What ecological factors to integrate in landslide susceptibility mapping? An exploratory review of current trends in support of eco-DRR

IF 2.6 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Mélanie Broquet , Pedro Cabral , Felipe S. Campos
{"title":"What ecological factors to integrate in landslide susceptibility mapping? An exploratory review of current trends in support of eco-DRR","authors":"Mélanie Broquet ,&nbsp;Pedro Cabral ,&nbsp;Felipe S. Campos","doi":"10.1016/j.pdisas.2024.100328","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction (Eco-DRR) reflects the important role that natural ecosystems play in reducing the likelihood, severity, and impact of environmental disasters such as landslides. However, landslide risk assessments often lack explicit references to Eco-DRR and unified frameworks, notably for its Landslide Susceptibility Assessment (LSA). Here, we assess how ecological factors are integrated into LSAs and the feasibility of measuring them, using open Earth Observation (EO) data. We conduct an exploratory review for identifying the factors used in LSAs and ecosystem assessments, determining their commonalities. Key findings indicate that standardization is more lacking in ecosystem assessments than in LSAs, with the former exhibiting a higher dispersion of factors—195 identified across 41 papers—compared to the latter, where only 46 factors were identified across 30 studies. LSAs and ecosystem assessments shared 19 common factors, with only two, the Normalized Differential Vegetation Index (NDVI) and Land Use and Land Cover (LULC), being widely accepted criteria. Our study contributes to advancing Eco-DRR practices by proposing concrete measures to expand the ecological perspective in LSAs and fostering collaboration between DRR and conservation domains. Ultimately, it raises awareness of the pivotal role that healthy ecosystems play in mitigating disasters and addressing societal challenges.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":52341,"journal":{"name":"Progress in Disaster Science","volume":"22 ","pages":"Article 100328"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590061724000188/pdfft?md5=4cd8c40b7998bdb7c8e882539551c2ea&pid=1-s2.0-S2590061724000188-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Progress in Disaster Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590061724000188","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction (Eco-DRR) reflects the important role that natural ecosystems play in reducing the likelihood, severity, and impact of environmental disasters such as landslides. However, landslide risk assessments often lack explicit references to Eco-DRR and unified frameworks, notably for its Landslide Susceptibility Assessment (LSA). Here, we assess how ecological factors are integrated into LSAs and the feasibility of measuring them, using open Earth Observation (EO) data. We conduct an exploratory review for identifying the factors used in LSAs and ecosystem assessments, determining their commonalities. Key findings indicate that standardization is more lacking in ecosystem assessments than in LSAs, with the former exhibiting a higher dispersion of factors—195 identified across 41 papers—compared to the latter, where only 46 factors were identified across 30 studies. LSAs and ecosystem assessments shared 19 common factors, with only two, the Normalized Differential Vegetation Index (NDVI) and Land Use and Land Cover (LULC), being widely accepted criteria. Our study contributes to advancing Eco-DRR practices by proposing concrete measures to expand the ecological perspective in LSAs and fostering collaboration between DRR and conservation domains. Ultimately, it raises awareness of the pivotal role that healthy ecosystems play in mitigating disasters and addressing societal challenges.

Abstract Image

在绘制滑坡易发性地图时应纳入哪些生态因素?对支持生态减灾的当前趋势进行探索性审查
基于生态系统的灾害风险降低(Eco-DRR)反映了自然生态系统在降低山体滑坡等环境灾害的可能性、严重性和影响方面所发挥的重要作用。然而,滑坡风险评估通常缺乏对生态减灾和统一框架的明确引用,尤其是对其滑坡易感性评估(LSA)的引用。在此,我们利用开放式地球观测 (EO) 数据,评估生态因素如何被纳入 LSA 以及测量生态因素的可行性。我们进行了一项探索性审查,以确定 LSA 和生态系统评估中使用的因子,并确定其共性。主要研究结果表明,生态系统评估比 LSA 更缺乏标准化,前者在 41 篇论文中确定了 195 个因子,而后者在 30 项研究中仅确定了 46 个因子,前者表现出更高的分散性。土地退化评估和生态系统评估共有 19 个共同因子,其中只有归一化差异植被指数 (NDVI) 和土地利用与土地覆被 (LULC) 这两个因子是广为接受的标准。我们的研究提出了具体措施,以扩展土地退化评估中的生态视角,并促进减少灾害风险和保护领域之间的合作,从而为推进生态减少灾害风险实践做出了贡献。最终,它提高了人们对健康生态系统在减轻灾害和应对社会挑战方面所发挥的关键作用的认识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Progress in Disaster Science
Progress in Disaster Science Social Sciences-Safety Research
CiteScore
14.60
自引率
3.20%
发文量
51
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Progress in Disaster Science is a Gold Open Access journal focusing on integrating research and policy in disaster research, and publishes original research papers and invited viewpoint articles on disaster risk reduction; response; emergency management and recovery. A key part of the Journal's Publication output will see key experts invited to assess and comment on the current trends in disaster research, as well as highlight key papers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信