4.6 Article

Influence of management of variables, sampling zones and land units on LR analysis for landslide spatial prevision

期刊

NATURAL HAZARDS AND EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCES
卷 13, 期 9, 页码 2209-2221

出版社

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/nhess-13-2209-2013

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several authors, according to different methodological approaches, have employed logistic Regression (LR), a multivariate statistical analysis adopted to assess the spatial probability of landslide, even though its fundamental principles have remained unaltered. This study aims at assessing the influence of some of these methodological approaches on the performance of LR, through a series of sensitivity analyses developed over a test area of about 300 km(2) in Calabria (southern Italy). In particular, four types of sampling (1 - the whole study area; 2 - transects running parallel to the general slope direction of the study area with a total surface of about 1/3 of the whole study area; 3 - buffers surrounding the phenomena with a 1/1 ratio between the stable and the unstable area; 4 - buffers surrounding the phenomena with a 1/2 ratio between the stable and the unstable area), two variable coding modes (1 - grouped variables; 2 - binary variables), and two types of elementary land (1 - cells units; 2 - slope units) units have been tested. The obtained results must be considered as statistically relevant in all cases (Aroc values > 70 %), thus confirming the soundness of the LR analysis which maintains high predictive capacities notwithstanding the features of input data. As for the area under investigation, the best performing methodological choices are the following: (i) transects produced the best results (0 < P(y) <= 93.4 %; Aroc= 79.5 %); (ii) as for sampling modalities, binary variables (0 < P(y) <= 98.3 %; Aroc= 80.7 %) provide better performance than ordinated variables; (iii) as for the choice of elementary land units, slope units (0 < P(y) <= 100 %; Aroc= 84.2 %) have obtained better results than cells matrix.

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