Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 580

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparing landslide inventory maps

Galli, Mirco, Ardizzone, Francesca, Cardinali, Mauro, Guzzetti, Fausto, Reichenbach, Paola·2008·Geomorphology

Abstract

Landslide inventory maps are effective and easily understandable products for both experts, such as geomorphologists, and for non experts, including decision-makers, planners, and civil defense managers. Landslide inventories are essential to understand the evolution of landscapes, and to ascertain landslide susceptibility and hazard. Despite landslide maps being compiled every year in the word at different scales, limited efforts are made to critically compare landslide maps prepared using different techniques or by different investigators. Based on the experience gained in 20 years of landslide mapping in Italy, and on the limited literature on landslide inventory assessment, we propose a general framework for the quantitative comparison of landslide inventory maps. To test the proposed framework we exploit three inventory maps. The first map is a reconnaissance landslide inventory prepared for the Umbria region, in central Italy. The second map is a detailed geomorphological landslide map, also prepared for the Umbria region. The third map is a multi-temporal landslide inventory compiled for the Collazzone area, in central Umbria. Results of the experiment allow for establishing how well the individual inventories describe the location, type and abundance of landslides, to what extent the landslide maps can be used to determine the frequency-area statistics of the slope failures, and the significance of the inventory maps as predictors of landslide susceptibility. We further use the results obtained in the Collazzone area to estimate the quality and completeness of the two regional landslide inventory maps, and to outline general advantages and limitations of the techniques used to complete the inventories.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.09.023

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 14 references

Cited by

See all 580

Metadata

Authors
Galli, M., Ardizzone, F., Cardinali, M., Guzzetti, F., & Reichenbach, P.
Venue
Geomorphology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-02
Volume
94
Issue
3-4
Pages
268-289
ISSN
0169-555X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2095057310
Cited by
580
References
14
FWCI
32.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparing landslide inventory maps. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.09.023
The paper
Galli, M., Ardizzone, F., Cardinali, M., Guzzetti, F., & Reichenbach, P. (2008). Comparing landslide inventory maps. Geomorphology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.09.023

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.