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