Skip to main content

Table 5 The numbers and percentages of shallow landslide (SL) and no shallow landslide (no SL) in the four classes

From: Topographical factor-based shallow landslide hazard assessment: a case of Dayi area of Guizhou Province in China

 

T ≤ 0.5

0.5 < T ≤ 0.7

0.7 < T ≤ 0.9

T > 0.9

Total

Possibility

Very low

Low

Medium

High

 

Numbers of SL in Dayi

0

0

69

161

230

Percentages of SL in Dayi (%)

0

0

30

70

100

Numbers of no SL in Dayi

9

65

64

0

138

Percentages of no SL in Dayi (%)

6.5

47.1

46.4

0

100

Numbers of SL in TV

0

18

17

6

41

Percentages of SL in TV (%)

0

43.9

41.5

14.6

100

Numbers of no SL in TV

5

6

1

0

12

Percentages of no SL in TV (%)

41.7

50

8.3

0

100

Numbers of SL in MR

1

4

4

10

19

Percentages of SL in MR (%)

5.3

21

21

52.7

100

Numbers of no SL in MR

1

5

3

1

10

Percentages of no SL in MR (%)

10

50

30

10

100

Numbers of SL in SC

0

2

3

4

9

Percentages of SL in SC (%)

0

22.2

33.3

44.4

100

Numbers of no SL in SC

0

6

3

1

10

Percentages of no SL in SC (%)

0

60

30

10

100

Numbers of SL in Hofu

0

6

3

7

16

Percentages of SL in Hofu (%)

0

37.5

18.7

43.8

100

Numbers of no SL in Hofu

0

6

2

1

9

Percentages of no SL in Hofu (%)

0

66.7

22.2

11.1

100

Numbers of SL in Total

1

30

96

188

315

Percentages of SL in Total (%)

0.3

9.5

30.5

59.7

100

Numbers of no SL in Total

15

88

73

3

179

Percentages of no SL in Total (%)

8.4

49.2

40.8

1.7

100

  1. TV Tennessee Valley
  2. MR Mettman Ridge
  3. SC Split Creek
  4. SL Shallow landslide