using high resolution airborne lidar data for …€¦ · additionally lidar data allows the...
Post on 20-Aug-2020
5 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Nicole KAMP, Bakk. rer. nat.
(0560512)
USING HIGH‐RESOLUTION AIRBORNE LIDAR‐DATA
FOR LANDSLIDE MAPPING IN THE EASTERN ALPS
Master’s Thesis
for the Degree of
Master of Natural Science
Submitted to the
Institute of Geography and Regional Science
University of Graz, Austria
Advised by
Univ.‐Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Oliver Sass
Graz, 2012
2 / 122
This work is dedicated to my grandparents,
Ferdinand E. Scheiber (1936 – 2009) and Augustine Scheiber (1932 – 2012),
who passed away much too early and who I miss every single day!
3 / 122
Declaration
I hereby declare that the work in this master’s thesis is the result of my own investigation, except
where otherwise stated. Neither the entirety of this thesis, nor any parts contained within it, has
been previously accepted or is simultaneously being submitted for any other degree.
__________________________
Nicole Kamp
Graz, May 2012
4 / 122
Preface and Acknowledgments
This master’s thesis was written within the scope of the perennial LiDAR campaign (2008 – 2012)
of the Provincial Government of Styria, Board of Works – Geoinformation Staff Office. The
Geoinformation Staff Office also provided the LiDAR and vector data used in this thesis, as well as
the ArcGIS 10.0 Software Package, including ArcInfo License and Licenses for 3D – Analyst, Spatial
Analyst and LP360 Extensions. Further scientific assistance on the part of the Provincial
Government of Styria, Board of Works – Geoinformation Staff Office was given by DI Rudolf
Huetter.
Since the beginning of my studies at the Alpen‐Adria University of Klagenfurt, Institute of
Geography and Regional Studies, my main concern has been with GIS and Remote Sensing. The
bachelor study at this University provided a good basic knowledge in these two research fields.
During my master’s study at the University of Graz, Institute of Geography and Regional Science
my main focus has been with geomorphology and processes of the earth‐surface. Since March
2010 I have had the chance to be involved in the Styrian LiDAR campaign. This cooperation
delivers a wide basic knowledge of techniques in GIS analysis using ArcGIS software products,
programming with Python scripts, and utilizing different aspects of airborne laser scanning. By
combining this basic knowledge in GIS and Remote Sensing with my interests for LiDAR and
geomorphological processes my master thesis entitled "Using High‐Resolution Airborne LiDAR‐
Data for Landslide Mapping in the Eastern Alps" was born. Internationalisation is the main reason
for choosing English as the language for my thesis.
I would like to thank the staff of the Provincial Government of Styria, Board of Works –
Geoinformation Staff Office, especially DI Rudolf L. Huetter, for his assistance with all my software
and LiDAR problems and DI Babara Piskaty, who helped me with all mathematical and remote
sensing problems, Mag. Bernadette Kreuzer for helping me with cartographic and layout
questions and Mag. Susanne Tiefengraber for allowing me to use her archaeological sites ‐ vector‐
dataset.
I would also like to thank Professor Dr. rer. nat. Oliver Sass for supervising my thesis and for his
patience.
5 / 122
Special thanks to both DI Joachim Niemeyer, Leibniz University of Hannover, Institute of
Photogrammetry and Geoinformation and Dr. Martin Rutzinger, University of Innsbruck, Institute
of Geography, for helping me with the edge detection tool and for allowing me to implement their
approaches in my tools, to Dr. Jeff Jenness, a US American wildlife biologist and GIS analyst for
allowing me to use and implement his ArcGIS Landfacet Corridor Tool in my ArcGIS Landslide
Mapping Toolbox and Mark Sappington, a US American GIS specialist from
Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Nevada for allowing me to adapt his “Vector Ruggedness
Measure” python script for my research.
I would also like to thank Dr. Christian Bauer, Joanneum Research and Dr. Ingomar Fritz,
Universalmueum Joanneum, Geology and Palaeontology for giving me assistance in the field of
geomorphology and mass‐denudations, Dr. Bernhard Hoefle, University of Heidelberg, Institute of
Geography for sending me information about geomorphology and its application in LiDAR, and
Dustin Hoover, University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, Department of Geosciences and Matthew
Balazs, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Department of Geology and Geophysics for proofreading
my master’s thesis.
Last, but not least very special thanks go to my family, friends and to my boyfriend Michael Haid
for everything they did for me. Without them I would not be where I am now.
6 / 122
Abstract
Using High‐Resolution Airborne LiDAR‐Data for Landslide Mapping in the Eastern Alps (Province
of Styria, Austria)
Key Words: LiDAR, Geomorphology, Landslides, Raster, DTM, Extraction
Due to the increasing frequency of natural disasters like floods and landslides, the active remote sensing
technique LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging), has become a topic of great interest to the Provincial
Government of Styria, Federal Republic of Austria. In an on‐going project from 2008 to 2012 high‐resolution 3D
airborne LiDAR data of the Province of Styria, an area about 16,000 km² in south‐eastern Austria, were collected
with a vertical accuracy of ±15 cm and a positional accuracy of ±40 cm. These data were processed to create
Digital Terrain Models (DTM) and Digital Surface Models (DSM) at 1 m resolution.
High resolution DTMs can be used in different geo‐related applications like geomorphological mapping or
natural hazard mapping. Because of their high degree of accuracy, DTMs depict various natural and
anthropogenic terrain features such as erosion scarps, alluvial fans, landslides, old creeks, topographic edges and
karst formations, as well as walking paths and roads. Additionally LiDAR data allows the detection and outlining
of these different geomorphological and anthropogenic features within a GIS environment, geoprocessing and
analysing techniques, mathematical, statistical, and image processing methods, and the open source scripting
language Python. As a result complex workflows and new geoprocessing tools can be implemented in the
standard ArcGIS workspace and are provided as easy‐to‐use toolbox contents.
The landslide phenomena take centre stage of the research work of the author. Therefore the main focus is
targeted on sliding movements out of soils and bedrock with different velocities. Factors like gravity directly
affect slope stability and cause complex mass movements with a downslope‐directed sliding movement of bed‐
and/or loose‐rock and soil material.
On the following pages the author presents the results of her master’s thesis, a semi‐automatic ArcGIS landslide
mapping toolbox using high‐resolution LiDAR data in the rock masses of the Eastern Alps (Province of Styria,
Austria). This toolbox is based on analysing and modeling different land surface parameters such as slope,
variance of slope, curvature or roughness. The ArcGIS Landslide Mapping Tool points out endangered regions in
the Province of Styria and shows the quantity of landslides in a specific area.
7 / 122
Kurzfassung
Anwendung von hochauflösenden Airborne LiDAR Daten zur Kartierung von Hangrutschungen in
den Ostalpen
Schlüsselwörter: LiDAR, Geomorphologie, Hangrutschungen, Raster, DTM, Extraktion
Die Steiermärkische Landesregierung, Landesbaudirektion ‐ Stabsstelle Geoinformation startete aufgrund der
ständigen Zunahme von Naturkatastrophen wie Hochwasserkatastrophen oder Hangrutschungen eine
mehrjährige Airborne LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) Befliegungskampagne im Zeitraum 2008 bis 2012. Im
Zuge dieses Projekts wurden hoch‐auflösende 3D Airborne LiDAR Daten der gesamten Steiermark mit einer
Fläche von über 16.000 km² in Südost‐Österreich und einer vertikalen Genauigkeit von ±15 cm und einer
Lagegenauigkeit von ±40 cm, gesammelt. Diese Daten werden zu Digitalen Gelände Modellen (DGM) und
Digitalen Oberflächen Modellen mit einer Auflösungen von 1 m weiterverarbeitet.
Durch die hohe Auflösung eignen sich diese Daten hervorragend für die Kartierung von geomorphologischen
Formen oder Naturkatastrophen. Die hohe Genauigkeit des DGM lässt verschiedenste natürliche und
anthropogene Formen, wie zum Beispiel Erosionskanten, Schwemmfächer, Hangrutschungen, alte Flussläufe,
topografische Kanten und Karstformen, sowie Wanderwege und Straßen sichtbar werden und ermöglicht eine
Detektion und Abgrenzung dieser unterschiedlichen geomorphologischen und anthropogenen Strukturen mit
Hilfe von ArcGIS Geoprozessierungs‐ und Analyse‐Techniken, mathematischen, statistischen und
Bildverarbeitungs‐Methoden und der open‐source Skriptsprache Python. Komplexe Arbeitsschritte und neue
Geoprozessierungs‐Werkzeuge können somit in eine ArcGIS Arbeitsumgebung implementiert werden und liefern
einfach nutzbare Toolbox‐Inhalte.
Das Hangrutschungs‐Phänomen steht im Mittelpunkt dieser Forschungsarbeit. Dabei richtet sich das
Hauptaugenmerk auf gleitende Erdbewegungen mit unterschiedlichen Geschwindigkeiten aus Bodenmaterial
oder Festgestein. Faktoren, wie Gravitation, beeinflussen direkt die Hangstabilität und verursachen komplexe,
hangabwärts gerichtete, gleitende Massenbewegungen aus Fest‐ und Lockgesteinen, sowie Bodenmaterial.
Auf den nächsten Seiten präsentiert die Autorin die Ergebnisse ihrer Masterarbeit, eine automatische ArcGIS
Landslide Mapping Toolbox für eine semi‐automatische Detektion von Hangrutschungen aus hochauflösenden
LiDAR Daten in den Ostalpen (Steiermark, Österreich). Diese Toolbox basiert auf einer Analyse und Modellierung
unterschiedlicher Parameter der Landoberfläche, wie Hangneigung, Varianz der Neigung, Krümmung oder
Rauigkeit. Mit dieser ArcGIS Landslide Mapping Toolbox werden gefährdete Gebiete in der Steiermark und
räumliche Verteilung von Hangrutschungen in einem speziellen Gebiet aufgezeigt.
Contents
8 / 122
Contents
1. Introduction........................................................................................................................ 14
1.1 Research Objectives ............................................................................................................ 14
1.2 Goals and Limitations .......................................................................................................... 15
1.3 Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 16
2. Basics .................................................................................................................................. 18
2.1 Airborne LiDAR .................................................................................................................... 18
2.1.1 Definition ................................................................................................................................. 18
2.1.2 Measurement technique ......................................................................................................... 19
2.1.3 ASPRS LAS Format and Classification of LiDAR Point Cloud Data ............................................ 21
2.1.4 Digital Terrain Models (DTMs) and Digital Surface Models (DSMs) ........................................ 24
2.2 Landslides ............................................................................................................................ 25
2.2.1 Definition and Classification .................................................................................................... 25
2.2.2 Landslide Body (see Figure 8) .................................................................................................. 29
2.2.3 Triggers .................................................................................................................................... 30
2.3 Landslides in the field of LiDAR – State of the Art .............................................................. 32
3. Study Areas ........................................................................................................................ 35
3.1 General Settings .................................................................................................................. 35
3.1.1 Geographical Position .............................................................................................................. 36
3.2 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................ 39
3.3 Vegetation, Land Use and Climate ...................................................................................... 42
Contents
9 / 122
4. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – Theoretical Part ............................................................................. 44
4.1 Software Description ........................................................................................................... 44
4.1.1 ArcGIS and Extensions (ESRI) ................................................................................................... 44
4.1.2 LP360 for ArcGIS ...................................................................................................................... 45
4.1.3 Python ...................................................................................................................................... 46
4.2 Data ..................................................................................................................................... 46
4.2.1 LiDAR Data ............................................................................................................................... 46
4.2.2 Vector Data .............................................................................................................................. 48
4.3 Land Surface Parameters .................................................................................................... 49
4.3.1 Hillshade .................................................................................................................................. 50
4.3.2 Slope ........................................................................................................................................ 50
4.3.3 Variance of Slope ..................................................................................................................... 51
4.3.4 Aspect ...................................................................................................................................... 51
4.3.5 Variance of Aspect ................................................................................................................... 52
4.3.6 Curvature ................................................................................................................................. 52
4.3.7 Roughness ................................................................................................................................ 53
4.3.8 Contour Lines ........................................................................................................................... 53
4.4 Triangular Irregular Network (TIN) ...................................................................................... 54
4.5 Topographic Position Index ................................................................................................. 55
4.5.1 TPI Elevation ............................................................................................................................ 56
4.5.2 TPI Slope .................................................................................................................................. 57
4.6 SMORPH Landslide Risk Model ........................................................................................... 58
Contents
10 / 122
5. Landslide Mapping – Practical Part ..................................................................................... 59
5.1 Manual Landslide Mapping ................................................................................................. 60
5.1.1 Manual Landslide Mapping Workflow .................................................................................... 60
5.2 Verification and Results of Manual Landslide Mapping...................................................... 65
5.2.1 Verification of manually mapped landslides ........................................................................... 65
5.2.2 Results of the manual landslide mapping ............................................................................... 73
5.3 Semi‐Automatic Landslide Mapping ................................................................................... 79
5.3.1 Basic Workflow ........................................................................................................................ 80
5.3.2 Semi‐automatic Landslide Mapping Toolbox .......................................................................... 84
5.4 Results ................................................................................................................................. 97
5.4.1 Intermediate Data (Landslide Mapping Toolbox) .................................................................... 97
5.4.2 Potential Landslides ............................................................................................................... 101
5.4.3 Limitations ............................................................................................................................. 106
5.4.4 Adaptability of a semi‐automatic landslide mapping ............................................................ 109
6. Conclusions and Perspectives ........................................................................................... 110
References ............................................................................................................................... 114
Index of Figures
11 / 122
Index of Figures
Fig. 1. Methodical development of the master's thesis (source: AUTHOR’S ILLUSTRATION, 2012) ........................................ 17
Fig. 2. Helicopter of the Styrian LiDAR campaign and box with the laser scanner (source: AUTHOR’S IMAGE, 2010) ......... 19
Fig. 3. Schematic LiDAR Data Measurement Technique (source: MTC, 2003) .................................................................. 21
Fig. 4. Example of LiDAR Intensity (source: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011) ....................................................................... 22
Fig. 5. Example of LiDAR Return Number (sources: Styrian Lidar Campaign, 2011 and Noaa, 2008) ............................... 22
Fig. 6. Classified LiDAR Point Cloud (source: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011) ..................................................................... 23
Fig. 7. Landslide Classification (source: GEONET, 2011) ..................................................................................................... 27
Fig. 8. Landslide Body (source: Geological Hazards Program, 2011) 29
Fig. 9. Relief image of the Province of Styria (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION) ............... 36
Fig. 10. Study Area 1, Spielberg bei Knittelfeld ‐ LiDAR DTM and DSM
(data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION)...................................................................................... 38
Fig. 11. Study Area 2 Wald am Schoberpass ‐ LiDAR DTM and DSM
(data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION)...................................................................................... 38
Fig. 12. Geology and soil maps of Study Area 1 (sources: GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF AUSTRIA, 2011 AND BMLFUW & BFW, 2009) 40
Fig. 13. Geology and soil maps of Study Area 2 (sources: GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF AUSTRIA, 2011 AND BMLFUW & BFW, 2009) 41
Fig. 14. Study Area 1 ‐ RGB and CIR orthophotos (source: GIS STYRIA, 2012) .................................................................... 43
Fig. 15. Study Area 2 ‐ RGB and CIR orthophotos (source: GIS STYRIA, 2012) .................................................................... 43
Fig. 16. ArcGIS product line (source: ESRI, 2011) ............................................................................................................... 44
Fig. 17. LP360 surface (source: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011) ......................................................................................... 45
Fig. 18. Classified LiDAR Point Cloud (source: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011) ................................................................... 47
Fig. 19. Hillshade and slope images (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION) ............................. 50
Fig. 20. Variance of slope and aspect images (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011) ................................................ 51
Fig. 21. Variance of aspect and vertical curvature images
(data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION)...................................................................................... 52
Fig. 22. Roughness image and contour lines (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION) ............... 53
Fig. 23. TIN and TIN 3D Model (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION) ..................................... 54
Fig. 24. Slope Position Classification at different scales (source: JENNESS et al., 2011, p. 45ff.) ........................................ 55
Fig. 25. TPI elevation images (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION) ....................................... 56
Fig. 26. TPI slope images (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION) ............................................. 57
Fig. 27. Smorph image (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION) ................................................. 58
Fig. 28. Schematic landslide sketch and schematic profile view of a landslide
(source of left image: GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS PROGRAM, 2011 and source of right image: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION) .................. 61
Fig. 29. Visualization of land surface parameters (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION) ....... 62
Fig. 30. Visualization of land surface parameters (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION) ....... 63
Fig. 31. Landslide example 1 – model and reality (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011 and AUTHOR’S IMAGE, 2011) 67
Fig. 32. Landslide example 2 – model and reality (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011 and AUTHOR’S IMAGE, 2011) 68
Index of Figures
12 / 122
Fig. 33. Landslide example 3 – model and reality (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011 and AUTHOR’S IMAGE, 2011) 69
Fig. 34. Landslide example 4 – model and reality (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011 and AUTHOR’S IMAGE, 2011) 70
Fig. 35. Landslide example 5 – model and reality (data basis: Styrian Lidar Campaign, 2011 and AUTHOR’S IMAGE, 2011)71
Fi. 36. Landslide example 6 – model and reality (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011 and AUTHOR’S IMAGE, 2011) .. 72
Fig. 37. Map of landslide main scarps of Study Area 1 (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION) 74
Fig. 38. Map of landslide areas of Study Area 1(data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION) ........... 74
Fig. 39. Map of landslide main scarps in combination the local geology of Study Area 1
(data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION)...................................................................................... 75
Fig. 40. Map of landslide main scarps of Study Area 2 (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION) 76
Fig. 41. Map of landslide areas of Study Area 2 (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION) .......... 77
Fig. 42. Map of landslide main scarps in combination the local geology of Study Area 2
(data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION)...................................................................................... 78
Fig. 43. Continuous Loop (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2012) ........................................................................................ 82
Fig. 44. Basic Workflow of Semi‐Automatic Landslide Mapping (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2012) ............................ 83
Fig. 45. Tool 1 – Land Surface Parameters (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011) ............................................................. 84
Fig. 46. Workflow of Tool 1 (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011) .................................................................................... 85
Fig. 47. Tool 2 – Topographic Position Index (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011) .......................................................... 86
Fig. 48. Workflow of Tool 2 (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011) .................................................................................... 86
Fig. 49. Tool 3 – Smorph (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011) ......................................................................................... 87
Fig. 50. Workflow of Tool 3 (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011) .................................................................................... 88
Fig. 51. Tool 4 – Roughness (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011) .................................................................................... 89
Fig. 52. Workflow of Tool 4 (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011) .................................................................................... 89
Fig. 53. Tool 5 – Edge Detection (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011) ............................................................................. 90
Fig. 54. Workflow of Tool 5 (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011) .................................................................................... 91
Fig. 55. Tool 6 – Forest Roads (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011) ................................................................................. 92
Fig. 56. Workflow of Tool 6 (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011) .................................................................................... 92
Fig. 57. Tool 7 – Streams (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011) ........................................................................................ 93
Fig. 58. Workflow of Tool 7 (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011) .................................................................................... 94
Fig. 59. Tool 8 – Potential Landslides (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011) ..................................................................... 95
Fig. 60.Workflow of Tool 8 (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011) ..................................................................................... 96
Fig. 61. Aperture of generalised TIN of Study Area 1 (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011) ............................................. 98
Fig. 62. Aperture of generalised TIN of Study Area 2 (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011) ............................................. 99
Fig. 63. Aperture of results of Study Area 1 of the “ForestStreets” and “Streams” tools
(source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011) ............................................................................................................................... 100
Fig. 64. Aperture of results of Study Area 2 of the “ForestStreets” tool (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011) .............. 100
Fig. 65. Results of the semi‐automatic mapping tool in Study Area 1 (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011) .................. 104
Fig. 66. Results of the semi‐automatic mapping tool in Study Area 2 (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011) .................. 105
Fig. 67. Diverse terrain surface structures (STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011) ................................................................... 112
Index of Tables
13 / 122
Index of Tables
Table 1. ASPRS Standard LiDAR Point Classes (source: ASPRS, 2010) ................................................................................ 23
Table 2. Landslide Classification according to CRUDEN & VARNES, 1996 ............................................................................. 25
Table 3. Landslide Causes (source: LANDSLIDE HAZARDS PROGRAM, 2011) ............................................................................ 31
Table 4. List of papers and articles (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011) .................................................................... 33‐34
Table 5. Geographical position of the study areas (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION) ...... 35
Table 6. List of important parameters (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION) ......................... 37
Table 7. Main equipment of the Styrian LiDAR – campaign (source: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011) ............................... 46
Table 8. In this thesis main used vector data (source: GIS STYRIA, 2012) ........................................................................... 48
Table 9. Visibility of landslide features in different raster images (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2012) ......................... 64
Table 10. Manually mapped landslides (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION) ....................... 73
Table 11. Overview of the 8 contiguous tools of the Landslide Mapping Toolbox (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011) 81
Table 12. Aperture of the results of Study Area 1 (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2012) ............................................... 101
Table 13. Aperture of the results of Study Area 2 (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2012) ............................................... 102
Table 14. Statistics of the semi‐automatic landslide mapping (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2012) ............................ 103
Table 15. Reasons for poor results in the two study areas (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2012) .......................... 106‐108
1. INTRODUCTION
14 / 122
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Research Objectives
The main research goals of the author’s master thesis with the title “Using High‐Resolution
Airborne LiDAR‐Data for Landslide Mapping in the Eastern Alps” are two‐fold. The first main
objective is to discover the possibilities of the application of airborne LiDAR (Light Detection and
Ranging) data for geomorphological mapping, in particular landslide mapping. The second
objective is to develop a possible technique for a raster‐based semi‐automatic landslide mapping.
To address these objectives, the author has created an ArcGIS toolbox with a package of tools that
extract different landslide and other geomorphological features such as scarps, forest roads, or
streams from the LiDAR DTM. This is done by combining geomorphometric landscape analysis,
ArcGIS geoprocessing and analysing techniques, as well as mathematical, statistical and image
processing operations. The tool was designed in a way that anyone, who is familiar with LiDAR and
its use in geomorphology, can use it, regardless of his or her previous knowledge about a specific
study area.
The high potential of the active remote sensing technique LiDAR, also known as Airborne Laser
scanning (ALS), to study geomorphological features, coupled with the increasing number of
landslides or flood disasters, motivated the Provincial Government of Styria to start an ALS –
campaign. In an on‐going project from 2008 to 2012 high‐resolution 3D ALS data of the Province of
Styria, an area about 16,000 km² in south‐eastern Austria, were collected. Due to of its high
vertical accuracy of ±15 cm and a positional accuracy of ±40 cm, ALS allows the detection and
outlining of different geomorphological structures such as alluvial fans, landslides, creeks,
topographic edges and karst formations as well as anthropogenic geomorphological structures like
forest roads.
As DTMs are a powerful tool for detecting different geomorphological structures, the application
of high resolution models opens up new, unimaginable opportunities.
This thesis will give a short insight into these new chances.
1. INTRODUCTION
15 / 122
1.2 Goals and Limitations
Since October 2010 the author has worked on her master’s thesis with the main aim to create an
ArcGIS toolbox for semi‐automatic landslide mapping using high‐resolution airborne LiDAR data.
This allowed her to become familiar with LiDAR and its application in geomorphology, the different
software products, and the scripting language Python.
The following research goals were defined:
A short description of LiDAR and its applications in geomorphology
A short introduction in the field of landslides
Calculation of different land surface parameters and Triangular Irregular Networks (TINs)
out of DTMs
Utilisation of the calculated land surface parameters and TINs to map landslides manually
Verifying the manually mapped landslides through field work and by consulting two
experts Dr. Ingomar Fritz, Universalmueum Joanneum, Geology and Palaeontology and
Dr. Christian Bauer, Joanneum Research
Creating a toolbox for semi‐automatic landslide mapping in the ArcGIS 10.0 environment
Semi‐automatic detection of landslide features by analysing and combining
land surface parameters
Comparing the results of the manually mapped and the semi‐automatically mapped
landslides
Improving the toolbox with the knowledge acquired during the manual mapping process
Testing the adaptability and the results of the landslide mapping toolbox
Because of the fact that the author lacked any useable landslide dataset of Styria, she had to map
landslides in two study areas on her own and verify it by conducting field work and consulting
experts. For this purpose it is indispensable to be familiar with handling and reading LiDAR data
and raster datasets. Concerning semi‐automatic landslide mapping, a differentiation between
landslides and landslide‐related features often caused by anthropogenic activities is problematic,
but an integration of other vector datasets (streets, streams, archaeological and mining features,
etc.) improves results. Furthermore noises and artefacts caused by the LiDAR scanner complicate
semi‐automatic landslide mapping and can degrade results.
These problems that represent some of the biggest challenges in this master’s thesis are
addressed at the end.
1. INTRODUCTION
16 / 122
1.3 Methodology
It must be said that this master’s thesis demands hours of intensive working with the provided
LiDAR data and many hours to acquaint oneself with LiDAR, LiDAR DTMs and the software
packages ArcGIS 10.0 (with its different extensions; 3D Analyst and Spatial Analyst), and the LP360
extension of QCoherent and to learn the open‐source scripting language Python (see Figure 1, No.
2). Since March 2010 the author is a collaborator of the Styrian LiDAR campaign, where she works
on post processing LiDAR point cloud data, calculating DTMs and Digital Surface Models (DSMs),
and investigating different methods for automatic extraction of different geomorphological and
anthropogenic structures out of high‐resolution LiDAR point cloud data, DTMs and DSMs.
Different scientific papers, books and articles (see Figure 1, No. 1) were consulted to get essential
information about landslides, LiDAR and its application in geomorphology, and to investigate a
possible semi‐automatic landslide mapping out of LiDAR DTMs.
The practical part of the master’s thesis is divided into three main parts (Figure 1, green boxes):
1) By using image interpretation techniques the land surface parameters such as hillshade,
slope, curvature, contours, roughness, variance of slope, and variance of aspect were
calculated from LiDAR DTMs (see Figure 1, No. 4). Using this information, actual landslides
were mapped manually as vector datasets (see Figure 1, No. 8). There currently exists no
useable landslide datasets in Styria, hence the reason for manually mapping the landslides
first. Previous datasets in this area are too imprecise to verify semi‐automatically mapped
landslide features. In addition, a majority of the landslides in this area are not digitalized
because they are too old or somewhere in the forest. Fortunately, landslides that are old
and scarred or hidden below dense vegetation, appear in LiDAR DTMs (see Figure 1, No. 3),
because of its high resolution and accuracy.
2) After manually mapping actual landslides the results were verified by going into the field
(see Figure 1, No. 5), and by consulting two experts, the geologist
Dr. Ingomar Fritz (Universalmueum Joanneum, Geology and Palaeontology) and the
geographer Dr. Christian Bauer (Joanneum Research; see Figure 1, No. 6).
1. INTRODUCTION
17 / 122
3) In the last step the semi‐automatic ArcGIS landslide mapping tool was executed (see Figure
1, No. 7), and potential landslides were detected (see Figure 1, No. 10). The results were
compared and verified with the manually mapped landslide features to determine the
adaptability, and accuracy of the automatic tool (Figure 1, No. 13). The verified manually
mapped landslide features were used to improve the semi‐automatic landslide mapping
tool (Figure 1, No. 12).
Figure 1. Methodical development of the master's thesis (source: AUTHOR’S ILLUSTRATION, 2012)
2. BASICS
18 / 122
2. BASICS
Before describing the main part of the master's thesis, which includes both a manual landslide
mapping component and the creation of an ArcGIS toolbox for semi‐automatic landslide mapping
using airborne LiDAR DTMs, a very short introduction in airborne LiDAR and landslides is given on
the following pages.
2.1 Airborne LiDAR
2.1.1 Definition
Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR), also known as Airborne Laser scanning (ALS), LADAR or Laser
Altimetry, contains a multiplicity of different applications. To understand a few of the possibilities
of LiDAR some applications are listed below:
Raman LiDAR,
Resonance Scattering LiDAR,
Doppler Wind LiDAR,
temperature measurements,
atmospheric and meteorological measurements,
Terrestrial LiDAR,
Spaceborne LiDAR and
Airborne LiDAR
For landslide mapping terrestrial and airborne LiDAR systems are often used. In this master's
thesis, only airborne LiDAR is considered. Airborne LiDAR is a useful method for studying the
atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere and determining the density and structure of
vegetation canopy in forests (see BROWELL et al. 2005, p. 723ff.).
In the 1970s and 1980s the U.S. NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) developed
airborne LiDAR, an aircraft‐mounted electro‐optical distance meter that measures the distance
between an aircraft and the ground (see SATO et al. 2007, p. 237ff.). In 1967 the first airborne
LiDAR measurement was conducted by S. Harvey Melfi.
2. BASICS
19 / 122
The active remote sensing technique is similar to radar, but instead of radio waves, discrete light
pulses measure travel times. Unlike radar, LiDAR has to be flown during fair weather, because
LiDAR cannot penetrate clouds, rain, or dense haze (see NOAA 2008, p. 7ff).
The LiDAR technique permits measurement of large regions in a short time and can rapidly
measure the surface at sampling rates greater than 150 kilohertz or 150,000 pulses per second. It
produces a rapid collection of more than 70,000 highly accurate georeferenced elevation points
per second. The major advantages of using LiDAR include a high resolution, its incredibly high
vertical and positional accuracy of measurement, and its ability to penetrate through vegetation in
forested terrain. LiDAR is an active remote sensing technique because the energy for
measurement is generated by the laser sensor. Airborne LiDAR is very useful for surface and
terrain studies or it has been applied to study the density and structure of the forest canopies (see
NOAA 2008, p. 7ff).
2.1.2 Measurement technique
A LiDAR system consists of a transmitter (laser), transmitter optics, receiver optics, a detector, and
an electronic system for the acquisition, evaluation, display and storage of data. Other additional
components differ from type and purpose of the LiDAR (see WEITKAMP 2005, p. 1ff.).
The laser scanner is mounted on either an airplane or a helicopter; as in the case of the Styrian
LiDAR campaign, a helicopter was utilized because of the distinctive topographical relief inherent
in Styria (see Figure 2). With a helicopter the possibility of flying smaller radii is possible, a major
benefit when collecting data in mountainous areas (see BROWELL et al. 2005, p. 724ff.).
Figure 2. Helicopter of the Styrian LiDAR campaign and box with the laser scanner (source: AUTHOR’S IMAGE, 2010)
2. BASICS
20 / 122
The laser scanner has some limitations in size, mass, power and receiver aperture. In order to get
good data, a scanner should have the ability to operate in an environment with high‐ and low‐
frequency vibrations as well as temperature and cabin pressure variations. It should also be
designed and developed to function with limited operator intervention during flight (see BROWELL
et al. 2005, p. 724ff.).
With an integrated Global Positioning System (GPS) the position of the laser scanner is
determined. An Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) or Inertial Navigation System (INS) provides the
angular altitude of the sensor platform. The ALS emits laser pulses in the surface direction and
measures the time each laser pulse travels to the hit object and return. As a result, LiDAR 3D point
cloud data of the reflection (echo) are computed. In the case of the Styrian LiDAR campaign, a
vertical accuracy of ±15 cm and a positional accuracy of ±40 cm were achieved. The elevation and
location of the reflected surface are derived from the time difference between the laser pulse
being emitted and returned, the angle of the pulse and the location and height of the scanner
within the aircraft. On a rotating or oscillating mirror the emitted beam is deflected, which causes
typical scanning patterns depending on the type of laser scanner. The scan angle determines the
width (swath) of the area captured within one flight strip (see NOAA 2008, p. 7ff.).
Given that such a large quantify of individual points are generated, even if only a small percentage
of laser pulses reach the ground through the trees, there are usually enough to provide adequate
representation of the ground in forested areas. An exception to this can occur in very dense
forests with “leaf‐on” conditions, like rain forests. In this case, the poor ground representation can
cause problems (see NOAA 2008, p. 7ff.). Mainly in the field of geomorphology, the penetration of
vegetation canopy is a big achievement.
2. BASICS
21 / 122
The measurement technique in short and simplified once again (see Figure 3):
The time it takes the laser pulse to hit an object
or surface and return to the aircraft with a
known position and height (GPS x, y and z) is
measured. The distance of the laser pulse (INS z)
is determined by using the travel time (INS x)
and the recorded laser angle (INS y). With this
information the exact location of the reflecting
object or surface is located in three dimensions
(OBJ x, y and z; see NOAA 2008, p. 7ff.).
Figure 3. Schematic LiDAR Data Measurement
Technique (source: MTC, 2003)
2.1.3 ASPRS LAS Format and Classification of LiDAR Point Cloud Data
The ASPRS LAS Format is the most commonly used LiDAR Format, and it is readable by well‐
established software packages like OPALS by Institute of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing,
Vienna University of Technology, LP360 by QCoherent, E3de by Exelis Visual Information Solution
Products, Pointools by Bentley Systems or the new ArcGIS 10.1. by ESRI, and open‐source software
packages such as SAGA by Institute of Geography, University of Hamburg, or LAStools by Martin
Isenburg.
Created by the American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS), the intention
of the LAS data format is to provide a compatible file structure that can be commonly accessed
and shared across different LiDAR hardware and software platforms (see ASPRS 2010).
In the ASPRS LAS Format all LiDAR point data records are stored. Each data point has the exact
x, y and z point coordinates with further information about:
the closeness of point to each other is stored, the point spacing,
the strength or intensity of the return, which represents how well the object reflected the
wavelength of light (see Figure 4),
the quantity of returns, known as the return number
and the return combination (first/last returns; see Figure 5). The first, second, third and
ultimately the “last” return from a single laser pulse are captured (see ASPRS 2010).
2. BASICS
22 / 122
All these attributes are used for further classifications and analysis; for example, the return
number can be used to determine what the reflected pulse is from, such as ground, trees or
buildings. The intensity is used to contrast between different kinds of vegetation, and the point
spacing is used to distinguish between anthropogenic and natural objects (see ASPRS 2010).
Figure 4. Example of LiDAR Intensity
(source: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011)
Figure 5. Example of LiDAR Return Number
(sources: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011
and NOAA, 2008 [left image])
For further analysis of the LiDAR data and for calculation of DTMs and DSMs, the 3D point cloud
data has to be classified in ground points and non‐ground points. Non‐ground points are further
classified into a subset of categories including low, medium and high vegetation , buildings, low
point (noise), model key‐point (mass point), water and overlap points (see ASPRS 2010).
2. BASICS
23 / 122
Table 1 shows the ASPRS Standard LiDAR Point Classes and Figure 6 shows two examples of a
classified point cloud.
Classification Value Meaning
0 Created, never classified
1 Unclassified
2 Ground
3 Low Vegetation
4 Medium Vegetation
5 High Vegetation
6 Building
7 Low Point (noise)
8 Model Key‐point (mass point)
9 Water
10 Reserved for ASPRS Definition
11 Reserved for ASPRS Definition
12 Overlap Points
13 ‐ 31 Reserved for ASPRS Definition
Table 1. ASPRS Standard LiDAR Point Classes (source: ASPRS, 2010)
Figure 6. Classified LiDAR Point Cloud [Red = Buildings, Green = Vegetation and Orange = Ground]
(source: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011)
2. BASICS
24 / 122
2.1.4 Digital Terrain Models (DTMs) and Digital Surface Models (DSMs)
In the case of the Styrian LiDAR campaign, LiDAR data were processed to create Digital Terrain
Models (DTMs) and Digital Surface Models (DSMs). DTMs are surfaces created and interpolated
from ground point data. The ground point data are interpolated with different gridding routines
such as simple nearest neighbour or complex kriging techniques. DSMs include any type of surface
representations from bare‐earth data to the surface of high vegetation (see NOAA 2008, p. 7ff.).
For this study these models are visualised as greyscale raster datasets with 1 m resolution and
projected in UTM33N and BMNM31 and M34. DTMs and DSMs can then be used for further
applications such as flood modeling or object mapping. More information about raster data, DTMs
and DSMs, and their applications especially in the case of Geomorphometry, can be read in
HENGL, T. & REUTER H. (Eds), 2009. Geomorphometry ‐ Concepts, Software, Applications. –
Elsevier, Amsterdam and Oxford, 765 p.
2. BASICS
25 / 122
2.2 Landslides
2.2.1 Definition and Classification
Landslides or gravitational mass movements are characterized by a downslope movement of
slope‐forming materials like soil, rock, and other earth materials. Landslides occur from
mountainous regions to areas of low relief (low relief: mostly influenced by human activities). In
contrast to fluvial, glacial, and aeolian processes, a landslide movement is not influenced by a
transport medium such as wind or water, but by the moving power of gravity. Another
characteristic of mass movements is that proximate material is moved collectively and deposited
unsorted (see ZEPP 2008, p. 103ff.). Landslides can be classified according to CRUDEN & VARNES
(1996), by the kind of the involved material (bedrock, soil), the mode of movement (fall, topple,
slide, lateral spread, flow; see Table 2 and Figure 8) and the velocity of movement from extremely
slow (15 mm/year) to extremely rapid (5 m/sec; see CRUDEN & VARNES 1996, p. 36ff.). Furthermore,
the form and character of the moving body is dependent upon the rate of movement, on bedrock
topology, and the content of water, ice and air in the landslide material. Each kind of landslide can
be a combination of the different modes of movement (see CRUDEN & VARNES 1996, p. 36ff.; ZEPP
2008, p. 104ff.; SASSA 2007, p. 3ff.).
Mode of Movement
Type of Material
Bedrock
Soils
coarse (debris) fine (earth)
Falls Rock fall Debris fall Earth fall
Topples Rock topple Debris topple Earth topple
Slides
Rotational
Rock slide
Debris slide
Earth slide Translational
Block Block slide Block slide
Lateral Spreads Rock spread Debris spread Earth spread
Flows Rock flow Debris flow Earth flow
Complex Forms Combination of two or more modes of movement
Table 2. Landslide Classification according to CRUDEN & VARNES, 1996 [grey boxes = in this master’s thesis considered
landslide form]
2. BASICS
26 / 122
Ad Table 2:
Falls are classified as downward, bouncing, or rolling mass denudations located on steeply sloped
or cliff terrain with little or no shear displacement. Topples are landslides with a forward rotation.
Slides are downslope sliding movement out of soil and bedrock. Spreads are fracturing and lateral
extension of coherent rock or soil material due to liquefaction or plastic flow of subjacent
material. Flows are slow to rapid mass movements in saturated materials that advance by viscous
flow, usually following initial sliding movement. Some flows may be bounded by basal and
marginal shear surface but the domain movement of the displaced mass is flowage. Complex
slides (see Figure 7) involves two or more of the main movement types in combination
(see CRUDEN & VARNES 1996, p.36ff.).
2. BASICS
27 / 122
Figure 7. Landslide Classification (source: GEONET, 2011)
2. BASICS
28 / 122
The term “landslide” is too widespread to consider all the different forms in this master's thesis.
Therefore the main focus of this research work is to identify and map sliding movements of soils
and bedrock with the help of airborne LiDAR data.
Slides: “Landslide” is often used only for a downslope‐sliding movement out of bedrock and soil.
Sliding material is separated from more stable underlying material by a distinct zone of weakness
resulting from shear failure. The occurrence of shear failure is dependent on the local soil material
and geology and on modest to steep slopes (about 10 ° to 50 °). The sliding body can vary in shape,
sliding surface, velocity of movement (extremely slow to extremely rapid) and size from only a few
centimetres to some metres. These large mass movements may have sudden catastrophic effects,
which destroy buildings, pipelines, roads or other constructions. Basically, landslides can be
classified into a rotational (see Figure 7), a translational and a block sliding movement (see Figure
7), but hybrid forms are the norm rather than the exception (see SCHWEIZER EIDGENOSSENSCHAFT
2009b).
Rotational Slide (see Figure 7): The slide movement is rotational about an axis parallel to the
ground surface, the contour of the slope and transverse across the slide with an almost vertically
downward movement. The main scarp is curved upward (spoon‐shaped). Under certain
circumstances the displaced and relatively coherent mass may occur with little internal
deformation. The displaced material tilts backwards toward the scarp. Several parallel curved
planes of movements are called a slump. A rotational slide mostly occurs in homogeneous
material (fill material) and moves with a velocity from extremely slow to extremely rapid. Such
landslides can be triggered by intense rainfall or rapid snowmelt. These triggering mechanisms
lead to a saturation of slopes and can increase groundwater levels within the mass (see LANDSLIDE
HAZARDS PROGRAM 2011; VARNES 1984, p. 18ff.).
Translational Slide (see Figure 7): With translational slides, surface‐parallel beds slide along a
roughly planar surface with little rotation or backward tilting. If the surface of rupture is
sufficiently inclined, the slide may progress over considerable distances in contrast to rotational
slides. The material consists of loose, unconsolidated soils or extensive slabs of rock, or both.
Geologic discontinuities (faults, joints, bedding surface, or the contact between rock and soil or
permafrost and soil) are responsible for a failure of translational slides.
2. BASICS
29 / 122
Figure 8. Landslide Body
(source: GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS PROGRAM, 2011)
Translational slides occur globally in all types of environments. The surface of rupture varies
between failures of only a few square meters to several square kilometres in size. Translational
slides may move with a velocity from extremely slow to extremely rapid, but many are moderate
in velocity (1.5 meters per day). These slides may be triggered by intense rainfall, rise in
groundwater level within the slide, snowmelt, flooding, earthquake, leakage from pipes, or by
human activities such as undercutting of slopes. Rapid movements may disintegrate and develop
into a debris flow (see LANDSLIDE HAZARDS PROGRAM 2011; VARNES 1984, p. 18ff.).
Block Slide: A block slide is a translational slide in which the moving mass consists of a single unit
or a few closely related units that move downslope as a relatively coherent mass (see LANDSLIDE
HAZARDS PROGRAM 2011; VARNES 1984, p. 18ff.).
2.2.2 Landslide Body (see Figure 8)
A landslide begins with a slow movement
along a slip face, at which the sliding material
can stay in coherence. Because of a variable
speed of movement the displaced material is
choked. The downslope movement causes a
steep, mostly arc‐like main scarp (called weak
zone) on the undisturbed ground at the upper
edge of the landslide. This scarp is caused by
movement of the displaced material away
from the undisturbed ground. The highest
part of the main scarp is the landslide crown.
The landslide head is between the displaced
material and the main scarp. Differential
movements within the displaced material cause minor scarps. Transverse ridges and radial and
transverse cracks may form at the bottom (i.e. the toe) of the landslide movement. The surface of
rupture is below the original ground surface (existing before the landslide took place).
2. BASICS
30 / 122
This surface forms or has formed, the lower boundary of the displaced material. The main body of
the sliding movement is like a ductile mass of soil and rock material, which moves downslope, has
a concave curvature and accumulates above the original ground surface in less steep areas at the
toe of the surface of rupture. This overlapping landslide mass is called landslide foot or surface of
separation. The farthest point from the top, the highest part of a landslide, is called the tip. The
volume of the displaced material is called depleted mass and overlies the surface of rupture, but
underlies the original ground surface.
The zone of depletion is below the original surface. The volume limited by the main scarp, the
depleted mass and the original ground surface is called depletion. Adjacent to the sides of a sliding
movement are the flanks. The intersection (usually buried) between the lower part of the surface
of rupture of a landslide and the original ground surface is the toe of surface of rupture (see ZEPP
2008, p. 104ff; AHNERT 2009, p. 89; CRUDEN & VARNES 1996, p. 36ff.).
2.2.3 Triggers
Physical Triggers: As previously mentioned, the moving power of landslides is gravity. Gravity
directly effects slope stability and causes complex mass movements with a downslope‐directed,
sliding movement of bed and/or loose‐rock and soil material. The effect of gravity depends on the
slope gradient, because gravitational mass movements occur parallel to a slope, and soil and other
earth materials press down on a slope bed (see AHNERT 2009, p. 83f.).
Slope stability is further affected by a wide variety of environmental conditions and weathering
such as intense rainfalls, rapid snowmelt, rapid drawdown or filling, groundwater, flooding,
earthquakes, and paraglacial or volcanic processes.
Such conditions trigger spontaneous or continuous displacement of masses with a wide range of
possible sliding speed (see ZEPP 2008, p. 104ff.; CRUDEN & VARNES 1996, p. 36ff.).
2. BASICS
31 / 122
Below is a short list of further geological, morphological and anthropogenic triggers of landslides.
Geological Triggers Morphological Triggers Anthropogenic Triggers
weak or sensitive materials
weathered materials
sheared, jointed, or fissured
materials
adversely oriented
discontinuity (bedding,
shistosity, fault,
unconformity, contact, etc.)
contrast in permeability
and/or stiffness of materials
tectonic or volcanic uplift
glacial rebound
fluvial, wave, or glacial
erosion of slope toe or
lateral margins
subterranean erosion
(solution, piping)
deposition loading slope or
its crest
vegetation removal by fire
or drought
thawing
freeze‐and‐thaw weathering
shrink‐and‐swell weathering
excavation of slope or its
toe
loading of slope or its crest
drawdown (of reservoirs)
deforestation, irrigation,
mining, artificial vibration,
water leakage from utilities
Table 3. Landslide Causes (source: LANDSLIDE HAZARDS PROGRAM, 2011)
2. BASICS
32 / 122
2.3 Landslides in the field of LiDAR – State of the Art
During the last decade LiDAR, and especially its application in geomorphology, gain centre stage
more and more. Several different studies all over the world use LiDAR DTMs, more precisely
raster‐based approaches for landslide analysis and landslide mapping.
HOEFLE & RUTZINGER (2011) give a good overview of applications in geomorphology and related
fields using different LiDAR data products, such as Digital Terrain Models or 3D point cloud data.
High‐resolution airborne LiDAR DTMs are used for geomorphological mapping and to delineate
specific geomorphological landforms, like alluvial fans, debris flows, karst formations, or
landslides.
VAN DEN EECKHAUT et al. (2005; 2007; 2011), BOOTH et al. (2009), KASAI et al. (2009) and AMUNDSEN et
al. (2010) use LiDAR to create or update landslide inventory maps of deep‐seated landslides in
Belgium, USA and Japan. To calculate these maps VAN DEN EECKHAUT et al. (2005; 2007; 2011) utilize
LiDAR‐derived hillshade, slope and contour line maps (old landslides under forest). BOOTH et al.
(2009) present two methods of spectral analysis that utilize LiDAR‐derived digital terrain models of
the Puget Sound lowlands in Washington and the Tualatin Mountains in Oregon to classify and
map automatically deep‐seated landslides. KASAI et al. (2009) use the eigenvalue ratio and slope
filters calculated from a very high‐resolution LiDAR‐derived DTM.
SCHULZ (2004; 2007) also uses LiDAR data to visualise mapped landslides, main scarps and denuded
slopes in Seattle. A good base for the further development and improvement for in this master’s
thesis presented ArcGIS semi‐automatic landslide mapping toolbox, is given by the Topographic
Position Index first presented at the ESRI User Conference in San Diego, CA, by WEISS (2001). An
airborne LiDAR examination of the surface morphology of two canyon‐rim landslides in southern
Idaho is presented by GLENN et al. (2006). In the first step the high‐resolution LiDAR data were
used to calculate surface roughness, slope, semi‐variance and fractal dimension. The second step
is to combine these data with historical movement data (GPS and laser theodolite) and field
observations. The results show that high‐resolution LiDAR data have the potential to differentiate
morphological components within a landslide and provide an insight into the material type and
activity of the sliding movement. MCKEAN & ROERING (2004) use high‐resolution LiDAR DTMs to
characterise a large landslide complex and surrounding terrain near Christchurch, New Zealand by
utilizing the topographic roughness, also known as the variance of aspect.
2. BASICS
33 / 122
MINER et al. (2010) chose an interesting approach to apply airborne LiDAR data to recognise
landslides and erosion with GIS analysis in Australia. MCKENNA et al. (2008) show, as well, that
DTMs derived from LiDAR data express topographic details sufficiently well with the help of slope,
shaded‐relief and contour maps to identify landslides even under densely forested terrain.
Another important paper was. EXTRAKTION GEOLOGISCH RELEVANTER STRUKTUREN AUF RÜGEN IN
LASERSCANNER‐DATEN by NIEMEYER et al. (2010). This approach for an automatic detection of terrain
edges is integrated in the ArcGIS landslide mapping toolbox. Another deep‐seated rockslides,
earth slides, and earth flows mapping technique by using LiDAR‐derived DTMs is presented in
CORSINI et al. (2009). DTMs were used to produce shaded‐relief and roughness maps, which allow
outlining rock‐slide units and sub‐units at the slope scale, a definition of the curvature fingerprint
and a derivation of elevation maps to detect areas of accumulation and depletion.
The following list of papers and articles were used as background for this master’s thesis and as an
input for the creation of the semi‐automatic ArcGIS landslide mapping toolbox.
Journal / Report N° Author(s) Year Title
Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
32 M. Van Den Eeckhaut, J. Poesen, G. Verstraeten, V. Vanacker, J. Nyssen, J. Moeyersons, L. P. H. van Beek and L. Vandekerckhove
2007 Use of LIDAR‐derived images for mapping old landslides under forest
Engineering Geology
89
W.H. Schulz 2007 Landslide susceptibility revealed by LIDAR imagery and historical records, Seattle, Washington
ESRI User Conference, San Diego, CA
‐ A. Weiss 2001 Topographic Position and Landforms Analysis
Geomorphology 109 A.M. Booth, J.J. Roering and J.T. Perron
2009 Automated landslide mapping using spectral analysis and high‐resolution topographic data: Puget Sound lowlands, Washington, and Portland Hills, Oregon
Geomorphology 113 M. Kasai, M. Ikeda, T. Asahina and K. Fujisawa
2009 LiDAR‐derived DEM evaluation of deep‐seated landslides in a steep and rocky region of Japan
Geomorphology 73 N.F. Glenn, D.R. Streutker, D.J. Chadwick, G.D. Thackray and S.J. Dorsch
2006 Analysis of LiDAR‐derived topographic information for characterizing and differentiating landslide morphology and activity
2. BASICS
34 / 122
Journal / Report N° Author(s) Year Title
Geomorphology 67 M. Van Den Eeckhaut, J. Poesen, G. Verstraeten, V. Vanacker, J. Moeyersons, J. Nyssen and L.P.H. van Beek
2005 The effectiveness of hillshade maps and expert knowledge in mapping old deep‐seated landslides
Geomorphology 57 J. McKean and J. Roering 2004 Objective landslide detection and surface morphology mapping using high‐resolution airborne laser altimetry
Quaternary Research
75 M. Van Den Eeckhaut, J. Poesen, F. Gullentops, L. Vandekerckhofe and J. Hervás
2011 Regional mapping and characterization of old landslides in hilly regions using LiDAR‐based imagery in Southern Flanders
University of Wollongong Research Online
A. S. Miner, P. Flentje, C. Mazengarb, D. J. Windle
2010 Landslide Recognition using LiDAR derived Digital Elevation Models‐Lessons learnt from selected Australian examples
U.S. Geological Survey Open‐File Report
1396 W.H. Schulz 2004 Landslides mapped using LIDAR imagery, Seattle, Washington
U.S. Geological Survey Open‐File Report
1292 J. P. McKenna, D. J. Lidke and J.A. Coe
2008 Landslides Mapped from LIDAR Imagery, Kitsap County, Washington
Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie
55 B. Hoefle and M. Rutzinger 2011 Topographic airborne LiDAR in geomorphology: A technological perspective
‐ ‐ J. Niemeyer, F. Rottensteiner, F. Kühn and U. Soergel
2010 Extraktion geologisch relevanter Strukturen auf Rügen in Laserscanner‐Daten
‐ ‐ A. Corsini , F. Cervi, A. Daehne, F. Ronchetti and L. Borgatti
2009 Coupling geomorphic field observation and LiDAR derivatives to map complex landslide
‐ ‐ J. Amundsena, S. Johnsona, K. Rousea, and H. Wangb
2010 Using LiDAR‐derived DEM’s to delineate and characterize landslides in Northern Kentucky and Hamilton County, Ohio
Table 4. List of papers and articles of a raster based application of LiDAR data in the field of landslide analysis and
mapping (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011)
3. STUDY AREAS
35 / 122
3. STUDY AREAS
3.1 General Settings
Two main study areas in Spielberg bei Knittelfeld and Wald am Schoberpass (Province of Styria,
Republic of Austria) were chosen.
Table 5 shows the geographical position of these areas in UTM‐33N projection. The reasons for
selecting these areas are based on the availability of high‐resolution, LiDAR derived DTMs with less
noises and artefacts. In these regions brisk landslide activities can be found partly below dense
forest cover, as well as anthropogenic structures. These zones of agriculture and tourism, ancient
mining areas and archaeological sites that affect the terrain surface complicate the semi‐
automatic landslide mapping process.
Geographical Position
Spatial Reference Geographical Extent
Study Area 1 Study Area 2
UTM‐33N
Left
Top
Bottom
Right
481628.36
5231534.76
5230308.35
482853.59
475269.97
5257671.14
5255541.02
476315.10
Table 5. Geographical position of the study areas (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION)
3. STUDY AREAS
36 / 122
3.1.1 Geographical Position
Figure 9. Relief image of the Province of Styria, the red polygons show the two study areas in Spielberg bei Knittelfeld
[left image] and Wald am Schoberpass [right image] (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION)
Figure 9 shows the location of the study areas in Spielberg bei Knittelfeld (Study Area 1) and Wald
am Schoberpass (Study Area 2). Study area 1 is located in an inner alpine basin, called Aichfelder
Becken, on the south brink of the Niedere Tauern (Central Alps) and Study Area 2 is situated in a
small tributary valley of the Liesingtal in the Eisenerzer Alpen. Both areas are in the Province of
Styria, Republic of Austria.
Study Area 1 characterizes for lower mountain regions, while Study Area 2 exemplifies high
mountain regions in Styria.
GRAZ
3. STUDY AREAS
37 / 122
Study Area 1, Spielberg bei Knittelfeld (see Figure 10) ‐ a short overview: Study Area 1 extends to
an area of 1 km². About 80% of the area is covered by vegetation. The elevation is between 713
and 1087 m a.s.l. and the slope gradient is between 0 and 67° (see Table 6).
Study Area 1 is chosen as an example for a low mountain region in the Province of Styria with a
gentle terrain surface. As part of the Aichfelder Becken, a popular ancient mining area, old mining
signs and archaeological sites affect the terrain surface and complicate the landslide mapping
process.
Study Area 2, Wald am Schoberpass (see Figure 11) ‐ a short overview: Study Area 2 extends to
an area of 2 km². About 70% of the whole area is covered by vegetation. The elevation is between
860 and 1590 m a.s.l. and the slope gradient is between 0 and 86° (see Table 6). Study Area 2 is
chosen as an example for a high mountain region in Styria with a very rough terrain surface and
steep slopes. A giant landslide affects the whole study area of 2 km². In this case, ski‐tourism
affects the terrain surface as well.
Area
[km²]
Elevation [m]
Slope [°]
Forest
Cover [%]
Min Max Mean Min Max Mean
Study Area 1
1.00
713.49
1087.48
846.99
0.01
66.90
20.99
80
Study Area 2
2.00
860.08
1589.59
1157.04
0.00
85.44
25.26
70
Table 6. List of important parameters of the two study areas (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S
ADAPTATION)
3. STUDY AREAS
38 / 122
Figure 10. Study Area 1, Spielberg bei Knittelfeld ‐ LiDAR DTM [left image] and DSM [right image]
(data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION)
Figure 11. Study Area 2, Wald am Schoberpass ‐ LiDAR DTM [left image] and DSM [right image]
(data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION)
3. STUDY AREAS
39 / 122
3.2 Geology and Soils
According to the GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF AUSTRIA, the high situated regions of Study Area 1 belong to
the Sheet Gravel of the Middle East Alpine (Crystalline of the Flatschacher Range; see Figure 12,
upper image). Lower regions near the hillside toe are dominated by younger deposits of the
Quaternary and the Tertiary, but the ratio of materials of the Quaternary is insignificant. The
border zone of the Tertiary is a common area for landslide activities (see GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF
AUSTRIA 2011). Gley and slope gley soils dominate in the lower parts of Study Area 1. In between
are loose sediments (see Figure 12, lower image).
According to the GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF AUSTRIA, Sheet Gravel of the Middle and the Upper East
Alpine dominate the Geology of Study Area 2. Old (phyllite) and young Palaeozoic rocks
(sandstones and carbonate) dominate this region. Debris materials of the Quaternary (see Figure
13, left image) can be found in the lower zone of the area (see GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF AUSTRIA 2011).
Decreased stability as a result of macerated phyllites can cause landslide activities. Soil form
complexes and coloured local soils are the dominant soils between forested areas. In between are
loose sediments, rendzina and slope soils (see Figure 13, right image; see BMLFUW & BFW 2009).
3. STUDY AREAS
40 / 122
Legend
(G) Gley Soil
(HG) Slope Gley Soil
(LB) Loose Sediment ‐ Brown Calcareous Soil
(PU) Grade Soil (Planieboden)
Forest
Water Bodies
Not Mapped Area
Figure 12. Geology [upper] and soil maps [lower image] of Study Area 1, Spielberg bei Knittelfeld
(sources: GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF AUSTRIA, 2011 AND BMLFUW & BFW, 2009)
3. STUDY AREAS
41 / 122
Legend
(FU) Coloured Local Soils
(LB) Loose Sediment ‐ Brown Calcareous Soil
(K) Soil Form Complex
(R) Rendzina Soil + Slope Soil
Forest
Water Bodies
Not Mapped Area
Figure 13. Geology [left] and soil maps [right] of Study Area 2, Wald am Schoberpass
(sources: GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF AUSTRIA, 2011 AND BMLFUW & BFW, 2009)
3. STUDY AREAS
42 / 122
3.3 Vegetation, Land Use and Climate
Study Area 1 in Spielberg bei Knittelfeld is part of the climatic region “Knittelfeld‐Judenburger‐
Becken mit Seitentälern im Südosten”. This region is bounded by the Mur basin from Judenburg to
Preg and its tributary valleys. The continental large valley climate is relatively arid in winter with
little snow. The mean annual precipitation is 842 mm\m². High fog in autumn and winter affect
the relative sunshine duration negatively. The low mean temperatures of ‐5.8°C in January, of
16.2°C in July and an annual average temperature of 6.3°C confirm a continental climate. There
exists an increased tendency to temperature inversion because of the large valley exposure. The
coldest areas in this region are the valley floodplains, where about 165 days of the year exhibit
winter conditions while only 34 days per year exhibit typical summer conditions. The majority of
Study Area 1 is coniferous forest (spruces), which is intersected by numerous forest roads. In
between are small mixed forest areas (see Figure 14) with beech and birch trees.
Study Area 2 in Wald am Schoberpass is part of the climate region “Liesingtal”. The Liesingtal
together with its tributary valleys is an inner alpine valley depression bounded by the Schoberpass
in the north to the Seckauer Tauern in the west and the Eisenerzer Alpen in the east. The climate is
cold in winter, moderate warm in summer, with decreasing temperatures in the northward
direction; there is also potential for high fog and temperature inversion, less snow, reduced
sunshine duration because of the high fog and a dominance of down‐valley winds (see LUIS 2011).
Mixed and coniferous forest is the dominant vegetation of Study Area 2. Coniferous forest is in the
upper part of the area as well as small moorland (see Figure 15). Pasture land can be found within
the range of the hillside toe. A settlement area is in the valley (see Figure 15; see LUIS 2011 and GIS
STYRIA 2012).
3. STUDY AREAS
43 / 122
Figure 14. Study Area 1, Spielberg bei Knittelfeld –RGB [left] and CIR orthophotos [right]
(source: GIS STYRIA, 2012)
Figure 15. Study Area 2, Wald am Schoberpass –RGB [left] and CIR orthophotos [right]
(source: GIS STYRIA, 2012)
4. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – THEORETICAL PART
44 / 122
4. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – THEORETICAL PART
4.1 Software Description
The ArcGIS 10.0 Package, the newest GIS software by ESRI, with 3D‐Analyst and Spatial Analyst
Extensions was utilised for the semi‐automatic landslide mapping process. The ArcGIS
environment provides good tools for GIS modeling, for land surface analysis and for the detection
of geomorphological structures like landslides. The LP360 Extensions of QCoherent is used as a
backbone tool for the LiDAR data integration to GIS – Databases as well as for special treatment of
the original point cloud data and for the creation of DTMs and DSMs with 1 m resolution. With the
help of Python, a powerful, simple and open source scripting language of the 1990s, complex
workflows and new geoprocessing tools can be implemented in the GIS‐Software.
4.1.1 ArcGIS and Extensions (ESRI)
The Environmental System Research Institute, Inc., or
ESRI was founded in 1969 in Redlands, California by Jack
Dangermond (Harvard Laboratory for Computer Graphics
and Spatial Analysis) and his wife. In 1982 ARC/INFO, the
first commercial GIS, was released. Vector Data (points,
line and polygons) were combined with a data
management system for assigning attributes to these
features. Raster Data were not considered during this
time. In the late 1990s the GIS platform ArcGIS was
developed (see ESRI 2011).
ArcGIS is the umbrella term for a product line of different, but complementary GIS software
products, a desktop (ArcGIS Desktop, ArcGIS Engine, ArcGIS Explorer), a server (ArcGIS Server,
ArcGIS Server Image), and an online and a mobile GIS (ArcPad) (see Figure 16). The software
package is used to edit, demonstrate, model, analyse and digitise GIS Raster and Vector Data (see
ESRI 2011).
Figure 16. ArcGIS product line (source: ESRI, 2011)
4. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – THEORETICAL PART
45 / 122
ArcGIS Spatial Analyst Extension is used to model and analyse spatial relationships of raster data
and to execute complex raster calculations (see ESRI 2011).
ArcGIS 3D Analyst Extension allows the comprehension of the third dimension and is excellent for
analysing and modelling raster data such as 3D LiDAR Digital Terrain and Surface Models
(see ESRI 2011).
4.1.2 LP360 for ArcGIS
LP360 (see Figure 17) is a LiDAR software extension for the ArcGIS environment developed by
QCoherent (Colorado Springs, Colorado), released in August 2006 and is designed for LiDAR point
clouds. The data format utilized is the LAS format by the American Society of Photogrammetry and
Remote Sensing, in short ASPRS, which integrates LiDAR point cloud datasets completely into
ArcGIS and can be combined with different data formats supported by ArcGIS. The LP360
Extension is used to calculate elevation corrections, import and export LiDAR data, generate point
cloud statistics and to employ basic classification filters, height filters, building point classification,
building outlines and macro filter stacks. A further advantage is to display both, a 3D and a profile
view of the point cloud. It is possible to export LAS data into multipoints, which include, for
example, information about the classification, the intensity or the return number (see QCOHERENT
2011).
Figure 17. LP360 surface (source: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011)
4. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – THEORETICAL PART
46 / 122
4.1.3 Python
Python (named after the comedian‐group Monty Python), is remarkably powerful and dynamic
open‐source scripting language developed during the 1990’s. Python has a large and
comprehensive standard library and a very clear syntax. The most important component of this
master’s thesis is that this scripting language can be implemented in ArcGIS geoprocessing
workflows, which means new scripts written in Python can be integrated in ArcGIS as new and
powerful tools.
In this research Python was used for creating a semi‐automatic landslide mapping toolbox in the
ArcGIS 10.0 environment (see PYTHON 2012)
For a better insight into Python and its applications go to either www.python.org (January, 5th,
2012) or http://openbook.galileocomputing.de/python/ (January, 5th, 2012).
4.2 Data
The main dataset used in this work is a LiDAR Digital Terrain Model with a 1 m resolution.
Additionally vector data (streets, streams, buildings, etc.) were integrated in the landslide
detection process.
4.2.1 LiDAR Data
LiDAR point cloud data (see Figure 18), adjusted with a First‐/‐Last‐Pulse proceeding and with a
vertical accuracy of ±15 cm and a positional accuracy of ±40 cm were collected of the Province of
Styria, an area of about 16,000 km² with scanners of Riegl GmbH and IMUs of IGImgH carried by a
helicopter (see Table 7; see STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN 2011).
Equipment Type
Laserscanner LMS‐Q560 / 200kHz
LMS‐Q560 / 240 kHz
LMS‐Q680i / 240 kHz
IMU IMU‐2D / 256 Hz
IMU‐2E / 256 Hz
Table 7. Main equipment of the Styrian LiDAR – campaign (source: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011)
4. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – THEORETICAL PART
47 / 122
Raw data were geo‐referenced to UTM‐33N with ellipsoidical heights referred to ETRS89. Output
data were geo‐referenced to BMN‐M31/BMN‐M34 with orthometric heights referred to the geoid.
In this master’s thesis the UTM‐33N dataset was used for executing the semi‐automatic landslide
mapping tool and for mapping landslides manually (see STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN 2011).
Point cloud data were classified into 7 classes as specified with the ASPRS‐LAS Data Format
Description: multiple echo and outlier, ground, canopy > 0.5 m to 3 m, canopy > 3 m, buildings and
bridges, cables and non‐classifiable points, and water (see STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN 2011).
The ALS data were processed to create Digital Terrain Models (DTM) out of ALS ground points and
Digital Surface Models (DSM) out of the adjusted first echo ALS data with a 1m resolution. The
mean point‐density above 2000 m a.s.l. is 2 points/m² and the mean point density below 2000 m
a.s.l. is 4 points/m². The existence of snow, ice and water caused artefacts and quality loss. The
quality of the DTM depends on the precision of post processing of LiDAR data and on the quality of
error and artefact elimination, as well as systematic errors and noise or random errors during the
process of generating DTMs. Noise in a DTM causes fuzziness of terrain edges and limits detailed
analyses. Further factors, which influenced the quality of a DTM for later analysis, are the
roughness of the land surface, the sampling density, the grid resolution, the gridding algorithm
and the vertical resolution (see NELSON et al. 2009, p. 65ff.).
Figure 18. Classified LiDAR Point Cloud [Red = Buildings, Green = Vegetation and Orange = Ground] (source: STYRIAN
LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011)
4. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – THEORETICAL PART
48 / 122
4.2.2 Vector Data
In addition to ALS data, vector datasets maintained by the Geoinformation Office (GIS) of the
Province of Styria and geo‐referenced in UTM‐33N were used (see Table 8).
These data were used for the manual landslide mapping process, for better visualisations of
special topics like geology or soils and they were partly integrated in the semi‐automatic landslide
mapping tool for improving the results.
Shape Name Feature Type Actuality Organisation Content
Archaeological
Sites
Polygon 2011‐12‐19 Mag. Susanne Tiefengraber (Part of her
graduate thesis)
Archaeological Sites of Styria
CORINE_CLC2000 Polygon 2006‐1124 Umweltbundesamt GmbH Corine Landcover of Styria
Gebäude
(Kataster)
Polygon 2010‐02‐03 Bundesamt für Eich‐ und
Vermessungswesen (BEV) Wien
Building mask of Styria
Geologie
1:50.000
Polygon 1986‐07‐01 Provincial Government of Styria ‐ Board
of Works, Geoinformation Staff Office
Geology of Styria (scale 1:50.000)
gew Line 2010‐05‐04 Provincial Government of Styria, FA19B
‐ Schutzwasserwirtschaft und
Bodenwasserhaushalt
Stream Network of Styria
GIP‐ROUTE Line 2011‐01‐17 Provincial Government of Styria, FA18A
‐ Gesamtverkehr und Projektierung
Street Network of Styria
wilbezg Polygon 2009‐10‐07 Provincial Government of Styria, A16
Landes‐ und Gemeindeentwicklung
Torrent Catchment Areas of
Styria
Table 8. In this thesis main used vector data (source: GIS STYRIA, 2012)
4. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – THEORETICAL PART
49 / 122
4.3 Land Surface Parameters
The main issue with extraction of any geomorphological structure is Geomorphometry, the science
of quantitative land‐surface analysis, land‐surface modeling and land‐surface parameterisation.
This field is defined as the numerical characterization of topographic forms. The operational focus
is the extraction of different land‐surface parameters and structures out of square‐grid
representations of the surface with mathematical, statistical and image processing methods.
Those representations are DTMs. The used DTMs with a 1 m resolution are a simple raster dataset
showing the height of the surface a.s.l. (see NELSON et al. 2009, p. 65 ff.; SCHMIDT & DIKAU 1999, p.
153 ff.). Land surfaces are divided and classified into different landform elements at a given scale
or spatial resolution. These elements are delineated by topographic discontinuities and should,
ideally, be characterized by mostly uniform morphometry.
In Geographic Information Systems, landform elements are characterised by different vector‐
features such as polygons, lines and points. They can be recognised regardless of scale and type of
terrain and are grouped by a finite number of morphologically important points i.e. the following
surface‐specific elements: pits, peaks, ridge lines, course lines, passes and break lines.
Geomorphometric or land surface parameters describe the local morphology. These parameters
can be derived directly from a DTM without further knowledge of an area and they are classified
into local (geometric and statistical) and regional parameters.
In Geomorphometry basic parameters such as slope, aspect and curvature and local statistical
parameters such as roughness, range or variance of slope, skewness and kurtosis coefficient
describe the local morphology. Moreover, hydrological (flow accumulation, flow direction, etc.)
and climatic parameters (e.g. average annual precipitation) are considered in land surface analysis.
The most common parameters of regional relief are catchment area, flow‐path length, slope
length and proximity to local streams and ridges (see NELSON et al. 2009, p. 65ff.; SCHMIDT & DIKAU
1999, p. 153 ff.).
In the following paragraphs the most important land surface parameters for landslide extraction
and mapping are described in brief. All of the images depicted on the following pages resulted
from an analysis of Study Area 1.
Geomorphometric parameter calculation formulas are not quoted in this thesis, they can be found
in HENGL (2009). Both the ArcGIS Spatial Analyst and 3D Analyst extensions can be used to
calculate the following land surface parameters (see ARCGIS DESKTOP 10.0 HELP 2011).
4. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – THEORETICAL PART
50 / 122
4.3.1 Hillshade
By determining illumination values for each cell in a raster the hypothetical illumination is shown.
The grey scale hillshade map consists of integer values from 0 to 255. The angular direction of the
sun is called azimuth. It is measured from north in clockwise degrees from 0 to 360 °. The slope or
angle of the illumination source above the horizon is called altitude (see Figure 19). The scale is
from 0 to 90° degrees (see OLAYA 2009, p. 141ff.; ARCGIS DESKTOP 10.0 HELP 2011). The hillshade
map shows a good image of the terrain and movements in the terrain, which support manual
landslide mapping.
Figure 19. Hillshade [left] and slope images [right] of Study Area 1 (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S
ADAPTATION)
4.3.2 Slope
The parameter slope or gradient describes the steepness, grade, alternatively the incline of the
terrain (see Figure 19). The tool calculates the maximum rate of change in value from each cell of a
raster surface with a 3 x 3 cell neighbourhood with an average maximum technique (see OLAYA
2009, p. 141ff.; ARCGIS DESKTOP 10.0 HELP 2011). Rapid changes in terrain are possible signs for
landslides. The slope map supports a manual landslide mapping process. Steep slopes are
visualised by lighter grey colours, plane slope by darker grey colours.
Value of slope [°]
High : 67
Low : 0
4. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – THEORETICAL PART
51 / 122
4.3.3 Variance of Slope
Variance of slope (see Figure 20) in a certain search area can point out abrupt changes in
inclination (see OLAYA 2009, p. 141ff.). The variance of slope map supports an automatic location
of abrupt changes in slope. High values with lighter grey colours point out these abrupt changes.
Figure 20. Variance of slope [left] and aspect images ([right] of Study Area 1 (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011)
4.3.4 Aspect
The slope direction or the downslope direction of the maximum rate of change in value from each
cell to its neighbours is named aspect (see Figure 20). The compass direction, measured clockwise
in degree from 0 ° to 360 °, is indicated by the value of each cell in the output raster. The value of
‐1 is an indicator for a totally flat area. The direction a cell’s slope faces is indicated by the value of
each cell in an aspect dataset (see OLAYA 2009, p. 141ff.; ARCGIS DESKTOP 10.0 HELP 2011). Smooth
areas have similar aspects in a neighbourhood of cells, while rough areas exhibit a strong diversity
of orientations within a neighbourhood of cells.
Value of variance of slope
High : 21
Low : 0
4. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – THEORETICAL PART
52 / 122
4.3.5 Variance of Aspect
Variance of aspect demarcates rough areas with a diversity of orientations (see Figure 21). The
variance of aspect map points out anomalies and variability in terrain surface, which are visualised
by high values with lighter grey colours.
Figure 21. Variance of aspect [left] and vertical curvature images [right] of Study Area 1 (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR
CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION)
4.3.6 Curvature
Curvature describes the concavity and convexity of the surface (see Figure 21). Vertical and
horizontal curvature can be used to distinguish convex and concave shapes (see OLAYA 2009,
p. 141ff.; ARCGIS DESKTOP 10.0 HELP 2011). 1/R of a plane curve is the inverse radius R of a circle that
is best fitted to this curve at a given point. R > 0 (black) indicates a convex surface, R < 0 (white) a
concave one. Convergence is indicated by concave horizontal curvature, while divergence of flow
lines is indicated by convex horizontal curvature. A convex vertical curvature can be a signal of a
landslide scarp or of an acceleration of flow.
Value of variance of aspect
High : 178
Low : 1
Value of vertical curvature
High : 321
Low : -224
4. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – THEORETICAL PART
53 / 122
4.3.7 Roughness
Terrain roughness is a measure of the terrain complexity, which means variation in the three‐
dimensional orientation of grid cells within a defined neighbourhood (see Figure 24). Vector
analysis is used to calculate the dispersion of vectors normal (orthogonal) to grid cells within the
specified neighbourhood. This method effectively captures variability in slope and aspect into a
single measure (see SAPPINGTON et al. 2007, p. 1419ff.). Roughness raster values can range from 0
(no terrain variation) to 1 (complete terrain variation). For instance streets or buildings have a
smooth surface in contrast to vegetation, which typifies a rough surface. A rough surface can be
an indicator for landslide events. The method to calculate the terrain roughness was adapted from
the Vector Ruggedness Measure by SAPPINGTON et al. (2007).
Figure 22. Roughness image [left] and contour lines [left] of Study Area 1 (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011,
AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION)
4.3.8 Contour Lines
Contour lines or isolines connect cells of equal values in a raster dataset (see Figure 22). Contour
lines are used to represent continuous phenomena such as elevation, temperature (isotherms),
precipitation (isohyets), pollution or atmospheric pressure (isobars; see ARCGIS DESKTOP 10.0 HELP
2011). Closer lines indicate a rapid fall or rise of values, while lines that are spaced farther apart
indicate little changes.
contours (2 meter interval)
Value of roughness
High : 0
Low : 4
4. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – THEORETICAL PART
54 / 122
4.4 Triangular Irregular Network (TIN)
Triangular irregular networks (TINs) are used to represent surface morphology as a form of vector‐
based digital geographic data (see Figure 23). TINs are constructed by triangulating a set of
vertices (points) that are connected with a series of edges to form a network of triangles. The
Delaunay triangulation interpolation is supported by the ArcGIS workspace. Contiguous, non‐
overlapping triangular facets are formed by the edges of TINs, which can be used to capture the
position of linear features that play an important role in a surface, such as ridgelines or stream
courses (see ARCGIS DESKTOP 10.0 HELP 2011). Triangular irregular networks support a manual
landslide mapping.
Figure 23. TIN [upper image] and TIN 3D Model of Study Area 1 [lower image] (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN,
2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION)
4. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – THEORETICAL PART
55 / 122
4.5 Topographic Position Index
The Topographic Position Index (TPI) Tool is part of the Land Facet Corridor Designer to design
wildlife linkages in the face of impending climate change by JENNESS et al. (2011), and was first
described by WEISS (2001) at the ESRI International User Conference.
The TPI is used to classify a landscape into topographic positions (ridge top, mid‐slope, etc.) and
landform categories (canyons, valleys, etc.) based on the selected scale (see Figure 24). Smaller
neighbourhood sizes capture small and local structures, while large neighbourhoods capture large‐
scale features (see Figure 24). The code for the TPI tool was slightly altered to adapt it to the
demands of this master’s thesis (see JENNESS et al. 2011, p. 45ff.).
Figure 24. Slope Position Classification at different scales (source: JENNESS et al., 2011, p. 45ff.)
4. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – THEORETICAL PART
56 / 122
4.5.1 TPI Elevation
The TPI elevation (see Figure 25, left image) is the difference between a cell elevation value and
the average elevation of neighbourhood around that cell. If the cell is higher than its surroundings,
it is visualised by a positive value, while negative values mean that the cell is lower. For example
the value 10 means that the cell is 10 meters higher than the average elevation of the
neighbourhood (see JENNESS et al. 2011, p. 49). The TPI standardized elevation (see Figure 25, right
image) takes the TPI and divides it by the Neighbourhood Standard Deviation, which means that a
value of 1 means that this cell is 1 standard deviation higher than the average elevation of the
neighbourhood (see JENNESS et al. 2011, p. 49). The TPI standardized elevation image below shows
a classified “Terrain Surface Changes” raster dataset (brown = cells lower than the average
indicate a decreasing; green = cells higher than the average indicate an increasing).
For this master’s thesis the TPI Elevation raster is used to extract stream lines out of the high‐
resolution LiDAR Digital Terrain Model and to detect movements in the terrain surface
(landslides).
Figure 25. TPI elevation [left] and TPI standardized elevation images [right] of Study Area 1 (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR
CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION)
Value of TPI DTM standardized elevation
High : 3
Low : -3
4. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – THEORETICAL PART
57 / 122
4.5.2 TPI Slope
The TPI slope (see Figure 26, left image) is the difference between a cell slope value and the
average slope of neighbourhood around that cell. For example higher values mean that it is likely
near or at the top of a hill or a ridge, lower values suggest the cell is at or near the bottom of a
valley (see JENNESS et al. 2011, p. 49). TPI standardized slope (see Figure 26, right image) takes the
TPI and divides it by the Neighbourhood Standard Deviation, where a value of 1 means that this
cell is 1 standard deviation higher than the average elevation of the neighbourhood (upper image)
(see JENNESS et al. 2011, p. 49). The TPI standardized slope image below shows a classified
“Landform Categories” raster dataset (valleys, lower slopes, upper slopes and ridges).
For this master’s thesis the TPI Slope raster is used to extract forest roads out of the high‐
resolution LiDAR Digital Terrain Model and to detect ridges in the terrain surface (landslide main
scarps).
Figure 26. TPI slope [left] and TPI standardized slope images [right] of Study Area 1 (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN,
2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION)
Value of TPI slope standardized elevation
High : 5
Low : -5
4. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – THEORETICAL PART
58 / 122
4.6 SMORPH Landslide Risk Model
The slope morphology matrix (SMORPH) by SHAW & JOHNSON (1995) is formed by the slope gradient
and the horizontal curvature (convex, concave and planar) and classifies the area into low,
medium and high landslide risk areas (see Figure 27).
For this master’s thesis medium landslide risk areas are also an indicator for drainage lines, which
facilitate the detection of landslides as well.
Figure 27. Smorph image of Study Area 1 (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION)
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
59 / 122
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
This part is the main and most important part of this master’s thesis. Months of intense fieldwork
contributed to this chapter. It has to be stressed that the bulk of this practical work is developed
on the author’s own, apart from the “Edge Detection Tool” adapted from the paper EXTRAKTION
GEOLOGISCH RELEVANTER STRUKTUREN AUF RÜGEN IN LASERSCANNER‐DATEN by Joachim Niemeyer, Franz
Rottensteiner, Friedrich Kühn and Uwe Sörgel (2010), the “TPI Tool” adapted from the “Landfacet
Corridor Tool” from Jeff Jenness (Jenness Enterprises, Arizona, USA) and the “Roughness Tool”
adapted from the “Vector Ruggedness Measure” python script by Mark Sappington. A written
agreement for using alternatively adapting these tools in the author’s practical work were given by
mail by DI Joachim Niemeyer (University of Hannover), Jeff Jenness (Jenness Enterprises, Arizona,
USA) and Mark Sappington (Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Nevada, USA).
Furthermore it has to be mentioned that the semi‐automatic landslide mapping tool underlies a
continuous improvement process and is a result of a loop system, where verified and manually
mapped landslides are not only used for testing, but also for improving the semi‐automatic
landslide mapping process.
In the next chapters the three work steps (manual landslide mapping, verification, and semi‐
automatic landslide mapping) of a possible landslide mapping workflow are described. The semi‐
automatic landslide mapping chapter will give a short insight in the creation of an ArcGIS landslide
mapping toolbox.
Empiricism and to acquaint oneself with LiDAR, DTMs and land surface parameter images are the
most important instruments used for landslide mapping in this master’s thesis.
Any values and techniques used in chapter 5 underlie empirical research work of the author.
Anybody, who is interested in the toolbox and wants to use or adapt the landslide tools in its own
work, may write a mail to niki.kamp@gmail.com.
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
60 / 122
5.1 Manual Landslide Mapping
Due to the fact that there exists no useable landslide vector dataset for the study areas in
Spielberg bei Knittelfeld and Wald am Schoberpass, the author has identified and mapped
characteristic landslide features like main scarps and landslide areas on her own by using and
analysing land surface parameter images and other maps described in chapters 4.3 to 4.6.
These manually mapped landslide features are verified by doing field work and by consulting
experts, which are described in chapter 5.2. A tool for calculating land surface parameters are
described in chapter 5.3 as well.
The manually mapped landslide vector datasets are used:
to get verification datasets for the landslide features, which are automatically mapped by
the ArcGIS landslide mapping toolbox,
to find out the workability and applicability of semi‐automatic landslide mapping and
to improve the semi‐automatic tool with the knowledge acquired about the study areas,
the land surface parameters and the existing landslides in these areas.
In the following chapter a rough overview of a manual landslide mapping workflow is given.
5.1.1 Manual Landslide Mapping Workflow
It is important to mention at this point that a special knowledge about a region or study area is not
obligatory to identify and map landslide features in LiDAR DTMs and a familiarity with LiDAR and
LiDAR DTMs and further ability to modify them are indispensable. As this thesis describes a
method for mapping actual and not potential landslide areas, other landslide parameters like
anthropogenic factors, geological, hydrological, hydro‐geological and vegetation parameters were
not considered in the manual and semi‐automatic mapping process. That means that further
information about a region can be neglected during a manual mapping process. Such information
negatively affect and influence the analysis than facilitate a manual landslide mapping. For
example the LiDAR DTM with 1 m resolution is too detailed as to compare it with the excessively
generalised geological map 1:50.000 of Styria (BEV), which means that it is often not conformed to
the actual geology.
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
61 / 122
But nevertheless further geological, hydrological, hydro‐geological and vegetation information can
be used to verify manually mapped landslides (see chapter 5.2).
The first step for the manual mapping of landslides is to acquaint oneself with a region by studying
the land surface parameter images such as hillshade, slope, variance of slope, variance of aspect,
curvature, roughness and the contour lines, roughness and topographic position index maps and
the TIN (see Figures 29 and Figure 30 and chapter 4.3 to 4.6). These images allow an outlining of
different landslide features like scarps, areas of accumulation, transverse ridges and cracks, radial
cracks, landslide tongues or surface of ruptures (see Figure 28, left image).
In a second step, different land surface parameter images are consulted to draw landslide main
scraps and landslide areas. A comparison of a schematic landslide sketch and a profile view of a
landslide body (see Figure 28, right image) with diverse land surface parameter images
(see chapter 4.3 to 4.6) lists the different adaptability of the parameter maps in regard to landslide
features like main scarps or landslide areas and shows the visibility of landslide features in these
maps (see Table 9).
In a third step the manually mapped landslide features are verified by doing field work and
consulting experts in geology and geomorphology (see chapter 5.2).
Main scarps and sometimes also minor scarps and flanks are the best visible and best distinctive
parts of landslide surfaces. For this reason these features can also be detected automatically out
of a LiDAR DTMs with 1 m resolution (see chapter 5.3).
Figure 28. Schematic landslide sketch [left] and schematic profile view of a landslide [right] (source of left image:
GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS PROGRAM, 2011 and source of right image: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION)
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
62 / 122
Slope, variance of slope, curvature and contour lines indicate rapid variance in terrain like main
and minor scarps, cracks and ridges and concave and convex edges best. Hillshade, slope, variance
of slope and roughness maps allow an outlining of the whole landslide area. Slope and variance of
slope indicate a flattening area best. The profile view helps with verifying the landslide surface.
A big challenge is posed by old, marked landslides – an expert eye can see old landslides in
hillshade, slope and contour line maps, but an automatic outlining of these features is almost
impossible, because of the smooth surface of such landslides. Moreover it is important to know
that it is possible that landslides can be seen and mapped in land surface parameter maps, but not
in the field. The viewing angle from the earth, observation when too close to a landslide object
and dense vegetation often complicate outlining and locating landslides.
Figure 29. Visualization of land surface parameters hillshade [top left], slope [top right], vertical curvature [down
left] and contour lines [down right] with 320 x 200 m (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION)
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
63 / 122
Figure 30. Visualization of land surface parameters variance of slope [top left], roughness [top right], variance of
aspect [centre left] and tin [centre right] and of TPI slope [bottom left] and TPI elevation [bottom right] with
320 x 200 m (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION)
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
64 / 122
Table 9 shows the used images for mapping different landslide features.
Features of the
landslide body
Description Raster Images
crown,
main and minor scarps
convex and concave edges
hillshade,
vertical curvature,
TPI
rapid change of slope (steepening in
terrain)
hillshade,
slope,
variance of slope
surface of rupture erosion of earth material (extensive
change in original ground surface)
hillshade,
TPI,
profile view
change of slope (flattening in
terrain)
hillshade,
slope,
profile view
transverse cracks (compression of
earth material)
hillshade,
horizontal curvature
rough surface hillshade,
roughness,
variance of aspect
landslide foot area of accumulation
hillshade,
TPI,
profile view
transverse cracks and ridges hillshade,
horizontal curvature
waved terrain hillshade,
vertical curvature
rough surface hillshade,
roughness,
variance of aspect
Table 9. Visibility of landslide features in different raster images (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2012)
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
65 / 122
5.2 Verification and Results of Manual Landslide Mapping
5.2.1 Verification of manually mapped landslides
Field work was done and experts were consulted to verify the manually mapped landslides. The
consulted experts in geomorphology and geology are Dr. Christian Bauer (Joanneum Research)
and Dr. Ingomar Fritz (Universalmueum Joanneum, Geology and Palaeontology). Additionally
landowners, residential farmers, local authorities, and other collaborators were interviewed, and
geological, mining or historical maps were studied to collect information about the two study
areas. The biggest challenge was the dense vegetation and the impassable and steep terrain in
both study areas, shown in Figures 31 – 36, which complicated the verification process and
hindered the differentiation between actual landslide structures and structures with similar
appearance to such mass movements.
An additional advantage during the verification process was the use of the ArcGIS Extensions 3D‐
Analyst and LP360 by QCoherent, which provide profile views and 3D views of a defined aperture
of the terrain surface. These profile views support the identification of landslides (see Figure 28 –
Schematic profile view of a landslide and Figure 31 to 36). The equipment used in the field were
analogue maps (hardcopy of orthophotos and slope and hillshade images with manually mapped
landslide main scarps and areas that facilitate the location in the field) and the GARMIN Dakota 20
GPS device with a GPS accuracy of < 10 m and a DGPS accuracy between 3 to 5 m.
Landslide example 1 (see Figure 31): Example 1 depicts a mostly metamorphic landslide surface in
the midst of a pasture that is roughly 10 years old. Landslide material moved across a road and
spilled over parts of it. Historical maps, like the “Franziszeischer Kataster” (1820 – 1861;
see GIS STYRIA 2012) and the “Josephinischer Kataster” (1787; see GIS STYRIA 2012) indicate that the
course of the road remained unchanged for more than 200 years – an indication that the landslide
was not triggered by road construction activities, but probably by an intense rainfall event. The
surface of rupture measures a length of about 100 m and a width of about 25 m at the widest
point. The main scarp has a length of 55 m and about 1800 m² terrain surface was affected by this
landslide event. The profile view, which shows a surface of rupture and an accumulation of earth
material, also points to a landslide event.
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
66 / 122
Landslide example 2 (see Figure 32): A giant rotational landslide along a mountain‐side is
visualised in Figure 32. The landslide is anywhere from a hundred to a thousand years old, and it
altered the whole southern side of the Eggeralpe with a max‐height of 1590 m a.s.l. Unfortunately
the author was not able to find any historical records or map about this landslide event.
A ski region is located at the deeper zone of the mass movement. A large main scarp is visible in
the picture. The surface of rupture measures a length of about 1900 m and a width of about
675 m at the widest point. The main scarp has a length of 2008 m and about 815 000 m² of terrain
surface was affected by this huge landslide event. The larger main scarp can be seen in the profile
view as well. An accumulation of earthen material is shown in the lower part of the event. The
profile view shows a waved terrain surface and a change of the original ground surface.
Landslide example 3 (see Figure 33): Figure 33 shows an accumulation of some smaller landslide
events (between 10 and 30 years old) in a forested area of Study Area 1, probably triggered by
deforestation activities in the early 80s and proximate intense rainfall events. The scarp in the
middle of the slope image is visualised on the photo. An impassable terrain complicates a good
field work in this area significantly, therefore studying LiDAR data before starting with the field
work facilitates a location of such in the forest hidden mass movement. The surface of rupture
measures a length of about 40 m and a width of about 40 m at the widest point. The main scarp
has a length of 60 m and about 1.800 m² terrain surface was affected by this landslide event. The
profile view shows a surface of rupture (erosion of earth material in the upper part of the landslide
event). An accumulation of earth material is shown in the lower part of the event.
Landslide example 4 and 5 (see Figure 34‐35): The impassable and forested terrain complicated
the field work in the landslides shown in Figure 34 and 35 as well. Both landslides were triggered
by human activities. Landslide example 4 was triggered by a forest road construction event and
example 5 by ancient mining activities.
Example 4: The surface of rupture measures a length of about 50 m and a width of about 17 m at
the widest point. The main scarp has a length of 30 m and about 360 m² terrain surface was
affected by this landslide event.
Example 5: The surface of rupture measures a length of about 130 m and a width of about 50 m at
the widest point. The main scarp has a length of about 82 m and about 5500 m² terrain surface
was affected by this landslide event.
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
67 / 122
Both profile views show a surface of rupture (erosion of earth material in the upper part of the
landslide event). An accumulation of earth material is shown in the lower part of the event.
Landslide example 6 (see Figure 36): At first glance, this area suggests a landslide event as well,
but in the profile view terrace‐related structures can be seen. Those structures are an allusion to
anthropogenic activities, in this case, ancient mining activities. The profile view shows
anthropogenic formed terraces. This artificial terrain surface is an indicator of ancient mining area
– in this case a landslide event can be excluded.
Figure 31. Landslide example 1 – model and reality: photo, hillshade image and profile view (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR
CAMPAIGN, 2011 and AUTHOR’S IMAGE, 2011)
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
68 / 122
Figure 32. Landslide example 2 – model and reality: photo, hillshade image and profile view (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR
CAMPAIGN, 2011 and AUTHOR’S IMAGE, 2011)
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
69 / 122
Figure 33. Landslide example 3 – model and reality: photo, slope image and profile view (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR
CAMPAIGN, 2011 and AUTHOR’S IMAGE, 2011)
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
70 / 122
Figure 34. Landslide example 4 – model and reality: photo, slope image and profile view (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR
CAMPAIGN, 2011 and AUTHOR’S IMAGE, 2011)
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
71 / 122
Figure 35. Landslide example 5 – model and reality: photo, slope image and profile view (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR
CAMPAIGN, 2011 and AUTHOR’S IMAGE, 2011)
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
72 / 122
Figure 36. Landslide example 6 – model and reality: photo, slope image and profile view (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR
CAMPAIGN, 2011 and AUTHOR’S IMAGE, 2011)
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
73 / 122
5.2.2 Results of the manual landslide mapping
A manual landslide mapping by using LiDAR data in combination with geological and historical
maps, doing field work and interviewing experts provides good and useable results and supports a
semi‐automatic landslide mapping process.
On the following pages the main results of the manual landslide mapping process are presented.
Study Area 1, Spielberg bei Knittelfeld (see Figure 37‐39 and Table 10): Because of its special
geology and soil composition and the ancient mining activities in this area, 50 landslides with a
total landslide area of about 0.2 km² were mapped in the 1 x 1 km study area in Spielberg bei
Knittelfeld. More than 20 % of the whole terrain is influenced by landslides of varying sizes. All
landslide events are in the south of the mountain range and are associated directly with the local
geology (see Figure 39).
Study Area 2, Wald am Schoberpass (see Figure 40‐42 and Table 10): One larger and eleven
smaller landslides with a total landslide area of more than 1 km² were mapped in the 1 x 2 km
study area in Wald am Schoberpass (see Figure 40 and 42). More than 50 % of the whole terrain is
mostly influenced by one massive, ancient landslide event (see Figure 40 and 42). The torrent
debris area, as labeled in the geology map is rather an allusion to a landslide sedimentation area.
Lower‐level rock‐formations (lime) appear within the range of the landslide (see Figure 42).
Landslides
Study Area 1 Study Area 2
Number 50 12
Area km² of whole area 0.27 of 1 1.01 of 2
Area % 27.0 50.5
Mean Scarp Length m 57.97 306.95
Table 10. Manually mapped landslides in the two study areas (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S
ADAPTATION)
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
74 / 122
Figure 37. Map of landslide main scarps of Study Area 1 (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION)
Figure 38. Map of landslide areas of Study Area 1 (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION)
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
75 / 122
Figure 39. Map of landslide main scarps in combination the local geology of Study Area 1 (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR
CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION)
Legend
Tertiary
Miocene
Shell Limestone of Fohnsdorf
Grey‐Blue Clay, partly sandy ‐ gravelly
Base Formation: Base Breccia, Horizontal Sandstone
Quaternary
Holocene
Pleistocene
Floodplain Areas, Colluvial Soils, Torrent Debris
Younger Nappe of Brash (Schweinsbachwaldterrasse, Mindel)
Sheet Gravel of the Middle East Alpine
Crystalline of the Flatschacher Range
Granite Gneiss
Band Amphibolite
Orthogneiss (Gleinalmtypus)
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
76 / 122
Figure 40. Map of landslide main scarps of Study Area 2 (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION)
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
77 / 122
Figure 41. Map of landslide areas of Study Area 2 (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION)
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
78 / 122
Legend Sheet Gravel of the Upper East Alpine Laminated Quartzites
Sheet Gravel of the Middle East Alpine Bright, Banded, Marbled Limestones
Sandstone, Phylitte (with graphite) = Graphite‐Coal Formations (Veitscher Decke)
Quarternary Talus materials, Tali (partly glacial stage of Würm)
Alluvial Fans, Alluvial Cones, Debris Cones (partly late postglacial)
Floodplain Zones, “Kolluvien”, Torrent Debris
Figure 42. Map of landslide main scarps in combination the local geology of Study Area 2 (data basis: STYRIAN LIDAR
CAMPAIGN, 2011, AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION)
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
79 / 122
5.3 Semi‐Automatic Landslide Mapping
The ArcGIS semi‐automatic landslide mapping tool was developed to facilitate the mapping and
locating of potential landslides in a specific region and then in turn determine hazard prone areas
in the vicinity. A set of different tools supports both field work and a manual mapping landslide
process.
This beta‐version of a possible semi‐automatic landslide mapping tool is a result of the author’s
collaboration with the Provincial Government of Styria, Board of Works – Geoinformation Staff
Office. In addition to the main tool for potential landslide detection, several other tools were
designed. For example, no useful vector dataset of forest roads exists at the Provincial
Government of Styria, however since forest roads interfere with the semi‐automatic landslide
mapping process, they have to be erased in the LiDAR Digital Terrain Model. For that reason a
forest roads detection tool was developed. This and some other tools together with the main
potential landslide detection tool are described from chapter 5.3.1 to chapter 5.3.2.
By analyzing land surface parameters like slope, curvature, variance of slope, variance of aspect
and roughness in connection with other external vector‐data objects such as streets, stream lines
or building shapes, important landslide indicators can be extracted in the form of polygon‐shapes
with the help of ArcGIS neighbourhood analysing techniques. Analysing and combining those
different land surface parameters, as derived from raster‐based LiDAR DTM data, allows for the
identification of the characteristic landslide features, but the main problems in this context are to
distinguish main scarps from embankments and other artificial objects and to outline the actual
landslide area. Therefore the assessment of the landscape using mathematical workflows and
computer techniques is important.
The main reason for working with the LiDAR Digital Terrain Model with 1 m resolution instead of
the high‐resolution original LiDAR point cloud was an easier and practicable use of the DTM. The
tool was designed in that way that people can use it without buying expensive LiDAR software
before. The LiDAR software LP360 by QCoherent was only used to process the Digital Terrain
Model.
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
80 / 122
Another reason was that the 1 m ‐ resolution of the DTM is enough to extract specific landslide
features out of it. A DTM with 20 cm resolution for example is too detailed and complicates the
semi‐automatic detection of landslides.
5.3.1 Basic Workflow
Before explaining the basic workflow of the ArcGIS semi‐automatic landslide mapping toolbox it
has to be stressed that no two landslides resemble one another and usually do not look like
sketches presented in a schoolbook, which turns out to be the biggest challenge of semi‐automatic
landslide mapping.
But even though landslides have irregular surface texture and boundaries, characteristic features
can be detected in LiDAR imagery through GIS analysis (see Table 9, p. 64). Therefore, the
classification of the landscape using ArcGIS geoprocessing workflows and python modules is
important (see Figure 44).
At this point it has to be mentioned that the developed ArcGIS toolbox applies only as assistance
in mapping landslides, and does not replace field work as well as a post‐processing of the results
of the semi‐automatic landslide mapping tool. That is why a fully‐automatic landslide mapping
process is impossible. LiDAR is a big achievement in geosciences and it is very important and useful
for any kind of geomorphic studies, whether using manual or automatic mapping and analysing
processes.
As written before, with the help of Python, an open‐source scripting language, entire workflows
can be implemented in ArcGIS as new tools. Therefore a special knowledge in writing scripts is
essential.
This chapter will give a good insight into how this ArcGIS semi‐automatic landslide mapping tool
was written, but will not explain the Python Code in detail.
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
81 / 122
As seen in Figure 47, Python was used to create a new Landslide Mapping Toolbox including
8 contiguous tools (see Table 11):
Tool Short Description
land surface parameter tool calculates different land surface parameter maps
topographic position index tool calculates the elevation and slope TPI of a study area
smorph tool classifies a study area into 3 classes – low, medium and high
landslide risk areas
roughness tool calculates the roughness of a special area
edge detection tool detects concave and convex edges of a terrain and creates and
Triangulated Irregular Network (TIN),
forest roads tool extracts forest roads out of the Digital Terrain Model and
creates a forest roads polygon shape
streams tool extracts streams out of the DTM and creates a streams polygon
shape
potential landslide tool detects potential landslide features
Table 11. Overview of the 8 contiguous tools of the Landslide Mapping Toolbox (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011)
The output datasets are a result of a simple ArcGIS neighbourhood analysis with inclusion of other
external objects like
streets
streams
buildings
and archaeological sites.
In principle, the more additional vector information can be added to the semi‐automatic landslide
mapping process the merrier are the results.
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
82 / 122
The source of these external objects are described in chapter 4.2
An exact explanation of the separate tools is given in chapter 5.3.2
This Landslide Mapping Toolbox is a result of a continuous loop between the toolbox, the
manually mapped landslides, and the semi‐automatically mapped landslides (see Figure 43).
Figure 43. Continuous Loop (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2012)
Manually mapped landslides help with the upgrading and developing of the ArcGIS Landslide
Mapping Toolbox. The results, described in chapter 4, of the first 5 tools – the Land Surface
Parameter‐, the Topographic Position Index‐, the Smorph‐, the Roughness‐ and the Edge
Detection‐Tools are also considered as support for the manual landslide mapping.
The knowledge acquired about the manually mapped and verified landslides in a specific study
area was on the one hand used to upgrade the ArcGIS semi‐automatic landslide mapping toolbox
and on the other hand to compare it with the semi‐automatically mapped landslides, both of
which help check the adaptability of the toolbox. The knowledge gained with the semi‐
automatically mapped landslides supports the manual mapping of landslides in a specific area and
helps to upgrade ArcGIS toolbox as well.
Manually Mapped Landslides
Compare
Support Semi‐Automatically Mapped Landslides
ArcGIS Landslide Mapping Toolbox
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
83 / 122
Figure 44. Basic Workflow of Semi‐Automatic Landslide Mapping (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2012)
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
84 / 122
5.3.2 Semi‐automatic Landslide Mapping Toolbox
The Landslide Mapping Toolbox created within the ArcGIS 10.0 environment, consists of a
collection of different tools, also explained in chapter 5.3.1. In this chapter a detailed explanation
of the separate tools is given.
Anybody, who is interested in the toolbox and wants to use or adapt the landslide tools in its own
work, may write a mail to niki.kamp@gmail.com.
Tool 1 – Land Surface Parameters: This tool calculates all land surface parameters mentioned in
chapter 4.3, namely hillshade, slope, variance of slope, aspect, variance of aspect, variance of
elevation, curvature and contour lines by using the LiDAR Digital Terrain Model with 1 m
resolution (input data). The usual 3D Analyst – Raster Surface Tools together with Spatial Analyst
Tools (Focal Statistics) were combined in one tool to facilitate and speed up the land surface
parameters calculation (geoprocessing) (see Figure 45 and 46). A polygon shape of the study area
determines the calculation area (input data). The images (output data) of the different land
surface parameters can be found in chapter 4.3.
Figure 45. Tool 1 – Land Surface Parameters (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011)
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
85 / 122
Figure 46. Workflow of Tool 1 (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011)
Tool 2 – Topographic Position Index: The Topographic Position Index Tool is part of the Land Facet
Corridor Designer to design wildlife linkages in the face of impending climate change by Jenness
Enterprise, Land Facet Corridor Designer and was first described by WEISS (2001) at the ESRI
International User Conference. The DTM, together with the slope image (input data) is processed
with a special neighbourhood analysis and a topographic position classification (geoprocessing) to
“Terrain Surface Changes” and “Landform Categories” raster data (output data; see Figure 47 and
48). Like in Tool 1 and all other following tools a polygon shape determines the study area.
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
86 / 122
Figure 47. Tool 2 – Topographic Position Index (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011)
Figure 48. Workflow of Tool 2 (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011)
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
87 / 122
This tool classifies a landscape into a “Terrain Surface Changes” raster dataset that depicts the
increasing and decreasing areas in the terrain surface and also into a “Landform Category” raster
dataset imaging the four landforms (valley, surface drawdown, terrain increase and ridge) based
on the two raster datasets slope and elevation. (see JENNESS et al. 2011, pp. 45; see Figure 47 and
48). With the help of ArcGIS Focal Statistic (Spatial Analyst) – Neighbourhood Analysis and other
mathematical raster tools of Spatial Analyst, differences in a specified neighbourhood were
calculated and in a further step the terrain is classified into different classes (valley, surface
drawdown, terrain increase and ridge).
A polygon shape of the study area determines the calculation area and in addition to that an
output workspace and the name of the study area are indicated as inputs for this tool. The images
of the two TPI raster datasets can be found in chapter 4.5.
Tool 3 – Smorph: The slope morphology matrix (SMORPH) by SHAW & JOHNSON (1995), which was
integrated in the python script, is formed by the slope gradient and the horizontal curvature
(convex, concave and planar; input data) and classifies the area into low, medium and high
landslide risk areas (output data; see Figure 49 and 50).
Figure 49. Tool 3 – Smorph (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011)
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
88 / 122
Figure 50. Workflow of Tool 3 (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011)
Tool 4 – Roughness: By processing the slope and aspect images (input data) the variation
(roughness) in three‐dimensional orientation of grid cells within a defined neighborhood is
calculated (output data; see Figure 51 and 52). Vector analysis is used to calculate the dispersion
of vectors normal (orthogonal) to grid cells within the specified neighbourhood. This method
effectively captures variability in slope and aspect into a single measure. Roughness raster values
can range from 0 (no terrain variation) to 1 (complete terrain variation). For instance, streets or
buildings have a smooth surface, while vegetation has a rough surface (see OLAYA 2009). A rough
surface can be an indicator for landslide events. The method to calculate the terrain roughness
was adapted from the Vector Ruggedness Measure by SAPPINGTON et al. (2007).
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
89 / 122
Figure 51. Tool 4 – Roughness (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011)
Figure 52. Workflow of Tool 4 (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011)
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
90 / 122
Tool 5 – Edge Detection: The Edge Detection tool (see NIEMEYER et al. 2010) was adapted to
calculate convex and concave edge lines and to create a generalized TIN image (output data). In
this case the slope image (input data) is used as well as an orientation image and a vertical
curvature image (input data) to outline the locations of convex and concave edges in the defined
study area, thus the decision between low‐ and high‐mountain areas is important for the best
possible edge detection. A Non‐Maxima‐Suppression has to be executed to convert convex and
concave raster data into convex and concave line shapes. With this process pixels that are not at
the edge‐maxima are suppressed. Additionally, holes in the dataset are closed with a
morphological closing operation, and in a further step they are thinned with a morphological
skeleton operation to get edge lines (see Figure 53 and 54).
Figure 53. Tool 5 – Edge Detection (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011)
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
91 / 122
Figure 54. Workflow of Tool 5 (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011)
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
92 / 122
Tool 6 – Forest Roads: The TPI “Landform Categories” raster dataset (input data) is utilized to
extract forest roads as a polygon shape (output data) out of high‐resolution LiDAR data. Because
of the high diversity of the terrain surface a post‐processing of the output polygon shape after
execution of tool 6 is essential. In this working step features that have similar parameters to forest
roads (slope gradient, roughness, etc.) have to be deleted (see Figure 55 and 56).
Figure 55. Tool 6 – Forest Roads (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011)
Figure 56. Workflow of Tool 6 (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011)
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
93 / 122
Tool 7 – Streams: The TPI “Landform Categories” raster dataset (input data) is also used to detect
streams as a polygon shape (output data) out of high‐resolution LiDAR data. To reduce the
processing area an old and highly generalised streams vector dataset is used. It is important to
decide between small‐ and large‐scale streams before starting the process. Because of the high
diversity of the terrain surface a post‐processing of the output polygon shape after execution of
tool 7 is essential. In this working step features that have similar parameters to streams (slope
gradient, roughness, etc.) have to be deleted (see Figure 57 and 58).
Figure 57. Tool 7 – Streams (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011)
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
94 / 122
Figure 58. Workflow of Tool (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011)
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
95 / 122
Tool 8 – Potential Landslides: The Potential Landslide tool was created to outline potential
landslide features and areas in a specified area (study area) of a DTM with 1 m resolution. It is the
main and most important tool of the Landslide Mapping Toolbox. By combining the TPI “Landform
Categories”and TPI “Terrain Surface Changes” raster datasets with the land surface parameter
images ‐‐ aspect, slope and vertical curvature (input data) ‐‐ the terrain is classified into the
following different features: convex and concave edges, steep slope and rough areas, areas with
terrain increasing and decreasing and ridges (geoprocessing). These special terrain features are
possible indicators for landslide activities.
With special neighbourhood analysis of the different terrain features and by integration of
additional vector data like streets, streams, forest roads, buildings and archaeological sites the
study area is classified into potential and non‐potential landslide areas. The tool can be expanded
with other additional vector datasets, which are integrated in the neighbourhood analysis at any
time. These landslide areas are extracted as a new polygon shape, where elements that are too
small are deleted to improve the results (geoprocessing).
The output dataset is a polygon shape, which shows potential landslide areas in a specified region.
With the help of the 1:50 000 geology map of Styria (BEV), shapes of torrent catchments, corine
landcover datasets and the manually mapped and verified landslides, the potential landslide shape
is post‐processed to get a good and useable landslide dataset (final results). This dataset should
support the decision‐making of experts and facilitate field work and the locating of landslides.
Figure 59. Tool 8 – Potential Landslides (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011)
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
96 / 122
Figure 60. Workflow of Tool 8 (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011)
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
97 / 122
5.4 Results
A polygon vector dataset depicting potential landslide areas (see Figure 61) and two additional,
intermediate polygon shapes showing streams and forest roads are the primary results of this
research work. It is important to mention that only the possible landslide areas are extracted
during this semi‐automatic process, which means that this tool identifies regions that are most
likely influenced by landslide activities; not necessarily actual landslide events Additionally other
surfaces similar to landslides, like ridges, embankments of streets or forest roads or erosion lines
are outlined as landslide areas as well. The quality and accuracy of the results depend more or less
on the quality of the input data, of the existence of noises and artefacts in LiDAR data and on the
accuracy and availability of additional vector information like streets, buildings, mining areas or
archaeological sites.
5.4.1 Intermediate Data (Landslide Mapping Toolbox)
Edge Lines and TINs: The convex and concave edge lines were calculated to find distinctive edges
in a terrain. In a further step a generalised Triangulated Irregular Network (TIN) is generated out of
these edge lines, with the goal to highlight these from landslides influenced areas and to erase
smaller and insignificant edges (see Figure 61 and 62). In a TIN, terrain edges like main scarps and
irregular surfaces are delineated and this process facilitates manual landslide mapping. The
surfaces of rupture are indicated by irregular surface textures.
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
98 / 122
Figure 61. Aperture of generalised TIN of Study Area 1 calculated with the “Edge Detection” tool (source: AUTHOR’S
ADAPTATION, 2011)
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
99 / 122
Figure 62. Aperture of generalised TIN of Study Area 2 calculated with the “EdgeDetection” tool (source: AUTHOR’S
ADAPTATION, 2011)
Forest Roads and Streams: Practical landslide detection is only possible if forest roads and
streams are erased out of a high‐resolution LiDAR‐DTM. A post‐processing of this data is essential
and must be done manually. In the following image (see Figure 63 and 64), forest roads are
visualised as red polygons, streams as blue ones.
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
100 / 122
Figure 63. Aperture of results of Study Area 1 of the “ForestStreets” and “Streams” tools (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION,
2011)
Figure 64. Aperture of results of Study Area 2 of the “ForestStreets” tool (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2011)
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
101 / 122
5.4.2 Potential Landslides
The results of the semi‐automatic landslide mapping show potential, not necessarily actual,
landslide areas. With the semi‐automatic process landslide‐related features can be outlined and
regions likely influenced by landslide activities can be found. Changes in the terrain surfaces,
convex and concave edges, rough and wavy areas or ridges can all indicate a possible landslide
event, but they can indicate features such as forest roads, mining areas, erosion lines or
anthropogenic‐formed structures as well.
The quality of results depends on the quality of the DTM; noises and artefacts in the original LiDAR
data can cause fuzziness or uncertainty in the results. The quality and the availability of additional
vector data, such as streets, buildings or archaeological sites, also improve the usability of the
results.
The following three tables show apertures of the results of the two study areas in Spielberg bei
Knittelfeld and Wald am Schoberpass. The green highlighted rows indicate the potential landslides
derived from the semi‐automatic mapping process.
OBJECTID photo date SHAPE_Leng semi‐automatic
1 08_pics_fieldwork\spielberg\IMG_0152 20111002 29,37487012000 Y
2 08_pics_fieldwork\spielberg\IMG_0155 20111002 50,17299691240 Y
3 08_pics_fieldwork\spielberg\DSCN0732 20111106 47,56245820120 N
6 08_pics_fieldwork\spielberg\DSCN0674 20111106 60,04371042410 Y
8 08_pics_fieldwork\spielberg\DSCN0672 20111106 29,42515247400 Y
9 08_pics_fieldwork\spielberg\DSCN0732 20111106 62,44229771910 N
17 08_pics_fieldwork\spielberg\DSCN0732 20111106 83,20217326530 N
18 08_pics_fieldwork\spielberg\DSCN0732 20111106 110,93631037800 N
19 08_pics_fieldwork\spielberg\DSCN0732 20111106 78,23731190920 N
20 08_pics_fieldwork\spielberg\DSCN0732 20111106 72,00672471450 N
21 08_pics_fieldwork\spielberg\IMG_0155 20111002 87,99826186270 Y
26 08_pics_fieldwork\spielberg\DSCN0674 20111106 101,60665438500 Y
27 08_pics_fieldwork\spielberg\DSCN0674 20111106 16,84770427060 Y
30 08_pics_fieldwork\spielberg\DSCN0732 20111106 38,75453804890 N
32 08_pics_fieldwork\spielberg\DSCN0674 20111106 38,20576213430 Y
34 08_pics_fieldwork\spielberg\DSCN0732 20111106 39,62530101710 N
35 08_pics_fieldwork\spielberg\DSCN0732 20111106 38,30721941650 N
36 08_pics_fieldwork\spielberg\DSCN0732 20111106 76,90232146340 N
38 08_pics_fieldwork\spielberg\IMG_0161 20111002 101,39640013700 Y
45 08_pics_fieldwork\spielberg\DSCN0736 20111106 61,91865485830 N
46 08_pics_fieldwork\spielberg\DSCN0736 20111106 55,22384273330 Y Table 12. Aperture of the results of Study Area 1, Spielberg bei Knittelfeld (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2012)
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
102 / 122
OBJECTID photo date SHAPE_Leng semi_automatic
1 08_pics_fieldwork\wald\IMG_0359 20111811 2007,93535551000 Y
2 08_pics_fieldwork\wald\IMG_0359 20111811 320,11376931000 Y
3 08_pics_fieldwork\wald\IMG_0359 20111811 100,11357932200 Y
4 08_pics_fieldwork\wald\IMG_0359 20111811 199,71439011500 Y
5 08_pics_fieldwork\wald\IMG_0359 20111811 262,16842564400 Y
6 08_pics_fieldwork\wald\IMG_0359 20111811 167,41035217600 Y
7 08_pics_fieldwork\wald\IMG_0359 20111811 59,79633150210 Y
8 08_pics_fieldwork\wald\IMG_0359 20111811 119,56649339000 Y
9 08_pics_fieldwork\wald\IMG_0359 20111811 144,88936331800 N
10 08_pics_fieldwork\wald\IMG_0359 20111811 129,09329611400 Y
11 08_pics_fieldwork\wald\IMG_0359 20111811 108,08816151200 Y
12 08_pics_fieldwork\wald\IMG_0359 20111811 64,49493709180 Y Table 13. Aperture of the results of Study Area 2, Wald am Schoberpass (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2012)
Fifty landslides were mapped manually for Study Area 1, Spielberg bei Knittelfeld. Eighteen of
those fifty landslides were successfully mapped using the semi‐automatic process, a success rate
of 36%. Of the fifty manually mapped landslides, twenty were located and hidden under forest
canopy, while the other thirty were found in agricultural areas. In forested areas, there was a
success rate of 85%, and in the agricultural areas a success rate of 3.33% was found. This indicates
the strength of the tool in delineating landslides in forested areas as opposed to agricultural areas.
In total, the error rate of the semi‐automatic landslide mapping process for Study Area 1 was 54%.
About 50% of the semi‐automatically mapped landslide area was erroneously detected with this
tool.
Twelve landslides were mapped manually in Study Area 2, Wald am Schoberpass. Eleven out of the
twelve were correctly mapped with the semi‐automatic process with a 92% success rate. All
twelve of the manually mapped landslides were found in forested areas; the low error rate of 8%
in this type of land cover again supports the strength of the tool in identifying landslides in
forested areas. This time only 30% of the semi‐automatically mapped landslide areas were
erroneously detected, most likely due to the lack of agricultural areas in this study area.
“Erroneously” does not mean that there cannot be any earth movements in these areas, but that
there are not those kinds of landslides movements treated in this master’s thesis and described in
chapter 2.2.
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
103 / 122
Landslides Study Area 1 Study Area 2
total 50 12
semi‐automatic mapped 18 11
percentage of semi‐automatic mapped [%] 36 92
in forested areas 20 12
semi‐automatic mapped
in forested areas ‐
17
11
in agriculturally marked areas 30 0
semi‐automatic mapped
in agriculturally marked areas
1
0
Error rates
not semi‐automatic mapped 32 1
percentage of not semi‐automatic mapped [%] 54 8
wrongly detected landslide areas [%] 50 30
not semi‐automatic mapped
in forested areas
3
1
percentage of not semi‐automatic mapped
in forested areas [%]
15
8.33
not semi‐automatic mapped
in agriculturally marked areas
29
0
percentage of not semi‐automatic mapped
in agriculturally marked areas [%]
96.67
0
Table 14. Statistics of the semi‐automatic landslide mapping (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2012)
The following figures (65 and 66) show the results of the semi‐automatic mapping process.
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
104 / 122
Figure 65. Results of the semi‐automatic mapping tool in Study Area 1, Spielberg bei Knittelfeld (source: AUTHOR’S
ADAPTATION, 2011)
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
105 / 122
Figure 66. Results of the semi‐automatic mapping tool in Study Area 2, Wald am Schoberpass (source: AUTHOR’S
ADAPTATION, 2011)
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
106 / 122
5.4.3 Limitations
Due to the high degree of accuracy, a LIDAR DTM not only depicts mass movements, but also a
multiplicity of various anthropogenic structures and terrain surfaces such as excavations, ancient
mining areas, collapse shafts, archaeological sites, old footpaths or agricultural lands as well as
various naturally formed structures and terrain surfaces such as ridges, steep and rugged terrain
or erosions. These man‐made and natural structures and other special terrain surfaces like alluvial
fans, karst formations or old creeks cause poor results in the semi‐automatic landslide mapping
process. Due to the high diversity of the terrain surface a fully‐automatic landslide mapping
process is not possible and a manual post‐processing is indispensable.
The following table (see Table 15) shows some reasons for poor results in the two study areas.
Ancient mining areas are the main problems in Study Area 1 in Spielberg bei Knittelfeld, a steep
and rugged terrain in Study Area 2 in Wald am Schoberpass.
Reasons for poor results in the two study areas
Anthropogenic formed structures and terrain surfaces like
‐ excavations
‐ ancient mining areas
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
107 / 122
‐ collapse shafts
‐ archaeological sites
‐ old footpaths
‐ agriculturally marked lands
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
108 / 122
Natural formed structures and terrain surfaces, like
‐ ridges
‐ steep and rugged terrain
‐ erosions
Table 15. Reasons for poor results in the two study areas (source: AUTHOR’S ADAPTATION, 2012)
5. LANDSLIDE MAPPING – PRACTICAL PART
109 / 122
5.4.4 Adaptability of a semi‐automatic landslide mapping
The semi‐automatic landslide mapping tool was designed in such a way that it can be used
world‐wide, at least anywhere there are already high‐resolution LiDAR DTMs available.
Although the tool is dependent on DTMs with high accuracy, high resolution, less noises, and
artefacts, it is universally applicable in each mountainous region of the world. These DTMs are not
necessarily derived by LiDAR, but can also be acquired through techniques such as
photogrammetry or InSAR (Interferometric synthetic aperture radar). However, a special
knowledge of LiDAR, DTMs and Geomorphometry is essential.
Because of the high diversity of the terrain surface a fully‐automatic landslide mapping tool lacking
manual post‐processing does not work. So, in this master’s thesis the semi‐automatic landslide
mapping tool is considered an aid to the decision making process, and it never actually replaces
manual labour or field work.
6. CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES
110 / 122
6. CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES
The goals of this master’s thesis (see chapter 1.2.) were accomplished. In this last chapter a short
review will be given as well as future perspectives regarding the author’s research work in the field
of LiDAR and its application in geomorphology.
The description of the basics in airborne LiDAR and landslides is given in chapter 2. The author has
shown that the application of LiDAR DTMs is an enormous achievement and facilitation in the field
of geomorphology and other geosciences. It not only facilitates the outlining of landslide features,
but also the mapping and detection of other mass movements, glacial or fluvial forms, karst
formations or geomorphological structures caused by archaeological sites.
Two special regions in Spielberg bei Knittelfeld and Wald am Schoberpass were introduced shortly
in chapter 3. The reasons for selecting these areas are based on the availability of high‐resolution,
LiDAR derived DTMs with less noises and artefacts. Study Area 1 (Spielberg bei Knittelfeld) is
located in an inner alpine basin, called Aichfelder Becken, on the south brink of the Niedere
Tauern (Central Alps), and Study Area 2 (Wald am Schoberpass) is situated in a small tributary
valley of the Liesingtal in the Eisenerzer Alpen. Brisk landslide activities can be found in the two
areas partly below dense forest cover, within agriculturally used zones, ancient mining areas,
tourism areas and archaeological sites, which affect the terrain surface and complicate the
mapping process.
Study Area 1 stands for lower mountain regions, while Study Area 2 for high mountain regions in
Styria (Republic of Austria).
Chapter 4 gives a short introduction of the software environments and data used for this thesis,
the field of Geomorphometry, and its different land surface parameter images. This chapter lists
the basics for manual and semi‐automatic landslide mapping. For a semi‐automatic landslide
mapping by means of LiDAR derived DTMs, it has to be stressed that it is neither impossible nor
too complex. Good results can be achieved with standard GIS environments and models without
extensive mathematical algorithms.
6. CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES
111 / 122
This master’s thesis has presented possible workflows of manual and semi‐automatic landslide
mapping (see chapter 5) in two specified regions. While in its present form, automatic and semi‐
automatic landslide mapping is not successful 100% of the time and an expert with special
knowledge in the field of LiDAR and geomorphology is still better able to outline different landslide
features in the various land surface parameter images than any kind of computer software can
detect during a semi‐ or fully‐automatic mapping process. The tool never replaces field work and
on‐site measurements, but it is a useful tool to aid in the process of decision making and provides
an indication of geographical position and extension of mass movements.
In conducting the work of this master’s thesis the author created a semi‐automatic landslide
mapping tool within the ArcGIS environment. The tool is able to detect landslide structures in a
DTM with 1 m resolution by combining and analysing different land surface parameters and TPI
images. By comparing the results of the manually mapped and verified landslides with the semi‐
automatically mapped landslide features, and in familiarising with the different images,
raster‐based methods, and the knowledge won during the manual mapping process, the tool was
improved by and by and the adaptability of the results was checked.
There does not exist any published approach for mapping landslides semi‐automatically with the
help of ArcGIS geoprocessing techniques, which means that the author demonstrates something
new in this master’s thesis and highlights LiDAR as an up to now unimaginable opportunity in the
field of geo science. It simplifies field work and the determination of diverse structures of the
terrain surfaces like block glacier (see Figure 67, top left), karst formations (see Figure 67, top
right), alluvial fans (see Figure 67, centre left), old creeks (see Figure 67, centre right), terraced
landscapes (see Figure 67, bottom left) or burial mounds (see Figure 67, top left).
It is common to use LiDAR point cloud data, DTMs or DSMs to map and outline diverse terrain
surfaces structures manually, but the use of automatic and semi‐automatic processes is something
extraordinary. It simplifies a mapping of landslide activities in a larger area, like the area of Styria is
where an automation of different workflows is indispensable.
6. CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES
112 / 122
The potential landslides tool as well as the forest roads and streams tool are a big achievement for
the author and the Provincial Government of Styria, Board of Works – Geoinformation Staff Office
and are already used by different governmental departments to reestablish a new stream network
dataset with a high accuracy for the whole Province of Styria or to map forest roads under thick
forests.
Figure 67. Diverse terrain surface structures (source: STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011)
6. CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES
113 / 122
The biggest contribution to the author’s master thesis was the book GEOMORPHOMETRY by HENGL &
REUTER (2009) and in addition to that the paper EXTRAKTION GEOLOGISCH RELEVANTER STRUKTUREN AUF RÜGEN
IN LASERSCANNER‐DATEN by NIEMEYER et al. (2010). These two references gave the best compulsion for
the utilisation and further processing of LiDAR DTMs.
Nevertheless, the research work and the tool are still in the starting phase, and there are still
plenty of ideas to explore and improve. The author intends to continue working on this special and
interesting topic after graduation.
With the help of the tools and methods described in this master’s thesis, landslide‐prone regions
may be outlined to determine hazardous areas. The DTM visualises structures that are indicators
for different downslope movements and determines where mass movements could take place,
but it does not show changes in terrain surfaces or movement velocities. An additional integration
and comparison of the LiDAR DTMs with Terrestrial Laser Scanning (TLS), Global Positioning
System (GPS) and ALS data from different periods would improve the results and simplify the
detection of landslides and the work in natural disaster control. The first Styrian ALS campaign has
opened the doors to explore the physical features and to get a good insight into the high diversity
of the terrain surface of the Province of Styria. Subsequent campaigns will strengthen our
understanding for geomorphic processes. A temporal comparison utilising ALS data acquired over
different time periods would help to identify changes in terrain surfaces and would improve a
semi‐automatic mapping process of delineating regions endangered by mass denudations
considerably.
Even if this tool is still in under construction and there are still lots of things to improve, it shows a
good example of the application of high‐resolution LiDAR data especially in the field of
geomorphology and landslide research and gives a good insight in the new possibilities and
advantages based on LiDAR for geomorphologists or alternatively any kind of researcher in the
field of geosciences.
The most important research goal for the author was to get a good expert knowledge in the field
of LiDAR and its application in geomorphology and to acquaint herself with different software
products, tools and techniques. This acquired knowledge will serve the author as a basis for future
research work!
REFERENCES
114 / 122
REFERENCES
References from Books
AHNERT, F., 1996: Einführung in die Geomorphologie. – Ulmer Verlag, Stuttgart, 393 p.
BROWELL, E. V. et al., 2005: Airborne LiDAR Systems.– in: FUJI, T. & FUKUCHI, T. (Eds), 2005:
Laser Remote Sensing. – Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, London, New York and Singapore,
PP 723‐780.
CRUDEN, D.M. & VARNES, D.J., 1996: Landslide types and processes. – in: TURNER A.K. & SHUSTER R.L.
(Eds), 1996: Landslides: Investigation and Mitigation. Transp Res Board, Spec Rep 247,
Washington, PP 36‐75.
FUJI, T. and FUKUCHI, T. (Eds), 2005: Laser Remote Sensing. – Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton,
London, New York and Singapore, 888p.
HENGL, T. and REUTER H. (Eds), 2009: Geomorphometry ‐ Concepts, Software, Applications.
– Elsevier, Amsterdam and Oxford, 765p.
MCCORMICK, M. P., 2005: Airborne and Spaceborne Lidar. – in: WEITKAMP, C. (Eds), 2005:
Lidar‐ Range‐Resolved Optical Remote Sensing of the Atmosphere. – Springer Verlag, Singapore,
PP 355‐397.
NELSON, A. et al., 2009: Dem Production Methods and Sources. – in: HENGL, T. & REUTER, H. (Eds),
2009: Geomorphometry ‐ Concepts, Software, Applications. – Elsevier, Amsterdam and Oxford,
PP 65‐139.
OLAYA, V., 2009: Basic Land‐Surface Parameters. – in: HENGL, T. & REUTER H. (Eds), 2009:
Geomorphometry ‐ Concepts, Software, Applications. – Elsevier, Amsterdam and Oxford,
PP 141‐170.
REFERENCES
115 / 122
PENCK, W., 1924: Die morphologische Analyse. – Verlag von J. Engelshorns, Stuttgart, PP 59‐85.
SASSA, K., 2007: Landslide Science as a New Scientific Discipline. – in: SASSA, K., et al. (Eds), 2007:
Progress in Landslide Science. – Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg and New York. PP 3‐11.
SATO, H.P. et al., 2007: Airborne LiDAR Data Measurement and Landform Classification ‐ Mapping
in Tomari‐no‐tai Landslide Area, Shirakami Mountains, Japan. – in: SASSA, K., et al. (Eds), 2007:
Progress in Landslide Science. – Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg and New York. PP 237‐249.
SCHMIDT, J & DIKAU, R., 1999: Extracting geomorphometric attributes and objects from digital
elevation models – semantics, methods, future needs. – in: DIKAU, R. & SAURER, H., 1999: GIS for
Earth Surface Systems ‐ Analysis and Modelling of the Natural Environment. – Gebrüder
Borntraeger, Berlin and Stuttgart, PP 153‐173.
VARNES, D.J., 1978: Slope movement types and processes. – in: Special Report 176: Landslides:
Analysis and Control (Eds: SCHUSTER, R.L. & KRIZEK, R.J.). – Transportation and Road Research Board;
National Academy of Science, Washington D.C., PP 11‐33.
VEDER, C., 1979: Rutschungen und ihre Sanierung, – Springer Verlag, Wien and New York, 241 p.
VÖGTLE, Th. & STEINLE, E., 2005: Flugzeuggetragenes Laserscanning. – in: BÄHR, H.‐P. & VÖGTLE, Th.
(Eds), 2005: Digitale Bildverarbeitung ‐ Anwendung in Photogrammetrie, Fernerkundung und GIS.
– Herbert Wichmannverlag, Heidelberg, PP 29–45.
WEITKAMP, C., 2005: LiDAR ‐ Introduction. – in: FUJI, T. & FUKUCHI, T. (Eds), 2005: Laser Remote
Sensing. – Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, London, New York and Singapore, PP 1‐36.
WANDINGER, U., 2005: Introduction to LiDAR. – in: WEITKAMP, C. (Eds), 2005: Lidar ‐ Range‐Resolved
Optical Remote Sensing of the Atmosphere. – Springer Verlag, Singapore, PP 1‐18.
ZEPP, H., 2008: Geomorphologie. – Schöningh UTB, Padeborn, München, Wien and Zürich,
PP 103‐115.
REFERENCES
116 / 122
References from Journals and Posters
BOOTH, A.M. et al., 2009: Automated landslide mapping using spectral analysis and high‐resolution
topographic data: Puget Sound lowlands, Washington, and Portland Hills, Oregon. – in:
Geomorphology 109 (3‐4), PP 132‐147.
(source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169555X09000877, last access:
March 2012)
DIKAU, R., 1996: Geomorphologische Reliefklassifikation und –analyse. – in: Heidelberger
Geographische Arbeiten, Vol. 104, PP 15‐36.
(source: http://www.geomorphology.uni‐bonn.de/persons/dikau/publications_view, last access:
October 2011)
GLENN, N.F. et al., 2006: Analysis of LiDAR‐derived topographic information for characterizing and
differentiating landslide morphology and activity. – in: Geomorphology 73 (1‐2), PP 131‐148.
(source: http://bcal.geology.isu.edu/manuscripts/Glenn_2006_Geomorph.pdf, last access:
October 2011)
HOEFLE, B. & RUTZINGER, M., 2011: Topographic airborne LiDAR in geomorphology: A technological
perspective. –in: Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie Vol. 55, Suppl. 2, PP 1‐29.
(source: http://koenigstuhl.geog.uni‐heidelberg.de/publications/2011/Hoefle/Hoefle_Rutzinger_
2011_ZfG.pdf, last access: January 2012)
KASAI, M. et al., 2009: LiDAR‐derived DEM evaluation of deep‐seated landslides in a steep and
rocky region of Japan. – in: Geomorphology 113 (1‐2), PP 57‐69.
(source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169555X09002359, last access:
March 2012)
REFERENCES
117 / 122
MCKENNA, J.P. et al., 2008: Landslides Mapped from LIDAR Imagery, Kitsap County, Washington. –
in: U.S. Geological Survey Open‐File Report 1292, 81 p.
(source: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1292/downloads/OF08‐1292.pdf, last access: March 2012)
MCKEAN, J. & ROERING, J., 2004: Objective landslide detection and surface morphology mapping
using high‐resolution airborne laser altimetry. – in: Geomorphology 57 (3‐4), PP 331‐351.
(source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169555X03001648, last access:
March 2012)
MINER, A.S. et al., 2010: Landslide Recognition using LiDAR derived Digital Elevation Models‐
Lessons learnt from selected Australian examples. – in: University of Wollongong Research Online,
10 p.
(source: http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1590&context=engpapers, last access:
March 2012)
VAN DEN EECKHAUT, M. et al., 2011: Regional mapping and characterization of old landslides in hilly
regions using LiDAR‐based imagery in Southern Flanders. – in: Quaternary Research 75, 13 p.
(source: http://www.blug‐ublg.be/FR/down/VanDenEeckhaut_et_al_Regional_map_landslides
_QR2011.pdf, last access: March 2012)
VAN DEN EECKHAUT, M. et al., 2007: Use of LIDAR‐derived images for mapping old landslides under
forest. – in: Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 32, PP 754‐769.
(source: http://www.wou.edu/las/physci/taylor/g473/eekhaut_etal_2007_Lidar_landslides.pdf,
last access: March 2012).
VAN DEN EECKHAUT, M. et al., 2005: The effectiveness of hillshade maps and expert knowledge in
mapping old deep‐seated landslides. – in: Geomorphology 67 (3‐4), PP 351‐363.
(source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169555X04002624, last access:
March 2012).
REFERENCES
118 / 122
SCHULZ, W.H., 2007: Landslide susceptibility revealed by LIDAR imagery and historical records,
Seattle, Washington. – in: Engineering Geology 89, PP 67‐87.
(source: http://landslides.usgs.gov/docs/schulz/lidar_enggeo.pdf, last access: March 2012)
SCHULZ, W.H., 2004: Landslides mapped using LIDAR imagery, Seattle, Washington. – in: U.S.
Geological Survey Open‐File Report 1396, 11 p.
(source: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1396/OF2004‐1396_508.pdf, last access: March 2012)
SHAW, S.C. & JOHNSON, D.A., 1995: Slope Morphology Model Derived from Digital Elevation Data.
– in: Proceedings, 1995: Northwest Arc/Info Users Conference, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, Oct. 23‐25,
12 p.
(source: http://www.krisweb.com/biblio/gen_xxxx_shawetal_1995_slopemorph.pdf, last access:
March 2012)
MONTGOMERY, D.R. & DIETRICH, W.E., 1994: A Physically Based Model for the Topographic Control on
Shallow Landsliding. – in: Water Resources Research, Vol. 30, No. 4, PP 1153‐1171.
(source: http://www.geo.oregonstate.edu/classes/geo582/week_3_1_eros_thresh_channel_net
/montg_dietr_wrr_94.pdf, last access: March 2012)
SAPPINGTON, J.M. et al., 2007: Quantifying Landscape Ruggedness for Animal Habitat Analysis ‐ A
case Study Using Bighorn Sheep in the Mojave Desert. – Journal of Wildlife Management 71(5), PP
1419‐1426.
(source: http://arcscripts.esri.com/details.asp?dbid=15423, last access: March 2012)
REFERENCES
119 / 122
References from Papers
AMUNDSENA, J. et al, 2010: Using LiDAR‐derived DEM’s to delineate and characterize landslides in
Northern Kentucky and Hamilton County, Ohio, 26 p.
(source: http://www.trishock.com/academic/pdf/lidar_landslides.pdf, last access: March 2012)
ASPRS, American Society for Photogrammetry & Remote Sensing, 2010: LAS Specification ‐ Version
1.3 – R11. Maryland, 18 p.
(source: http://liblas.org/_static/files/specifications/asprs_las_format_v13.pdf, last access:
March, 2012)
CORSINI, A. et al., 2009: Coupling geomorphic field observation and LiDAR derivatives to map
complex landslide. 18 p.
(source: http://eost.u‐strasbg.fr/omiv/Landslide_Processes_Conference/Corsini_et_al.pdf,
last access: March 2012)
CRUDEN, D.M., 1993: The Multilingual Landslide Glossary. – Bitech Publishers, Richmond., British
Columbia, for the UNESCO Working Party on World Landslide Inventory in 1993, 32 p.
(source: http://www.cgs.ca/pdf/heritage/Landslide%20Glossary.pdf, last access: March 2012)
JENNESS, J. et al., 2011: Land Facet Corridor Designer. – USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain
Research Station, McIntire‐Stennis Cooperative Forestry Program and Arizona Board of Forest
Research, 102 p.
(source: http://www.jennessent.com/downloads/Land_Facet_Tools_A4.pdf , last access:
March, 2012).
NIEMEYER, J. et al., 2010: Extraktion geologisch relevanter Strukturen auf Rügen in Laserscanner‐
Daten. 10 p.
(source: http://www.ipi.uni‐hannover.de/uploads/tx_tkpublikationen/2010_Niemeyer_
Ruegen_01.pdf, last access: March 2012)
REFERENCES
120 / 122
NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Services Center, 2008: Lidar 101 ‐
An Introduction Lidar Technology, Data, and Applications. – Charleston, SC: NOAA Coastal Service
Center, 68 p.
(source: http://www.csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/data/coastallidar/_pdf/What_is_Lidar.pdf, last
access: October, 2011).
VARNES D.J. & IAEG, 1984: Commission on Landslides and other Mass Movements ‐ Landslide
hazard zonation ‐ a review of principles and practice. – in: The UNESCO Press, Paris, 60 p.
(source: http://www.bib.ub.edu/fileadmin/fdocs/landslidehazard.pdf, last access: March, 2012)
WEISS, A., 2001: Topographic Position and Landforms Analysis. – Poster presentation, ESRI User
Conference, San Diego, CA, 1 p.
(source: http://www.jennessent.com/arcview/TPI_Weiss_poster.htm, last access: March, 2012)
SCHWEIZER EIDGENOSSENSCHAFT – Bundesamt für Umwelt – Abteilung Gefahrenprävention, 2009a:
Rutschungen – Dynamik. – Schweiz, 2 p.
(source: http://www.bafu.admin.ch/naturgefahren/01917/index.html?lang=de, last access:
October 2010).
SCHWEIZER EIDGENOSSENSCHAFT – Bundesamt für Umwelt – Abteilung Gefahrenprävention, 2009b:
Rutschungen – Prozess. – Schweiz, 3 p.
(source: http://www.bafu.admin.ch/naturgefahren/01917/index.html?lang=de, last access:
October 2010).
REFERENCES
121 / 122
References from Websites
ARCGIS DESKTOP 10 HELP, 2011.
(source: http://help.arcgis.com/en/arcgisdesktop/10.0/help/index.html, last access:
October, 2011)
ArcGIS, 2011. SynergisInformationssysteme GmbH. Official Distributor of ESRI.
(source: http://www.esri‐austria.at/products/arcgis/index.html, last access: October 2011)
ESRI, 2011.
(source: http://www.esri.com/ , last access October, 2011)
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF AUSTRIA, 2011.
(source: http://www.geologie.ac.at/, last access April, 2011)
GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS PROGRAM, 2011: Landslides. – Geological Survey of Alabama.
(source: http://www.gsa.state.al.us/gsa/geologichazards/landslides/, last access: May, 2011)
GEONET, 2011: LANDSLIDE GLOSSARY.
(source: http://www.geonet.org.nz/landslide/glossary.html, last access: October, 2011)
LANDSLIDE HAZARDS PROGRAM, 2011. – U.S. Geological Survey
(source: http://landslides.usgs.gov/, last access: October, 2011)
LUIS, 2011: Climate. – Environmental Information of Styria, Provincial Government of Austria.
(source: http://www.umwelt.steiermark.at/cms/ziel/25199/DE/, last access: March, 2012)
MTC, Midwest Transportation Consortium, 2003: Use of LIDAR‐based Elevation Data for Highway
Drainage Analysis ‐ A Qualitative Assessment.
(source: http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/mtc/reports/lidar_hydro.htm, last access: October, 2011)
REFERENCES
122 / 122
PYTHON, 2012.
(source: http://www.python.org/about/success/, last access: October, 2011)
QCoherent – a GeoCue company – LP360, 2011.
(source: http://www.qcoherent.com/index.html, last access: October 2011)
Data References
BEV – Bundesamt für Eich‐ und Vermessungswesen, 2011.
(source: http://www.bev.gv.at/portal/page?_pageid=713,1604790&_dad=portal&_
schema=PORTAL, last access: March 2012)
STYRIAN LIDAR CAMPAIGN, 2011.
All in this thesis used LiDAR products (point clouds, DTMs, DSMs) data are property of the
Provincial Government of Styria, Board of Works – Geoinformation Staff Office.
GIS STYRIA, 2012.
Most in this thesis used GIS data are property of the Provincial Government of Styria, Board of
Works – Geoinformation Staff Office.
BMLFUW (Bundesministerium für Land‐ und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft or
Lebensministerium) & BFW (Federal Research and Training Centre for Forests, Natural Hazards and
Landscape), 2009:
(source: http://gis.lebensministerium.at/eBOD/frames/index.php?PHPSESSID=f0945e4330d621
76192f0674797be30d&145=true&gui_id=eBOD, last access: March 2012)
top related