Kayma tipi heyelanların farklı duyarlılık modellerinde kombinasyonu: Sakarya Havzası Yukarı Çığırı örneği

Heyelan duyarlılık haritaları heyelanın mekânsal tahmini için önem arz etmektedir. Bu nedenleheyelan duyarlılık modellerinin doğruluğu tehlike ve risk çalışmaları için temel oluşturmaktadır.Bir bölgede heyelanın tüm tipleri için tek bir model oluşturulması duyarlılığın başarısını etkilemektedir.Heyelanların her bir tipi, farklı mekanizma ve materyalde gerçekleştiği için heyelanıdenetleyen hazırlayıcı koşullar da değişmektedir. Bu yüzden duyarlılık modellerinin tek bir heyelantipine göre oluşturulması daha iyi sonuçlar vermektedir. Bu nedenle çalışmanın amacı, tekbir heyelan ana mekanizmasına bağlı moloz ve toprak kayması tipine göre duyarlılık haritalarınınnitel ve yarı nicel yaklaşımlarda nasıl sonuçlar verdiğini ortaya koymaktır. Bu amaç doğrultusundaSakarya havzasının yukarı çığırında bulunan çalışma alanı için, Varnes (1978) sınıflamasınagöre moloz ve toprak kayması tipindeki heyelanlar için Frekans Oran, Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci,Ağırlıklandırılmış Çakıştırma, Modifiye AHP ve CBS Matris Model yaklaşımları ile duyarlılık modellerioluşturulmuştur. Model sonuçlarına bağlı duyarlılık oluşturulurken heyelanın yamacıntamamını etkileyeceğinden çalışma alanı yamaç ünitelerine bölünerek çalışılmıştır. Beş modelsonucuna göre ROC eğrisinin altında kalan sonuçlar 0,79 ile 0,92 arasında değişmektedir. Budurum modellerin çok iyi sonuçlar verdiğini ve çalışma sahasının heyelan duyarlılığı açısındaniyi temsil edildiğini göstermektedir. Sonuçlara göre heyelanın en yüksek ve en düşük olabileceğialanlar tüm modelde ortak alanlara karşılık gelmektedir. Çalışmada sonuç olarak ana heyelantipine göre oluşturulan modellerin yüksek sonuçlar verdiği ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu sonuçlar, tümmodelin tek bir modelde birleştirilmesinde kolaylık sağlamıştır. Böylece tüm modelden tek birmodel çıktısı elde eden çalışma, heyelan tehlike ve risk çalışmalarının iyileştirilmesine katkı sağlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Heyelan, Duyarlılık Modeli, Yamaç Ünitesi, Sakarya

Combination of slide-type landslides in different susceptibility: A case study of the Sakarya Basin Upstream

Landslide susceptibility maps are important for the spatial prediction of landslides. Therefore,the accuracy of landslide susceptibility models is the basis for hazard and risk studies.The creation of a single model for all types of landslides in a region affects the success ofsusceptibility. Since each type of landslide occurs in different mechanisms and materials, thelandslide controlling preparing conditions change. Creating susceptibility models according toa single landslide type gives better results. For this reason, it is the aim of the study to revealhow the susceptibility maps give results in qualitative and semi-quantitative approachesaccording to the type of a single landslide main mechanism which is debris and soil slide.For this purpose, susceptibility models were created for debris and soil type landslidesusing Frequency Ratio, Analytical Hierarchy Process, Weighted Overlay, Modified AnalyticalHierarchy Process and GIS Matrix Models according to Varnes (1978) classification in the studyarea located at the upstream of the Sakarya basin. While creating susceptibility depending onthe model results, the study area was divided into slope units, since a landslide would affectthe entire slope. According to the five model results, the results under the ROC change varybetween 0.79 and 0.92. This shows that the models give very good results and that the studyarea is well represented in terms of landslide susceptibility. According to the results, the areaswhere the landslide may be the highest and the lowest correspond to the common areas in allmodels. As a result of the study, it was revealed that the models created according to the mainlandslide type gave high results. These results made it easy to combine all models in a singlemodel. Thus, the study, which obtains a single model output from all models, contributes tothe improvement of landslide hazard and risk studies.

Keywords:

Landslide, Susceptibility Model, Slope Unite, Sakarya,

PDF

___

Basharat, M., Shah, H. R., & Hameed, N. (2016). Landslide susceptibility mapping using GIS and weighted overlay method: a case study from NW Himalayas, Pakistan. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 9(4), 1-19.
Brabb, E. E., & Pampeyan, E. H. (1972). Preliminary map of landslide deposits in San Mateo County, California (No. 344). US Geological Survey.
Carrara, A., Carratelli E.P., Merenda L. (1977) Computer-based data bank and statistical analysis of slope instability phenomena. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, 21 (1977), pp. 187-222.
Carrara, A., Cardinali, M., Detti, R., Guzzetti, F., Pasqui, V., & Reichenbach, P. (1991). GIS techniques and statistical models in evaluating landslide hazard. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 16(5), 427-445. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3290160505
Carrara A., Cardinali M., Guzzetti F., Reichenbach P. (1995) GIS technology in mapping landslide hazard. A. Carrara, F. Guzzetti (Eds.), Geographical Information Systems in Assessing Natural Hazards, Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, The Netherlands , pp. 135-175.
Casagli, N., Catani, F., Puglisi, C., Delmonaco, G., Ermini, L., & Margottini, C. (2004). An inventory-based approach to landslide susceptibility assessment and its application to the Virginio River Basin, Italy. Environmental and Engineering Geoscience, 10(3), 203-216. https://doi.org/10.2113/10.3.203
Cihangir, M. E., & Görüm, T. (2016). Kelkit vadisinin aşağı çığırında gelişmiş heyelanların dağılım deseni ve oluşumlarını kontrol eden faktörler. Türk Coğrafya Dergisi, (66), 19-28. https://doi. org/10.17211/tcd.84731
Cihangir, M. E., Görüm, T., & Nefeslioğlu, H. A. (2018). Heyelan tetikleyici faktörlerine bağlı mekânsal hassasiyet değerlendirmesi. Türk Cografya Dergisi (70), 133-142. https://doi.org/10.17211/ tcd.410998
Clerici, A., Perego, S., Tellini, C., & Vescovi, P. (2006). A GIS-based automated procedure for landslide susceptibility mapping by the conditional analysis method: the Baganza valley case study (Italian Northern Apennines). Environmental Geology, 50(7), 941-961.
Dagdelenler, G., Nefeslioglu, H. A., & Gokceoglu, C. (2016). Modification of seed cell sampling strategy for landslide susceptibility mapping: an application from the Eastern part of the Gallipoli Peninsula (Canakkale, Turkey). Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 75(2), 575-590.
DeGraff, J. V., & Romesburg, H. C. (2020). Regional landslide susceptibility assessment for wildland management: a matrix approach. Routledge. Coates D. , Vitek J. (Eds.), Thresholds in Geomorphology, George Allen and Unwin, London (1980), pp. 401-414.
Du, J., Glade, T., Woldai, T., Chai, B., & Zeng, B. (2020). Landslide susceptibility assessment based on an incomplete landslide inventory in the Jilong Valley, Tibet, Chinese Himalayas. Engineering Geology, 270, p.105572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo. 2020.105572
Eeckhaut, M., Reichenbach, P., Guzzetti, F., Rossi, M., & Poesen, J. (2009). Combined landslide inventory and susceptibility assessment based on different mapping units: an example from the Flemish Ardennes, Belgium. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 9(2), 507-521.
Erener, A., & Düzgün, H. S. B. (2010). Improvement of statistical landslide susceptibility mapping by using spatial and global regression methods in the case of More and Romsdal (Norway). Landslides, 7(1), 55-68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-009-0188-x
Fell, R., Corominas, J., Bonnard, C., Cascini, L., Leroi, E., & Savage, W. Z. (2008). Guidelines for landslide susceptibility, hazard and risk zoning for land-use planning. Engineering Geology, 102(3- 4), 99-111.
Fernández, C. I., Del Castillo, T. F., Hamdouni, R. E., & Montero, J. C. (1999). Verification of landslide susceptibility mapping: a case study. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms: The Journal of the British Geomorphological Research Group, 24(6), 537- 544. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9837(199906)24:6%- 3C537::AID-ESP965%3E3.0.CO;2-6
Gorum, T., Gonencgil, B., Gokceoglu, C., & Nefeslioglu, H. (2008). Implementation of reconstructed geomorphologic units in landslide susceptibility mapping: The Melen Gorge (NW Turkey). Natural hazards, 46(3), 323-351.
Guzzetti, F. (2021). Invited perspectives: Landslide populations–can they be predicted?. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 21(5), 1467-1471.
Guzzetti, F., Carrara, A., Cardinali, M., & Reichenbach, P. (1999). Landslide hazard evaluation: a review of current techniques and their application in a multi-scale study, Central Italy. Geomorphology, 31(1-4), 181-216.
Guzzetti, F., Reichenbach, P., Ardizzone, F., Cardinali, M., & Galli, M. (2006). Estimating the quality of landslide susceptibility models. Geomorphology, 81(1-2), 166-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. geomorph.2006.04.007
Guzzetti, F., Reichenbach, P., Cardinali, M., Galli, M., & Ardizzone, F. (2005). Probabilistic landslide hazard assessment at the basin scale. Geomorphology, 72(1), 272-299. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.geomorph.2005.06.002
Hansen, A., (1984). Landslide hazard analysis. In: Brunsden, D., Prior, D.B. (Eds.), Slope Instability. Wiley and sons, New York, pp. 523–602.
Irigaray, C., Fernández, T., El Hamdouni, R., & Chacón, J. (2007). Evaluation and validation of landslide-susceptibility maps obtained by a GIS matrix method: examples from the Betic Cordillera (southern Spain). Natural hazards, 41(1), 61-79.
Lee, S., & Pradhan, B. (2007). Landslide hazard mapping at Selangor, Malaysia using frequency ratio and logistic regression models. Landslides, 4(1), 33-41.
Lee, S., & Talib, J. A. (2005). Probabilistic landslide susceptibility and factor effect analysis. Environmental Geology, 47(7), 982-990. Magliulo, P., Di Lisio, A., Russo, F., & Zelano, A. (2008). Geomorphology and landslide susceptibility assessment using GIS and bivariate statistics: a case study in southern Italy. Natural hazards, 47(3), 411-435.
MTA. (2002). 1:100 000 jeoloji haritası (Adapazarı H24-H25). Maden Tetkik ve Arama Genel Müdürlüğü. Ankara.
Nefeslioglu, H. A., Gokceoglu, C., & Sonmez, H. (2008). An assessment on the use of logistic regression and artificial neural networks with different sampling strategies for the preparation of landslide susceptibility maps. Engineering Geology, 97(3-4), 171-191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2008.01.004
Nefeslioglu, H. A., Sezer, E. A., Gokceoglu, C., & Ayas, Z. (2013). A modified analytical hierarchy process (M-AHP) approach for decision support systems in natural hazard assessments. Computers & Geosciences, 59, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo. 2013.05.010
Okay, A. (2011). Tavşanlı Zonu: Anatolid-Torid Bloku’nun Dalma-Batmaya Uğramış Kuzey Ucu. Maden Tetkik ve Arama Dergisi (142), 195-226.
Pérez-Peña, J. V., Al-Awabdeh, M., Azañón, J. M., Galve, J. P., Booth- Rea, G., & Notti, D. (2017). SwathProfiler and NProfiler: Two new ArcGIS Add-ins for the automatic extraction of swath and normalized river profiles. Computers & Geosciences, 104, 135- 150.
Roslee, R., Mickey, A. C., Simon, N., & Norhisham, M. N. (2017). Landslide susceptibility analysis (LSA) using weighted overlay method (WOM) along the Genting Sempah to Bentong Highway, Pahang. Malaysian Journal of Geosciences (MJG), 1(2), 13-19.
Rotigliano, E., Cappadonia, C., Conoscenti, C., Costanzo, D., & Agnesi, V. (2012). Slope units-based flow susceptibility model: using validation tests to select controlling factors. Natural hazards, 61(1), 143-153.
Saaty, T. (1980). Analytical Hierarchy Process McGraw Hill Company. New York. p. 287.
Shit, P. K., Bhunia, G. S., & Maiti, R. (2016). Potential landslide susceptibility mapping using weighted overlay model (WOM). Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 2(1), 21.
Suzen, M. L., & Doyuran, V. (2004). Data driven bivariate landslide susceptibility assessment using geographical information systems: a method and application to Asarsuyu catchment, Turkey. Engineering Geology, 71(3-4), 303-321.
Tribe, A. (1991). Automated recognition of valley heads from digital elevation models. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 16(1), 33-49. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3290160105
Varnes, D. J. (1978). Slope movement types and processes. Special report, 176, 11-33.
Yaralıoğlu, K. (2004). Decision support techniques in application. İlkem Ofset.
Yılmaz, H., & Özel, S. (2008). Crustal structure of the eastern part of Central Anatolia (Turkey). Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences, 17(1), 169-185.
Yilmaz, I. (2010). The effect of the sampling strategies on the landslide susceptibility mapping by conditional probability and artificial neural networks. Environmental Earth Sciences, 60(3), 505-519.
Zhang, H., Song, Y., Xu, S., He, Y., Li, Z., Yu, X., Liang, Y., Wu, W., & Wang, Y. (2022). Combining a class-weighted algorithm and machine learning models in landslide susceptibility mapping: A case study of Wanzhou section of the Three Gorges Reservoir, China. Computers & Geosciences, 158, 104966.