## Results
### Landslide Detection
The kappa values of the NDVI filtering method (0.91) and the SAM method (0.85) reflected an \"almost perfect level of agreement\", followed by that of the SVM method (0.66), which represented a \"substantial level of agreement\". In terms of false-positive points, visual interpretation of the random assessment points with WorldView imagery revealed that misclassification occurred in bare areas (Table 4); the total number of points misclassified by the SVM method was 31, while the total number of points misclassified by the NDVI filtering method and the SAM method was only 7 (and they were the same points). The bare areas mainly included old landslide areas that occurred before the typhoon event. The reflectance of the correctly classified points was slightly higher than that of the misclassified points, and the variation in the spectral signature of the posttyphoon points was larger than that of the misclassified points (Figure 8). Band B4 (near-infrared) presented higher values for landslides than for misclassified points, generating a slight difference in the spectral signatures between them. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline  & **Bare** & **Total** \\ \hline NDVI filtering method & 7 & 7 \\ SAM method & 7 & 7 \\ SVM method & 31 & 31 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: False-positive misclassified points of landslide detection in _Setana South_. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline  & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Reference**} & **Accuracy** & **Error** \\ \cline{3-8}  & & **Damaged** & **Nondamaged** & **Total** & **UA** & **Area (ha)** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **OA** \\ **Kappa** \\ \end{tabular} & **Std Error** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**a) Classified by**} & Damaged & 69 & 7 & 76 & 90.8\% & 22.0 & 96.0\% & 0.0080 \\  & Nondamaged & 1 & 123 & 124 & 99.2\% & 8039.0 & 0.91 & \\  & Total & 70 & 130 & 200 & & & \\  & PA & 98.6\% & 94.6\% & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**b) Classified by SAM**} & Damaged & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \\  & Damaged & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \\  & Damaged & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \\  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \\  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**c) Classified by SVM**} & Damaged & 63 & 7 & 70 & 90.0\% & 17.6 & 93.0\% & 0.0198 \\  & Nondamaged & 7 & 123 & 130 & 94.6\% & 8043.2 & 0.85 & \\  & Total & 70 & 130 & 186 & & & \\  & PA & 90.0\% & 94.6\% & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**c) Classified by SVM**} & Damaged & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \\  & Damaged & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \\  & Nondamaged & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \\ \cline{1-1}  & Total & 70 & 130 & 200 & & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & PA & 98.6\% & 75.0\% & & & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: The error matrices of landslide detection in _Setana South_.