Susceptibility assessment of geological hazards in Wuhua District of Kuming, China using the weight evidence method
-
摘要:
地质灾害易发性评价是国土空间规划和区域地质灾害防灾减灾的重要依据。为探索适合云南高原低山丘陵区地质灾害易发性评价方法，论文选择云南省昆明市五华区为典型研究区，选择工程地质岩组、距断裂构造线距离、高程、坡度、坡向、坡面曲率、距公路线距离和土地利用类型等8个因素，应用基于贝叶斯理论的证据权法进行地质灾害易发性评价，通过对各因素各分级（分类）综合证据权重的近似学生化检验（Student-T）优化了各因素的分级（分类）方案。采用文中所构建模型评价得出的易发性分区结果表明，89.9%和9.1%的地灾点落入高和中易发区，对比分析显示建模结果与地质灾害发育情况吻合度高，较好地揭示了研究区地质灾害易发性特征，可为昆明市五华区及云南高原其它低山丘陵区地质灾害防治规划提供参考。
Abstract:Geological hazard susceptibility assessment is an important basis for territorial space planning and geological hazard prevention and mitigation. In order to explore the evaluation method suitable for the geological hazard susceptibility of low hills and gullies in Yunnan plateau, Wuhua District of Kunming, Yunnan Province, China was selected as a typical study area. Eight factors including the engineering geology groups, distance from faults, elevation, slope, direction, curvature, distance from roads and land use covers were selected, and the weight evidence method based on Bayesian theory was applied to evaluate the susceptibility of geological hazards. After performing the Student-T test of the comprehensive evidence weight of each factor, the classification scheme of factors were optimized. The results of vulnerability zoning based on the evaluation of the model established in this paper showed that 89.9% and 9.1% of the geological hazard points fall into high and medium susceptibility areas. The comparative analysis showed that the modeling results are highly consistent with the geological hazards distribution, which better reveals the characteristics of geological hazards susceptibility in the study area. It can provide reference for the planning of geological hazards prevention in Wuhua District and other low hills and gullies areas of Yunnan plateau.
-
-
表 1 数据简介
Table 1. Data introduction
数据 灾点及
致灾要素类型 来源 地灾 地灾点 矢量点 地质灾害风险普查 地质 工程地质岩组 矢量面 云南省地质局 距断裂
距离矢量线和缓冲区 云南省地质局 地形地貌 高程 栅格 12.5 m DEM， https://asf.alaska.edu/ 坡度 栅格 根据DEM，应用ArcGIS提取 坡向 栅格 根据DEM，应用ArcGIS提取 坡面曲率 栅格 根据DEM，应用ArcGIS提取 道路 距公路
距离矢量线缓冲区 http://www.openstreetmap.org ，
根据矢量线用ArcGIS制作土地利用
类型土地利用
类型栅格 ESA WorldCover 10 m 2020， https://esa-worldcover.org/en 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 因素证据权重计算结果表
Table 2. Calculation results of factor evidence weights
因素 因素分级 因素面积
百分比/%地灾数
百分比/%正权重
W+W+的
标准差
负权重W− W−的
标准差
综合权重
的
标准差
Student−T 分类
归并归并后
权重权重
标准差高程/m <1735 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 合并 −0.2744 0.1607 1735～1800 0.36 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 合并 −0.2744 0.1607 1 800～1 850 0.65 1.12 0.5550 1.0082 −0.0048 0.1071 0.5598 1.0138 0.5522 合并 −0.2744 0.1607 1 850～1 900 9.55 10.11 0.0574 0.3350 −0.0063 0.1123 0.0636 0.3533 0.1801 合并 −0.2744 0.1607 1 900～1 920 6.81 4.49 −0.4186 0.5015 0.0248 0.1090 −0.4434 0.5133 −0.8639 合并 −0.2744 0.1607 1 920～1 950 6.73 21.35 1.1758 0.2329 −0.1720 0.1200 1.3478 0.2620 5.1444 4 1.1758 0.2329 1 950～2 000 12.50 23.60 0.6439 0.2202 −0.1368 0.1218 0.7807 0.2516 3.1032 5 0.6439 0.2202 2 000～2 100 23.25 11.24 −0.7318 0.3169 0.1468 0.1131 −0.8787 0.3365 −2.6110 13 −0.7318 0.3169 2 100～2 200 18.86 20.22 0.0708 0.2369 −0.0172 0.1192 0.0879 0.2652 0.3315 合并 −0.2744 0.1607 2 200～2 300 11.48 4.49 −0.9436 0.5009 0.0767 0.1090 −1.0203 0.5126 −1.9903 合并 −0.2744 0.1607 2 300～2 400 7.02 3.37 −0.7383 0.5786 0.0389 0.1084 −0.7772 0.5887 −1.3201 合并 −0.2744 0.1607 2 400～2 500 2.61 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 合并 −0.2744 0.1607 >2 500 0.19 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 合并 −0.2744 0.1607 坡度/(°) <5 18.72 4.49 −1.4297 0.5006 0.1620 0.1091 −1.5916 0.5123 −3.1068 5 −1.4297 0.5006 5～15 38.32 37.08 −0.0288 0.1749 0.0174 0.1343 −0.0462 0.2205 −0.2093 合并 0.0221 0.1450 15～25 28.72 41.57 0.3785 0.1655 −0.2023 0.1392 0.5808 0.2163 2.6853 3 0.3785 0.1655 25～35 11.60 12.36 0.0688 0.3030 −0.0093 0.1138 0.0782 0.3237 0.2416 合并 0.0221 0.1450 >35 2.64 4.49 0.5436 0.5040 −0.0195 0.1090 0.5632 0.5157 1.0921 合并 0.0221 0.1450 坡向 北东 9.72 11.24 0.1460 0.3179 −0.0171 0.1130 0.1631 0.3374 0.4833 合并 −0.0001 0.1065 东 12.77 15.73 0.2107 0.2688 −0.0349 0.1160 0.2456 0.2928 0.8388 合并 −0.0001 0.1065 南东 16.92 19.10 0.1222 0.2438 −0.0268 0.1184 0.1490 0.2710 0.5496 合并 −0.0001 0.1065 南 13.16 11.24 −0.1592 0.3175 0.0221 0.1130 −0.1813 0.3370 −0.5379 合并 −0.0001 0.1065 南西 10.57 10.11 −0.0448 0.3348 0.0052 0.1123 −0.0500 0.3532 −0.1415 合并 −0.0001 0.1065 西 13.45 6.74 −0.6954 0.4092 0.0754 0.1103 −0.7707 0.4238 −1.8186 合并 −0.0001 0.1065 北西 14.58 12.36 −0.1667 0.3027 0.0259 0.1138 −0.1926 0.3234 −0.5955 合并 −0.0001 0.1065 北 8.82 13.48 0.4290 0.2908 −0.0529 0.1145 0.4819 0.3125 1.5423 合并 −0.0001 0.1065 坡面
曲率−0.75～−0.28（凹形） 3.20 5.62 0.5690 0.4509 −0.0255 0.1096 0.5945 0.4640 1.2812 合并 0.0960 0.1367 −0.28～−0.15（凹形） 10.64 22.47 0.7577 0.2258 −0.1432 0.1209 0.9009 0.2562 3.5171 1 0.7577 0.2258 −0.15～−0.05（凹形） 19.66 26.97 0.3197 0.2054 −0.0962 0.1246 0.4159 0.2403 1.7311 合并 0.0960 0.1367 −0.05～0.05（平坦） 34.18 16.85 −0.7119 0.2588 0.2362 0.1169 −0.9482 0.2840 −3.3388 6 −0.7119 0.2588 0.05～0.15（凸形） 17.53 21.35 0.1990 0.2307 −0.0478 0.1201 0.2468 0.2601 0.9489 合并 0.0960 0.1367 0.15～0.28（凸形） 11.00 5.62 −0.6766 0.4483 0.0593 0.1097 −0.7359 0.4615 −1.5945 合并 0.0960 0.1367 0.28～0.69（凸形） 3.78 1.12 −1.2194 1.0014 0.0275 0.1071 −1.2469 1.0071 −1.2381 合并 0.0960 0.1367 工程
地质
岩组松散碎石土体 13.15 6.74 −0.6736 0.4092 0.0720 0.1103 −0.7456 0.4238 −1.7592 合并 −0.1844 0.1329 石英砂岩 7.55 10.11 0.2947 0.3354 −0.0283 0.1123 0.3230 0.3537 0.9131 合并 −0.1844 0.1329 砂岩、泥岩、页岩 23.08 35.96 0.4474 0.1781 −0.1844 0.1330 0.6318 0.2222 2.8430 3 0.4474 0.1781 白云岩、灰岩 38.88 37.08 −0.0491 0.1749 0.0301 0.1343 −0.0793 0.2205 −0.3596 合并 −0.1844 0.1329 玄武岩 16.94 10.11 −0.5206 0.3343 0.0800 0.1124 −0.6005 0.3526 −1.7029 合并 −0.1844 0.1329 侵入岩脉 0.29 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 合并 −0.1844 0.1329 距断层
距离/m0～50 5.63 12.36 0.7973 0.3046 −0.0746 0.1137 0.8719 0.3252 2.6814 3 0.7973 0.3046 50～100 5.86 5.62 −0.0429 0.4492 0.0026 0.1096 −0.0455 0.4624 −0.0985 合并 −0.0746 0.1137 100～300 19.87 19.10 −0.0397 0.2436 0.0096 0.1184 −0.0493 0.2709 −0.1822 合并 −0.0746 0.1137 300～500 16.11 20.22 0.2299 0.2371 −0.0508 0.1192 0.2806 0.2654 1.0574 合并 −0.0746 0.1137 500～1000 26.12 17.98 −0.3764 0.2508 0.1056 0.1177 −0.4820 0.2770 −1.7397 合并 −0.0746 0.1137 1000～2 000 22.75 24.72 0.0840 0.2143 −0.0261 0.1227 0.1101 0.2469 0.4457 合并 −0.0746 0.1137 >2000 3.66 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 合并 −0.0746 0.1137 距主要
公路
距离/m0～50 11.11 29.21 0.9820 0.1986 −0.2296 0.1265 1.2116 0.2354 5.1469 3 0.9820 0.1986 50～100 8.14 13.48 0.5111 0.2909 −0.0605 0.1145 0.5716 0.3126 1.8284 合并 −0.1257 0.1296 100～300 20.62 20.22 −0.0196 0.2368 0.0050 0.1192 −0.0247 0.2651 −0.0931 合并 −0.1257 0.1296 300～500 12.53 3.37 −1.3195 0.5781 0.1005 0.1084 −1.4201 0.5882 −2.4144 4 −1.3195 0.5781 500～1000 17.21 16.85 −0.0210 0.2594 0.0043 0.1168 −0.0253 0.2845 −0.0889 合并 −0.1257 0.1296 1000～2 000 16.67 10.11 −0.5038 0.3343 0.0765 0.1124 −0.5803 0.3527 −1.6455 合并 −0.1257 0.1296 >2000 13.72 6.74 −0.7153 0.4092 0.0785 0.1103 −0.7939 0.4238 −1.8733 合并 −0.1257 0.1296 土地
利用
类型林地 54.70 28.09 −0.0794 0.1497 0.0883 0.1515 −0.1676 0.2130 −0.7870 合并 −0.1287 0.1183 灌木 0.14 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 合并 −0.1287 0.1183 草地 7.39 8.99 0.1979 0.3556 −0.0176 0.1116 0.2155 0.3727 0.5783 合并 −0.1287 0.1183 耕地 16.54 10.11 −0.4955 0.3343 0.0749 0.1124 −0.5704 0.3527 −1.6174 合并 −0.1287 0.1183 建筑 12.82 11.24 −0.1332 0.3175 0.0182 0.1130 −0.1514 0.3370 −0.4492 合并 −0.1287 0.1183 裸地或稀疏植被 8.09 41.57 0.8719 0.2452 −0.1287 0.1183 1.0006 0.2723 3.6746 4 0.8719 0.2452 开阔水域 0.32 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 合并 −0.1287 0.1183
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 地质灾害易发性分区表
Table 3. Form of geological hazard susceptibility zoning
易发性
分区面积/
km2占总面积/
%编号 面积/
km2占大区/
面积%灾点数 灾点密度/
(个·km−2)地质灾害
高易发区（Ⅰ）188.55 49.41 Ⅰ1 152.32 80.79 64 0.41 Ⅰ2 17.93 9.51 9 0.50 Ⅰ3 16.11 8.54 8 0.94 Ⅰ4 2.19 1.16 1 0.46 地质灾害
中易发区（Ⅱ）152.21 39.88 Ⅱ1 1.30 0.85 − − Ⅱ2 18.82 12.36 2 0.11 Ⅱ3 15.03 9.87 1 0.07 Ⅱ4 12.92 8.49 − − Ⅱ5 18.51 12.16 2 0.11 Ⅱ6 9.12 5.99 − − Ⅱ7 44.66 29.34 − − Ⅱ8 12.34 8.11 1 0.08 Ⅱ9 11.73 7.71 − − Ⅱ10 7.78 5.11 − − 低易发区（Ⅲ） 47.40 12.42 Ⅲ1 47.40 100 1 0.02
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] REGMI N R,GIARDINO J R,VITEK J D. Modeling susceptibility to landslides using the weight of evidence approach:western Colorado,USA[J]. Geomorphology,2010,115(1/2):172 − 187. doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2009.10.002
[2] DU J,GLADE T,WOLDAI T,et al. Landslide susceptibility assessment based on an incomplete landslide inventory in the Jilong Valley,Tibet,Chinese Himalayas[J]. Engineering Geology,2020,270:105572. doi: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2020.105572
[3] GOYES-PEÑAFIEL P,HERNANDEZ-ROJAS A. Landslide susceptibility index based on the integration of logistic regression and weights of evidence:A case study in Popayan,Colombia[J]. Engineering Geology,2021,280:105958. doi: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2020.105958
[4] BĂLTEANU D,MICU Mihai,JURCHESCU M,et al. National-scale landslide susceptibility map of Romania in a European methodological framework[J]. Geomorphology,2020,371:107432. doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2020.107432
[5] SMITH H G,SPIEKERMANN R,BETTS H,et al. Comparing methods of landslide data acquisition and susceptibility modelling:examples from New Zealand[J]. Geomorphology,2021,381:107660. doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2021.107660
[6] 黄立鑫,郝君明,李旺平,等. 基于RBF神经网络-信息量耦合模型的滑坡易发性评价—以甘肃岷县为例[J]. 中国地质灾害与防治学报,2021,32(6):116 − 126. [HUANG Lixin,HAO Junming,LI Wangping,et al. Landslide susceptibility assessment by the coupling method of RBF neural network and information value:A case study in Min Xian,Gansu Province[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control,2021,32(6):116 − 126. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[7] 廖小平,徐风光,蔡旭东,等. 香丽高速公路边坡地质灾害发育特征与易发性区划[J]. 中国地质灾害与防治学报,2021,32(5):121 − 129. [LIAO Xiaoping,XU Fengguang,CAI Xudong,et al. Development characteristics and susceptibality zoning of slope geological hazards in Xiangli expressway[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control,2021,32(5):121 − 129. (in Chinese with English abstract) doi: 10.16031/j.cnki.issn.1003-8035.2021.05-15
[8] 罗守敬,王珊珊,付德荃. 北京山区突发性地质灾害易发性评价[J]. 中国地质灾害与防治学报,2021,32(4):126 − 133. [LUO Shoujing,WANG Shanshan,FU Dequan. Assessment on the susceptibility of sudden geological hazards in mountainous areas of Beijing[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control,2021,32(4):126 − 133. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[9] 吴赛男,田毅. 我国单体滑坡模拟和区域滑坡易发性评价研究进展[J]. 中国地质灾害与防治学报,2019,30(3):113 − 119. [WU Sainan,TIAN Yi. Review on progress of individual landslide simulation and assessment of reginal landslide susceptibility in China[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control,2019,30(3):113 − 119. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[10] 闫怡秋,杨志华,张绪教,等. 基于加权证据权模型的青藏高原东部巴塘断裂带滑坡易发性评价[J]. 现代地质,2021,35(1):26 − 37. [YAN Yiqiu,YANG Zhihua,ZHANG Xujiao,et al. Landslide susceptibility assessment based on weight-of-evidence modeling of the Batang fault zone,eastern Tibetan Plateau[J]. Geoscience,2021,35(1):26 − 37. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[11] LUSTED L B. An introduction to medical decision making[J]. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation,1970,49(5):322.
[12] SPIEGELHALTER D J,KNILL-JONES R P. Statistical and knowledge-based approaches to clinical decision-support systems,with an application in gastroenterology[J]. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (General),1984,147(1):35. doi: 10.2307/2981737
[13] BONHAM-CARTER G F, AGTERBERG F P, WRIGHT D F. Weights of evidence modelling: A new approach to mapping mineral potential[R]. Natural Resources Canada/CMSS/Information Management, 1990.
[14] AGTERBERG F P. Combining indicator patterns in weights of evidence modeling for resource evaluation[J]. Nonrenewable Resources,1992,1(1):39 − 50. doi: 10.1007/BF01782111
[15] AGTERBERG F P, BONHARN-CARTER G F. Weights of evidence modeling and weighted logistic regression for mineral potential mapping[M]. Computers in Geology - 25 Years of Progress. 13 − 32: Oxford University Press, 1994.
[16] CARRANZA E,HALE M. Spatial association of mineral occurrences and curvilinear geological features[J]. Mathematical Geology,2002,34:203 − 221. doi: 10.1023/A%3A1014416319335
[17] 孙琳,任娜娜,李云安,等. 基于证据权法的公路路基岩溶塌陷危险性评价[J]. 中国地质灾害与防治学报,2019,30(3):94 − 100. [SUN Lin,REN Nana,LI Yunan,et al. Risk assessment on karst collapse of the highway subgrade based on weights of evidence method[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control,2019,30(3):94 − 100. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[18] 刘璐瑶, 高惠瑛. 基于证据权与Logistic回归模型耦合的滑坡易发性评价[J/OL]. 工程地质学报. https://doi.org/10.13544/j.cnki.jeg.2020-482.
LIU Luyao, GAO Huiying. Landslide susceptibility assessment based on coupling of woe model and logistic regression model[J/OL]. Journal of Engineering Geology. https://doi.org/10.13544/j.cnki.jeg.2020-482. （in Chinese with English abstract）
[19] CHEN L F,GUO H X,GONG P S,et al. Landslide susceptibility assessment using weights-of-evidence model and cluster analysis along the highways in the Hubei section of the Three Gorges Reservoir Area[J]. Computers & Geosciences,2021,156:104899. doi: 10.1016/j.cageo.2021.104899
[20] ALSABHAN A H,SINGH K,SHARMA A,et al. Landslide susceptibility assessment in the Himalayan range based along Kasauli - Parwanoo Road corridor using weight of evidence,information value,and frequency ratio[J]. Journal of King Saud University - Science,2022,34(2):101759. doi: 10.1016/j.jksus.2021.101759
[21] SAHA A,SAHA S. Comparing the efficiency of weight of evidence,support vector machine and their ensemble approaches in landslide susceptibility modelling:a study on Kurseong region of Darjeeling Himalaya,India[J]. Remote Sensing Applications:Society and Environment,2020,19:100323. doi: 10.1016/j.rsase.2020.100323
[22] 黄发明,石雨,欧阳慰平,等. 基于证据权和卡方自动交互检测决策树的滑坡易发性预测[J]. 土木与环境工程学报(中英文),2022,44(5):1 − 15. [HUANG Faming,SHI Yu,OUYANG Weiping,et al. Landslide susceptibility prediction modeling based on weight of evidence and Chi-square automatic interactive detection[J]. Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering,2022,44(5):1 − 15. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[23] 杨华阳,许向宁,杨鸿发. 基于证据权法的九寨沟地震滑坡危险性评价[J]. 中国地质灾害与防治学报,2020,31(3):20 − 29. [YANG Huayang,XU Xiangning,YANG Hongfa. The Jiuzhaigou co-seismic landslide hazard assessment based on weight of evidence method[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control,2020,31(3):20 − 29. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[24] 云南省地质局第二区测队. 昆明幅G-48-25 1/20万地质调查报告[R]. 昆明: 云南省地质局, 1971
The Second Regional Survey Bureau. Kunming G-48-25 1/200000 Geological survey report[R]. Kunming: Yunnan Geological Bureau, 1971. （in Chinese with English abstract）
[25] 云南省地质局第二区测大队. 武定幅G-48-19 1/20万地质图, 矿产图及其说明书[R]. 昆明: 云南省地质局, 1969
The Second Regional Survey Bureau. Wuding G-48-19 1/200000 geological map, mineral map and description[R]. Kunming: Yunnan Geological Bureau, 1969. （in Chinese）
[26] BONHAM-CARTER G F. Geographic information systems for geoscientists: Modelling with GIS[M]. Canada: Pergamon, 1994.
[27] CARTER GF B,AGTERBERG F P,WRIGHT D F. Integration of geological datasets for gold exploration in Nova Scotia[J]. photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing,1990,54(11):1585 − 1592.
[28] AGTERBERG F P, BONHAM-CARTER G F, WRIGHT D F. Statistical pattern integration for mineral exploration[M].Computer Applications in Resource Estimation Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1990: 1 − 21.
[29] HOYER A,KUSS O. Meta-analysis of full ROC curves with flexible parametric distributions of diagnostic test values[J]. Research Synthesis Methods,2020,11(2):301 − 313. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1395
[30] WALKER S P. The ROC curve redefined - optimizing sensitivity (and specificity) to the lived reality of cancer[J]. The New England Journal of Medicine,2019,380(17):1594 − 1595. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1814951
[31] OMAR L,IVRISSIMTZIS I. Using theoretical ROC curves for analysing machine learning binary classifiers[J]. Pattern Recognition Letters,2019,128:447 − 451. doi: 10.1016/j.patrec.2019.10.004
[32] 王高峰, 郭宁, 邓兵, 等. 不同组合模型区域滑坡易发性及精度分析[J]. 西北地质,2021,54(2):259 − 272. [WANG Gaofeng, GUO Ning, DENG Bing, et al. Analysis of landslide susceptibility and accuracy in different combination models[J]. Northwestern Geology,2021,54(2):259 − 272. (in Chinese with English abstract)
-
图(7)
表(3)
计量
- 文章访问数: 570
- PDF下载数: 55
- 施引文献: 0