English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

To date, many rockfall hazard assessment methods still consider qualitativeobservations within their analysis. Based on this statement, knowledge andexpertise are supposed to be major parameters of rockfall assessment. Totest this hypothesis, an experiment was carried out in order to evaluate theinfluence of knowledge and expertise on rockfall hazard assessment. Threepopulations were selected, having different levels of expertise: (1)students in geosciences, (2) researchers in geosciences and (3) confirmedexperts. These three populations evaluated the rockfall hazard level on thesame site, considering two different methods: the Laboratoire des Ponts etChaussées (LPC) method and a method partly based on the "slope massrating" (SMR) method. To complement the analysis, the completion of an "a priori" assessment of the rockfall hazard was requested of each population, withoutusing any method. The LPC method is the most widely used method in Francefor official hazard mapping. It combines two main indicators: thepredisposition to instability and the expected magnitude. Reversely, the SMRmethod was used as an ad hoc quantitative method to investigate the effect ofquantification within a method. These procedures were applied on a test sitedivided into three different sectors.  A statistical treatment of the results (descriptive statistical analysis,chi-square independent test and ANOVA) shows that there is a significantinfluence of the method used on the rockfall hazard assessment, whatever thesector. However, there is a non-significant influence of the level ofexpertise of the population the sectors 2 and 3. On sector 1, there is asignificant influence of the level of expertise, explained by the importanceof the temporal probability assessment in the rockfall hazard assessmentprocess. The SMR-based method seems highly sensitive to the "siteactivity" indicator and exhibits an important dispersion in its results. However, the results are more similar with the LPC qualitativemethod, even in the case of sector 1

Influence of expertise on rockfall hazard assessment using empirical methods