Landslide vulnerability and risk assessment for multi-hazard scenarios using airborne laser scanning data (LiDAR)

Publication Type:
Journal Article
Landslides, 2017, 14 (3), pp. 1057 - 1076
Issue Date:
Filename Description Size
10.1007%2Fs10346-016-0744-0.pdfPublished Version6.24 MB
Adobe PDF
Full metadata record
© 2016, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Landslide hazard, vulnerability, and risk-zoning maps are considered in the decision-making process that involves land use/land cover (LULC) planning in disaster-prone areas. The accuracy of these analyses is directly related to the quality of spatial data needed and methods employed to obtain such data. In this study, we produced a landslide inventory map that depicts 164 landslide locations using high-resolution airborne laser scanning data. The landslide inventory data were randomly divided into a training dataset: 70 % for training the models and 30 % for validation. In the initial step, a susceptibility map was developed using logistic regression approach in which weights were assigned to every conditioning factor. A high-resolution airborne laser scanning data (LiDAR) was used to derive the landslide conditioning factors for the spatial prediction of landslide hazard areas. The resultant susceptibility was validated using the area under the curve method. The validation result showed 86.22 and 84.87 % success and prediction rates, respectively. In the second stage, a landslide hazard map was produced using precipitation data for 15 years. The precipitation maps were subsequently prepared and show two main categories (two temporal probabilities) for the study area (the average for any day in a year and abnormal intensity recorded in any day for 15 years) and three return periods (15-, 10-, and 5-year periods). Hazard assessment was performed for the entire study area. In the third step, an element at risk map was prepared using LULC, which was considered in the vulnerability assessment. A vulnerability map was derived according to the following criteria: cost, time required for reconstruction, relative risk of landslide, risk to population, and general effect to certain damage. These criteria were applied only on the LULC of the study area because of lack of data on the population and building footprint and types. Finally, risk maps were produced using the derived vulnerability and hazard information. Thereafter, a risk analysis was conducted. The LULC map was cross-matched with the results of the hazard maps for the return period, and the losses were aggregated for the LULC. Then, the losses were calculated for the three return periods. The map of the risk areas may assist planners in overall landslide hazard management.
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: