## 4 Results  
The static safety factor (_Fs_) and critical acceleration (_a\({}_{c}\)_) were calculated via the raster calculator function of ArcGIS software on the basis of slope data and parameter values, according to Equations (2) and (3). The results are shown in Figure 7a,b. Figure 6: Maps showing the distribution of 45 groups of parameter values: (**a**) depth of the failure surface (2); (**b**) weight of the rock–soil mass (\(\gamma\)); (**c**) effective cohesion (\(c^{\prime}\)); (**d**) internal friction angle (\(\varphi^{\prime}\)). Figure 7: (**a**) Distribution of the static factor of safety (_Fs_); (**b**) critical acceleration (_a\({}_{c}\)_). The basic parameters of peak ground acceleration (_a_) and surface wave magnitude (\(M_{\rm s}\)) were assigned as follows, by querying the relevant file: 1. a = 0.1, Ms = 7; 2. a = 0.2, Ms = 7; 3. a = 0.3, Ms = 8; and 4. a = 0.4, Ms = 9 [28]. The displacement value (_D_) is the basic parameter of seismic landslide hazard assessment under different working conditions and was calculated via Equations (4) and (5). For the information value model, the hazard-causing parameter system of seismic landslides was established, and these factors included the relative height difference, the slope, the lithological group, and the distance to fault. In this work, topography and geological condition data were from detailed survey data [18] and each factor of the information value model (Table 2) was calculated according to Equation (6). The study area was comprehensively divided into four grades for seismic landslide hazard zones. The results are shown in Figure 8.  
The Newmark displacement model calculations were modified by the information value model and the seismic landslide hazard zones were calculated at different peak ground acceleration (_a_) scales via the raster calculator function of ArcGIS. The calculated results could be classified into four categories by using the natural breakpoints tool of ArcGIS, which represents high, medium, low, and very low hazard levels (Figure 9). Obviously, with increasing peak ground acceleration, the area of high hazard increases, with a positive correlation. The distributions of high- and medium-hazard areas under different seismic conditions were calculated via the raster reclassification function of ArcGIS (Table 3). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Primary Index** & **Sub Index** & **Rank** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Information** \\ **Value/I** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Topography} & & \(<\)100 & 0.03 \\  & & [100, 200) & 0.94 \\  & & [200, 300) & 0.54 \\  & & [300, 400) & \(-\)0.28 \\  & Relative height & [400, 550) & \(-\)4.27 \\  & difference/m & [550, 700) & \(-\)2.75 \\  & & [700, 850) & \(-\)2.06 \\  & & [850, 1000) & \(-\)1.71 \\  & & \(>\)1000 & 0 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Slope/\({}^{\circ}\)} & & \(<\)10 & 0.4 \\  & & [10, 20) & 0.08 \\  & Slope/\({}^{\circ}\) & [20, 30) & \(-\)0.29 \\  & & [30, 40) & \(-\)0.18 \\  & & \(\geq\)40 & \(-\)1.81 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Geological condition} & & Alluvial accumulation & 0.19 \\  & & Ordinary granite & \(-\)0.54 \\  & Lithological group & Rhyolite porphyry & \(-\)0.54 \\  & & Granite porphyry & 0.74 \\  & & Ultrabasic rock & 0.07 \\  & & River & \(-\)0.77 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Geological condition} & & [0, 100) & \(-\)0.43 \\  & Distance to the & [100, 300) & 0.18 \\ \cline{1-1}  & fault/m & [300, 600) & 0.36 \\ \cline{1-1}  & fault/m & [600, 1500) & \(-\)0.22 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & \(\geq\)1500 & 0.04 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Hazard-causing parameter system and information values of the information value model.