2003
DOI: 10.1023/b:nhaz.0000007097.42735.9e
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Use of Geomorphological Information in Indirect Landslide Susceptibility Assessment

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
339
1
39

Year Published

2015
2015
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 620 publications
(380 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
1
339
1
39
Order By: Relevance
“…As we move more than 200 m away from the main stream, it is very likely that we are already in areas of the mountains where the slope is usually steep. This will not be a problem if only three intervals of DD (<25, 25-50, and >50 m) are used, such as in van Westen et al (2003). But, if a large number of intervals are specified to increase the resolution of DD, we would see that the region with larger DD would also have a steeper slope.…”
Section: Region-based Factor Of Total Fluxmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As we move more than 200 m away from the main stream, it is very likely that we are already in areas of the mountains where the slope is usually steep. This will not be a problem if only three intervals of DD (<25, 25-50, and >50 m) are used, such as in van Westen et al (2003). But, if a large number of intervals are specified to increase the resolution of DD, we would see that the region with larger DD would also have a steeper slope.…”
Section: Region-based Factor Of Total Fluxmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, the proximity to a drainage pattern has been considered as a contributing factor to landslide occurrence, as streams can adversely affect the stability of the adjacent slope by eroding the toe and/or saturating the slope (Gökceoglu and Aksoy 1996). The drainage distance factor, DD, expressed as concentric multi-ringed buffer zones based on the distance of each cell from the main stream, has thus been utilized to capture this effect in LSM (Fourniadis et al 2007;van Westen et al 2003). However, using DD buffers implies that all cells within the same buffer zone have the same landslide susceptibility.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…By definition, landslide susceptibility is a nontemporal concept that refers to locations where landslides preferentially occur (Guzzetti et al 2005;Varnes 1984), whereas landslide hazard describes the likelihood of landslide occurrence in time and space Varnes 1984) along with the magnitude of landslide occurrence . Landslide susceptibility and hazard have been studied using qualitative (Barredo et al 2000;Ruff and Czurda 2008;Van Westen et al 2003) and quantitative (Godt et al 2008;Guzzetti et al 2005;Lan et al 2004;Remondo et al 2003;Van Westen et al 1997;Van Westen and Terlien 1996;Yeon et al 2010) approaches.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The model employed in mapping the hazards was a data-driven bivariate hazard mapping model (see [16,30]). The various parameters (predisposition factors) involved in the realization of the hazard map are rock type, soil type, land cover, slope dipping, slope orientation, nature (size) of river and proximity to river (see [31][32][33][34], and references therein).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many different types of landslide hazard zonation techniques have been developed over the last decades, and the difficulty lies in the weighting the factors [32,[56][57][58][59][60]. In this paper, the parameters were weighted as follows: the model builder was used in the ArcGIS 10.1 software and all the environmental settings were checked such as processing extent, raster analysis and cell size.…”
Section: Combining Hazard Parametersmentioning
confidence: 99%