Redirigiendo al acceso original de articulo en 22 segundos...
ARTÍCULO
TITULO

A Landslide Susceptibility Assessment Method Based on GIS Technology and an AHP-Weighted Information Content Method: A Case Study of Southern Anhui, China

Handong He    
Di Hu    
Qun Sun    
Lei Zhu and Yanrong Liu    

Resumen

Based on geographic information system (GIS) technology in conjunction with two methods for assessing landslide susceptibility (LS)?namely, a method using experts? knowledge and experience, and a mathematical/statistical method?the LS of southern Anhui, China is assessed using an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) via an AHP-weighted information content method. Landslide-affecting factors are categorized into three main types and 10 subtypes. The values of spatial characteristics of the landslide-affecting factors are obtained using GIS technology. The AHP method is then employed to compare the importance and weights of landslide-affecting factors. The information content method is used to convert the measured values of the landslide-affecting factors in the study area to data reflecting regional stability. The closeness of the relationships between the classification levels of each landslide-affecting factor and landslide occurrence are calculated. The LS of the study area is assessed using the proposed method. The LS assessment shows that high LS, relatively high LS, moderate LS, relatively low LS and low LS regions account for 21.3%, 20.6%, 20.1%, 11.7% and 26.3% of the study area, respectively. Finally, the accuracy of the LS assessment results is analyzed using two methods: the assessment, including an analysis of random landslide sites for the validating models; and the area below a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of area under curve (AUC) value. The results show that the proportion of landslide sites in the regions of each LS level determined using the AHP-weighted information content method increases as the LS level increases, and that the accuracies of the AHP-weighted information content method were 8.1% and 5.7% higher than those of the AHP method and information content method, respectively.