4.6 Article

Application of analytic hierarchy process model for landslide susceptibility mapping in the Gangu County, Gansu Province, China

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES
Volume 75, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12665-015-5194-9

Keywords

Landslide; Susceptibility mapping; Analytical hierarchy process (AHP); Geographic information system (GIS)

Funding

  1. State Key Program of National Natural Science of China [41430643]
  2. National Program on Key Basic Research Project [2015CB251601]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of the present study was to produce a landslide susceptibility map using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) model based on GIS for Gangu County, China. For this purpose, a detailed landslide inventory map was prepared and eight landside conditioning factors were considered, these factors were: slope angle, plan curvature, altitude, distance from faults, distance from rivers, distance from roads, rainfall, and lithology. The landslide inventory map was prepared by literatures, aerial photographs and field surveys, and a total of 328 landslides were identified in the study area. All landslides were applied for establishing the model and validating the model. The ArcGIS package was used to evaluate landslide susceptibility and analyze landslide conditioning factors, as a result, a landslide susceptibility map was generated using analytic hierarchy process model based on ArcGIS 10.0 and divided into five susceptibility classes: very low, low, moderate, high, and very high. Finally, In order to validate the accuracy of the landslide susceptibility map produced from AHP model, both physical and statistical methods were applied. The success rate curve results showed that the susceptibility map using AHP model has a success rate of 73.74 %. Therefore, the landslide susceptibility map will be helpful for landside hazard assessment and land use planning in the study area.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available