Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (3) (remove)
Year of publication
- 2021 (3) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (2)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (1)
Language
- English (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (3)
Keywords
- Germany (1)
- Landslide inventory (1)
- Landslide susceptibility (1)
- Logistic regression (1)
- Remote sensing (1)
- Southern Kyrgyzstan (1)
- damage (1)
- insurance (1)
- preparedness (1)
- recovery (1)
- transferability (1)
Institute
- Institut für Geowissenschaften (3) (remove)
Much of contemporary landslide research is concerned with predicting and mapping susceptibility to slope failure. Many studies rely on generalised linear models with environmental predictors that are trained with data collected from within and outside of the margins of mapped landslides. Whether and how the performance of these models depends on sample size, location, or time remains largely untested. We address this question by exploring the sensitivity of a multivariate logistic regression-one of the most widely used susceptibility models-to data sampled from different portions of landslides in two independent inventories (i.e. a historic and a multi-temporal) covering parts of the eastern rim of the Fergana Basin, Kyrgyzstan. We find that considering only areas on lower parts of landslides, and hence most likely their deposits, can improve the model performance by >10% over the reference case that uses the entire landslide areas, especially for landslides of intermediate size. Hence, using landslide toe areas may suffice for this particular model and come in useful where landslide scars are vague or hidden in this part of Central Asia. The model performance marginally varied after progressively updating and adding more landslides data through time. We conclude that landslide susceptibility estimates for the study area remain largely insensitive to changes in data over about a decade. Spatial or temporal stratified sampling contributes only minor variations to model performance. Our findings call for more extensive testing of the concept of dynamic susceptibility and its interpretation in data-driven models, especially within the broader framework of landslide risk assessment under environmental and land-use change.
"In spite of ever-increasing research into natural hazards, the reported damage from natural disasters continues to rise, increasingly disrupting human activities. We, as scientists who study the way in which the part of Earth most relevant to society- the surface-behaves, are disturbed and frustrated by this trend. It appears that the large amounts of funding devoted each year to research into reducing the impacts of natural disasters could be much more effective in producing useful results. At the same time we are aware that society, as represented by its decision makers, while increasingly concerned at the impacts of natural disasters on lives and economies, is reluctant to acknowledge the intrinsic activity of Earth's surface and to take steps to adapt societal behaviour to minimise the impacts of natural disasters. Understanding and managing natural hazards and disasters are beyond matters of applied earth science, and also involve considering human societal, economic and political decisions"
Models for the predictions of monetary losses from floods mainly blend data deemed to represent a single flood type and region. Moreover, these approaches largely ignore indicators of preparedness and how predictors may vary between regions and events, challenging the transferability of flood loss models. We use a flood loss database of 1812 German flood-affected households to explore how Bayesian multilevel models can estimate normalised flood damage stratified by event, region, or flood process type. Multilevel models acknowledge natural groups in the data and allow each group to learn from others. We obtain posterior estimates that differ between flood types, with credibly varying influences of water depth, contamination, duration, implementation of property-level precautionary measures, insurance, and previous flood experience; these influences overlap across most events or regions, however. We infer that the underlying damaging processes of distinct flood types deserve further attention. Each reported flood loss and affected region involved mixed flood types, likely explaining the uncertainty in the coefficients. Our results emphasise the need to consider flood types as an important step towards applying flood loss models elsewhere. We argue that failing to do so may unduly generalise the model and systematically bias loss estimations from empirical data.