Quick
Search: 
 
advanced search
 GSW Home    GeoRef Home    My GSW Alerts    Contact GSW    About GSW    Journals List    Help 
  Environmental and Engineering Geoscience   Email Content Delivery
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

Environmental and Engineering Geoscience; November 2002; v. 8; no. 4; p. 279-293; DOI: 10.2113/8.4.279
© 2002 Association of Engineering Geologists
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (7)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by WILLS, C. J.
Right arrow Articles by McCRINK, T. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

Comparing Landslide Inventories: The Map Depends on the Method

C. J. WILLS1 and T. P. McCRINK1

1 California Geological Survey, 801 K Street, MS 12-32, Sacramento, CA 95814-3531

Landslide inventory maps are generally prepared by interpreting the geomorphic expression of landsliding on aerial photos, topographic maps, or on the ground. Distinctive landslide geomorphology allows the recognition and mapping of landslides, although there are always landslides that have very subtle expression and are not identified. The difficulties of mapping landslides based on their geomorphic expression are amplified in heavily forested terrain. The ground surface is obscured by tree cover on aerial photographs, and landslide-related features are often hidden. This limitation affects not only aerial photo interpretation, but also interpretation of topographic maps, which are based on aerial photographs.

We compared five maps showing landslides in the Laurel Quadrangle in the Santa Cruz Mountains, California. These include a geologic map, a map prepared for the county based on interpretation of aerial photographs, a map prepared by us based on aerial photographs and compilation of previous work, a map of features interpreted from the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic map, and a detailed field-based landslide map.

Comparison of these maps shows that the geologic map identifies few landslides, but most landslides on the geologic map are also shown on the other maps. The two maps based mainly on aerial photo interpretation tend to show the larger slides, but there is only about 60 percent correspondence of landslide areas between the two. Comparing the reconnaissance techniques with the much more detailed field mapping shows that the reconnaissance maps emphasize the large slides of bedrock and identify a lower percentage of shallow debris slides and debris flows.

Key Words: Landslide • Geomorphology • California • Field Mapping • Aerial Photograph • Topographic Interpretation







JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2008 by Association of Engineering Geologists