4.6 Article

Slope units-based flow susceptibility model: using validation tests to select controlling factors

期刊

NATURAL HAZARDS
卷 61, 期 1, 页码 143-153

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11069-011-9846-0

关键词

Landslide susceptibility; Univariate multiparametric model validation; Mapping units

资金

  1. Ministry of University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A susceptibility map for an area, which is representative in terms of both geologic setting and slope instability phenomena of large sectors of the Sicilian Apennines, was produced using slope units and a multiparametric univariate model. The study area, extending for approximately 90 km(2), was partitioned into 774 slope units, whose expected landslide occurrence was estimated by averaging seven susceptibility values, determined for the selected controlling factors: lithology, mean slope gradient, stream power index at the foot, mean topographic wetness index and profile curvature, slope unit length, and altitude range. Each of the recognized 490 landslides was represented by its centroid point. On the basis of conditional analysis, the susceptibility function here adopted is the density of landslides, computed for each class. Univariate susceptibility models were prepared for each of the controlling factors, and their predictive performance was estimated by prediction rate curves and effectiveness ratio applied to the susceptibility classes. This procedure allowed us to discriminate between effective and non-effective factors, so that only the former was subsequently combined in a multiparametric model, which was used to produce the final susceptibility map. The validation of this map latter enabled us to verify the reliability and predictive performance of the model. Slope unit altitude range and length, lithology and, subordinately, stream power index at the foot of the slope unit demonstrated to be the main controlling factors of landslides, while mean slope gradient, profile curvature, and topographic wetness index gave unsatisfactory results.

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