4.7 Article

Comparing methods for determining landslide early warning thresholds: potential use of non-triggering rainfall for locations with scarce landslide data availability

Journal

LANDSLIDES
Volume 18, Issue 9, Pages 3135-3147

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10346-021-01704-7

Keywords

Early warning systems; Intensity-duration model; Shallow landslides; Robustness; Performance; Landslide initiation

Funding

  1. Universita degli Studi di Catania within the CRUI-CARE Agreement

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Thresholds for rainfall intensity-duration landslide-triggering can be determined through three types of rainfall event datasets: triggering, non-triggering, or both. Comparison of these methods based on statistical properties shows that using both triggering and non-triggering rainfall data is the most effective, providing a balance between correct predictions and robustness, though requiring a large sample size.
Rainfall intensity-duration landslide-triggering thresholds have become widespread for the development of landslide early warning systems. Thresholds can be in principle determined using rainfall event datasets of three types: (a) rainfall events associated with landslides (triggering rainfall) only, (b) rainfall events not associated with landslides (non-triggering rainfall) only, (c) both triggering and non-triggering rainfall. In this paper, through Monte Carlo simulation, we compare these three possible approaches based on the following statistical properties: robustness, sampling variation, and performance. It is found that methods based only on triggering rainfall can be the worst with respect to those three investigated properties. Methods based on both triggering and non-triggering rainfall perform the best, as they could be built to provide the best trade-off between correct and wrong predictions; they are also robust, but still require a quite large sample to sufficiently limit the sampling variation of the threshold parameters. On the other side, methods based on non-triggering rainfall only, which are mostly overlooked in the literature, imply good robustness and low sampling variation, and performances that can often be acceptable and better than thresholds derived from only triggering events. To use solely triggering rainfall-which is the most common practice in the literature-yields to thresholds with the worse statistical properties, except when there is a clear separation between triggering and non-triggering events. Based on these results, it can be stated that methods based only on non-triggering rainfall deserve wider attention. Methods for threshold identification based on only non-triggering rainfall may have the practical advantage that can be in principle used where limited information on landslide occurrence is available (newly instrumented areas). The fact that relatively large samples (about 200 landslides events) are needed for a sufficiently precise estimation of threshold parameters when using triggering rainfall suggests that threshold determination in future applications may start from identifying thresholds from non-triggering events only, and then move to methods considering also the triggering events as landslide information starts to become more available.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available