Abstract

Worldwide, shallow landslides repeatedly pose a risk to infrastructure and residential areas. To analyse and predict the risk posed by shallow landslides, a wide range of scientific methods and tools to model shallow landslide probability exist for both local and regional scale However, most of these tools do not take the protective effect of vegetation into account. Therefore, we developed SlideforMap (SfM), which is a probabilistic model that allows for a regional assessment of shallow landslide probability while considering the effect of different scenarios of forest cover, forest management and rainfall intensity. SfM uses a probabilistic approach by distributing hypothetical landslides to uniformly randomized coordinates in a 2D space. The surface areas for these hypothetical landslides are derived from a distribution function calibrated from observed events. For each randomly generated landslide, SfM calculates a factor of safety using the limit equilibrium approach. Relevant soil parameters, i.e. angle of internal friction, soil cohesion and soil depth, are assigned to the generated landslides from normal distributions based on mean and standard deviation values representative for the study area. The computation of the degree of soil saturation is implemented using a stationary flow approach and the topographic wetness index. The root reinforcement is computed based on root proximity and root strength derived from single tree detection data. Ultimately, the fraction of unstable landslides to the number of generated landslides, per raster cell, is calculated and used as an index for landslide probability. Inputs for the model are a digital elevation model, a topographic wetness index and a file containing positions and dimensions of trees. We performed a calibration of SfM for three test areas in Switzerland with a reliable landslide inventory, by randomly generating 1000 combinations of model parameters and then maximising the Area Under the Curve (AUC) of the receiver operation curve (ROC). These test areas are located in mountainous areas ranging from 0.5–7.5 km2, with varying mean slope gradients (18–28°). The density of inventoried historical landslides varied from 5–59 slides/km2. AUC values between 0.67 and 0.92 indicated a good model performance. A qualitative sensitivity analysis indicated that the most relevant parameters for accurate modeling of shallow landslide probability are the soil depth, soil cohesion and the root reinforcement. Further, the use of single tree detection in the computation of root reinforcement significantly improved model accuracy compared to the assumption of a single constant value of root reinforcement within a forest stand. In conclusion, our study showed that the approach used in SfM can reproduce observed shallow landslide occurrence at a catchment scale.

Highlights

  • Our study showed that the approach used in SfM can reproduce observed shallow landslide occurrence at a catchment scale

  • All the results presented hereafter are based on a ρls of 0.1 HLs/m-2 per model run

  • 365 Based on the generated 1000 parameter sets, we identified the parameter set that resulted in the highest Area Under the Curve (AUC) value and assumed this to be an optimal calibration of the model

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Landslides pose serious threats to inhabited areas world-wide. They are the cause of 17% of the fatalities due to natural hazards in the period of 1994- 2013 (Kjekstad and Highland, 2009). Swiss Re Institute (2019) notes a significant increase in damages by hydrologically related natural hazards over the past 5 years, including hydrologically-triggered shallow landslides. This has been attributed to increased urbanization in risk-prone areas and to an increase in heavy rainfall events. Improvements in hazard assessment have significantly decreased the number of shallow landslide related deaths over the past decades (Badoux et al, 40 2016). This general trend is supported by long-term data (Munich RE, 2018). An example of a deterministic approach is the 45 SHALSTAB model Dietrich and Montgomery (1998)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.