4.7 Article

The influence of land urbanization on landslides: An empirical estimation based on Chinese provincial panel data

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 595, 期 -, 页码 681-690

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.258

关键词

Landslides; Land urbanization; Panel multiple regression; China

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71173200]
  2. Development and Research Center of China Geological Survey [12120114056601]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study used panel data for 28 provinces and municipalities in China from 2003 to 2014 to investigate the relationship between land urbanization and landslides by building panel models for a national sample and subsamples from the three regions of China and studied the problems of landslide prevention measures based on the relationship. The results showed that 1) at the national level, the percentage of built-up area and road density are respectively negative and positive for landslides. 2) At the regional level, the improvement of landslide prevention measures with increasing economic development only appears in built-up areas. The percentage of built-up areas increases the number of landslides in the western region and decreases the number in the central and eastern regions; the degree of decrease in the eastern region is larger than in the central region. Road density increases the number of landslides in each region, and the degree increases gradually from the west to the east. 3) The effect of landslide prevention funding is not obvious. Although the amount of landslide prevention funds decreases the number of landslides at the national level, the degree of increase is too small. Except in the central region, the amount of landslide prevention funding did not decrease the number of landslides effectively in the western and eastern regions. We propose a series of policy implications based on these test results that may help to improve landslide prevention measures. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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