REPORT OF SUPERVISED PRACTICUM

GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
SYSTEM
LANDSLIDE POTENTIAL HAZARD MAPPING
Assistant: Bowo Susilo, S.Si., M.T.

By:
Dian Ayu Larasati
(11/324604/PMU/7209)

GEO-INFORMATION FOR SPATIAL PLANNING AND DISASTER

RISK MANAGEMENT
FACULTY OF GEOGRAPHY
GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY
1

YOGYAKARTA
2011
A. Scope Area
The study area location at a little part of Kulon Progo Regency
covering Girimulyo district.

Sumatera
Island

Kalimantan
Island
Java Sea

Java Island
Hindia Ocean

B. Material
1) Elevation Countour
Source: Digital Topographical Indonesia Map, Scale of 1:25,000
Bakosurtanal
2) Geological Map
Source : Geological Map of Yogyakarta Sheet, Scale of 1:100,000
3) Girimulyo Administration Boundary
Source: Digital Topographical Indonesia Map, Scale of 1:25,000
Bakosurtanal
4) Landuse Map
Source: Digital Topographical Indonesia Map, Scale of 1:25,000
Bakosurtanal
5) Soil Map
Source: Spatial Planning Laboratory, Faculty of Geography, GMU
6) Average Annual Rainfall Station Data
Source : PUSPICS, Faculty of Geography, GMU
2

7) Exsiting Landslide Data in Girimulyo

Processing Tool:
ArcGIS Desktop 9.3
C. Methods
a. Landslide Hazard Parameters
Determination of landslide hazard considers several parameters
that have influence to landslide hazard occurence. There are 6
landslide hazard determination parameters:
1. Slope
Slope is the level steepness represented in morphology. In
general, the greater level of slopes, the further increase the
likelihood of landslides in an area. It is also associated with the force
of gravity pulling masses of rock from top to bottom. Higher level of
slope will be more easily attracted to the bottom resulting in the
occurrence of landslides. The steeper of slope in the area, the more
potential of landslides occurence.
Slope
0-8%
8 - 15 %
15 - 25
%
25 - 35
%
35 - 45
%
> 45 %

Sensivity
No sensitivity
Very
low
sensitive
Low sensitive
Medium sensitive
High sensitive
Very
sensitive

high

Binar
y
0
1

Ranki
ng
0
5

Rati
ng
0
1
2
3
4
5

Modified from Van Zuidam and Cancelado (1985), Sugalang and Kholidin (1989),
Worosuprojo (1992) and PSBA-UGM (2001) in Mohammad (2003), Paimin and Sukresno
(2007), and Nugroho et. al (2009).

2. Type of Soil
Land is the result of rock weathering, with large sand or clay
content, have weak resistance which has low value of cohesion (c)
and inside angle of shear (). In the rainy season, the soil
3

resistance decrease with increasing water content in the soil. The

decrease is due to the soil volume expansion due to water content.
Qualitatively, the resilience of the soil can be analyzed through the
variable soil texture. Qualitative value of the land as a factor
contributing to the landslide occurence that is measured based on
the texture.
Type of Soil

Sensivity

Loam: Aluvial, Gleisol, Planosol

Clay loam, Silty loam: Latosol,
Kambisol
Sandy loam, Silty clay loam:
Mediteran
Sandy clay: Andosol, Grumusol,
Podsol
Clay, Sand: Regosol, Litosol,
Renzina

Very
sensitive

low

Low sensitive
Medium
sensitive
High sensitive
Very
sensitive

high

Binar
y
0

Ranki
ng
0

Ratin
g
1
2
3
4
5

Modified from Fletcher and Geibb (1990), Worosuprojo (1992) and PSBA-UGM (2001) in
Mohammad (2003), Nugroho et. al (2009), and Sulistiarto (2010).

3. Landuse
Landuse can increase the burden that is borned by the lithology.
If the burden borned is greater than the strength of lithology, there
will occur landslide. Vegetation also affects the level of slope
stability. Some vegetation can increase the stability of the slope
because the roots can bind the rock mass making it more compact.
But some kind of vegetations that have weak roots can actually
reduce the level of slope stability which may impact on the
landslides occurrence. Too tightly crops planting can result in heavy
on the slopes so increasing the driving force of land on the slopes.
Landuse
Waterbody
Grass
Bush, Open Land
Forest, Garden
Settlement,

Dry

Landuse (20%)
Binar
Sensivity
y
No sensitivity
0
Very
low
0
sensitive
Low sensitive
1
Medium
1
sensitive
High sensitive
1

Ranki
ng
0
0

Rating
0
1

3
3

Field
Rice Field

Very
sensitive

high

Modified from Paimin and Sukresno (2007) and Purwanto and Suharyadi (2009)

4. Rainfall Intensity
Rainfall is one of the determinants of the level of potential
landslide hazard in the study area. If value of rainfall is high, it can
be ascertained that the region is a region which has the highest
potential for landslides. Basically, to find out the potential danger of
landslides used daily rainfall data, but data is hard to find then it is
used the average annual rainfall calculated based on its intensity.
Because the average annual rainfall effect is not too significant to
the occurrence of landslides, it is given a value of 15%.
Rainfall
Intensity
< 1000 mm
1000 - 1500 mm
1500 - 2000 mm
2000 - 2500 mm
> 2500 mm

Sensivity
Very
low
sensitive
Low sensitive
Medium
sensitive
High sensitive
Very
high
sensitive

Binar
y
0

Ranki
ng
0

Rati
ng

0
1

0
2

1
1

2
2

Modified from Paimin and Sukresno (2007), Purwanto and Suharyadi

(2009), and Sulistiarto (2010)

5. Geology
Geology related to type of rock. The weather rock material is not
massive and not stable, so with little influence of the movement
will cause shift in position or landslides occurence. The more
massive the rock without any cracks or fractures, the more
resistant to weathering processes. It means that the rate of
weathering of rocks getting smaller so the landslide susceptibility

levels also getting smaller. Thus, the physical condition of rocks is

one of the factors causing the occurrence of landslides.
Geology (10%)
Geology

Sensivity

Intrusive rocks, Alluvium

Very
low
sensitive
Low sensitive
Medium
sensitive

Andesite
Limestone, Colluvium
Sedimentary,
Andesite
Breccia

Laharic,

Old

High sensitive
Very
sensitive

high

Bina
ry
0

Ranki
ng
0

Rati
ng

1
1

1
1

3
4
5

Modified from Purwanto and Suharyadi (2009), Paimin and Sukresno (2007), and
Respati et. al (2009)

D. Processing and Results

a. Landslide Hazard Model Determination
1. Binary Model
A binary model treats cells as 0s and 1s. Typical a 0 values
areareas that do not meet a defined parameter. A value of 1s are
areas that do meet a defined parameter. A binary model will depict
areas that meet all habitat parameters. There are only two possible
states in this model (yes or no).

Slope.img

Soil Type.img

Landuse.img

Rainfall.img

Geological.img

2. Ranking Model
7

A ranking model will produce several states that depict

potentially good habitat areas that ranked relative to each other.

Slope.img

0 and 5

Soil Type.img

0 and 4

Landuse.img

0 and 3

Rainfall.img

0 and 2

Geological.img

0 and 1

3.

Rating Model

Uses a consistent scale with more than two states to

characterize the habitat (simple average). A simple average
8

rating model uses a consistent scale. Each habitat parameter is

given a value based on this scale. The final map depicts habitat
suitability based on the average of all habitat parameters.

Slope.img

Soil Type.img

Landuse.img

Rainfall.img

Geological.img

4. Landslide Hazard Possibility

1. Multivariate Analysis
Exsiting Landslide.img

Signature

Landslide
Probability

10

2. Landslide Parameter Analysis

Reclassif

Combine

11

TABEL
1. Slope
N
o
1

Landslide
Probabilitas

18553

2
9695

3
18057

4
16048

5
3643

Slope
0-8%
8-15%
15-25%
25-35%
35-45%
>45%
0-8%
8-15%
15-25%
25-35%
35-45%
>45%
0-8%
8-15%
15-25%
25-35%
35-45%
>45%
0-8%
8-15%
15-25%
25-35%
35-45%
>45%
0-8%
8-15%
15-25%
25-35%
35-45%
>45%

Frequency
1789
3921
4112
4294
3576
861
886
2239
2893
2028
885
764
504
1924
3587
5516
4820
1706
190
701
1852
4525
6916
1864
128
320
499
750
943
1003

Percentage
(%)
9,64
21,13
22,16
23,14
19,27
4,64
9,14
23,09
29,84
20,92
9,13
7,88
2,79
10,66
19,86
30,55
26,69
9,45
1,18
4,37
11,54
28,20
43,10
11,62
3,51
8,78
13,70
20,59
25,89
27,53

12

2. Type Soil
Landslide
Probabilitas

No
1

18553
2
9695
3
18057
4
16048
5
3643

Soil
Type
Regosol
Grumus
ol
Latosol
Regosol
Grumus
ol
Latosol
Regosol
Grumus
ol
Latosol
Regosol
Grumus
ol
Latosol
Regosol
Grumus
ol
Latosol

Frequen Percenta
cy
ge
8813
47,50
3827
5913
119

20,63
31,87
1,23

1012
8564
129

10,44
88,33
0,71

490
17438
144

2,71
96,57
0,90

194
15710
41

1,21
97,89
1,13

47
3555

1,29
97,58

3. Landuse
Landslide
Probabilitas

No
1

18553

9695

Landuse
Settlement
SAWAH IRIGASI
SAWAH TADAH
HUJAN
GRASS LAND
GARDEN
BUSH
GRASS
WATER
Settlement
SAWAH IRIGASI
SAWAH TADAH
HUJAN
TEGALAN
KEBUN
BELUKAR/SEMAK
RUMPUT

Freque Percentag
ncy
e (%)
4165
22,45
63
0,34
789
7920
5402
56
65
93
673
0

4,25
42,69
29,12
0,30
0,35
0,50
6,94
0,00

490
4108
4360
43
15

5,05
42,37
44,97
0,44
0,15
13

18057

16048

3643

AIR TAWAR
Settlement
SAWAH IRIGASI
SAWAH TADAH
HUJAN
TEGALAN
KEBUN
BELUKAR/SEMAK
RUMPUT
AIR TAWAR
Settlement
SAWAH IRIGASI
SAWAH TADAH
HUJAN
TEGALAN
KEBUN
BELUKAR/SEMAK
RUMPUT
AIR TAWAR
Settlement
SAWAH IRIGASI
SAWAH TADAH
HUJAN
TEGALAN
KEBUN
BELUKAR/SEMAK
RUMPUT
AIR TAWAR

6
1239
0

0,06
6,86
0,00

346
5603
10672
185
10
2
1050
0

1,92
31,03
59,10
1,02
0,06
0,01
6,54
0,00

75
3916
10914
82
11
0
329
0

0,47
24,40
68,01
0,51
0,07
0,00
9,03
0,00

5
1691
1608
10
0
0

0,14
46,42
44,14
0,27
0,00
0,00

4. Rainfall Intensity
Landslide
Probabilitas

No
1

3
4

18553

9695

18057
16048

Rainfall
Intensity
15002000mm
20002500mm
15002000mm
20002500mm
15002000mm
20002500mm
15002000mm

Freque
ncy

Percentag
e (%)

17480

94,22

1073

5,78

9406

97,02

289

2,98

16024

88,74

2033
9804

11,26
61,09

14

3643

20002500mm
15002000mm
20002500mm

6244

38,91

813

22,32

2830

77,68

5. Geology
Landslide
Probabilitas

No
1

18553

9695

18057

16048

Geology
Intrusive rocks (Miocene)
Clastical limestone (MiocenePliocene)
Reefal limestone (MiocenePliocene)
Colluvial deposits (Quaternary)
Sedimentary rocks (Eocene)
Andesitic volcanics (OligoMiocene)
Intrusive rocks (Miocene)
Clastical limestone (MiocenePliocene)
Reefal limestone (MiocenePliocene)
Colluvial deposits (Quaternary)
Sedimentary rocks (Eocene)
Andesitic volcanics (OligoMiocene)
Intrusive rocks (Miocene)
Clastical limestone (MiocenePliocene)
Reefal limestone (MiocenePliocene)
Colluvial deposits (Quaternary)
Sedimentary rocks (Eocene)
Andesitic volcanics (OligoMiocene)
Intrusive rocks (Miocene)
Clastical limestone (MiocenePliocene)
Reefal limestone (MiocenePliocene)
Colluvial deposits (Quaternary)
Sedimentary rocks (Eocene)
Andesitic volcanics (Oligo-

Freque
ncy
244

Percentag
e (%)
1,32

165

0,89

682
252
1049

3,68
1,36
5,65

16161
19

87,11
0,20

0,00

735
42
216

7,58
0,43
2,23

8683
3

89,56
0,02

0,00

3535
7
101

19,58
0,04
0,56

14411
1

79,81
0,01

0,00

3809
5
32
12201

23,74
0,03
0,20
76,03
15

3643

Miocene)
Intrusive rocks (Miocene)
Clastical limestone (MiocenePliocene)
Reefal limestone (MiocenePliocene)
Colluvial deposits (Quaternary)
Sedimentary rocks (Eocene)
Andesitic volcanics (OligoMiocene)

0,00

0,00

346
0
7

9,50
0,00
0,19

3290

90,31

REFERENCE

ESRI ArcGIS Desktop Web Help.

Mohammad, Mustapa Ali. 2003. Kajian Zona Kerentanan, Tingkat Bahaya dan Resiko
Gerakan Tanah Berdasarkan Penggunaan Lahan untuk Permukiman, Persawahan,
dan Jalan terhadap RTRW Kabupaten Kulonprogo. Graduate Thesis. Semarang:
Graduate Program of Urban Development Engineering, UNDIP.
Nugroho, Jefri Ardian et. al. 2009. Pemetaan Daerah Rawan Longsor dengan
Penginderaan Jauh dan Sistem Informasi Geografis. Undergraduate Thesis.
Surabaya: Geomatic Engineering, ITS.
Paimin and Sukresno. 2007. Aplikasi Pemanfaatan Data Karakteristik DAS untuk
Mitigasi Bencana Banjir dan Tanah Longsor. Paper. Jakarta: Balitbang, Forestry
Ministry.
Purwanto, Taufik Hery and Suharyadi. 2009. Landslide Risk Spatial Modelling using
Geographical Information System. Yogyakarta: Faculty of Geography, UGM.

16

Respati, Yogi Saktyan et.al. 2009. Analisis GIS terhadap Gerakan Tanah di Girimulyo,
Kulonprogo, D.I. Yogyakarta dan Kajian Faktor-Faktor Pengontrolnya. Journal.
Yogyakarta: Geological Engineering Department, UGM.
Sulistiarto, Bagus. 2010. Studi Tentang Identifikasi Longsor dengan Menggunakan Citra
Landsat dan ASTER. Undergraduate Thesis. Surabaya: Geomatic Engineering, ITS.

17

18