A systematic exploration of satellite radar coherence methods for rapid landslide detection
-
Published:2020-11-27
Issue:11
Volume:20
Page:3197-3214
-
ISSN:1684-9981
-
Container-title:Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.
Author:
Burrows Katy, Walters Richard J., Milledge DavidORCID, Densmore Alexander L.ORCID
Abstract
Abstract. Emergency responders require information on the distribution of triggered landslides within 2 weeks of an earthquake or storm. Useable satellite radar imagery is acquired within days of any such event worldwide. Recently, several landslide detection methods that use these data have been developed, but testing of these methods has been limited in each case to a single event and satellite sensor. Here we systematically test five methods using ALOS-2 and Sentinel-1 data across four triggering earthquakes. The best-performing method was dependent on the satellite sensor. For three of our four case study events, an initial ALOS-2 image was acquired within 2 weeks, and with these data, co-event coherence loss (CECL) is the best-performing method. Using a single post-event Sentinel-1 image, the best-performing method was the boxcar–sibling (Bx–S) method. We also present three new methods which incorporate a second post-event image. While the waiting time for this second post-event image is disadvantageous for emergency response, these methods perform more consistently and on average 10 % better across event and sensor type than the boxcar–sibling and CECL methods. Thus, our results demonstrate that useful landslide density information can be generated on the timescale of emergency response and allow us to make recommendations on the best method based on the availability and latency of post-event radar data.
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Subject
General Earth and Planetary Sciences
Reference61 articles.
1. Aimaiti, Y., Liu, W., Yamazaki, F., and Maruyama, Y.: Earthquake-Induced
Landslide Mapping for the 2018 Hokkaido Eastern Iburi Earthquake Using
PALSAR-2 Data, Remote Sens., 11, 2351, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs1120235, 2019. a, b, c, d 2. Allstadt, K. E., Jibson, R. W., Thompson, E. M., Massey, C. I., Wald, D. J.,
Godt, J. W., and Rengers, F. K.: Improving Near-Real-Time Coseismic Landslide Models: Lessons Learned from the 2016 Kaikōura, New Zealand, Earthquake Improving Near-Real-Time Coseismic Landslide Models, B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 108, 1649–1664, 2018. a, b, c 3. Aslan, G., Foumelis, M., Raucoules, D., De Michele, M., Bernardie, S., and
Cakir, Z.: Landslide Mapping and Monitoring Using Persistent Scatterer
Interferometry (PSI) Technique in the French Alps, Remote Sens., 12, 1305,
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12081305, 2020. a 4. Bessette-Kirton, E. K., Cerovski-Darriau, C., Schulz, W. H., Coe, J. A., Kean, J. W., Godt, J. W., Thomas, M. A., and Hughes, K. S.: Landslides Triggered by Hurricane Maria: Assessment of an Extreme Event in Puerto Rico, GSA Today, 29, 4–10, 2019. a, b, c, d 5. Bonì, R., Bordoni, M., Colombo, A., Lanteri, L., and Meisina, C.: Landslide state of activity maps by combining multi-temporal A-DInSAR (LAMBDA), Remote Sens. Environ., 217, 172–190, 2018. a
Cited by
24 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|