 − 4.78818
8 Slope 0°–15° 46,942 6 0.10 0.37 0.27 − 1.3438 0.349218 − 1.69302
15°–25° 47,080 25 0.42 0.37 1.14 0.080377 − 0.08272 0.163102
25°–35° 29,234 19 0.32 0.23 1.39 0.282456 − 0.12267 0.405121
35°–45° 5188 10 0.17 0.04 4.13 1.369586 − 0.14111 1.510699
45°–90° 64 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.000498 − 0.0005
9 Proximity to lineament 0–100 m 11,573 34 0.56 0.09 6.22 1.791035 − 0.74188 2.53291
100–500 m 37,636 9 0.15 0.29 0.51 − 0.71739 0.18402 − 0.90141
500–1000 m 28,521 10 0.16 0.22 0.74 − 0.33471 0.068629 − 0.40334
>1000 m 50,778 7 0.11 0.39 0.27 − 1.2682 0.378697 − 1.6469
Total no. of landslide pixels 60
Total no. of pixels in study area 128,508
Author's personal copy
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions
(2019) 4:59
 Author's personal copy
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2019) 4:59 Page 11 of 17  59
Fig. 4  Landslide susceptibility map of NH-1A based on frequency ratio method
in the frequency ratio value of 1.0, and the barren area had
frequency ratio value of 1.84. The FR value for the relation-
ship between relief and landslides revealed that the higher
frequency ratio (2.0) is in 2596–2925  m class followed
by 1.42 and 1.1 in 2925–3214 m and 3214–3484 m class,
respectively. The higher value at low and mid-elevations
inferred that most of the debris material accumulated at
low relief areas. The snow melting, incessant rainfall, and
anthropogenic activities cause slope failure. The proxim-
ity to the drainage reveals that due to scanty rainfall in the
area, river and nalas does not have a greater impact on the
distribution of landslide. On the other hand, the relation-
ship between proximity to road and landslide seems to be
very significant because the FR value is very higher (4.96)
for close proximity to the road (50 m) and decreases with
increasing distance from the road. This clearly indicates that
anthropogenic activities (road widening, etc.) along this road
network have made the area more susceptible to landslides.
The FR value for the slope gradient factor is the highest
(4.13) for 35°–45° class and substantial decrease in FR value
has been observed with decreasing slope gradient.
The landslide susceptibility index (LSI) calculated
from the final landslide susceptibility map ranged between
2.61–21.21. The landslide susceptibility map thus prepared
is categorized into five classes according to Jenks natural
classification (Fig. 4), because this method is a data clas-
sification method that minimizes and maximizes variance
between groups of data [64].
Weight of evidence model
The LSM map has also been delineated into different sus-
ceptibiltiy classes by employing a method of WoE. The
weights for each classes of landslide causative factor have
been evaluated as per the methodology [Sect. 7].
In case of slope gradient, the class 35°–45° is more
prone to landslides as compared to the other slope classes,
and it has also been observed in the field that steep slopes
are the most affected because of slope failure activities in
the area (Table 1). In the case of slope aspect, the north-
east, east, southeast, and south-facing slopes have higher
contrast for triggering landslides with positive weights
which is higher as compared to other aspect classes. In
case of slope curvature, the slopes having convex shape
are somewhat more prone to landslides as compared to
flat and concave shaped slopes. The Nindum Formation
in case of geology cum lithology map has been observed
as major class for landslide prediction in the study area
with weight 1.11 followed by Ladakh Granitic Complex
(0.65) and Quarternery deposits (0.17), respectively.
13
 Author's personal copy
59   Page 12 of 17 Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2019) 4:59

Fig. 5  Landslide susceptibility map of NH-1A based on the Weight of Evidence method

In case of LULC map, the barren land and settlement
areas were observed as highly susceptible having posi-
tive weight values distinctly greater than water bodies,
dense, and sparse vegetation area with− 0.01,− 1.04,
and− 0.23, respectively. The proximity to lineament class
of 0–100 m has been observed as more landslide-prone
having weight 2.53 as compared to the other classes viz.
100–500 m, 500–1000 m, and > 1000 m. In case of prox-
imity to river map, class 150 m showed greater value of
weight (1.39) as compared to other classes. The proximity
to road class 50 m has been observed as highly suscep-
tible to landslides with greater weight (2.07) followed
by class 100 m as compared to the remaining classes. In
case of relief map, the 2596–2925 m class has greater

Fig. 6  Percentage of land- (B)

(A)
slide susceptibility class and 50
landslide in LSM based on FR
method a pie chart showing 5%
40
Percentage (%)

landslide susceptibility area 14%

in LSM b bar chart showing 30% 30
landslide percentage in each
20
susceptible zone
19%
10

0
32% Very Low Medium High Very
Low High

Very low hazard Low hazard Susceptibility class area

Medium hazard High hazard Landslide area
Very high hazard Linear (Landslide area)

13
 Author's personal copy
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2019) 4:59 Page 13 of 17  59

Fig. 7  Percentage of land- (B)

(A)
slide susceptibility class and 35
landslide in LSM based on WoE 5% 30
method a pie chart showing 14%

Percentage (%)
25
landslide susceptibility area 30%
in LSM b bar chart showing 20
landslide percentage in each 15
susceptible zone 10
20%
5
0
Very Low Medium High Very
31%
Low High

Very low hazard Low hazard Area

Medium hazard High hazard Landslide area
Very high hazard Linear (Landslide area)

landslide prediction weight as compared to higher class selected area, while high and very high susceptibility zone
viz. 2925–3214  m, 3214–3484  m, 3484–3728  m, and lies in 13.50 and 5.06% of the area. An increasing trend of
3728–4167 m. The calculated weights have been further landslide percentage has been observed from very low to
summed up in Arc GIS based on Eq. 4 using raster calcu- very high hazard zone as shown in Fig. 6b. The percentage
lator tool to delineate landslide susceptibility index map of landslides in case of very low susceptibility class is only
(Fig. 5). The landslide susceptibility index (LSI) calcu- 3%, while it has been evaluated as 43% in very high suscepti-
lated from final LSM ranged between − 14.93 and 8.43. bility class. The area covered by medium susceptibility zone
is 18.96%. The percentages of the landslide susceptibility
classes and landslides have also been shown in a similar way
Discussion and validation in previous studies by numerous researchers [9, 39].
The area occupied by landslide susceptibility classes
The landslide susceptibility maps were classified into very in LSM based on WoE method has been determined and
low, low, moderate, high, and very high susceptible class for shown in the form of Pie chart in Fig. 7a, showing high
both FR and WOE techniques. The percentages of the land- and very high susceptibility zone covered 13.53 and 5.34%
slide in each susceptibility class have been determined using of the study area, whereas very low and low susceptibility
Combine tool of spatial analyst in ArcGIS. The percentages zones occupied 30.18 and 31.22% of the area. The medium
of the landslide susceptibility zones for LSM based on the susceptibility class covered 19.7% of the LSM. The percent-
FR method are shown in Fig. 6a, showing that very low and age of the landslides in each susceptibility class has shown
low susceptibility zone occupied 30.24% and 32.22% of the increasing order from very low to very high susceptibility
class as shown in Fig. 7b.
The basic purpose of validation is to ascertain the effi-
100 ciency of the landslide susceptible models. The numer-
Cummulative percentage of landslide occurrence (%)

90 ous researchers all around the world used one or the other
80 approach to ascertain the effectiveness of the LSM. But in
70
general, the validation of landslide susceptible map must sat-
WoE = 76.86% FR = 86.57% isfy the two basic assumptions (a) Majority of the landslide
60
occurrences must be in the high susceptible zone; (b) High
50
susceptible zone should cover a small area [73, 74]. Further,
40 the analyzed landslide susceptibility map must be in good
30 agreement with the validation methods [22, 69, 75]. The
20 landslide susceptible map generated in GIS has been veri-
10
fied in the field. The validation is done at a different loca-
tion in case of high and very high susceptibility class. The
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 most prominent signatures of instability such as slides/slope
Cummulative area percentage (%) failures represent the high and very high susceptibility class.
The success rate curve explains how well the model and
Fig. 8  Success rate curve based on FR and WoE model the selected factors perform with respect to landslide [60]

13
 Author's personal copy
59   Page 14 of 17
which can be obtained by plotting the observed landslide
versus landslide susceptibility index (LSI). In the success
rate curve, the index value of all grids in the LSI map is
sorted in descending order and divided into 100 equal
classes. Then, the number of landslide grid in each class is
calculated and converted into the cumulative percentage of
landslide occurrence which has been plotted against cumu-
lative area percentage. The success rate curve in case of
FR model has been evaluated as 86.57% which is distinctly
greater than the WoE model with 76.86% success rate as
shown in Fig. 8.
Another method of landslide density has been adopted
to check the accuracy of the LSM. The ratio of occurred
landslides in a region to the spatially occupied areas by land-
slide susceptibility zone is known as landslide density which
depends upon the occurrence of landslide in each class of
a landslide causative factor [76]. For assessing the quality
of the landslide susceptibility map, the landslide density
method is the suitable method [76]. Field-based informa-
tion of the past landslides is useful for verifying the LSM.
A more accurate landslide hazard zonation map should have
higher value of landslide density in high hazard zone and
lower in case of low hazard zone [77].
The landslide dataset has been tabulated with LSM maps
to evaluate the density of landslides in each hazard zone by
dividing landslide area with the susceptible class area. The
outcome is shown in Table 2. It can be clearly seen from the
table that the landslide density values in case of very high
susceptible zone are 0.00399 and 0.00276 for FR and WoE
models, respectively, which are distinctly greater than the
corresponding values for other zones. A regular decrease in
landslide has also been observed from very high to very low
susceptible zone with significant difference in landslide den-
sity value. Hence, the prediction of the landslide susceptibil-
ity zonation maps has been found in good agreement with
the currently existing field conditions and can be considered
to be as per the concept given by [76]. The regions which
are depicted to have high susceptibility zone also indicate
the potential of upcoming landslide events. The landslide
Table 2  Landslide density in predicted landslide susceptible zones in FR and WoE-based LSM maps
Susceptible zones Frequency ratio model
2
Area ­(km ) Landslide area Landslide density
­(km2)
Very low 34.9821 0.0018 5.14549E−05
Low 37.2699 0.0045 0.00012
Medium 21.9366 0.0063 0.00033
High 15.6267 0.018 0.00112
Very high 5.8572 0.0234 0.00399
13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2019) 4:59
density values in each susceptibility zone of these LSM
maps have been compared map wise. An expected mismatch
error has been observed revealing that the very low sus-
ceptibility zone in case of FR and WoE model-based LSM
maps covered 34.98 and 34.92 km2 area with 5.14549E − 05
and 0.00015 landslides density values, respectively, whereas
very high susceptibility zones in case of the LSM maps cov-
ered 5.8572 and 6.1839 km2 area with 0.00399 and 0.00276
value of landslide densities, respectively.
An aerial mismatch between the landslide occupied area
and landslide susceptibility class area for FR and WoE-based
LSM maps is analyzed from Table 2 because of differently
adopted methodologies. The existing landslide conditions
in the study area are reflected in the landslide susceptibility
zonation maps indicating high and very high hazard zones.
Conclusion
The landslide susceptibility assessment is based on the role
of the various causative factors as an important parameter
for initiating slope instability. The final LSM depends upon
the different caustaive factors which can be selected accord-
ing to an expert’s opinion. During preliminary survey, the
identification and documentation of landslides has been car-
ried out through extensive field visits for developing land-
slide inventory to further utilize it GIS modeling to delineate
LSM. Thereafter, nine landslide causative intrinsic factors,
i.e., aspect, curvature, relief, slope, lithology, proximity to
the river, proximity to the road, proximity to lineament, and
LULC have been considered for LSM based on FR and WoE
modeling. The final LSZ map has been classified into five
susceptibility classes: Very low, low, moderate, high, and
very high based on natural break/ Jenks classification. The
success rates of both FR and WoE model-based LHZ maps
have been determined as 86.57and 76.86%, showing that
the LSZ map based on FR model is more accurate. The out-
comes of landslide density method revealed that the land-
slide density value decreased from very high to very low
Weight of evidence model
Area ­(km2) Landslide area Landslide density
­(km2)
34.92 0.0054 0.00015
36.1188 0.0072 0.00019
22.7898 0.0108 0.00047
15.66 0.0135 0.00086
6.1839 0.0171 0.00276
 Author's personal copy
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2019) 4:59 Page 15 of 17  59
susceptibility zone in case of FR and WoE-based LSM. As
the NH-1 is a strategically very important network of the
country, the landslide susceptibility map of the area will
play an important role during planning and execution of any
development activities in the area and it will also help to
mitigate the failed slopes in cost-effective manners.
Acknowledgements  One of the authors, Gulzar Hussain would like
to thank for the financial support received from the CSIR UGC fel-
lowship grant.
References
1. Aleotti P, Chowdhury R (1999) Landslide hazard assessment:
summary review and new perspectives. B Eng Geol Environ
58(1):21–44
2. Dai FC, Lee CF (2002) Landslide characteristics and slope
instability modeling using GIS, Lantau Island, Hong Kong.
Geomorphology 42(3):213–228
3. GSI (2005) A review of Bureau of Indian Standard guidelines
for preparation of landslide hazard zonation maps in mountain-
ous terrains and suggested guidelines (Macrozonation)
4. Varnes DJ (1978) Slope movement types and processes. Spec
Rep 176:11–33
5. Cruden DM, Varnes DJ (1996) Landslide types and processes.
In: Turner AK, Schuster RL (eds) Landslides investigation and
mitigation, special report, vol 247. National Research Council,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, pp 36–75
6. Naranjo JL, Westen CJV, Soeters R (1994) Evaluating the use of
training areas in bivariate statistical landslide hazard analysis-a
case study in Colombia. ITC J 3:292–300
7. Das I, Sahoo S, Van Westen C, Stein A, Hack R (2010) Land-
slide susceptibility assessment using logistic regression and
its comparison with a rock mass classification system, along a
road section in the northern Himalayas (India). Geomorphology
114(4):627–637
8. Singh PK, Kainthola A, Singh TN (2015) Rock mass assessment
along the right bank of river sutlej, Luhri, Himachal Pradesh,
India. Geo Nat Haz R 6(3):212–223
9. Singh K, Kumar V (2018) Hazard assessment of landslide disaster
using information value method and analytical hierarchy process
in highly tectonic chamba region in bosom of Himalaya. J Mt Sci
15(4):808–824. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1162​9-017-4634-2
10. Siddle HJ, Jones DB, Payne HR (1991) Development of a meth-
odology for landslip potential mapping in the Rhondda Valley.
In: Slope stability engineering developments and applications:
proceedings of the international conference on slope stability
organized by the Institution of Civil Engineers and held on the
Isle of Wight on 15–18 April 1991 (pp. 137-142). Thomas Telford
Publishing
11. Wu W, Sidle RC (1995) A distributed slope stability model for
steep forested basins. Water Resour Res 31(8):2097–2110
12. Dai FC, Lee CF, Li J, Xu ZW (2001) Assessment of landslide
susceptibility on the natural terrain of Lantau Island, Hong Kong.
Environ Geol 40(3):381–391
13. Ayalew L, Yamagishi H (2005) The application of GIS-based
logistic regression for landslide susceptibility mapping in the
Kakuda-Yahiko mountains central Japan. Geomorphology
65(1):15–31
14. Guzzetti F, Reichenbach P, Cardinali M, Galli M, Ardizzone F
(2005) Probabilistic landslide hazard assessment at the basin
scale. Geomorphology 72(1):272–299
15. Carrara A, Cardinali M, Detti R, Guzzetti F, Pasqui V, Reichen-
bach P (1991) GIS techniques and statistical models in evaluating
landslide hazard. Earth Surf Proc Land 16(5):427–445
16. Brenning A (2005) Spatial prediction models for landslide haz-
ards: review, comparison and evaluation. Nat Hazard Earth Sys
5(6):853–862
17. Van Westen CJ, Van Asch TW, Soeters R (2006) Landslide hazard
and risk zonation—why is it still so difficult? B Eng Geol Environ
65(2):167–184
18. Chang KT, Merghadi A, Yunus AP, Pham BT, Dou J (2019)
Evaluating scale effects of topographic variables in landslide sus-
ceptibility models using GIS-based machine learning techniques.
Scientific Reports 9, Article number: 12296
19. Bui DT, Moayedi H, Kalantar B, Osouli A, Gor M, Pradhan B,
Nguyen H (2019) Rashid ASA (2019) Harris hawks optimization:
a novel swarm intelligence technique for spatial assessment of
landslide susceptibility. Sensors 19:3590. https:​ //doi.org/10.3390/
s1916​3590
20. Robiati C, Eyre M, Vanneschi C, Francioni M, Venn A, Coggan J
(2019) Application of remote sensing data for evaluation of rock-
fall potential within a quarry slope. Int J Geo Inf 8:367. https​://
doi.org/10.3390/ijgi8​09036​7
21. Milevski I, Dragicevic S (2019) Landslide susceptibility zonation
of the republic of Macedonia with analytical hierarchy process
(AHP) approach. Sect Nat Math Biot Sci MASA. https​://doi.
org/10.13140​/RG.2.2.19484​.33923​
22. Van Westen CJ, Rengers N, Soeters R (2003) Use of geomorpho-
logical information in indirect landslide susceptibility assessment.
Nat Hazards 30(3):399–419
23. Kumar A, Sharma RK, Bansal VK (2018) Landslide hazard zona-
tion using analytical hierarchy process along national highway-3
in mid himalayas of Himachal Pradesh, India. Environ Earth Sci
77:719. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1266​5-018-7896-2
24. Lee S, Pradhan B (2006) Probabilistic landslide hazards and
risk mapping on Penang Island, Malaysia. J Earth Syst Sci
115(6):661–672
25. Sarkar S, Kanungo DP (2004) An integrated approach for land-
slide susceptibility mapping using remote sensing and GIS. Pho-
togramm Eng Rem S 70(5):617–625
26. Lee S, Sambath T (2006) Landslide susceptibility mapping in the
Damrei Romel area, Cambodia using frequency ratio and logistic
regression models. Environ Geo 50(6):847–855
27. Vijith H, Madhu G (2008) Estimating potential landslide sites
of an upland sub-watershed in Western Ghat’s of Kerala (India)
through frequency ratio and GIS. Environ Geol 55(7):1397–1405
28. Bai SB, Wang J, Lü GN, Zhou PG, Hou SS, Xu SN (2010) GIS-
based logistic regression for landslide susceptibility mapping of
the Zhongxian segment in the Three Gorges area, China. Geomor-
phology 115(1):23–31
29. Erener A, Düzgün HSB (2010) Improvement of statistical land-
slide susceptibility mapping by using spatial and global regression
methods in the case of more and romsdal (Norway). Landslides
7(1):55–68
30. Poudyal CP, Chang C, Oh HJ, Lee S (2010) Landslide suscepti-
bility maps comparing frequency ratio and artificial neural net-
works: a case study from the Nepal Himalaya. Environ Earth Sci
61(5):1049–1064
31. Yilmaz I (2010) The effect of the sampling strategies on the land-
slide susceptibility mapping by conditional probability and artifi-
cial neural networks. Environ Earth Sci 60(3):505–519
32. Intarawichian N, Dasananda S (2011) Frequency ratio model based
landslide susceptibility mapping in lower Mae Chaem watershed,
Northern Thailand. Environ Earth Sci 64(8):2271–2285
13
 Author's personal copy
59   Page 16 of 17
33. Mezughi TH, Akhir JM, Rafek AG, Abdullah I (2011) Landslide
susceptibility mapping using the statistical index method and fac-
tor effect analysis along the E–W highway (Gerik-Jeli), Malaysia.
Australian J Basic Appl Sci 5(6):847–857
34. Khai-Wern KL, Tien TL, Lateh H (2011, May) Landslide haz-
ard mapping of Penang is land using probabilistic methods and
logistic regression. In: 2011 IEEE international conference on
imaging systems and techniques (IST), (pp. 273–278). IEEE
35. Lepore C, Kamal SA, Shanahan P, Bras RL (2012) Rainfall-
induced landslide susceptibility zonation of Puerto Rico. Envi-
ron Earth Sci 66(6):1667–1681
36. Kannan M, Saranathan E, Anabalagan R (2013) Landslide vul-
nerability mapping using frequency ratio model: a geospatial
approach in Bodi-Bodimettu Ghat section, Theni district, Tamil
Nadu, India. Arab J Geosci 6(8):2901–2913
37. Sujatha ER, Rajamanickam V, Kumaravel P, Saranathan E
(2013) Landslide susceptibility analysis using probabilistic like-
lihood ratio model—a geospatial-based study. Arab J Geosci
6(2):429–440
38. Ramesh V, Anbazhagan S (2015) Landslide susceptibility map-
ping along Kolli hills Ghat road section (India) using frequency
ratio, relative effect and fuzzy logic models. Environ Earth Sci
73(12):8009–8021
39. Kumar A, Sharma RK, Bansal VK (2019) GIS-based compara-
tive study of information value and frequency ratio method
for landslide hazard zonation in a part of mid-Himalaya in
Himachal Pradesh. Innov Infrastruct Solut 4:28. https​: //doi.
org/10.1007/s4106​2-019-0215-2
40. Khan H, Shafique M, Khan A, Bacha MA, Shah SU, Calligaris
C (2019) Landslide susceptibility assessment using frequency
ratio, a case study of northern Pakistan. Egypt J Remote Sens
Space Sci. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrs.2018.03.004
41. Cerviet F, Berti M, Borgatti F, Manenti F, Corsini A (2010)
Comparing predictive capability of statistical and deterministic
methods for landslide susceptibility mapping: a case study in
the northern Apennines (Reggio Emilia Province, Italy). Land-
slides 7(4):433–445
42. Dahal RK, Hasegawa S, Nonomura S, Yamanaka M, Masuda
T, Nishino K (2008) GIS-based weights-of-evidence modelling
of rainfall-induced landslides in small catchments for landslide
susceptibility mapping‖. Environ Geol 54(2):314–332
43. Lee S, Choi J (2004) Landslide susceptibility mapping using
GIS and the weight of evidence model. Int J Geogr Inf Sci
18(8):789–814. https​: //doi.org/10.1080/13658​8 1041​0 0017​
02003​
44. Regmi NR, Giardino JR, Vitek JD (2010) Modeling susceptibil-
ity to landslides using the weight of evidence approach: western
Colorado, USA. Geomorphology 115(1–2):172–187. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.geomo​rph.2009.10.002
45. Thiery YJP, Malet S, Sterlacchini A, Puissant Maquaire O (2007)
Landslide susceptibility assessment by bivariate methods at large
scales: application to complex mountainous environment. Geo-
morphology 92(1–2):38–59. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomo​
rph.2007.02.020
46. Pamela Pamela, Sadisun Imam, Yukni Arifianti (2018) Weights
of evidence method for landslide susceptibility mapping in Tak-
engon, central aceh, Indonesia. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci.
https​://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/118/1/01203​7
47. Sifa SF, Mahmud T, Tarin MA, Haque DME (2019) Event-based
landslide susceptibility mapping using weights of evidence
(WoE) and modified frequency ratio (MFR) model: a case study
of Rangamati district in Bangladesh. Geol Ecol Landsc. https​://
doi.org/10.1080/24749​508.2019.16192​22
48. Ghildiyal B, Champati ray PK, Bisht MPS, Rawat GS (2019)
Landslide susceptibility zonation using bivariate models, around
13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2019) 4:59
tehri reservoir, Uttarakhand, India. J Remote Sens GIS 8:1. https​
://doi.org/10.4172/2469-4134.10002​54
49. Bookhagen B, Thiede RC, Strecker MR (2005) Late quaternary
intensified monsoon phases control landscape evolution in the
northwest Himalaya. Geology 33(2):149–152
50. Chevuturi A, Dimri AP, Thayyen RJ (2018) Climate change over
Leh (Ladakh), India. Theor Appl Climatol 131(1–2):531–545
51. Guzzetti F, Carrara A, Cardinali M, Reichenbach P (1999)
Landslide hazard evaluation: a review of current techniques
and their application in a multi-scale study, central Italy. Geo-
morphology 31(1):181–216
52. Ercanoglu M, Gokceoglu C (2004) Use of fuzzy relations to
produce landslide susceptibility map of a landslide prone area
(West Black Sea Region, Turkey). Eng Geol 75(3):229–250
53. Srikantia SV, Razdan ML (1980) Geology of part of central
Ladakh Himalaya with particular reference to Indus tectonic
zone. J Geol Soc India 21(11):523–545
54. Yalcin A, Reis S, Aydinoglu AC, Yomralioglu T (2011) A GIS-
based comparative study of frequency ratio, analytical hierarchy
process, bivariate statistics and logistics regression methods for
landslide susceptibility mapping in Trabzon, NE Turkey. CAT-
ENA 85(3):274–287
55. Guzzetti F, Mondini AC, Cardinali M, Fiorucci F, Santangelo
M, Chang KT (2012) Landslide inventory maps: new tools for
an old problem. Earth Sci Rev 112(1):42–66
56. Wieczorek GF (1984) Preparing a detailed landslide-inventory
map for hazard evaluation and reduction. Bull Assoc Eng Geol
21(3):337–342
57. Yilmaz I (2009) Landslide susceptibility mapping using fre-
quency ratio, logistic regression, artificial neural networks and
their comparison: a case study from kat landslides (Tokat—Tur-
key). Comput Geosci 35(6):1125–1138
58. Wieczorek GF, Mandrone G, DeCola L (1997) The influence
of hillslope shape on debris-flow initiation. In: Debris-flow
hazards mitigation: mechanics, prediction, and assessment (pp.
21–31). ASCE
59. Merodo JF, Pastor M, Mira P, Tonni L, Herreros MI, Gonzalez
E, Tamagnini R (2004) Modelling of diffuse failure mecha-
nisms of catastrophic landslides. Comput Method Appl Mech
193(27):2911–2939
60. Yesilnacar E, Topal T (2005) Landslide susceptibility mapping:
a comparison of logistic regression and neural networks meth-
ods in a medium scale study, Hendek region (Turkey). Eng Geol
79(3):251–266
61. Gorsevski PV, Gessler PE, Foltz RB, Elliot WJ (2006) Spa-
tial prediction of landslide hazard using logistic regression and
ROC analysis. Trans GIS 10(3):395–415
62. Sidle RC and Ochiai H (2006) Landslides: processes, prediction,
and land use (Vol. 18). American Geophysical Union
63. Singh Y, Bhat GM (2010) Role of basin morphometric param-
eters in landslides along the national highway-1A between
udhampur and batote, Jammu and Kashmir, India: a case study.
Himal Geol 31(1):43–50
64. Jenks GF (1967) The data model concept in statistical mapping.
Int Year Book Cartogr 7:186–190
65. Gokceoglu C, Aksoy H (1996) Landslide susceptibility mapping
of the slopes in the residual soils of the Mengen region (Turkey)
by deterministic stability analyses and image processing tech-
niques. Eng Geol 44(1–4):147–161
66. Singh Y, Bhat GM (2011) Landslide investigations: morpho-
metric and geotechnical approach-a case study from Northwest
Himalaya, India. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing GmbH
and Co.KG, Saarbrucken, pp 37–51
67. Singh Y, Bhat GM, Sharma V, Pandita SK, Thakur KK (2012)
Reservoir induced landslide at Assar, Jammu and Kashmir: a
case study. J Geol Soc India 80(3):435–439
 Author's personal copy
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2019) 4:59 Page 17 of 17  59
68. Anbalagan R (1992) Landslide hazard evaluation and zonation
mapping in mountainous terrain. Eng Geol 32(4):269–277
69. Chung CJF, Fabbri AG (1999) Probabilistic prediction mod-
els for landslide hazard mapping. Photogrammeng rem s
65(12):1389–1399
70. Lee S, Pradhan B (2007) Landslide hazard mapping at Selangor,
Malaysia using frequency ratio and logistic regression models.
Landslides 4(1):33–41
71. Bonham-Carter GF (1994) Geographic Information Systems for
Geoscientists; modelling with GIS, Comp, Pergamon, ISBN:
9781483144948
72. Oh HJ, Lee S, Chotikasathien W, Kim CH, Kwon JH (2009) Pre-
dictive landslide susceptibility mapping using spatial information
in the Pechabun area of Thailand. Environ Geol 57(3):641
73. Can T, Nefeslioglu HA, Gokceoglu C, Sonmez H, Duman TY
(2005) Susceptibility assessments of shallow earthflows triggered
by heavy rainfall at three catchments by logistic regression analy-
ses. Geomorphology 72(1):250–271
74. Duman TY, Can T, Gokceoglu C, Nefeslioglu HA, Sonmez H
(2006) Application of logistic regression for landslide suscepti-
bility zoning of Cekmece Area, Istanbul, Turkey. Environ Geol
51(2):241–256
75. Kayastha P, Dhital MR, De Smedt F (2013) Application of the
analytical hierarchy process (AHP) for landslide susceptibility
mapping: a case study from the Tinau watershed, west Nepal.
Comput Geosci 52:398–408. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo​
.2012.11.003
76. Sarkar S, Kanungo DP (2004) An integrated approach for land-
slide susceptibility mapping using remote sensing and GIS. Pho-
togramm Eng Rem Sens 70(5):617–625
77. Gupta RP, Kanungo DP, Arora MK, Sarkar S (2008) Approaches
for comparative evaluation of raster GIS-based landslide suscep-
tibility zonation map. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 10:330–341
13