landslide management using geospatial technology (lmgt)
landslide management using geospatial technology (lmgt) landslide management using geospatial technology (lmgt)
(Cont’d)Population Map (PM) Kota Kinabalu City area estimated having highestpopulations of 457,661 persons, followed byPenampang area of 170,357 persons, and the Tuaranarea of 104,659 persons. Population rate increments in study area wereestimated about 30 % to 50 % for each 10 year (Year1980: 195,097, year 1991: 360,111, year 2000:563,597 & year 2008: 732,677) (Jabatan PerangkaanMalaysia, 2008). This situation indicates that the elements at risk(people, vehicles, infrastructure and property) willcontinue to rise.Property Value Map (PVM) A total of four (4) main land use is taken intoaccount in this paper namely the residential sector,commercial sector, industrial sector, and agricultural,forestry and others sectors.Based on the results of LMGT analysis carried out,commercial property sector recorded the highestvalue of (751,125,100,000) (00,000'), followed bythe residential sector (42,260,953,000) (00,000'),industrial sector (603,765,000) (00,000') andagricultural, forestry and others sectors(211,577,000) (00,000').
(Cont’d)‣ Very Low Risk zone(14%)‣ Low Risk zone(10%)‣ Moderate Riskzone (52%)‣ High Risk zone(22%)‣ Very High Riskzone (2%)Landslide risk analysis results
- Page 1 and 2: LANDSLIDE MANAGEMENT USING GEOSPATI
- Page 3 and 4: INTRODUCTION Landslide - Geohazards
- Page 5 and 6: DEVELOPMENT ISSUES AND LANDSLIDE IN
- Page 7 and 8: (Cont’d)Reality….?
- Page 9 and 10: (Cont’d)IN SABAH….. ?
- Page 11 and 12: (Cont’d)Karambunai ResortKg. Lok
- Page 13 and 14: Landslide records in MalaysiaBil Ta
- Page 15: LANDSLIDE MORPHOLOGYVarnes (1978)
- Page 18 and 19: LANDSLIDE CAUSING FACTORSNatural Fa
- Page 20 and 21: (Cont’d)Non-Natural Factors: Inco
- Page 22 and 23: MATERIALS AND METHODS
- Page 24 and 25: (Cont’d)LRM Cycles (Taubenb¨ock
- Page 26 and 27: (Cont’d)
- Page 28 and 29: Rating value for landslide hazard a
- Page 30 and 31: (Cont’d)No6Landslide HazardIdenti
- Page 32 and 33: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
- Page 34 and 35: (Cont’d)Geological mapLandslide d
- Page 36 and 37: (Cont’d)Analysis results of rock
- Page 38 and 39: (Cont’d)Analysis results of soil
- Page 42 and 43: (Cont’d)Family of F-N curves by P
- Page 44 and 45: (Cont’d)Definitions of "acceptanc
- Page 46 and 47: (Cont’d)3. Due to its generalized
(Cont’d)‣ Very Low Risk zone(14%)‣ Low Risk zone(10%)‣ Moderate Riskzone (52%)‣ High Risk zone(22%)‣ Very High Riskzone (2%)Landslide risk analysis results