4.6 Article

Qualitative hazard and risk assessment of landslides: a practical framework for a case study in China

期刊

NATURAL HAZARDS
卷 69, 期 3, 页码 1281-1294

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11069-011-0008-1

关键词

Loess landslide; Hazard evaluation; Risk assessment; Geographical Information System

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [40772170]
  2. Key Program of Natural Science Foundation of Hubei [2009CDA007]
  3. Huazhong University of Science and Technology [2010MS057]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Landslides are presented in various types; some of which are unique or completely different from those in other countries due to geological conditions in China. Baoji City in Shaanxi Province, as a study area, is intensely affected by loess slope movements, triggered by directly intensive rainfall and indirectly by human activities. This paper provides a framework for the development of a Geographical Information System-based procedure to qualitatively assess landslide risk at a medium scale of 1: 10,000. For environmental factors affecting landsliding in the study area, erosion of river made great contribution to the occurrence of paleo-slides and old slides, while rainfall and human activities were triggers for the presence of recent landslides. The qualitative susceptibility assessment was studied in terms of slope instability using slope units, and regional-scale hazards were then analyzed by incorporating the type of landslides with susceptibility. From the landslide susceptibility analysis, almost 75% of slopes were classified as high susceptibility, in which five slopes were recently reactivated. It was noted that only 6 old landslides were categorized into high levels of hazard in case of rainfall, after assessment by combining susceptibility with types of landslides. Finally, landslide risk analysis was qualitatively made in an automatic way within the GIS, crossing the hazard map and the map of consequences to property.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据