2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.10.033
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparing models of debris-flow susceptibility in the alpine environment

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
134
0
3

Year Published

2009
2009
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 241 publications
(152 citation statements)
references
References 56 publications
(82 reference statements)
1
134
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Additionally, being data-driven, a statistical model built up for one region cannot readily be extrapolated to the neighbouring area. On the contrary, the main drawback of physically based modeling is the difficulty to gather the input parameters over large and complex areas (Carrara et al 2008;Chang and Chiang 2009). However, a possible solution is to calibrate the parameter values through back-analysis of preceding major landslide events, after which event-based landslide inventories are generally available (Casadei et al 2003;Li et al 2011).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, being data-driven, a statistical model built up for one region cannot readily be extrapolated to the neighbouring area. On the contrary, the main drawback of physically based modeling is the difficulty to gather the input parameters over large and complex areas (Carrara et al 2008;Chang and Chiang 2009). However, a possible solution is to calibrate the parameter values through back-analysis of preceding major landslide events, after which event-based landslide inventories are generally available (Casadei et al 2003;Li et al 2011).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, the adoption of an appropriate mapping unit is essential because the different partitions interfere in the way data is integrated and treated into the modeling process (Guzzetti et al, 1999), thus generating different landslide susceptibility results (Carrara et al, 2008).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Conventionally, the boundaries of these terrain units were defined by the materials, landforms or geomorphological processes occurring in the study area (Guzzetti et al, 1999). In recent years, some authors have discussed the main advantage and drawbacks of different types of terrain mapping units (Van den Eeckhaut et al, 2009), and even highlighted the relevance of terrain units in the analysis and modeling of geological and environmental phenomena (Carrara et al, 2008). Although the needs to develop new methodologies to improve the predictive quality of the landslide susceptibility assessment at the cliffs are evident, the selection of adjusted terrain mapping units has not received yet special attention.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…4). As pointed out in many regions worldwide, landslides are linked to slopes [16,36,[42][43][44][45][46][47]. Two characteristics are classically considered: slope orientation and slope dipping.…”
Section: Slope Orientation and Slope Dippingmentioning
confidence: 99%