4.8 Article

Historical dynamics of landslide risk from population and forest-cover changes in the Kivu Rift

期刊

NATURE SUSTAINABILITY
卷 4, 期 11, 页码 965-974

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41893-021-00757-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. Belgium Science Policy Office (BELSPO) through the PAStECA project [BR/165/A3/PASTECA]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human activity influences the occurrence and impact of landslides in mountainous environments, particularly in the Kivu Rift region where landslide risk is higher. Factors such as population pressure, deforestation, and land-use changes contribute to this increased risk.
Human activity influences both the occurrence and impact of landslides in mountainous environments. Population pressure and the associated land-use changes are assumed to exacerbate landslide risk, yet there is a lack of statistical evidence to support this claim, especially in the Global South where historical records are scarce. In this work, we explore the interactions between population, deforestation and landslide risk in the Kivu Rift in Africa. To do so, we develop a holistic landslide risk model that evaluates 58 years of population and forest-cover trends. We show that the current landslide risk in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is twice as high as in neighbouring Rwanda and Burundi. Congolese households, on average, populate more hazardous terrain, probably as a result of conflicts and economic pull factors such as mining. Moreover, the recent large-scale deforestation of primary rainforest in the DRC has considerably exacerbated the landslide risk. Our analysis demonstrates how the legacy of deforestation, conflicts and population dynamics is reflected in the landslide risk in the Kivu Rift. A mapping study covering over 50 years finds that landslide risk is much higher in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, due to more recent deforestation and more people living in more susceptible areas, than in similar landscapes in neighbouring countries.

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

4.8
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