It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Sinkholes are the major cause of concern in Florida for their direct role on aquifer vulnerability and potential loss of lives and property. Mapping sinkhole susceptibility is critical to mitigating these consequences by adopting strategic changes to land use practices. We compared the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) based and logistic regression (LR) based approaches to map the areas prone to sinkhole activity in Marion County, Florida by using long-term sinkhole incident report dataset. For this study, the LR based model was more accurate with an area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.8 compared to 0.73 with the AHP based model. Both models performed better when an independent future sinkhole dataset was used for validation. The LR based approach showed a low presence of sinkholes in the very low susceptibility class and low absence of sinkholes in the very high susceptibility class. However, the AHP based model detected sinkhole presence by allocating more area to the high and very high susceptibility classes. For instance, areas susceptible to very high and high sinkhole incidents covered almost 43.4% of the total area under the AHP based approach, whereas the LR based approach allocated 20.7% of the total area to high and very high susceptibility classes. Of the predisposing factors studied, the LR method revealed that closeness to topographic depression was the most important factor for sinkhole susceptibility. Both models classified Ocala city, a populous city of the study area, as being very vulnerable to sinkhole hazard. Using a common test case scenario, this study discusses the applicability and potential limitations of these sinkhole susceptibility mapping approaches in central Florida.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 University of Florida, Gainesville, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, Florida, USA (GRID:grid.15276.37) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8091)
2 Prithivi Narayan Campus, Tribhuvan University, Department of Geography, Pokhara, Nepal (GRID:grid.80817.36) (ISNI:0000 0001 2114 6728)
3 Iowa State University, Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Ames, USA (GRID:grid.34421.30) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7312)
4 Rutgers University, Rutgers Discovery Informatics Institute, Piscataway, USA (GRID:grid.430387.b) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8796)