基于确定性系数与证据权模型的滑坡灾害敏感性评估:以金沙江龙开口—期纳段流域为例

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

金沙江流域内滑坡灾害频发,对大型工程及交通设施均造成了极大的损害。采用确定性系数(CF)与证据权(WOE)模型,选取坡度、坡向、NDVI、海拔、岩石性质、纵剖面曲率、距道路的距离、距河流的距离、距断层的距离与第四纪沉积物类型10个指标,分不同组合进行区域性滑坡灾害敏感性评估。CF与WOE在多种不同指标组合下经过累积频率曲线下面积(AUC)检验,结果表明10种指标组合下的CF模型表现最佳,相比WOE模型所得的最高准确率(74.52%)与预测率(69.89%),CF的准确率与预测率分别高达83.40%与74.43%。CF计算获得的敏感性指数通过自然间断点法将研究区域分为滑坡极难发生区、滑坡较难发生区、滑坡较易发生区与滑坡极易发生区4类区域。评估结果指示程海断裂带南北延伸带与金沙江中段主要干支流沿线为区域的滑坡灾害易发区,表明断裂带及河流与该区域的滑坡发生具有一定的相关性。

关键词: 滑坡灾害, 敏感性评估, 地理信息系统, 确定性系数, 证据权, 金沙江

Abstract:

For the high frequency of landslide occurrences in the watershed of Jinshajiang, certain factor (CF) and weight of evidence (WOE) were both adopted to evaluate landslide susceptibility in this area. In this study, ten variables were selected to combine diversely in the process of modeling, including slope, aspect, normalized difference vegetation index, altitude, lithology, profile curvature, distance to roads, distance to rivers, distance to faults and the types of Quaternary sediments. Validated by the area under the prediction rate curve (AUC), the results indicated that CF with the total 10 variables had the best performance among the two models with combinations of various variables. The succeed rate and predictive rate of CF with the 10 variables respectively reached to 83.40% and 74.43%, while the results of WOE merely reached to 74.52% and 69.89%. It is proved that CF has high accuracies in both experiment area and verification area. Thereafter, the landslide susceptibility index generated from CF was further categorized into 4 subdivisions by the natural-break classification, including extremely difficult, moderately difficult, moderately easy and extremely easy area to landslide occurrences. As shown in the result of classification, either the north-south extended zones of the Chenghai Fault or the areas along the middle segment of Jinshajiang are prone to triggering landslides. The result implied a special correlation among faults, rivers and landslide occurrences.

Key words: landslide, susceptibility evaluation, GIS, certain factor, weight of evidence, Jinshajiang

中图分类号:

P642.2

吴杭, 张绪教, 乔彦松, 梁莹, 张昱, 杨帅斌. 基于确定性系数与证据权模型的滑坡灾害敏感性评估:以金沙江龙开口—期纳段流域为例[J]. 现代地质, 2017, 31(06): 1269-1277.

WU Hang, ZHANG Xujiao, QIAO Yansong, LIANG Ying, ZHANG Yu, YANG Shuaibin. Landslide Susceptibility Evaluation Based on Certain Factor and Weight of Evidence: A Case Study in the Longkaikou to Qina Section of Jinshajiang Watershed[J]. Geoscience, 2017, 31(06): 1269-1277.

图/表 8

参考文献 36

[1]	张军, 赵芳芳. 滑坡灾害的多源数据分析与评估方法[J]. 地理信息科学, 2008, 10(6):741-748.
[2]	中华人民共和国国土资源部. 2011—2015年中国国土资源公报[R]. 北京: 中华人民共和国国土资源部, 2012—2016.
[3]	吴树仁, 石菊松, 王涛. 突发地质灾害预测评价概论[J]. 地质通报, 2008, 27(11):1753-1763.
[4]	FORMETTA G, RAGO B, CAPPARELLI C, et al. Integrated physically based system for modeling landslide susceptibility[J]. Procedia Earth and Planetary Science, 2014, 9:74-82. DOI URL
[5]	朱阿兴, 裴韬, 乔建平, 等. 基于专家知识的滑坡危险性模糊评估方法[J]. 地球科学进展, 2006, 25(4):1-12.
[6]	朱良峰, 吴信才, 殷坤龙, 等. 基于GIS的中国滑坡灾害风险分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2003, 24(增刊):221-224.
[7]	许冲, 戴福初, 徐锡伟. 基于 GIS 平台与证据权的地震滑坡易发性评价[J]. 地球科学——中国地质大学学报, 2011, 36(6):1155-1163.
[8]	BAUM R L, SAVAGE W Z, GODT J W. TRIGRS—A Fortran program for transient rainfall infiltration and grid-based regional slope-stability analysis,version 2.0[R]. Reston: US Geological Survey, 2008.
[9]	BǍLTEANU D, CHENDES C, SIMA M, et al. A country-wide spatial assessment of landslide susceptibility in Romania[J]. Geomorphology, 2010, 124: 102-112. DOI URL
[10]	GUO C, MONTGOMERY D R, ZHANG Y, et al. Quantitative assessment of landslide susceptibility along the Xianshuihe fault zone, Tibetan Plateau, China[J]. Geomorphology, 2015, 248: 93-110. DOI URL
[11]	HONG H, PRADHAN B, XUA C, et al. Spatial prediction of landslide hazard at the Yihuang area (China) using two-class kernel logistic regression, alternating decision tree and support vector machines[J]. Catena, 2015, 133:266-281. DOI URL
[12]	唐川. 金沙江流域 (云南境内) 山地灾害危险性评价[J]. 山地学报, 2004, 22(4): 451-460.
[13]	黎艳, 陈剑, 许冲, 等. 基于 AHP 的半干旱区泥石流易发性评价: 以金沙江上游奔子栏—昌波河段为例[J]. 现代地质, 2015, 29(4):975-982.
[14]	崔杰, 王兰生, 徐进, 等. 金沙江中游滑坡堵江事件及古滑坡体稳定性分析[J]. 工程地质学报, 2008, 16(1): 6-10.
[15]	张晨, 王清, 陈剑平, 等. 金沙江流域泥石流的组合赋权法危险度评价[J]. 岩土力学, 2011, 32(3): 831-836.
[16]	罗睿洁, 吴中海, 黄小龙, 等. 滇西北宾川地区主要活动断裂及其活动构造体系[J]. 地质通报, 2015, 34(1):155-170.
[17]	吴中海, 赵根模, 龙长兴, 等. 青藏高原东南缘现今大震活动特征及其趋势: 活动构造体系角度的初步分析结果[J]. 地质学报, 2014, 88(8):1401-1416.
[18]	唐渊, 刘俊来. 川滇西部上新世以来构造地貌: 断裂控制的盆地发育及对于远程陆内构造过程的约束[J]. 岩石学报, 2010, 26(6): 1925-1937.
[19]	吴根耀. 滇西北丽江—大理地区第四纪断裂活动的方式, 机制及其对环境的影响[J]. 第四纪研究, 1992, 12(3): 265-276.
[20]	黄小巾, 吴中海, 李家存, 等. 滇西北裂陷带的构造地貌特征与第四纪构造活动性[J]. 地质通报, 2014, 33(4):578-593.
[21]	MOHADJER S, EHLERS T A, BENDICK R, et al. A Quaternary fault database for central Asia[J]. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 2016, 16(2):529-542.
[22]	张方伟, 李春龙, 訾丽. 金沙江流域降水特征分析[J]. 人民长江, 2011, 42(6):94-97.
[23]	兰恒星, 王苓涓, 周成虎. 云南小江流域滑坡关键影响因子研究[J]. 中国地质灾害与防治学报, 2003, 14(1):100-106.
[24]	HASEKIOĜULLARI G D, ERCANOGLU M. A new approach to use AHP in landslide susceptibility mapping: a case study at Yenice (Karabuk, NW Turkey)[J]. Natural Hazards, 2012, 63(2): 1157-1179. DOI URL
[25]	UPDIKE R G, EGAN J A, MORIWAKI Y, et al. A model for earthquake-induced translatory landslides in Quaternary sediments.[J]. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 1988, 100(5): 783-792. DOI URL
[26]	HUETE A, DIDAN K, MIURA T, et al. Overview of the radiometric and biophysical performance of the MODIS vegetation indices[J]. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2002, 83(1): 195-213. DOI URL
[27]	GUZZETTI F, REICHENBACH P, CARDINALI M, et al. Probabilistic landslide hazard assessment at the basin scale[J]. Geomorphology, 2005, 72:272-299. DOI URL
[28]	PARK S, CHOI C, KIM B, et al. Landslide susceptibility mapping using frequency ratio, analytic hierarchy process, logistic regression, and artificial neural network methods at the Inje area, Korea[J]. Environmental Earth Sciences, 2013, 68(5):1443-1464. DOI URL
[29]	CHEN W, LI W, CHAI H, et al. GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping using analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and certainty factor (CF) models for the Baozhong region of Baoji City, China[J]. Environmental Earth Sciences, 2016, 75(1):1-14. DOI URL
[30]	BONHAM-CARTER G F, AGTERBERG F P. Weights of evidence:a new approach to mapping mineral potential[M]// DAVISJ C, HERZFELDU C. Statistical Applications in the Earth Sciences. Vancouver: Geological Survey of Canada, 1990: 231-245.
[31]	DAHAL R K, HASEGAWA S, NONOMURA A, et al. GIS-based weights-of-evidence modelling of rainfall-induced landslides in small catchments for landslide susceptibility mapping[J]. Environmental Geology, 2008, 54(2): 311-324. DOI URL
[32]	SHORTLIFFE E H, BUCHANAN B G. A model of inexact reasoning in medicine[J]. Mathematical Biosciences, 1975, 23(3): 351-379. DOI URL
[33]	HECKERMAN D. Probabilistic interpretation of MYCIN’s certainty factors[J]. Machine Intelligence & Pattern Recognition, 1986, 4: 167-196.
[34]	GUZZETTI F, MONDINI A, CARDINALI M, et al. Landslide inventory maps: New tools for an old problem[J]. Earth-Science Reviews, 2012, 112: 42-66. DOI URL
[35]	YILMAZ I. Landslide susceptibility mapping using frequency rat-io,logistic regression, artificial neural networks and their comparison: a case study from Kat landslides (Tokat-Turkey)[J]. Computers & Geosciences, 2009, 35(6): 1125-1138. DOI URL
[36]	韩淑琴, 陈情来, 张永双, 等. 滇西北周城—清水断裂带晚新生代活动性初步研究[J]. 现代地质, 2007, 21(3):498-504.

指标	原始比例尺(分辨率)	数据描述
坡度	1∶50 000	范围为0°~62°,等距划分为10类
坡向	1∶50 000	范围为0°~360°,每隔45°划分一类,例如0°~22.5°与337.5°~365°划分为北向斜坡,共计8个方向
纵剖曲率	1∶50 000	范围为-3.0~3.8,等距划分为10类
海拔	1∶50 000	范围为1 166~3 145 m,等距划分为10类
岩石性质	1∶200 000	分类根据《1∶200000岩石性质图》内分类划分,共计30类
NDVI/ m	30	范围为-0.81~0.87,等距划分为10类
距河流的距离/m	1.5	根据缓冲区分析结果,每隔100 m划分为一类,1 000 m以上单独成类,共计11类
距道路的距离/m	1.5	根据缓冲区分析结果,每隔100 m划分为一类,1 000 m以上单独成类,共计11类
距断层的距离/m	1∶50 000	同道路、河流距离分类方式
第四纪沉积物类型	1∶50 000	分类根据《1∶50 000第四纪地质图》内分类划分,其中,湖相层、坡积物与冲积相不再细分期次,共计23类

指标	原始比例尺(分辨率)	数据描述
坡度	1∶50 000	范围为0°~62°,等距划分为10类
坡向	1∶50 000	范围为0°~360°,每隔45°划分一类,例如0°~22.5°与337.5°~365°划分为北向斜坡,共计8个方向
纵剖曲率	1∶50 000	范围为-3.0~3.8,等距划分为10类
海拔	1∶50 000	范围为1 166~3 145 m,等距划分为10类
岩石性质	1∶200 000	分类根据《1∶200000岩石性质图》内分类划分,共计30类
NDVI/ m	30	范围为-0.81~0.87,等距划分为10类
距河流的距离/m	1.5	根据缓冲区分析结果,每隔100 m划分为一类,1 000 m以上单独成类,共计11类
距道路的距离/m	1.5	根据缓冲区分析结果,每隔100 m划分为一类,1 000 m以上单独成类,共计11类
距断层的距离/m	1∶50 000	同道路、河流距离分类方式
第四纪沉积物类型	1∶50 000	分类根据《1∶50 000第四纪地质图》内分类划分,其中,湖相层、坡积物与冲积相不再细分期次,共计23类

指标(数目)	WOE			CF
指标(数目)	准确率/%	预测率/%		准确率/%	预测率/%
坡度、坡向、NDVI、海拔、岩石性质、纵剖面曲率、距河流距离(7)	74.61	65.58	83.02		56.64
坡度、坡向、NDVI、海拔、岩石性质、纵剖面曲率、距道路距离、距河流距离(8)	76.12	66.54	84.70		61.41
坡度、坡向、NDVI、海拔、岩石性质、纵剖面曲率、距河流距离、距断层距离与第四纪沉积物(9)	74.59	67.93	82.45		71.47
坡度、坡向、NDVI、海拔、岩石性质、纵剖面曲率、距道路距离、距河流距离、距断层距离与第四纪沉积物(10)	74.52	69.89	83.40		74.43

指标(数目)	WOE			CF
指标(数目)	准确率/%	预测率/%		准确率/%	预测率/%
坡度、坡向、NDVI、海拔、岩石性质、纵剖面曲率、距河流距离(7)	74.61	65.58	83.02		56.64
坡度、坡向、NDVI、海拔、岩石性质、纵剖面曲率、距道路距离、距河流距离(8)	76.12	66.54	84.70		61.41
坡度、坡向、NDVI、海拔、岩石性质、纵剖面曲率、距河流距离、距断层距离与第四纪沉积物(9)	74.59	67.93	82.45		71.47
坡度、坡向、NDVI、海拔、岩石性质、纵剖面曲率、距道路距离、距河流距离、距断层距离与第四纪沉积物(10)	74.52	69.89	83.40		74.43