## 5 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Date**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Quantity MM**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**LOS-ascending**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**LOS-Descending**} \\ \cline{3-5}  & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Total Displacement (mm)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Phase**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Displacement (mm)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Phase**} \\ \hline
1 March 2015 & 8 & 15.2 & Subsidence & 5.9 & Uplift \\
10 March 2015 & 1 & 15.2 & Subsidence & 5.9 & Uplift \\
8 April 2016 & 8 & 32.7 & Subsidence & 15.9 & Uplift \\
2 November 2016 & 1 & 65.3 & Uplift & 10.8 & Uplift \\
17 July 2017 & 2 & 0.5 & Subsidence & 9.3 & Subsidence \\
18 August 2017 & 1 & 0.5 & Subsidence & 9.3 & Subsidence \\
18 September 2017 & 1 & 0.5 & Subsidence & 9.3 & Subsidence \\
30 January 2018 & 1 & 11.8 & Subsidence & 12.4 & Subsidence \\
1 May 2018 & 2 & 3.1 & Uplift & 9.1 & Uplift \\
6 May 2018 & 17 & 3.1 & Uplift & 9.1 & Uplift \\
1 August 2018 & 1 & 27.0 & Subsidence & 6.4 & Subsidence \\
1 October 2018 & 1 & 18.9 & Uplift & 6.4 & Subsidence \\
18 April 2019 & 1 & 29.0 & Uplift & 8.0 & Uplift \\
24 April 2019 & 2 & 29.0 & Uplift & 8.0 & Uplift \\
27 May 2019 & 2 & 29.0 & Uplift & 8.0 & Uplift \\
1 August 2019 & 17 & 36.8 & Subsidence & 18.2 & Subsidence \\
18 September 2019 & 1 & 36.8 & Subsidence & 18.2 & Subsidence \\
26 February 2020 & 224 & 10.2 & Subsidence & 41.0 & Subsidence \\
1 July 2020 & 10 & 4.5 & Subsidence & 9.6 & Uplift \\
27 November 2020 & 9 & 10.9 & Uplift & 8.3 & Uplift \\
17 February 2021 & 48 & 22.7 & Subsidence & 40.5 & Subsidence \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Relationship of mass movements with the behavior of total displacement in LOS and its phase in which displacement occurs. Figure 9: Behavior of displacement in LOS for the study region between the years 2014 and 2021 (50 th percentile) correlated with the inventory of mass movements. Ascending orbital direction (**a**). Descending orbital direction (**b**). The red lines demarcate the number of mass movements. The action of the behavior of surface deformation as a trigger for mass movements would be framed as an inherent element of great weight in the analysis of susceptibility conditions, since it describes the response of surfaces and how they are disturbed (tension stress) by constant changes in deformation. On the other hand, structural control also plays an important role within the degrees of deformation, if observed by the effect generated by the stroke of the Bucaramanga fault. Since this fault is an oblique structure with a sinistral strike slip and reverse dip in the NNW-SSE direction, which, as described by [PERSON] et al. (2019), generates a tilt with its activity that infers on the geometry of the hydrographic basins present on its stroke, it thus generates a tilt (asymmetry factor) in the direction of the kinematics of the fault. All these considerations within the study of susceptibility to mass movements guarantee a more complete analysis based on the variables contemplated that are directly related to the conditioning action of a mass movement, which guarantees the creation of a model more in line with the situation present in the environment ([PERSON] et al., 2019; [PERSON] et al., 2020). Finally, it is important to mention an aspect of the study carried out by [PERSON] et al. (2019), which describes how seismic activity and rainfall are relevant factors that act as a trigger for mass movements for the study region. This study established a combined effect between seismic activity (Mw \(\geq\) 4) and rainfall, with a threshold of 53 mm for 24-h rainfall and 158 mm for accumulated rainfall from the previous 15 days in a 25-year return period, thus giving a spatiotemporally framed scenario.