3.8 Proceedings Paper

SPATIAL RESOLUTION EFFECTS OF DIGITAL TERRAIN MODELS ON LANDSLIDE SUSCEPTIBILITY ANALYSIS

Journal

XXIII ISPRS CONGRESS, COMMISSION VIII
Volume 41, Issue B8, Pages 33-36

Publisher

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/isprsarchives-XLI-B8-33-2016

Keywords

Landslide; Susceptibility analysis; Certainty factor; Artificial neural networks; Remote sensing

Funding

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology in Taiwan [NSC 102-2621-M-006 -002 -MY3]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purposes of this study are to identify the maximum number of correlated factors for landslide susceptibility mapping and to evaluate landslide susceptibility at Sihjhong river catchment in the southern Taiwan, integrating two techniques, namely certainty factor (CF) and artificial neural network (ANN). The landslide inventory data of the Central Geological Survey (CGS, MOEA) in 2004-2014 and two digital elevation model (DEM) datasets including a 5-meter LiDAR DEM and a 30-meter Aster DEM were prepared. We collected thirteen possible landslide-conditioning factors. Considering the multi-collinearity and factor redundancy, we applied the CF approach to optimize these thirteen conditioning factors. We hypothesize that if the CF values of the thematic factor layers are positive, it implies that these conditioning factors have a positive relationship with the landslide occurrence. Therefore, based on this assumption and positive CF values, seven conditioning factors including slope angle, slope aspect, elevation, terrain roughness index (TRI), terrain position index (TPI), total curvature, and lithology have been selected for further analysis. The results showed that the optimized-factors model provides a better accuracy for predicting landslide susceptibility in the study area. In conclusion, the optimized-factors model is suggested for selecting relative factors of landslide occurrence.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available