GIS Susceptibility Analysis: Landslides, Mudslides, and Debris

Flows in Southern California

Austin Gates, Rachel Howe, Porter Margolis

University of California Los Angeles, Department of Geography
March 21, 2018

Abstract. Predicting and monitoring landslide hazard is becoming more possible with

GIS processing and analysis. Unfortunately, like any pioneer technology, there are flaws.

Recent studies, such as USGS’s Preliminary Soil-Slip Susceptibility Maps, demonstrate

potential for use of GIS in hazard assessment. The quality of these assessments is largely

dependent on the quality and accuracy of the data. Utilizing environmental factors such

as precipitation, terrain analysis, vegetation type, and flow accumulation, this paper will

derive three methods of landslide risk assessment. The most accurate method is applied to

Southern California to create a landslide susceptibility map. In addition, an analysis of

emergency road networks for disaster relief will be presented. Steep areas with shallow

root depth and high flow accumulation are expected to have the high susceptibility to

landslides after a heavy precipitation event.

 1

Introduction

Recently, the United States has experienced a growing presence of intense weather and

subsequent natural disaster events including hurricanes, wildfires, and resultant devastating

mudslides. According to NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, there were 16

weather and climate disaster events in 2017 exceeding $1 billion in cost each (NOAA, 2017). In

addition to the frequency, these events resulted in cumulative damage of $306.2 billion, making

it the most expensive disaster year in U.S. history (NOAA, 2017). Warming average surface

temperatures supply more water vapor to the atmosphere, resulting in more moisture for storms

(Meehl et al., 1999). As storm volume increases, disaster occurrence related to these storms also

increases. Often, increased precipitation intensity results in natural disasters such as landslides.

According to USGS, the term landslide is gravity acting on an over-steepened slope resulting in

mass-movement downhill. Many factors increase the risk of landslides: erosion by water, soil

saturation by heavy rains, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and excess weight from material

accumulation (Morton et al., 2003). Landslides may be further catalyzed by the anthropogenic

disturbance of environmental settings. Road and building construction in hazard areas further

exacerbates the damage of intense landslides. When slope material slips and moves downhill, it

may pick up trees, houses, cars, and anything else in its path. Annually, it is estimated that

landslides in the U.S. result in excess of $1 billion in damages and between 25 and 50 deaths

(USGS, 2017).

Due to the serious consequences resulting from landslides, a method of predicting and

monitoring landslide hazard is beneficial to emergency personnel and the public. Methods of

predicting “where” and “when” landslides are going to happen have began to be developed using
 2

dynamic factors like rainfall rate and duration, slope, and soil type (Morton et al., 2003). This

paper will further apply landslide factors to a weighted susceptibility model in order to produce

an accurate method of hazard assessment. Areas with extreme slope, unstable soil, and high flow

accumulation are expected to exhibit the highest susceptibility to landslides. These risks are

further amplified by heavy precipitation events. Notably in Southern California, areas in

mountainous terrain and along the coast exhibit characteristics of higher landslide risk.

Methods & Results

Four physical factors were used to generate three landslide susceptibility models. These

models were tested against the occurrence of a real landslide event in Monterey County,

specifically Big Sur. Each model incorporates a different combination of the four weighted

factors resulting in a risk index for landslide susceptibility. The most accurate method will be

chosen and applied on a larger scale to Southern California to produce a heavy precipitation

landslide hazard map. Before describing the method of model derivation, it is important to

understand each factor individually and the reasons behind each factor’s weight. Factors will be

discussed in order of significance, beginning with the least weighted factor. Data preparation will

then be described, and finally steps of analysis explained.

Flow accumulation is ESRI’s method of estimating the amount of water accumulated in a

specified area. The tool produces an output raster in which the cell value is the number or

accumulated weight of all cells flowing into the specified downslope cell. Flow accumulation

was weighted with a factor of 1 because it is believed to be less significant than others.

Vegetation type provides spatial data on major vegetation cover in Southern California

and is represented by polygon shapefiles. Vegetation type dictates root structure and affects how
 3

the soil reacts to precipitation. Slope is calculated using a DEM and the output slope raster

contains values in each cell equivalent to the averaged degree angle within the cell’s area.

Vegetation and slope were both weighted with a factor of 3 as they are constant factors

contributing to landslide risk (Morton et al., 2003).

Finally, the precipitation factor in this paper represents a heavy rain event. Heavy

precipitation occurrences are a triggers of landslides, so it was given a weighted factor of 5.

Before hazard rasters can be produced using a combination of the factors, the data must

be downloaded and prepared. To begin, the DEM data was acquired from USGS. Multiple 1

arc-second DEM tiles that covered the entire study area were downloaded. Vegetation data was

downloaded from the UCLA Advanced GIS class website. Data for a heavy precipitation event

in Southern CA was acquired from Nasa’s PPS products. It is important to note that all the data

referenced above was downloaded and then projected into a common reference system; this

paper used NAD 1983 California Teale Albers. The data was clipped to Monterey County in

order to test on the Big Sur landslide. Additional files were clipped to the selected counties for

use in the larger susceptibility map: San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Kern, Ventura, Orange, Los

Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, San Diego, and Imperial.

The DEM files must be further manipulated to be used as risk factors. The tiles from

USGS were merged in ArcMap and then clipped to the study area (See Figure 1). Next, the DEM

data was used to derive both flow accumulation and slope rasters. To produce a flow

accumulation output raster, a model was created that streamlined the Raster Fill, Flow Direction,

Flow Accumulation, and Stream Order tool in ArcMap (See Model 1 below). To better visualize

flow accumulation data, a stream order network was produced using the Strahler method.
 4

Only cells with

accumulation of greater

than 1000 were

included. As shown in

Figure 5, stream order

produces a network of

streams based on the

flow accumulation

raster.​ ​The Strahler

method was the most

appropriate to show

branches of the linear

network because it

classifies a stream order

that increases when streams of the same order intersect. The Slope tool was also ran on the

original DEM to produce a slope output DEM in angular degrees (See Figure 2).

The US Forest Service’s vegetation shapefile provides over 75 different vegetation types

for California. Once clipped to our study areas, these various vegetation types were categorized

into five groups: urban agriculture, woodland, shrubland, barren, and grassland (See Figure 3).

According to NASA, the GPM IMERG precipitation data product is an algorithm

designed to leverage data from multiple precipitation satellites to create a record of uniformly

time/space gridded precipitation estimates for the globe. The algorithm is focused on creating the
 5

best estimate for each period of time, meaning it is not a Climate Data Record, but is an accurate

estimate of real precipitation events. For the Monterey County analysis, 7-day precipitation

accumulation data from January 4, 2017 through January 11, 2017 was downloaded. For the

Southern California analysis, a 1-day accumulation was downloaded from January 9, 2018,

which was a particularly heavy precipitation day for Southern California (See Figure 4). In this

case, a real precipitation event was more useful than generalizing heavy precipitation for the

entire area of Southern California. While it is understood that heavy precipitation events are

subject to extreme variability and there is no way to predict exactly how much rain specific areas

receive, the resulting susceptibility maps produced using this real precipitation event should

provide an accurate estimate of potential risk given a heavy precipitation event.

Once datasets were created and derived for each of the risk factors, they were reclassified

to create individual risk indices. In order to include the vegetation data in our weighted

susceptibility analysis, we needed to convert the polygon data into raster format. Then, each

vegetation group type was given a number indicating the relative risk for potential landslides: the

greater the number, the higher the risk. Urban agriculture was given a reclassified value of 0,

woodland was given a value of 1, shrubland was given a value of 2, barren landscape was given

a value of 3, and grassland was given a value of 4. These numbers were generated based on

specific vegetation structure and root depth. In a previous study, USGS determined a risk index

for slopes, where slopes less than 13 degrees were given a value of 0.6, slopes between 19 and

36 degrees were given a value of 3, slopes between 36 and 42 degrees were given a value of 2,

and slopes greater than 43 degrees were given a value of 0.6 (Morton et al., 2003). This

classification method was applied to the derived slope data. The flow accumulation data was
 6

reclassified into 9 classes determined by natural breaks, where the first class had a value of 1,

and each following class increased in value by 1 (the final class having a value of 9). This

reclassification was put in place with the assumption that greater flow accumulation resulted in a

higher risk for landslides. The precipitation risk index was created by reclassifying the data into

three classes: low precipitation, medium precipitation, and high precipitation (Morton et al.,

2003). The term “heavy precipitation” varies based on the locations mean annual rainfall

average, and most of Southern California has a low mean annual precipitation. The low

precipitation class was given a value of 1, the medium precipitation class was given a value of 3,

and the high precipitation class was given a value of 5.

As stated, risk factors with a higher relative weight influence the resulting susceptibility

raster more. Vegetation type (SF​1​) and slope (SF​2​) were each assigned a relative weight factor of

3, precipitation (SF​3​) ​was assigned a relative weight factor 5, and flow accumulation (SF​4​) was

assigned a relative weight factor of 1.

Three methods were tested to calculate landslide susceptibility. The first method used a

formula involving vegetation type, precipitation and flow accumulation as risk factors for

landslide susceptibility.
3(SF 1 ) + 5(SF 3 ) +1(SF 4 )
M ethod 1 = 9

The second method formula involved slope, precipitation, and flow accumulation.
3(SF 2 ) + 5(SF 3 ) +1(SF 4 )
M ethod 2 = 9

The third method involved all four risk factors: vegetation type, slope, precipitation, and flow

accumulation.
3(SF 1 ) + 3(SF 2 ) + 5(SF 3 ) +1(SF 4 )
M ethod 3 = 12
 7

The three methods were applied to Monterey County (See Figure 6). The resulting susceptibility

risk rasters were overlaid with the location of the 2017 Big Sur landslide to compare accuracy in

highlighting at-risk areas. Method 3 proved to be most accurate in predicting the Big Sur

landslide. This method was applied to the Southern California study area (See Figure 7).

Network analysis was also conducted on the resulting high risk areas. First a route

analysis was performed. Two stops were chosen: one at Cal Poly SLO, and the other in Mussel

Shoals, Ventura County. The first optimal route analysis was conducted with the shortest travel

time as the preference and no barriers to the route. The second route analysis was conducted with

a polygon barrier around the highest risk zones along the coast of Lompoc, CA (See Figure 8).

The other network analysis conducted was a service area analysis for a potential landslide in

Harmony, CA. A point was created indicating a potential landslide and used for the service area

analysis. CalFire fire stations in the area were overlaid with polygons indicating which stations

were within a 15 minute, 30 minute, and 45 minute response time area (See Figure 9).

Discussion & Conclusion

As a result from elevation analysis, special focus was placed on two areas: the Los Padres

National Forest and San Gorgonio Mountain. High elevation insulates large mountain ranges,

which are areas normally susceptible to landslides. Additionally, mountainous areas were

assumed to have steeper slopes resulting in a higher susceptibility for landslides. Interestingly,

both mountain ranges have urban areas in close proximity, so a potentially destructive landslide

would affect people and their homes.

Additionally, the vegetation analysis—an analysis that affects how soil reacts to excess

precipitation—showed that a large proportion of the study area is shrubland. While shrubland
 8

roots are not as supportive or sturdy as those of trees in the woodland vegetation type, shrubland

results in better soil stability when compared to grassland or barren landscape. Over 60% of

Southern California is defined as shrubland. Next, the precipitation analysis from the heavy rain

event on January 9​th​ highlighted two areas—up near Santa Barbara and down near Carlsbad.

These areas both received almost 76 mm of rain in 24 hours, which roughly translates to a few

inches of water—a lot for Southern California at once. Heavy precipitation increases landslide

risk in areas with high slope and shrubland vegetation type.

The use of the Big Sur Landslide in Monterey County helped test different methods for

calculating susceptibility. It is apparent the third method was most accurate. The area where the

landslide occurred—denoted by a hazard sign in Figure 6—had high susceptibility shown by

orange pixel colors. This method combined all four factors of vegetation, slope, precipitation,

and watershed data. The first output raster was mainly green, which suggested that vegetation

data was not strong enough to predict a landslide susceptibility. The second method included

slope, which yielded some yellow (medium risk) susceptibility. However, it was the combination

of both slope and vegetation along with precipitation and watershed data that gave a useable

susceptibility analysis. Once the third method was determined most accurate, it was applied to

Southern California (See Figure 7). It is interesting to note there is high susceptibility in

relatively the same two areas hypothesized earlier with high elevation and steep slope. One area

is again near Santa Barbara in Lompoc, and the other is in another urbanized area called Indio,

which could prove hazardous to urban life. These two areas have concentrated red pixels,

denoting possible high landslide risk.

 9

The resulting high risk zones in the Southern California susceptibility map aligned with

predictions that coastal regions would have high landslide risk. With heavy precipitation, the

zones exhibit ideal conditions for a landslide event. The vegetation types of the high risk zones

was of moderate risk; however, precipitation was the heavier weighted factor for landslide risk.

The network analysis is useful in visualizing landslides effect on California roadways and

emergency response time. A more detailed optimal route analysis was performed on the Lompoc

area. Lompoc is located between San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara. San Luis Obispo and Santa

Barbara are large college towns where students may be trying to get home or return to school,

which was an issue after the recent Santa Barbara mudslides (See Figure 8). When calculating

travel between the two areas based on time, there is a significant difference between the normal

travel time and travel time if the entire area was blocked off due to a landslide. As shown in

Figure 8, a tragic landslide would increase travel time by 6 hours and distance by 600 kilometers.

It is interesting to note that the optimal route takes the car farther north and east to the 152

freeway and down on the 5. This also proves difficult for emergency vehicles to gain access to

the incident.

Finally, the additional extremely high-risk location above San Luis Obispo in an area

called Harmony had one of the highest susceptibility locations in the study area. Here, response

times for fire stations were analyzed in case of an emergency (See Figure 9). The Service Area

tool was used to depict fire stations within 15, 30, and 45 minutes of the landslide incident. There

were two fire stations within 15 minutes, four within 30 minutes, and ten within 45 minutes.

Interestingly, there were not many fire stations extremely close to the highly susceptible
 10

landslide location. In case of a landslide or other disaster event, 15 minutes makes a huge

difference when waiting for an emergency response vehicle.

Using spatial data to predict landslide susceptibility is not without limitations. This

method of landslide risk prediction is at a scale that creates high risk zones larger than the area of

a landslide, leaving the actual location of a potential landslide still unknown. In addition, with

many factors contributing to soil weakness, slip, debris weight, and vulnerability, creating a

formula and method involving everything correctly weighted requires more research, data, and

analysis time, which is far beyond the scope of this project. Data availability and quality is

another limitation that affects the accuracy and scope of the hazard assessment methods. Fire

scarring and impact were not included in the methods for determining landslide susceptibility.

This landslide susceptibility analysis results were similar to what was anticipated. Areas

near the coast with steep slopes and in locations under heavy precipitation were most susceptible

to landslides. This report is successful in a quick overview of areas that should be heavily

watched, and with minor modifications, a similar analysis could be performed in other locations.
 11

Appendix
 12

Works Cited

“Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters: Overview.” ​National Climatic Data Center​,

NOAA, 2017, www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/.

Davis, Donyelle. “USGS Geologists Study Debris-Flow Aftermath in Montecito.” ​Usgs.gov​,

USGS, 26 Jan. 2018,

www.usgs.gov/news/usgs-geologists-join-efforts-montecito-assess-debris-flow-aftermath

Meehl, Gerald A., et al. “Trends in Extreme Weather and Climate Events: Issues Related to

Modeling Extremes in Projections of Future Climate Change.” ​Bulletin of the American

Meteorological Society​, American Meteorological Society, 1 Mar. 2000,

journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0477(2000)0812.3.CO;2.

Morton, Douglas M., et al. “Preliminary Soil-Slip Susceptibility Maps, Southwestern

California.” ​USGS Geoscience Data Catalog​, USGS Midwest Area, 17 Mar. 2003,

pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/0017/pdf/of03-17.pdf.

NASA​, NASA, pmm.nasa.gov/data-access/downloads/gpm.

State of California. “GIS Data.” ​FRAP - GIS Data​, frap.fire.ca.gov/data/frapgisdata-subset.