## 3 Results of the On-Field Evaluations
### Analysis of the On-Field Expert Evaluation Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**N**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Data from MOIS**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**1 st Expert**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**2 nd Expert**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**3 rd Expert**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**4 th Expert**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**5 th Expert**} \\ \cline{2-11}  & **Type** & **Grade** & **Type** & **Grade** & **Type** & **Grade** & **Type** & **Grade** & **Type** & **Grade** & **Type** & **Grade** \\ \hline
1 & (1) & C & (3) & D & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
2 & (1) & C & (3) & C & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
3 & (3) & E & (3) & C & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
4 & (3) & D & (3) & C & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
5 & (3) & E & (3) & C & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
6 & (3) & E & (3) & C & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
7 & (5) & B & (5) & D & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
8 & (6) & A & (6) & B & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Existing evaluation results of GGSJs from MOIS data and field evaluation results by experts. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**N**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Data from MOIS**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**1 st Expert**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**2 nd Expert**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**3 rd Expert**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**4 th Expert**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**5 th Expert**} \\ \cline{2-11}  & **Type** & **Grade** & **Type** & **Grade** & **Type** & **Grade** & **Type** & **Grade** & **Type** & **Grade** & **Type** & **Grade** & **Type** & **Grade** \\ \hline
9 & (5) & D & (5) & C & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
10 & \begin{tabular}{c} (5) \\ Complex slope \\ \end{tabular}  & C & \begin{tabular}{c} (4) \\ (5) \\ \end{tabular}  & D & \ \begin{tabular}{c} D \\ B \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} \\ \\ \end{tabular}  & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
11 & \ \begin{tabular}{c} (7) \\ Complex slope \\ \end{tabular}  & B & \begin{tabular}{c} (4) \\ (7) \\ \end{tabular}  & C & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
12 & \ \begin{tabular}{c} (6) \\ Complex slope \\ \end{tabular}  & B & \begin{tabular}{c} (6) \\ (5) \\ \end{tabular}  & C & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
13 &
\begin{tabular}{c} (2) \\ (1) \\ (2) \\ (3) \\ (3) \\ (3) \\ (3) \\ (3) \\ (3) \\ (3) \\ (3) \\ (3) \\ (3) \\ (3) \\ (3) \\ (3) \\ (3) \\ (3) \\ (3) \\ (3) \\ (3) \\ (3) \\ (3) \\ (3) \\ (3) \\ (3) \\ (3) \\ (3) \\ (4) \\ (4) \\ (4) \\ (5) \\ (5) \\ (5)Figure 4: Rates of agreement between experts and management staff by ratings. Figure 3: Differences in evaluation grades between experts and management staff. Figure 2: Rate of consistency between experts and management staff. Regarding slope type selection, the agreement rate between practitioners and experts was 47.9%, indicating that less than half of the slopes were being evaluated as the right type of slope. These comparisons show that the lack of a standard evaluation method causes inconsistent results even if the same evaluation table is used. Thus, the evaluation results for GGSJs managed by the MOIS in Korea are rendered questionable. It is therefore necessary to introduce a standard evaluation method to ensure consistency. The GGSJ evaluation grades are numerically stratified in bands of 20 points. For example, a score of more than 60 points would translate to a D grade while a score of 59 points would translate to a C grade, the one-point difference determining whether a slope is designated as a collapse-risk area the maintenance of which is to receive support from the government budget. There is room for the intentional adjustment of evaluation grades through subjective judgment. Therefore, it is necessary to minimize the differences in scores by establishing standard criteria and evaluation methods.