## 3 Results of the On-Field Evaluations  
### Analysis of the On-Field Expert Evaluation Results  
The on-site evaluation was conducted using the GGSJ disaster risk evaluation table to confirm the necessity of establishing the evaluation table. Twelve experts in slope management conducted 33 field evaluations. Table 2 presents the results of the field evaluations. N represents the number of sites surveyed. Data from the MOIS represent the evaluation results for GGSJs currently managed by the ministry. Types (1)-(8) represent natural rock slopes, natural soil slopes, artificial rock slopes, artificial soil slopes, concrete embankments, retaining walls, gabion, and stand embankments, respectively. 'Complex type' refers to a slope formed of a combination of types, such as a soil slope and a retaining wall, or an artificial slope and a retaining wall. The evaluation was performed according to the slope characteristics for composite slopes. As there is no evaluation table for complex slopes, evaluations were performed by selecting an evaluation table suitable for the characteristics of the material in question. 'Expert' refers to an expert who evaluated a branch, and each slope was evaluated by one to five evaluators. As shown in Table 2, sites 1 to 12 were each evaluated by one expert, site 22 by two experts, and site 33 by five experts. It is difficult to say whether experts evaluated the GGSJs under the MOIS because the results were verified by local government personnel. Therefore, the reliability of the values is questionable. The reliability of the data can be assumed if an expert who has been observing GGSJs for a long time carries out an evaluation according to the evaluation table. The standard values in Table 2 can be confirmed from the values representing the deviations of the evaluation scores of the experts. The evaluation results between experts should be similar. However, Table 2 shows that they do not match. The fact that the evaluation results of the experts differed during this study shows the problem caused by the lack of a standard evaluation method. To identify the cause of this problem, the evaluation results of the experts were confirmed by matching the rates of grades, differences in evaluation grades, and rates of GGSJ types with the evaluation results of existing practitioners. Figure 2 shows the evaluation grade matching rate between experts and practitioners. Only 30.4% of the evaluation grades between practitioners and experts matched. Figure 3 shows the differences between grades among the mismatched grades. The results were 43.48%, 23.91%, and 2.17% for the single-grade, two-grade, and three-grade differences, respectively. The difference reaching two grades proves that there is a large gap in terms of capabilities between experts and practitioners in the current evaluation setting. Figure 4 shows the differences in grades. Ratings between management employees and experts show very little agreement. Evidently, the matching rate for B, C, and D grade was less than 50%. In addition, Figure 5 shows the coincidence rate of slope selection. It is challenging to select and evaluate the type of evaluation table in the case of complex slopes because GGSJs include embankments.