Methodology

Landslide, ChinaData were collected from the following sources: 

          1. UBC Department of Geography
                        • Popultation Data
                      • British Columbia DEM
                      • Vancouver Island shapefile
                      • Vancouver Island roads
                    • British Columbia Rivers
                              1. Hectares BC
                        • Vegetation
                      • Soil
                        1. ClimateBC
                      • Precipitation

Data transformations

        Several files included data for all of BC and had to be adjusted to the size of Vancouver Island. The rivers layer was cropped by selecting by location, using the intersection with the V.I. shapefile; the DEM, vegetation, and soil layers were cropped by extracting via mask using spatial analyst. Using spatial analyst, the surface slope of the DEM was calculated using the raster calculator. 
                                                                                                                             Landslide in Yingxiu, China. Source: The Telegraph 

Generating climate data                   

    The ClimateBC program accepts latitude, longitude, and elevation data and exports climate data for each point, including average annual precipitation and temperature (data are derived from average monthly data from 1961-2000). In order to calculate the climate data using the ClimateBC program, the DEM was converted from raster to point and reprojected to decimal degrees in NAD1983 Albers using the feature project tool, outputting nearly 5.5 million points. This proved to be a difficult amount of data to work with, and exporting the attribute data was extremely time-consuming. After tens of hours of organizing, exporting, calculating, manipulating, reorganizing, and attempting to work with so much data, we finally made the decision to work at a less precise scale for the climate data. The following steps took a fraction of the time at the coarser scale then they did at the fine scale.

The DEM was resampled so that the cell size was increased from 77m2 to 770m2. Converting from raster to point in the same manner as previously now outputted 54 000 points, a much more reasonable amount of data to work with. X and Y coordinates were calculated from the point-DEM using the “calculate geometry” tool, and the attribute table was organized in the format required for input into ClimateBC (ID1 – point number, ID2 – second location option, Latitude – y coordinate, Longitude – x coordinate, Elevation). The attribute table was then exported as a .dbf file, converted to a .csv file using Microsoft Access, and inputted in ClimateBC. ClimateBC calculated climate data (we chose the decade of 1991-2000) for each of the given points and outputted a .csv file which was edited to isolate Mean Annual Precipitation (other climate variables were removed) then imported back into ArcMap.

Climate BC Interface

Figure 1: The Climate BC program; multi-location input was used and the period selected was 1991-2000.


       Within the attribute table of the point-DEM layer, a new field was added: “Precipitation”. The climate data were joined with the point-DEM via the Point ID columns; then Mean Annual Precipitation data was added in the Precipitation column using the field calculator (Precipitation = MAP [mean annual precipitation]). The join was then removed, and the point-DEM layer was converted to a raster using the “Feature to Raster” tool.


          

Multi-Criteria Analysis

Each of the layers used in the multi-criteria evaluation (MCE) was normalized to 1-0 using the fuzzy membership operation. Vegetation, soil, roads and rivers are all categorized data, and the category values needed to be re-classified based on the different areas’ landslide risk level. The new classification values were created by adding a new field to the attribute table, and using the field calculator to add new values individually (see Tables 1, 2, and 3). The new values attempted to represent the level of risk associated with the category (based on research by Hungr et al, 2005, Dai et al, 2002, and Ozdemir, A., 2009). Any areas that were listed as having no data were reclassified to having a value of zero.

Table 1 – Vegetation Re-classification

Vegetation Type

Old Classification

New Classification

Fuzzy Membership Value

Agricultural Crops

2

1

0.1

Bog

3

1

0.1

Coniferous Forest

4

5

0.5

Fen

6

1

0.1

Mixed Forest

9

5

0.5

Tundra

12

1

0.1

Unvegetated Surface

13

10

1.0

Areas with strong root systems, or systems that are only found on flat areas, were given lower values, while unvegetated surfaces were given the most likely value.

Reclassified Vegetation Map

Figure 2: Vegetation type map reclassified based on landslide risk.

 Table 2 – Soil Re-classification

Soil Type

Old Classification

New Classification

Fuzzy Membership Value

Organic Soil

2

7

0.7

Hard Rock

3

4

0.4

Mineral Soil

6

10

1.0

Hard rock was the least likely soil type to experience landslides (although rockslides are possible, they were not considered in greater depth in this assessment), organic soil is able to absorb more water in high precipitation events, so it was less important than mineral soils, the most likely to result in debris flows (Hungr et al, 2005).

Reclassified Soil Map

Figure 3: Soil type map reclassified based on landslide risk.

Table 3 – Road Re-classification

Road Type

Old Classification

New Classification

Fuzzy Membership Value

Expressway

1

5

0.5

Primary Highway

2

5

0.5

Secondary Highway

3

5

0.5

Major Road

4

10

1.0

Local Road

5

10

1.0

Trail

6

3

3.0

Ferry Ramp

21

1

0.1

Well constructed roads (expressways and highways) usually take preventative measures and make slope stabilizing efforts, thus they were given a mid-range value; less well constructed roads are more likely to destabilize slopes and thus were given the highest value. 

          Finally, with re-classified, normalized data in raster format, the MCE was set up. Using the weighted sum tool, the factors were weighted according to their influence on landslides: slope (35%), precipitation (25%), distance to roads (10%), soil type (12.5%), vegetation type (12.5%), and distance to rivers (5%). The resulting hazard map was divided into high, medium, and low-risk areas for landslides. A second MCE was run with the variables weighted equally. Finally, a map overlaying population density by dissemination area with landslide risk was created.   


 \