LiDAR-supported prediction of slope failures using an integrated ensemble weights-of-evidence and analytical hierarchy process
Clicks: 399
ID: 261425
2018
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
70.8
/100
399 views
279 readers
Trending
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #2 of 29 articles by views in environmental earth sciences
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
The present study investigates a potential application of different resolution topographic data obtained from airborne LiDAR and an integrated ensemble weight-of-evidence and analytic hierarchy process (WoE–AHP) model to spatially predict slope failures. Previously failed slopes of the Pellizzano (Italy) were remotely mapped and divided into two subsets for training and testing purposes. 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, and 20 m topographic data were processed to extract nine terrain attributes identified as conditioning factors for landslides: slope degree, aspect, altitude, plan curvature, profile curvature, stream power index, topographic wetness index, sediment transport index, and topographic roughness index. Landslide (slope failure) susceptibility maps were produced using a single WoE (Model 1), an ensemble WoE–AHP model that used all conditioning factors (Model 2), and an ensemble WoE–AHP model that only used highly nominated conditioning factors (Model 3). The validation results proved the efficiency of high-resolution (≤ 5 m) topographic data and the ensemble model, particularly when all factors were used in the modeling process (Model 2). The average success rates and prediction rates for Model 2 that used ≤ 5 m resolution datasets were 84.26 and 82.78%, respectively. The finding presented in this paper can aid in planning more efficient LiDAR surveys and the handling of large datasets, and in gaining a better understanding of the nature of the predictive models.
| Reference Key |
jaafari2018environmentallidar-supported
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Abolfazl Jaafari;Abolfazl Jaafari; |
| Journal | environmental earth sciences |
| Year | 2018 |
| DOI |
doi:10.1007/s12665-017-7207-3
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.