Debris flow susceptibility analysis is a prerequisite of risk assessment. The main objective of this study was to explore the accuracy and practicability of mapping units for evaluation of debris flow susceptibility. These units include grid cell units (GCUs), and watershed units (WUs) with the flow thresholds 10 000 (WU 10 000) and 5000 (WU 5000). The frequency ratio (FR) model was selected as the statistical method. Yongji County (YJC) of Jilin Province, China was selected as the research site, and a total of 123 debris flow disasters were surveyed. Eight influencing factors were considered and a total of three models were constructed. The predictive capabilities of the models were verified using an ROC curve and AUC. The results showed the three models to be accurate and the evaluation results of the GCU were found to be more accurate than others. However, when considering the effects of geology and geomorphology on the occurrence of debris flows, the WU was more feasible than the GCU. Therefore, the results indicate that the evaluation of debris flow susceptibility should be carried out based on the WU of the appropriate flow threshold in combination with the actual prevention and control of debris flow disasters.
Landslides are one of the most frequent geomorphic hazards, and they often result in the loss of property and human life in the Changbai Mountain area (CMA), Northeast China. The objective of this study was to produce and compare landslide susceptibility maps for the CMA using an information content model (ICM) with three knowledge-driven methods (the artificial hierarchy process with the ICM (AHP-ICM), the entropy weight method with the ICM (EWM-ICM), and the rough set with the ICM (RS-ICM)) and to explore the influence of different knowledge-driven methods for a series of parameters on the accuracy of landslide susceptibility mapping (LSM). In this research, the landslide inventory data (145 landslides) were randomly divided into a training dataset: 70% (81 landslides) were used for training the models and 30% (35 landslides) were used for validation. In addition, 13 layers of landslide conditioning factors, namely, altitude, slope gradient, slope aspect, lithology, distance to faults, distance to roads, distance to rivers, annual precipitation, land type, normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), topographic wetness index (TWI), plan curvature, and profile curvature, were taken as independent, causal predictors. Landslide susceptibility maps were developed using the ICM, RS-ICM, AHP-ICM, and EWM-ICM, in which weights were assigned to every conditioning factor. The resultant susceptibility was validated using the area under the ROC curve (AUC) method. The success accuracies of the landslide susceptibility maps produced by the ICM, RS-ICM, AHP-ICM, and EWM-ICM methods were 0.931, 0.939, 0.912, and 0.883, respectively, with prediction accuracy rates of 0.926, 0.927, 0.917, and 0.878 for the ICM, RS-ICM, AHP-ICM, and EWM-ICM, respectively. Hence, it can be concluded that the four models used in this study gave close results, with the RS-ICM exhibiting the best performance in landslide susceptibility mapping.Entropy 2019, 21, 372 2 of 24 involving land use management as an efficient approach to reduce property damage and economic loss in landslide-prone areas [1,[6][7][8][9]. The outcome maps would be useful for general planned development activities and disaster management in the future, such as choosing new urban areas and infrastructural activities, as well as for environmental protection.Landslide susceptibility maps can be obtained using both qualitative (inventory-based and knowledge-driven methods) or quantitative approaches (data-driven methods and physically based models) [4,[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17].Landslide inventory-based techniques, as a prelude to all other methods, include the collection of past landslide data, construction of databases, and production of susceptibility maps based on those data [18]. Landslide inventory mapping can be carried out using a variety of methods that were updated and summarized by Corominas et al. [17].Knowledge-driven methods that estimate landslide potential from the practical experience and expertise of the researcher are used by geomorphologists to analyze...
The main purpose of this study was to compare two types of watershed units divided by the hydrological analysis method (HWUs) and mean curvature method (CWUs) for debris flow susceptibility mapping (DFSM) in Northeast China. Firstly, a debris flow inventory map consisting of 129 debris flows and 129 non-debris flows was randomly divided into a ratio of 70% and 30% for training and testing. Secondly, 13 influencing factors were selected and the correlations between these factors and the debris flows were determined by frequency ration analysis. Then, two types of watershed units (HWUs and CWUs) were divided and logistic regression (LR), multilayer perceptron (MLP), classification and regression tree (CART) and Bayesian network (BN) were selected as the evaluation models. Finally, the predictive capabilities of the models were verified using the predictive accuracy (ACC), the Kappa coefficient and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The mean AUC, ACC and Kappa of four models (LR, MLP, CART and BN) in the training stage were 0.977, 0.931, and 0.861, respectively, for the HWUs, while 0.961, 0.905, and 0.810, respectively, for the CWUs; in the testing stage, were 0.904, 0.818, and 0.635, respectively, for the HWUs, while 0.883, 0.800, and 0.601, respectively, for the CWUs, which showed that HWU model has a higher debris flow prediction performance compared with the CWU model. The CWU-based model can reflect the spatial distribution probability of debris flows in the study area overall and can be used as an alternative model.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.