Factors controlling landslide frequency‐area distributions

Abstract

This study examines the FADs of 45 earthquake‐induced landslide inventories from around the world in the context of the proposed explanations. We show that each inventory probably involves some combination of the proposed explanations, though not all explanations contribute to each case. We propose an alternative explanation to understand the reason for the divergence from a power‐law. We suggest that the geometry of a landslide at the time of mapping reflects not just one single movement but many, including the propagation of numerous smaller landslides before and after the main failure. Because only the resulting combination of these landslides can be observed due to a lack of temporal resolution, many smaller landslides are not taken into account in the inventory. This reveals that the divergence from the power‐law is not necessarily attributed to the incompleteness of an inventory. This conceptual model will need to be validated by ongoing observation and analysis. Also, we show that because of the subjectivity of mapping procedures, the total number of landslides and total landslide areas in inventories differ significantly, and therefore the shapes of FADs also differ considerably.