KAYNAKLAR • Saito, H., Nakayama, D., Matsuyama, H., 2009. Comparison of landslide susceptibility based on a decision-tree model and actual landslide occurrence: The Akaishi Mountains, Japan, Geomorphology, 109, 108-121. • San, B.T., 2014. An evaluation of SVM using polygon-based random sampling inlandslide susceptibility mapping: The Candir catchment area(western Antalya, Turkey), International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 26, 399-412. • Schicker, R., Moon, V., 2012. Comparison of bivariate and multivariate statistical approaches in landslide susceptibility mapping at a regional scale, Geomorphology, 161-162, 40-57. • Schulz, W.H., 2007. Landslide susceptibility revealed by LIDAR imagery and historical records, Seattle, Washington, Engineering Geology, 89, 67-87. • Schuster, R.L., 1996, Socia-economic significance of landslides, In: Turner, Schuster (eds) “Landslides: Investigation and Mitigation”. Transportation Research Board-National Research Council, Special Report 247, 12-35. • Schuster, R.L., and Fleming, R.W., 1986, Economic losses and fatalities due to landslides, Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists, 23 (1), 11-28. • Sezer, E.A., Pradhan, B., Gokceoglu, C., 2011. Manifestation of an adaptive neuro-fuzzy model on landslide susceptibility mapping: Klang valley, Malaysia, Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 8208-8219. • Shahabi, H., Khezri, S., Ahmad, B.B., Hashima, M., 2014. Landslide susceptibilitymapping at central Zab basin, Iran: A comparison between analytical hierarchy process, frequency ratio and logistic regression models, Catena, 115, 55-70. • Soeters, R. and Van Westen C. J.: 1996. Slope Instability Recognition, Analysis and Zonation. In:Turner, A. K. and Schuster, R. L. (eds), Landslides, investigation and mitigation, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Special Report 247, National Academy Press, Washington D.C., U.S.A., pp 129-177. • Song, R.-H., Hiromu, D., Kazutoki, A., Usio, K., Sumio, M., 2008. Modeling the potential distribution of shallow-seated landslides using the weights of evidence method and a logistic regression model: a case study of the Sabae Area, Japan, International Journal of Sediment Research, 23, 106-118. • Song, Y., Gong, J., Gao, S., Wang, D., Cui, T., Li, Y., Wei, B., 2012. Susceptibility assessment of earthquake-induced landslides using Bayesian network: A case study in Beichuan, China, Computers & Geosciences, 42,189-199. • Sterlacchini, S., Ballabio, C., Blahut, J., Masetti, M., Sorichetta, A., 2011. Spatial agreement of predicted patterns in landslide susceptibility maps, Geomorphology, 125, 51-61. • Strahler, A. N., 1950. Equilibrium theory of erosional slopes approached by frequency distribution analysis, Am. J. Sci., 248, 673–696, 800–814. • 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, 303–321. • Süzen, M.L. and Doyuran, V., 2004, Data driven bivariate landslide susceptibility assessment using geographical information systems: a method and application to Asarsuyu catchment, Turkey, Engineering Geology, 71, 303-321. • Tangestani, M.H., 2009. A comparative study of Dempster–Shafer and fuzzy models for landslide susceptibility mapping using a GIS: An experience from Zagros Mountains, SW Iran, Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 35, 66-73. • Tatlıdil, H., 2002. Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli İstatistiksel Analiz, Ziraat Matbaacılık, <strong>Ankara</strong>. • Thiery, Y., Malet, J.-P., Sterlacchini, S., Puissant, A., Maquaire, O., 2007. Landslide susceptibility assessment by bivariate methods at large scales: Application to a complex mountainous environment, Geomorphology, 92, 38-59. • Troisi, C., Berger, F, Dorren, L., 2008. Protection de la viabilité alpine, PROVIALP project report, Interreg IIIa 200 – 2006 Alpes Latines n° 165, ARPA/Cemagref. • Vahidnia, M.H., Alesheikh, A.A., Alimohammadi, A., Hosseinali, F., 2010. A GIS-based neuro-fuzzy procedure for integrating knowledge and data in landslide susceptibility mapping, Computers &Geosciences, 36,1101-1114. • Van Den Eeckhaut, M., Hervás, J., Jaedicke, C., Malet, J.-P., Montanarella, L., Nadim, F., 2012. Statistical modelling of Europe-wide landslide susceptibility using limited landslide inventory data. Landslides, 9, 357-369. 148 Bütünleşik Tehlike Haritalarının Hazırlanması HEYELAN-KAYA DÜŞMESİ TEMEL KILAVUZ
• Van Den Eeckhaut, M., Marre, A., Poesen, J., 2010. Comparison of two landslide susceptibility assessments in the Champagne-Ardenne region (France), Geomorphology, 115, 141-155. • Van Westen, C.J., 1993. Application of geographical information system to landslide hazard zonation. ITC publication no 15, ITC, Enschede, Netherlands. • Van Westen, C.J., Castellanos, E., Kuriakose, S.L., 2008, Spatial data for landslide susceptibility, hazard and vulnerability assessment: An overview, Engineering Geology, 102: 112-132. • Van Westen, C.J., Van Asch, T.W.J., Soeters, R., 2006. Landslide hazard and risk zonation-why is it still so difficult? Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, Volume 65, Issue 2, pp. 167-184. • Varnes, D.J., 1978. Slope movements: types and processes. In: Schuster, R.L., Krizek, R.J.(Eds.), Landslide Analysis and Control. Transportation Research Board, Special Report No. 176, Washington, DC, pp. 11–33. • Varnes, D.J., 1984, Landslide hazard zonation: a review of principles and practice, Commission of Landslides of the IAEG, UNESCO, Natural Hazards No. 3, 61 pp. • Von Ruette, J., Papritz, A., Lehmann, P., Rickli, C., Or, D., 2011. Spatial statistical modeling of shallow landslides-Validating predictions for different landslide inventories and rainfall events, Geomorphology, 133, 11-22. • Wan, S., 2009. A spatial decision support system for extracting the core factors and thresholds for landslide susceptibility map, Engineering Geology, 108, 237-251. • Wang, L.-L., Sawada, K., Moriguchi, S., 2013. Landslide susceptibility analysis with logistic regression model based on FCM sampling strategy, Computers & Geosciences, 57, 81-92. • Wang, W.-D., Xie, C.-M., Du, X.-G., 2009. Landslides susceptibility mapping in Guizhou province based on fuzzy theory, Mining Science and Technology, 19, 0399-0404. • Weirich, F., Blesius, L., 2007. Comparison of satellite and air photo based landslide susceptibility maps. Geomorphology, 87, 352-364. • Wieczorek, G.F., Morrissey, M.M., Iovine, G., and Godt, J., 1998. Rock-fall hazards in Yosemite Valley: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-467. • Wieczorek, G.F., Stock, G.M., Reichenbach, P., Snyder, J.B., Borchers, J.W., Godt, J.W., 2008. Investigation and hazard assessment of the 2003 and 2007 Staircase Falls rock falls, Yosemite National Park, California, USA: Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, v. 8, p. 421-432. • WP/WLI (Working Party on World Landslide Inventory), 1993. A suggested method for describing the activity of a landslide, IAEG Bull. 47, 53-57. • Wu, C.-H., Chen, S.-C., 2009. Determining landslide susceptibility in Central Taiwan from rainfall and six site factors using the analytical hierarchy process method, Geomorphology, 112, 190-204. • Xu, C., Dai, F., Xu, X., Lee, Y.H., 2012. GIS-based support vector machine modeling of earthquake-triggered landslide susceptibility in the Jianjiang River watershed, China, Geomorphology, 145-146, 70-80. • Xu, C., Xu, X., Dai, F., Saraf, A.K., 2012. Comparison of different models for susceptibility mapping of earthquake triggered landslides related with the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in China, Computers + & Geosciences, 46, 317-329. • Yalcin, A., 2008. GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping using analytical hierarchy process and bivariate statistics in Ardesen (Turkey): Comparisons of results and confirmations, Catena, 72, 1-12. • Yalcin, A., Reis, S., Aydinoglu, A.C., Yomralioglu, T., 2011. A GIS-based comparative study of frequency ratio, analytical hierarchy process, bivariate statistics and logistics regression methods for landslide susceptibility mapping in Trabzon, NE Turkey, Catena, 85, 274-287. • Yao, X., Tham, L.G., Dai, F.C., 2008. Landslide susceptibility mapping based on Support Vector Machine: A case study on natural slopes of Hong Kong, China, Geomorphology, 101, 572-582. • Yeon, Y.-K., Han, J.-G., Ryu, K.H., 2010. Landslide susceptibility mapping in Injae, Korea, using a decision tree, Engineering Geology, 116, 274-283. Bütünleşik Tehlike Haritalarının Hazırlanması HEYELAN-KAYA DÜŞMESİ TEMEL KILAVUZ 149
- Page 1 and 2:
AFAD Ankara, 2015
- Page 3 and 4:
önemlidir. Bu tür haritalardan fa
- Page 5 and 6:
5. HEYELAN DEĞERLENDİRMELERİNDE
- Page 7 and 8:
Şekil 3.5. Kuzulu-Koyulhisar (Bak
- Page 9 and 10:
Şekil 8.19. Kaya düşmeleri önle
- Page 11:
Çizelge 5.1. Heyelan değerlendirm
- Page 14 and 15:
1 GİRİŞ Özellikle 1950-1960’l
- Page 16 and 17:
1 GİRİŞ 50 Yıllık Periyotta 28
- Page 19 and 20:
2 HEYELANLAR ve GENEL ÖZELLİKLER
- Page 21 and 22:
2.2. Dünyada ve Türkiye’de Meyd
- Page 23 and 24:
Şekil 2.3. Türkiye’de son 50 y
- Page 25 and 26:
Ülkemizde, özellikle Karadeniz b
- Page 27 and 28:
2.3.1. Kütlesel Özellikler Heyela
- Page 29 and 30:
2.3.3. Heyelanların Aktivite Özel
- Page 31 and 32:
2.3.5. Heyelanların Aktivite Türl
- Page 33 and 34:
2.4. Heyelanların Sınıflandırı
- Page 35 and 36:
HEYELANLAR Can ve Mal Kayıpların
- Page 37 and 38:
Şekil 2.14. Heyelan sınıflamalar
- Page 39:
Şekil 2.17. Ulus (Bartın) bölges
- Page 42 and 43:
3 HEYELAN ENVANTERİ Heyelanlar, je
- Page 44 and 45:
3 HEYELAN ENVANTERİ 3.2. Heyelan E
- Page 46 and 47:
3 HEYELAN ENVANTERİ Şekil 3.4. Yu
- Page 48 and 49:
3 HEYELAN ENVANTERİ 3.3.3. Jeoloji
- Page 50 and 51:
3 HEYELAN ENVANTERİ Örneğin, Lan
- Page 52 and 53:
3 HEYELAN ENVANTERİ 3.6. Diğer Y
- Page 54 and 55:
3 HEYELAN ENVANTERİ Şekil 3.11. K
- Page 57 and 58:
4 HEYELAN ANALİZ AŞAMALARI
- Page 59 and 60:
4.1. Kullanılan Ölçekler ve Etki
- Page 61 and 62:
4.2. Jeolojik Çalışmalar Uzun s
- Page 63 and 64:
Şekil 4.4. Yenice (Karabük) bölg
- Page 65 and 66:
Trabzon Çal-Çiğdemli Köyü Heye
- Page 67 and 68:
Çizelge 4.4. Heyelan değerlendiri
- Page 69 and 70:
Şekil 4.5. Heyelan envanteri-veri
- Page 71:
Şekil 4.7. Vektör ve raster veril
- Page 74 and 75:
5 HEYELAN DEĞERLENDİRMELERİNDE K
- Page 76 and 77:
5 HEYELAN DEĞERLENDİRMELERİNDE K
- Page 78 and 79:
5 HEYELAN DEĞERLENDİRMELERİNDE K
- Page 80 and 81:
5 HEYELAN DEĞERLENDİRMELERİNDE K
- Page 82 and 83:
5 HEYELAN DEĞERLENDİRMELERİNDE K
- Page 84 and 85:
5 HEYELAN DEĞERLENDİRMELERİNDE K
- Page 87 and 88:
6 HEYELAN DUYARLILIĞI VE DEĞERLEN
- Page 89 and 90:
6.1. Jeomorfolojik Analizler Jeomor
- Page 91 and 92:
6.2.2.2. Diskriminant Analizi Diskr
- Page 93 and 94:
Şekil 6.1. Uygulamanın gerçekle
- Page 95 and 96:
6.5.3. Frekans Oranı Değerlerinin
- Page 97: ilgileriyle hesaplanabilecek ve ala
- Page 100 and 101: 7 HEYELAN TEHLİKE VE RİSK DEĞERL
- Page 102 and 103: 7 HEYELAN TEHLİKE VE RİSK DEĞERL
- Page 104 and 105: 7 HEYELAN TEHLİKE VE RİSK DEĞERL
- Page 106 and 107: 7 HEYELAN TEHLİKE VE RİSK DEĞERL
- Page 109 and 110: 8 KAYA DÜŞMESİ ANALİZLERİ
- Page 111 and 112: Buna karşın, kaya düşmesi olay
- Page 113 and 114: Potansiyel aktif kaynak alanların
- Page 115 and 116: Yukarıdaki yaklaşımla, sayısal
- Page 117 and 118: Şekil 8.9. 25x25 metre çözünür
- Page 119 and 120: Kaya düşmesi olayının gelişti
- Page 121 and 122: Çizelge 8.3. teki çok sayıdaki a
- Page 123 and 124: Çizelge 8.5. Gölge Açısı sın
- Page 125 and 126: Şekil 8.15. Konik yayılım uygula
- Page 127 and 128: Şekil 8.16. S. Martino dağlık b
- Page 129 and 130: Ormanlık ve çıplak yamaçlarda d
- Page 131 and 132: 8.7. Örnek Uygulama Bu bölümde,
- Page 133 and 134: Şekil 8.22. ISRM (1981)’e göre
- Page 135 and 136: Şekil 8.24.Farklı konik yayılım
- Page 137 and 138: G Kayma yüzeyi, yerdeğiştiren ma
- Page 139 and 140: T U V Kayan kütle içinde meydana
- Page 141 and 142: • Booth, A.M., Roering, J.J., Per
- Page 143 and 144: • Ermini, L., Catani, F., Casagli
- Page 145 and 146: • Jaiswal, P., Van Westen, C.J.,
- Page 147: • Ozdemir, A., Altural, T., 2013.
- Page 151: KATKIDA BULUNANLAR Yürütücü Eki