Répondre au commentaire

Geospatial database creation for landslide susceptibility mapping is often an almost inhibitive activity. This has been the reason that for quite some time landslide susceptibility analysis was modelled on the basis of spatially related factors. This paper presents the use of frequency ratio, fuzzy logic and multivariate regression models for landslide susceptibility mapping on Cameron catchment area, Malaysia, using a Geographic Information System (GIS) and remote sensing data. Landslide locations were identified in the study area from the interpretation of aerial photographs, high resolution satellite images, inventory reports and field surveys. Topographical, geological data and satellite images were collected, processed, and constructed into a spatial database using GIS and image processing tools. There were nine factors considered for landslide susceptibility mapping and the frequency ratio coefficient for each factor was computed. The factors chosen that influence landslide occurrence were: topographic slope, topographic aspect, topographic curvature and distance from drainage, all from the topographic database; lithology and distance from lineament, taken from the geologic database; land cover from TM satellite image; the vegetation index value from Landsat satellite images; and precipitation distribution from meteorological data. Using these factors the fuzzy membership values were calculated. Then fuzzy operators were applied to the fuzzy membership values for landslide susceptibility mapping. Further, multivariate logistic regression model was applied for the landslide susceptibility. Finally, the results of the analyses were verified using the landslide location data and compared with the frequency ratio, fuzzy logic and multivariate logistic regression models. The validation results showed that the frequency ratio model (accuracy is 89%) is better in prediction than fuzzy logic (accuracy is 84%) and logistic regression (accuracy is 85%) models. Results show that, among the fuzzy operators, in the case with “gamma” operator (λ = 0.9) showed the best accuracy (84%) while the case with “or” operator showed the worst accuracy (69%).