Fiche Document

Fiche du document 1658

Type de documentTexte
PrécisionActes_de_colloques
ThèmeAménagementsArchéologie
Contaminants associésCrues
ErosionGéochimie
GéomorphologieGestion
Interactions faune ou florePaléoenvironnements
RéglementationStocks
ThermieTransport solide
Versants
AuteurPoiraud A.
Date de publication2014
ReferenceLandslide susceptibility certainty mapping by a multi-method approach: A case study in the Tertiary basin of Puy-en-Velay (Massif central, France), Geomorphology, Vol. 216, pp 208-224
RattachementUniversité Blaise Pascal, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France CNRS, GEOLAB-Laboratoire de Géographie Physique Environnementale, F-63057 Clermont-Ferrand, France
Période considéréeQuaternaire
Localisation OSLA1Pas d'information
Localisation OSLA2Pas d'information
Localisation OSLA3Pas d'information
Localisation OSLA4Pas d'information
Document numériséeOuiNon
FormatBMPJPGPDFPNGPPT
Nom du fichierPoireaud_A,_2014.pdf
Situation
Aperçu

Documents liés

Type Références Date Auteur
PPT Figure 1: Landslide susceptibility error. a) FromGuzzetti et al. (2006a). b) For topographic units, from Van den Eeckhaut et al. (2009). c) For pixel units, fromVan den Eeckhaut et al. (2009). 2014 Poiraud A.
PPT Figure 2: Simplified geological map of the Velay region. 1988 Poiraud A.
PPT Figure 3: Lithological map of the modelling area and landslide inventory. 2014 Poiraud A.
PPT Figure 4: Flowchart of modelling process. 2014 Poiraud A.
PPT Figure 5: Controlling factor maps used in modelling process. The ?MATERIAL? variable is a composite variable (union of geology and surface formation). 2014 Poiraud A.
PPT Figure 6: Illustration of the combination process at the pixel scale. 2014 Poiraud A.
PPT Figure 7: Comparison of determination coefficients between models for each method and each lithological dataset group (with four subgroups of datasets in each lithological group 2014 Poiraud A.
PPT Figure 8: Variation of AUC values according to lithological group, subgroup and modelling method. 2014 Poiraud A.
PPT Figure 9: Effect of modelling with ?surficial formation? variable (a) compared to ?material? variable (b). 2014 Poiraud A.
PPT Figure 10: Improvement of low susceptibility classification with lithological group ?MAT?. The lithomorphological configurations evaluated by expert opinion as having very low susceptibility to lands... 2014 Poiraud A.
PPT Figure 11: Susceptibility map (with four classes) of the five best models. 2014 Poiraud A.
PPT Figure 12: Box-plots of Kappa index variations per susceptibility class for the five finalmodels (20 comparisons per class). 2014 Poiraud A.
PPT Figure 13: Combined susceptibility/certainty map of the study area. 2014 Poiraud A.