## 6 AGD at the 1:5000 Scale  
The initial part of this research, which was part of the first article, described and presented the concept of AGD at a regional scale (1:25,000). It emphasized that, based on the hazard assessment model adopted from the SGC, the main conditioning factors taken into account are the deterioration of the geomorphology (slope and morphodynamics) and, particularly, the soil cover. These factors influenced the generation of landslides in the last year analyzed, as supported by the increase in areas of high susceptibility. Consequently, the deteriorating conditions could also be cataloged as a triggering factor, which should be studied in susceptibility and hazard analyses [2]. For the semi-detailed scale of 1:5000, the focus of the present study, another evaluation model was used, which takes into account geotechnical parameters that, according to the AGD concept, continuously change in both deterioration and recovery. Using the expression for calculating the slip safety factor by the infinite slope method (see Equation (1)), some conditioning factor variables were defined based on the stiffness of the soil, expressed through N values from the SPT test and the shear wave velocity obtained from the MASW-2D seismic lines. Additionally, changes in soil moisture due to the effect of rainwater infiltration (wet front) were measured using soil resistivity tests, and strength parameters were determined through direct shear tests. Table 3 presents the changes in the mentioned parameters, obtained from laboratory tests on samples from the boreholes shown in Figure 11, with the advantage of having information on the scenarios before, immediately after, and following the catastrophic landslides that occurred in August 2021. In 2017 (prior to the failure), all SPT tests indicated that the soils, up to a depth of approximately 4.0 to 5.0 m, were in a loose to very loose state and highly susceptible to sliding due to the deterioration accumulated over the previous 33 years, since the last catastrophic event in the study area. Underlying these materials, a slope deposit continues, but with apparent greater rigidity, which is consistent with the results of the seismic lines taken for this same date, given that for depths greater than 5.5 m, the shear wave velocity values increase. In 2021, immediately after the landslides, new boreholes were drilled, revealing colluvial deposits up to a depth of 9.0 m in a loose sub-surface state, as indicated by seismic line results with values below 300 and 205 m/s. These results show a more unfavorable condition regarding the stability of the slope compared to 2017. Approximately two years after the failure, additional drilling was performed, and field records indicated a noticeable recovery in the consistency of the soil, with the loose th \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Year** & **\% High Hazard Area** & **\% Medium Hazard Area** & **\% Low Hazard Area** \\ \hline
2017 & 27 & 31 & 42 \\
2021 & 80 & 12 & 8 \\
2023 & 35 & 47 & 18 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Statistics of the simulations performed. Figure 12: Hazard model at a 1:5000 scale in 2017, 2021, and 2023.  
in accordance with the results of the geophysical exploration. A comparison of the changes in the borehole logs can be seen in Table 7.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**2017**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**2021**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**2023**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Depth. (m)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**S1**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**S2**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**S2A**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**S1**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**S1**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**S2**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**S3**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-8}  & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{8}{c}{**SPT-N**} \\ \hline
0.5 & \(\frac{1}{2}\) & \  
In the same way, a comparison of the Vs values from the MASW-2D seismic line tests is shown in Figure 10. In 2017, at the surface level, such values started at 218 m/s.