4.7 Article

Standards for the performance assessment of territorial landslide early warning systems

期刊

LANDSLIDES
卷 17, 期 11, 页码 2533-2546

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10346-020-01486-4

关键词

Landslide early warning systems; Rainfall thresholds; Performance; Duration matrix; Statistical indicators; Landslides; Territorial

资金

  1. Norwegian Geotechnical Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Landslide early warning systems (LEWS) can be categorized into two groups: territorial and local systems. Territorial landslide early warning systems (Te-LEWS) deal with the occurrence of several landslides in wide areas: at municipal/regional/national scale. The aim of such systems is to forecast the increased probability of landslide occurrence in a given warning zone. The performance evaluation of such systems is often overlooked, and a standardized procedure is still missing. This paper describes a new Excel user-friendly tool for the application of the EDuMaP method, originally proposed by (Calvello and Piciullo 2016). A description of indicators used for the performance evaluation of different Te-LEWS is provided, and the most useful ones have been selected and implemented into the tool. The EDuMaP tool has been used for the performance evaluation of the SMART warning model operating in Piemonte region, Italy. The analysis highlights the warning zones with the highest performance and the ones that need threshold refinement. A comparison of the performance of the SMART model with other models operating in different Te-LEWS has also been carried out, highlighting critical issues and positive aspects. Lastly, the SMART performance has been evaluated with both the EDuMaP and a standard 2 x 2 contingency table for comparison purposes. The result highlights that the latter approach can lead to an imprecise and not detailed assessment of the warning model, because it cannot differentiate among the levels of warning and the variable number of landslides that may occur in a time interval.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据