## 5 Conclusions  
This study re-evaluated existing managed GGSJs. The goal was to propose an evaluation method to improve the efficiency of management by solving the difficulties in the evaluation process. To achieve the research goal, the following steps were conducted: first, various slopes were selected for a field survey and the survey was performed and evaluated by experts. Second, by analyzing the evaluation results of the experts, difference in grades were confirmed. Third, the necessity of having a standard evaluation method was justified by comparing the evaluation results among experts and confirming the deviation of the evaluation results. Fourth, during the evaluation, the problems encountered were recorded and analyzed in terms of the two aspects of evaluation and management, and solutions were sought. Fifth, the methodology for managing slopes was reviewed, and appropriate solutions were presented through expert interviews and questionnaires. Finally, the results of the study led to a conclusion about the two aspects of results and discretion. In conclusion, the method for determining the scope of a GGSJ and selecting the evaluation table type should be based on safety and not on subjective judgment. At the time of evaluation, it is necessary to move in the direction of data management by evaluating all types without being concerned about the type of assessment table used. Various kinds of slopes are encountered during evaluations. In the GGSJ evaluation and management system, where experts also generate mixed evaluation results, the difficultiesfor practitioners are further revealed. Countless issues in small units are selected for each index of the evaluation table. However, without a standard from a large-scale perspective, the evaluation results and managed data will inevitably become meaningless. In addition, the current GGSJ guidelines present an evaluation method and scope for each index; however, many of the current problems deviate from the business guidelines. Therefore, this study focused on maximizing the efficiency, consistency, and reliability of field evaluation and management methods. Additionally, this study focused on GGSJs and cannot be fully generalized for other geospatial distributions. However, it can be generalized to some extent if a similar research procedure to that employed in this study on field evaluation results is carried out. There are limitations to the field surveys of this study. During the evaluation, as the experts were familiar with the existing evaluation method, there were times when the evaluation was conducted without fully following the work manual. In addition, it may have been difficult to make the assessments because the slopes were not fully exposed during the evaluation owing to bushes. However, this does not affect the field evaluations. Thus, it is considered acceptable to some extent. Supposing that the MOIS introduces legal and administrative changes to the relevant principles and the conduction of on-site evaluations, it will be possible to judge the legitimacy of the results in light of this study by confirming the similarity of the evaluation results of practitioners and experts. In addition, the MOIS will be able to increase the efficiency of its management system. This study analyzed the causes of differences in evaluation results in on-site evaluations and has suggested criteria to reduce such differences. More work is needed for the validation of this study so that it can be applied more widely. While applications will be valid in areas where there are differences in on-site evaluation results, additional research and analysis are required for other areas. CRediT authorship contribution statement: J-J.L. : writing--original draft preparation, data curation, methodology, investigation, conceptualization. W.-S.J. : investigation, data curation, conceptualization. M.-S.S.: conceptualization, methodology, writing--review and editing. S.-G.Y. : methodology, investigation, writing--review and editing. J.-S.K.