IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i13p8098-d854409.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Landslide Hazard Assessment Methods along Fault Zones Based on Multiple Working Conditions: A Case Study of the Lixian–Luojiabu Fault Zone in Gansu Province (China)

Author

Listed:
  • Wei Feng

    (School of Geological Engineering and Geomatics, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710064, China
    Xi’an Center of China Geological Survey, Xi’an 710054, China)

  • Yaming Tang

    (Xi’an Center of China Geological Survey, Xi’an 710054, China)

  • Bo Hong

    (Xi’an Center of China Geological Survey, Xi’an 710054, China)

Abstract

Traditional landslide hazard assessment methods generally use the same evaluation model to carry out assessments under different working conditions. Due to the differences in landslide influence factors and model calculation methods considered under different working conditions, the evaluation results obtained using traditional methods are different from those of real-world scenarios. Therefore, research on optimal landslide hazard assessment methods for different working conditions is important for disaster prevention and mitigation in areas along fault zones. Taking the section along the Lixian–Luojiabu fault zone in Gansu province in China as the research area, a landslide hazard assessment was carried out under rainfall and earthquake conditions. A method based on the fractal theory–information coupling model is proposed for the rainfall condition, and a method based on an improved Newmark model considering matric suction is proposed for the earthquake condition. Under the rainfall condition, a landslide hazard assessment was carried out using the information model, the logistic regression model, the fractal theory model, the logistic regression–information coupling model and the fractal theory–information coupling model. Meanwhile, under the earthquake condition, an assessment was carried out using the traditional Newmark model and the improved Newmark model considering matric suction. Finally, the ROC curve and Kappa coefficient were used to test the accuracy of these evaluation models and to determine the optimal model under different working conditions. The results showed that the fractal theory–information coupling model had the largest AUC value and Kappa coefficient value under the rainfall condition (0.856 and 0.807, respectively). The test value of the logistic regression–information coupling model was second, and the values of the other three models were all lower than 0.8. This shows that the evaluation of the fractal theory–information coupling model is better than those of the other models under the rainfall condition. The AUC value and Kappa coefficient of the improved Newmark model under the earthquake condition were 0.805 and 0.794, respectively, which were larger than the test values of the traditional Newmark model. This shows that the evaluation of the proposed model is better than that of the traditional Newmark model under the earthquake condition. These research results provide a reference for landslide hazard assessments in areas with similar characteristics.

Suggested Citation

  • Wei Feng & Yaming Tang & Bo Hong, 2022. "Landslide Hazard Assessment Methods along Fault Zones Based on Multiple Working Conditions: A Case Study of the Lixian–Luojiabu Fault Zone in Gansu Province (China)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-22, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:13:p:8098-:d:854409
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/13/8098/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/13/8098/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hamid Pourghasemi & Biswajeet Pradhan & Candan Gokceoglu, 2012. "Application of fuzzy logic and analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to landslide susceptibility mapping at Haraz watershed, Iran," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 63(2), pages 965-996, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Danqing Song & Wanpeng Shi & Chengwen Wang & Lihu Dong & Xin He & Enge Wu & Jianjun Zhao & Runhu Lu, 2023. "Numerical Investigation of a Local Precise Reinforcement Method for Dynamic Stability of Rock Slope under Earthquakes Using Continuum–Discontinuum Element Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-24, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Txomin Bornaetxea & Juan Remondo & Jaime Bonachea & Pablo Valenzuela, 2023. "Exploring available landslide inventories for susceptibility analysis in Gipuzkoa province (Spain)," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 118(3), pages 2513-2542, September.
    2. Gökhan Demir & Mustafa Aytekin & Aykut Akgün & Sabriye İkizler & Orhan Tatar, 2013. "A comparison of landslide susceptibility mapping of the eastern part of the North Anatolian Fault Zone (Turkey) by likelihood-frequency ratio and analytic hierarchy process methods," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 65(3), pages 1481-1506, February.
    3. Rui Yuan & Jing Chen, 2022. "A hybrid deep learning method for landslide susceptibility analysis with the application of InSAR data," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 114(2), pages 1393-1426, November.
    4. Viet-Ha Nhu & Ataollah Shirzadi & Himan Shahabi & Sushant K. Singh & Nadhir Al-Ansari & John J. Clague & Abolfazl Jaafari & Wei Chen & Shaghayegh Miraki & Jie Dou & Chinh Luu & Krzysztof Górski & Binh, 2020. "Shallow Landslide Susceptibility Mapping: A Comparison between Logistic Model Tree, Logistic Regression, Naïve Bayes Tree, Artificial Neural Network, and Support Vector Machine Algorithms," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-30, April.
    5. Sadhan Malik & Subodh Chandra Pal & Biswajit Das & Rabin Chakrabortty, 2020. "Assessment of vegetation status of Sali River basin, a tributary of Damodar River in Bankura District, West Bengal, using satellite data," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(6), pages 5651-5685, August.
    6. Kibeom Kwon & Minkyu Kang & Dongku Kim & Hangseok Choi, 2023. "Prioritization of Hazardous Zones Using an Advanced Risk Management Model Combining the Analytic Hierarchy Process and Fuzzy Set Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-15, August.
    7. Nzotcha, Urbain & Kenfack, Joseph & Blanche Manjia, Marceline, 2019. "Integrated multi-criteria decision making methodology for pumped hydro-energy storage plant site selection from a sustainable development perspective with an application," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 930-947.
    8. Majid Mohammady & Hamid Reza Pourghasemi & Mojtaba Amiri, 2019. "Assessment of land subsidence susceptibility in Semnan plain (Iran): a comparison of support vector machine and weights of evidence data mining algorithms," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 99(2), pages 951-971, November.
    9. Viet-Tien Nguyen & Trong Hien Tran & Ngoc Anh Ha & Van Liem Ngo & Al-Ansari Nadhir & Van Phong Tran & Huu Duy Nguyen & Malek M. A. & Ata Amini & Indra Prakash & Lanh Si Ho & Binh Thai Pham, 2019. "GIS Based Novel Hybrid Computational Intelligence Models for Mapping Landslide Susceptibility: A Case Study at Da Lat City, Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-24, December.
    10. Neshat, Aminreza & Pradhan, Biswajeet & Dadras, Mohsen, 2014. "Groundwater vulnerability assessment using an improved DRASTIC method in GIS," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 74-86.
    11. Netra Bhandary & Ranjan Dahal & Manita Timilsina & Ryuichi Yatabe, 2013. "Rainfall event-based landslide susceptibility zonation mapping," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 69(1), pages 365-388, October.
    12. Wenqun Xiu & Shuying Wang & Wenguang Qi & Xue Li & Chisheng Wang, 2021. "Disaster Chain Analysis of Landfill Landslide: Scenario Simulation and Chain-Cutting Modeling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-22, April.
    13. Di Wang & Mengmeng Hao & Shuai Chen & Ze Meng & Dong Jiang & Fangyu Ding, 2021. "Assessment of landslide susceptibility and risk factors in China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 108(3), pages 3045-3059, September.
    14. Rajesh Khatakho & Dipendra Gautam & Komal Raj Aryal & Vishnu Prasad Pandey & Rajesh Rupakhety & Suraj Lamichhane & Yi-Chung Liu & Khameis Abdouli & Rocky Talchabhadel & Bhesh Raj Thapa & Rabindra Adhi, 2021. "Multi-Hazard Risk Assessment of Kathmandu Valley, Nepal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-27, May.
    15. Aihua Wei & Duo Li & Yahong Zhou & Qinghai Deng & Liangdong Yan, 2021. "A novel combination approach for karst collapse susceptibility assessment using the analytic hierarchy process, catastrophe, and entropy model," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 105(1), pages 405-430, January.
    16. Amin Salehpour Jam & Jamal Mosaffaie & Faramarz Sarfaraz & Samad Shadfar & Rouhangiz Akhtari, 2021. "GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping using hybrid MCDM models," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 108(1), pages 1025-1046, August.
    17. Abdessamed Derdour & Abderrazak Bouanani & Noureddine Kaid & Kanit Mukdasai & A. M. Algelany & Hijaz Ahmad & Younes Menni & Houari Ameur, 2022. "Groundwater Potentiality Assessment of Ain Sefra Region in Upper Wadi Namous Basin, Algeria Using Integrated Geospatial Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-20, April.
    18. Faisal AlShareef & Mohammed Aljoufie, 2020. "Identification of the Proper Criteria Set for Neighborhood Walkability Using the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Model: A Case Study in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-18, November.
    19. Idris Bello Yamusa & Mohd Suhaili Ismail & Abdulwaheed Tella, 2022. "Highway Proneness Appraisal to Landslides along Taiping to Ipoh Segment Malaysia, Using MCDM and GIS Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-21, July.
    20. Chi Yang & Jinghan Wang & Shuyi Li & Ruihan Xiong & Xiaobo Li & Lin Gao & Xu Guo & Chuanming Ma & Hanxiang Xiong & Yang Qiu, 2024. "Landslide Susceptibility Assessment and Future Prediction with Land Use Change and Urbanization towards Sustainable Development: The Case of the Li River Valley in Yongding, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-26, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:13:p:8098-:d:854409. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.