Submitted:
01 April 2024
Posted:
02 April 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Study Area
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Data Collection
3.2. Landslide Inventory
3.3. Landslide Causative Factors
3.3.1. Slope Gradient
3.3.2. Aspect
3.3.3. Elevation
3.3.4. Curvature
3.3.5. Plan Curvature
3.3.6. Profile Curvature
3.3.7. Topographic Wetness Analysis (TWI)
3.3.8. Lithology
3.3.9. Distance to Faults
3.3.10. Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI)
3.3.11. Rainfall
3.3.12. Drainage Density
3.3.13. Landuse/Landcover
3.3.14. Distance from Drainage
3.3.15. Distance from Roads
3.4. Information Value Model (IVM)
4. Results
4.1. Landslide Susceptibility Models
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Aditian, A.; Kubota, T.; Shinohara, Y. Comparison of GIS-based landslide susceptibility models using frequency ratio, logistic regression, and artificial neural network in a tertiary region of Ambon, Indonesia. Geomorphology 2018, 318, 101–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmed, K.S.; Basharat, M.; Riaz, M.T.; Sarfraz, Y.; Shahzad, A. Geotechnical investigation and landslide susceptibility assessment along the Neelum road: a case study from Lesser Himalayas, Pakistan. Arab. J. Geosci. 2021, 14, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- AYDIN, A.; EKER, R.; FUCHS, H. Lidar Data Analysis With Digital Image Correlation (Dic) In Obtaining Landslide Displacement Fields: A Case Of Gschliefgraben Landslide-Austria. The Online Journal of Science and Technology-17, 7. 20 October.
- Basharat, M.; Riaz, M.T.; Jan, M.Q.; Xu, C.; Riaz, S. A review of landslides related to the 2005 Kashmir Earthquake: implication and future challenges. Nat. Hazards 2021, 108, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basharat, M.; Riaz, M.T.; Jan, M.Q.; Xu, C.; Riaz, S. A review of landslides related to the 2005 Kashmir Earthquake: implication and future challenges. Nat. Hazards 2021, 108, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basharat, M.; Shah, H.R.; Hameed, N. Landslide susceptibility mapping using GIS and weighted overlay method: a case study from NW Himalayas, Pakistan. Arab. J. Geosci. 2016, 9, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basharat, M.; Rohn, J.; Baig, M.S.; Khan, M.R. Spatial distribution analysis of mass movements triggered by the 2005 Kashmir earthquake in the Northeast Himalayas of Pakistan. Geomorphology 2014, 206, 203–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basharat, M.; Rohn, J.; Baig, M.S.; Khan, M.R.; Schleier, M. Large scale mass movements triggered by the Kashmir earthquake 2005, Pakistan. J. Mt. Sci. 2014, 11, 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basharat, M. (2012). The distribution, characteristics and behaviour of mass movements triggered by the Kashmir Earthquake 2005, NW Himalaya, Pakistan (Doctoral dissertation, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU)).
- Banerjee, P.; Ghose, M.K.; Pradhan, R. Analytic hierarchy process and information value method-based landslide susceptibility mapping and vehicle vulnerability assessment along a highway in Sikkim Himalaya. Arab. J. Geosci. 2018, 11, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, Y.; Yin, K.; Alexander, D.E.; Zhou, C. Using an extreme learning machine to predict the displacement of step-like landslides in relation to controlling factors. Landslides 2015, 13, 725–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, W.; Li, Y. GIS-based evaluation of landslide susceptibility using hybrid computational intelligence models. CATENA 2020, 195, 104777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, W.; Xie, X.; Wang, J.; Pradhan, B.; Hong, H.; Bui, D.T.; Duan, Z.; Ma, J. A comparative study of logistic model tree, random forest, and classification and regression tree models for spatial prediction of landslide susceptibility. CATENA 2017, 151, 147–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, W.; Li, X.; Wang, Y.; Chen, G.; Liu, S. Forested landslide detection using LiDAR data and the random forest algorithm: A case study of the Three Gorges, China. Remote. Sens. Environ. 2014, 152, 291–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costanzo, D.; Rotigliano, E.; Irigaray, C.; Jiménez-Perálvarez, J.D.; Chacón, J. Factors selection in landslide susceptibility modelling on large scale following the gis matrix method: application to the river Beiro basin (Spain). Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2012, 12, 327–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dahal, R.K.; Hasegawa, S.; Nonomura, A.; Yamanaka, M.; Dhakal, S.; Paudyal, P. Predictive modelling of rainfall-induced landslide hazard in the Lesser Himalaya of Nepal based on weights-of-evidence. Geomorphology 2008, 102, 496–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dai, F.C.; Lee, C.F. Terrain-based mapping of landslide susceptibility using a geographical information system: a case study. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 2001, 38, 911–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dikshit, K.R.; Dikshit, J.K. (2014). Relief features of north-east India. In north-east India: land, people and economy (pp. 91-125). Springer, Dordrecht.
- Dou, J.; Yunus, A.P.; Bui, D.T.; Sahana, M.; Chen, C.-W.; Zhu, Z.; Wang, W.; Pham, B.T. Evaluating GIS-Based Multiple Statistical Models and Data Mining for Earthquake and Rainfall-Induced Landslide Susceptibility Using the LiDAR DEM. Remote. Sens. 2019, 11, 638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, G.-L.; Zhang, Y.-S.; Iqbal, J.; Yang, Z.-H.; Yao, X. Landslide susceptibility mapping using an integrated model of information value method and logistic regression in the Bailongjiang watershed, Gansu Province, China. J. Mt. Sci. 2017, 14, 249–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, G.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, Z.; Guo, C.; Yao, X.; Sun, D. Landslide susceptibility mapping in the region of eastern Himalayan syntaxis, Tibetan Plateau, China: a comparison between analytical hierarchy process information value and logistic regression-information value methods. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2018, 78, 4201–4215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ercanoglu, M.U.R.A.T.; Gokceoglu, C.A.N.D.A.N.; Th, W.; Van Asch, J. Landslide susceptibility zoning north of Yenice (NW Turkey) by multivariate statistical techniques. Natural Hazards 2004, 32, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farooq, S.; Akram, M.S. COMPARISON OF DATA-DRIVEN LANDSLIDE SUSCEPTIBILITY ASSESSMENT USING WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, INFORMATION VALUE, FREQUENCY RATIO AND CERTAINTY FACTOR METHODS. Acta Geodynamica et Geromaterialia 2021, 18, 301–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Froude, M.J.; Petley, D.N. Global fatal landslide occurrence from 2004 to 2016. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2018, 18, 2161–2181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galli, M.; Ardizzone, F.; Cardinali, M.; Guzzetti, F.; Reichenbach, P. Comparing landslide inventory maps. Geomorphology 2008, 94, 268–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Girma, F.; Raghuvanshi, T.K.; Ayenew, T.; Hailemariam, T. Landslide hazard zonation in Ada Berga District, Central Ethiopia–a GIS based statistical approach. J Geom 2015, 9(i), 25–38. [Google Scholar]
- Gorum, T.; Fan, X.; van Westen, C.J.; Huang, R.Q.; Xu, Q.; Tang, C.; Wang, G. Distribution pattern of earthquake-induced landslides triggered by the 12 May 2008 Wenchuan earthquake. Geomorphology 2011, 133, 152–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gorum, T.; Carranza, E.J.M. Control of style-of-faulting on spatial pattern of earthquake-triggered landslides. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 12, 3189–3212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gruber, S.; Peckham, S. Land-surface parameters and objects in hydrology. Developments in soil science 2009, 33, 171–194. [Google Scholar]
- Guo, C.; Montgomery, D.R.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, K.; Yang, Z. Quantitative assessment of landslide susceptibility along the Xianshuihe fault zone, Tibetan Plateau, China. Geomorphology 2015, 248, 93–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guzzetti, F. (2002, October). In Landslide hazard assessment and risk evaluation: Limits and prospectives. In Proceedings of the 4th EGS Plinius Conference, Mallorca, Spain (pp. 2-4).
- Guzzetti, F.; Mondini, A.C.; Cardinali, M.; Fiorucci, F.; Santangelo, M.; Chang, K.-T. Landslide inventory maps: New tools for an old problem. Earth-Science Rev. 2012, 112, 42–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamza, T.; Raghuvanshi, T.K. GIS based landslide hazard evaluation and zonation–A case from Jeldu District, Central Ethiopia. Journal of King Saud University-Science 2017, 29, 151–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hewitt, K.; Mehta, M. Rethinking risk and disasters in mountain areas. 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Ikram, N.; Basharat, M.; Ali, A.; Usmani, N.A.; Gardezi, S.A.H.; Hussain, M.L.; Riaz, M.T. Comparison of landslide susceptibility models and their robustness analysis: a case study from the NW Himalayas, Pakistan. Geocarto Int. 2021, 37, 9204–9241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamp, U.; Growley, B.J.; Khattak, G.A.; Owen, L.A. GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping for the 2005 Kashmir earthquake region. Geomorphology 2008, 101, 631–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, K.V.; Martha, T.R.; Roy, P.S. Mapping damage in the Jammu and Kashmir caused by 8 October 2005 Mw 7. 3 earthquake from the Cartosat–1 and Resourcesat–1 imagery. International Journal of Remote Sensing 2006, 27, 4449–4459. [Google Scholar]
- Kirschbaum, D.; Stanley, T.; Zhou, Y. Spatial and temporal analysis of a global landslide catalog. Geomorphology 2015, 249, 4–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, X.; Lin, F.; Zhu, S.; Yu, M.; Zhang, Z.; Meng, L.; Peng, J. Mine landslide susceptibility assessment using IVM, ANN and SVM models considering the contribution of affecting factors. PLOS ONE 2019, 14, e0215134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Maggioni, M.; Gruber, U. The influence of topographic parameters on avalanche release dimension and frequency. Cold Reg. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37, 407–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martha, T.R.; Kerle, N.; Jetten, V.; van Westen, C.J.; Kumar, K.V. Characterising spectral, spatial and morphometric properties of landslides for semi-automatic detection using object-oriented methods. Geomorphology 2010, 116, 24–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merghadi, A.; Yunus, A.P.; Dou, J.; Whiteley, J.; ThaiPham, B.; Bui, D.T.; Avtar, R.; Abderrahmane, B. Machine learning methods for landslide susceptibility studies: A comparative overview of algorithm performance. Earth Sci. Rev. 2020, 207, 103225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nefeslioglu, H.A.; Gokceoglu, C.; Sonmez, H. An assessment on the use of logistic regression and artificial neural networks with different sampling strategies for the preparation of landslide susceptibility maps. Eng. Geol. 2008, 97, 171–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Owen, L.A.; Kamp, U.; Khattak, G.A.; Harp, E.L.; Keefer, D.K.; Bauer, M.A. Landslides triggered by the 8 October 2005 Kashmir earthquake. Geomorphology 2008, 94, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petley, D.; Dunning, S.; Rosser, N.; Kausar, A.B. Incipient landslides in the Jhelum Valley, Pakistan following the 8th 05 earthquake. Messages v. 20 October.
- Peiris 2006, N.; Rossetto, T.; Burton, P.; Mahmood, S. EEFIT mission: October 8, 2005 Kashmir earthquake. Published Report 2006, The institution of structural engineers, London. [Google Scholar]
- Polat, A. An innovative, fast method for landslide susceptibility mapping using GIS-based LSAT toolbox. Environ. Earth Sci. 2021, 80, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pourghasemi, H.R.; Teimoori Yansari, Z.; Panagos, P.; Pradhan, B. Analysis and evaluation of landslide susceptibility: a review on articles published during 2005–2016 (periods of 2005–2012 and 2013–2016). Arabian Journal of Geosciences 2018, 11, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rawat, M.S.; Joshi, V.; Sundriyal, Y.P. Slope stability analysis in a part of East Sikkim, using Remote Sensing & GIS. 2016 2nd International Conference on Next Generation Computing Technologies (NGCT). LOCATION OF CONFERENCE, IndiaDATE OF CONFERENCE; pp. 51–60.
- Raja, N.B.; Çiçek, I.; Türkoğlu, N.; Aydin, O.; Kawasaki, A. Landslide susceptibility mapping of the Sera River Basin using logistic regression model. Nat. Hazards 2016, 85, 1323–1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riaz, M.T.; Basharat, M.; Hameed, N.; Shafique, M.; Luo, J. A Data-Driven Approach to Landslide-Susceptibility Mapping in Mountainous Terrain: Case Study from the Northwest Himalayas, Pakistan. Nat. Hazards Rev. 2018, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riaz, M.T.; Basharat, M.; Pham, Q.B.; Sarfraz, Y.; Shahzad, A.; Ahmed, K.S.; Ikram, N.; Waseem, M.H. Improvement of the predictive performance of landslide mapping models in mountainous terrains using cluster sampling. Geocarto Int. 2022, 37, 12294–12337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saha, A.; Saha, S. Application of statistical probabilistic methods in landslide susceptibility assessment in Kurseong and its surrounding area of Darjeeling Himalayan, India: RS-GIS approach. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2020, 23, 4453–4483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saadatkhah, N.; Kassim, A.; Lee, L.M. Qualitative and quantitative landslide susceptibility assessments in Hulu Kelang area, Malaysia. EJGE 2014, 19, 545–563. [Google Scholar]
- Sahin, E.K.; Colkesen, I.; Kavzoglu, T. A comparative assessment of canonical correlation forest, random forest, rotation forest and logistic regression methods for landslide susceptibility mapping. Geocarto Int. 2018, 35, 341–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sati, S.P.; Sharma, S.; Sundriyal, Y.P.; Rawat, D.; Riyal, M. Geo-environmental consequences of obstructing the Bhagirathi River, Uttarakhand Himalaya, India. Geomatics, Nat. Hazards Risk 2020, 11, 887–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sato, H.P.; Hasegawa, H.; Fujiwara, S.; Tobita, M.; Koarai, M.; Une, H.; Iwahashi, J. Interpretation of landslide distribution triggered by the 2005 Northern Pakistan earthquake using SPOT 5 imagery. Landslides 2006, 4, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sepúlveda, S.A.; Petley, D.N. Regional trends and controlling factors of fatal landslides in Latin America and the Caribbean. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2015, 15, 1821–1833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- SERIES-E, E.U.L.L.E.T.I.N. Geoseismological Report on Sikkim Earthquake. 2011.
- Singh, A.; Pal, S.; Kanungo, D.P.; Pareek, N. An overview of recent developments in landslide vulnerability assessment-presentation of a new conceptual framework. In Workshop on World Landslide Forum 2017, 795-802. Springer, Cham.
- Singh, K.; Kumar, V. 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. 2018, 15, 808–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Svalova, V.B.; Zaalishvili, V.B.; Ganapathy, G.P.; Nikolaev, A.V.; Melkov, D.A. Landslide risk in mountain areas. Geology of the South of Russia 2019, 2. [Google Scholar]
- Vijith, H.; Krishnakumar, K.; Pradeep, G.; Krishnan, M.N.; Madhu, G. Shallow landslide initiation susceptibility mapping by GIS-based weights-of-evidence analysis of multi-class spatial data-sets: a case study from the natural sloping terrain of Western Ghats, India. Georisk: Assess. Manag. Risk Eng. Syst. Geohazards 2013, 8, 48–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yalcin, A.; Reis, S.; Aydinoglu, A.C.; Yomralioglu, T. 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. Catena 2011, 85, 274–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yawen, M. (2011). Regional scale multi-hazard susceptibility assessment: a case study in Mtskheta-Mtianeti, Georgia (Master's thesis, University of Twente).
- Zhou, C.; Yin, K.; Cao, Y.; Ahmed, B.; Li, Y.; Catani, F.; Pourghasemi, H.R. Landslide susceptibility modeling applying machine learning methods: A case study from Longju in the Three Gorges Reservoir area, China. Comput. Geosci. 2018, 112, 23–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]











| S.No. | Theme | Data type | GIS Tools | Resolution | Source |
| 1 | Landslide inventory | Visual | IRS P6,LISS 4, | ||
| Polygon | interpretation | 5.8 m | Field visits | ||
| Bhukosh GSI | |||||
| 2 | Rainfall | Grid | IDW | 4*4 Km | IMD, |
| interpolation | Gangtok | ||||
| 3 | Slope gradient | ||||
| Grid | Spatial | 2.5*2.5 m | Cartosat DEM | ||
| Analyst | |||||
| 4 | Slope Aspect | Grid | Spatial | 2.5*2.5 m | Cartosat DEM |
| Analyst | |||||
| 5 | Elevation | Spatial | 2.5*2.5 m | Cartosat DEM | |
| Grid | Analyst | ||||
| 6 | Geology | Visualization | Geological Map | ||
| Polygon | & Interpretation | 1:250000 | GSI | ||
| 7 | Soil | Visualization | |||
| Polygon | & Interpretation | 1:50,000 | NBSSLUP | ||
| 8 | Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) | Grid | (NIR-Red /NIR+Red) | 2.5*2.5 m | IRS P6 LISS 4 |
| 9 | Topographic Wetness Index (TWI) | Grid | Hydrology Tool (ArcGIS) | 2.5*2.5 m | Cartosat DEM |
| 10 | Road Proximity | Polygon | Multi ring | 2.5*2.5 m | |
| Buffer Analysis | Bhukosh, GSI | ||||
| 11 | Drainage Proximity | Polygon | Multi ring | 2.5*2.5 m | |
| Buffer | |||||
| Analysis | Cartosat DEM | ||||
| 12 | Drainage Density | Polyline | Hydrology | 2.5*2.5 m | Cartosat DEM |
| 13 | LULC | Grid | Supervised | ||
| Classification | 5.8*5.8 m | IRS P6 , LISS 4 | |||
| 14 | Landslide Susceptibility Map | Grid | Information Value Method | 2.5*2.5 m | Landslide Causative Factors (LCFs) |
| (IVM) |
| Causative factors | Class | Class % | Landslide % | IV Wt. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SLOPE ANGLE | 0-15 | 16.32842235 | 2.44 | 1.901 |
| 15-20 | 10.47852403 | 3.46 | 1.107 | |
| 20-30 | 27.91272562 | 17.84 | 0.447 | |
| 30-40 | 25.72418149 | 32.71 | -0.240 | |
| 40-90 | 19.55614651 | 43.54 | -0.800 | |
| SLOPE ASPECT | NORTH (0-22.5) | 9.817483531 | 1.79 | 1.700 |
| NORTH EAST (22.5-67.5) | 10.1795097 | 6.46 | 0.455 | |
| EAST (67.5-112.5) | 11.39699628 | 13.85 | -0.195 | |
| SOUTH EAST (112.5-157.5) | 12.69987768 | 21.12 | -0.508 | |
| SOUTH (157.5-202.5) | 12.17322552 | 19.49 | -0.471 | |
| SOUTH WEST (202.5-247.5) | 12.54464949 | 19.41 | -0.437 | |
| WEST (247.5-292.5) | 10.86736385 | 10.63 | 0.022 | |
| NORTH WEST (292.5-337.5) | 10.29112874 | 4.95 | 0.731 | |
| NORTH (337.5-360) | 10.02976522 | 2.29 | 1.476 | |
| ELEVATION | 0-1000 | 6.516448503 | 13.37 | -0.719 |
| 1000-2000 | 18.45161233 | 15.38 | 0.182 | |
| 2000-3000 | 15.98802483 | 19.28 | -0.187 | |
| 3000-4000 | 15.48094483 | 34.67 | -0.806 | |
| 4000-5000 | 23.10091308 | 17.14 | 0.299 | |
| 5000-6000 | 18.61663863 | 0.17 | 4.701 | |
| 6000-7000 | 1.723727865 | 0.00 | 0.000 | |
| 7000-8000 | 0.121689935 | 0.00 | 0.000 | |
| GEOLOGY | Gondwana Group | 1.682519383 | 0.00 | 0.000 |
| Permafrost Area | 32.67324754 | 27.74 | 0.164 | |
| Tso Lhamo Formation | 0.16785229 | 0.00 | 0.000 | |
| Everest Limestone | 0.709375749 | 0.00 | 0.000 | |
| Central Crystalline | 39.08960115 | 54.01 | -0.323 | |
| Everest Pelite | 2.236032292 | 0.00 | 0.000 | |
| Tourmaline Granite | 0.635440812 | 0.00 | 0.000 | |
| Chungthang Formation | 4.208296699 | 6.57 | -0.445 | |
| Lingtse Gneiss | 2.413875789 | 2.92 | -0.190 | |
| Daling Group | 16.18375829 | 8.76 | 0.614 | |
| LULC | Built up area | 1.068244006 | 1.78 | -0.510 |
| Forest | 33.68697275 | 50.08 | -0.397 | |
| Agricultural land | 2.954938857 | 3.25 | -0.095 | |
| Waterbody | 2.654194351 | 2.86 | -0.074 | |
| Grassland | 9.578374622 | 11.28 | -0.163 | |
| Barren land | 30.18828376 | 18.83 | 0.472 | |
| Snow/Glaciers | 19.86899165 | 11.93 | 0.510 | |
| LITHOLOGY | BANDED MIGMATITE, GARNET BT GNEISS,MICA SCHIST | 41.18118278 | 57.34 | -0.331 |
| BASIC INTRUSIVES | 0.010013418 | 0.00 | 0.000 | |
| BIOTITE GNEISS | 3.582800953 | 0.00 | 0.000 | |
| BIOTITE QUARTZITE | 0.026034887 | 0.00 | 0.000 | |
| BOULDER BED,FOSSILIFEROUS LIMESTONE and SANDSTONE | 1.303747021 | 0.00 | 0.000 | |
| BOULDER SLATE,CONGLOMERATE,PHYLLITE | 0.214287145 | 0.70 | -1.183 | |
| CALC GRANULITE WITH /WITHOUT QUARTZITE | 1.706286424 | 1.40 | 0.199 | |
| CALC SILICATE ROCK | 0.809084173 | 2.10 | -0.953 | |
| CHLORITE SERICITE SCHIST AND QUARTZITE | 16.95071396 | 19.58 | -0.144 | |
| DOLIMITIC QUARTZITE, CHERT, PHYLLITE, SLATE | 0.468627961 | 0.00 | 0.000 | |
| FOSSILIFEROUS LIMESTONE WITH QUARTZITE | 0.45661186 | 0.00 | 0.000 | |
| GARNET, KYANITE,SILLIMANITE,BIOTITE SCHIST | 0.368493782 | 0.70 | -0.641 | |
| META GREYWACKE | 0.096128813 | 0.00 | 0.000 | |
| MYLONITIC GRANITE GNEISS | 1.528047584 | 0.70 | 0.782 | |
| PHYLLITE QUARTZITE | 0.202271043 | 0.00 | 0.000 | |
| PYRITIFEROUS SLATE AND PHYLLITE | 0.080107344 | 0.00 | 0.000 | |
| QUARTZ ARENITE | 0.102136863 | 0.00 | 0.000 | |
| QUARTZ ARENITE, BLACK SLATE, CHERTY PHYLLITE | 0.268359602 | 0.00 | 0.000 | |
| QUARTZITE | 1.514028799 | 0.70 | 0.772 | |
| QUARTZITE,MICA SCHIST, GNEISS,CALCGRANULITE | 2.200949272 | 0.70 | 1.147 | |
| SANDSTONE, SHALE | 0.198265676 | 0.00 | 0.000 | |
| SANDSTONE,SHALE WITH MINOR COAL | 0.961288126 | 0.70 | 0.318 | |
| TOURMALINE GRANITE | 0.552740673 | 1.40 | -0.928 | |
| UNMAPPED | 24.98548054 | 13.99 | 0.580 | |
| VARIEGATED CLAY, SAND AND PEBBLE | 0.232311297 | 0.00 | 0.000 | |
| NDVI | -0.99 | 1.220382936 | 0.32 | 1.330 |
| 0 - 0.2 | 2.620573599 | 42.95 | -2.797 | |
| 0.2 - 0.4 | 15.10630829 | 40.48 | -0.986 | |
| 0.4 - 0.6 | 42.69477715 | 14.31 | 1.093 | |
| 0.6 - 1 | 38.35795802 | 1.94 | 2.986 | |
| RAINFALL | < 100 mm | 15.15975664 | 15.32 | -0.011 |
| 100-200 mm | 15.75003022 | 18.55 | -0.164 | |
| 200-300 mm | 36.4579556 | 15.32 | 0.867 | |
| 300-400 mm | 21.62657641 | 31.45 | -0.375 | |
| > 400 mm | 11.00568113 | 19.35 | -0.565 | |
| DRAINAGE DENSITY | 0-22 | 34.32853862 | 17.74 | 0.660 |
| 23-43 | 20.46617511 | 13.71 | 0.401 | |
| 44-65 | 20.02498086 | 29.84 | -0.399 | |
| 66-87 | 13.14920021 | 25.81 | -0.674 | |
| 88-110 | 6.591724082 | 6.45 | 0.021 | |
| 111-130 | 3.918368991 | 6.45 | -0.499 | |
| 131-150 | 1.041540755 | 0.00 | 0.000 | |
| 151-170 | 0.328377453 | 0.00 | 0.000 | |
| 171-200 | 0.15109392 | 0.00 | 0.000 | |
| TWI | -4.1 | 31.57720433 | 36.77 | -0.152 |
| -1.4 | 34.32563839 | 31.15 | 0.097 | |
| -1.7 | 17.85050556 | 16.33 | 0.089 | |
| -2.4 | 7.816076813 | 7.60 | 0.028 | |
| -2.5 | 3.873006957 | 3.65 | 0.061 | |
| 1.1 - 4.5 | 3.923311075 | 3.78 | 0.038 | |
| 4.5 - 14.1 | 0.63425688 | 0.73 | -0.141 | |
| ROAD PROXIMITY | < 100 m | 4.706306451 | 4.79 | -0.019 |
| 100 -200 m | 3.606833156 | 3.42 | 0.052 | |
| 200 - 300 m | 3.012036128 | 2.74 | 0.095 | |
| 300 - 400 m | 2.577453788 | 4.79 | -0.621 | |
| 400 - 500 m | 2.409228366 | 4.79 | -0.688 | |
| > 500 m | 83.68814211 | 79.45 | 0.052 | |
| DRAINAGE PROXIMITY | < 100 m | 7.194112236 | 4.00 | 0.587 |
| 100 -200 m | 6.053357866 | 4.00 | 0.414 | |
| 200 - 300 m | 5.795768169 | 8.00 | -0.322 | |
| 300 - 400 m | 4.894204232 | 0.00 | 0.000 | |
| 400 - 500 m | 5.170193192 | 12.00 | -0.842 | |
| > 500 m | 70.89236431 | 72.00 | -0.016 |
| DISTRICT | LANDSLIDE SUSCEPTIBILITY CLASS | AREA % | AREA (IN SQ. KMS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| LOW | 37.49 | 361.37 | |
| EAST SIKKIM | MEDIUM | 51.14 | 492.95 |
| HIGH | 11.38 | 109.68 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).