Research on landslide hazard assessment in data‑deficient areas: a case study of Tumen City, China

• Autorzy: Li Xia , Cheng Jiulong , Yu Dehao , Han Yangchun

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.1007/s11600-023-01057-w

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

With the development of economy, the urbanization process is accelerated and the infrastructure construction is increased, which leads to the widespread occurrence of landslides in mountain areas all over the world. However, due to the complex geological environment or some other reasons, the lack of landslide-related data in some mountainous areas makes it more difficult to predict landslides. At the same time, the existing models have different prediction effects in different regions, and it is difficult for a single model to objectively and accurately evaluate landslide hazard. The purpose of this research is to complete the landslide hazard assessment (LHA) in data-deficient areas by proposed a combination model with help of remote sensing (RS) and geographic information system (GIS) technology. Firstly, 146 landslides and 10 LHA conditioning factors in Tumen City were obtained by using RS, GIS and field investigation. To increase the amount of model training data, 386 landslides (including 146 landslides in Tumen City) in some areas of Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture with similar landslide conditions to Tumen City were obtained. Secondly, three combination models for LHA are proposed, which make full use of the effective information provided by logistic regression (LR), artificial neural network (ANN) and support vector machine (SVM), and the evaluation effect and applicability of the three combination models are discussed. Finally, the three combination models and three single models of logistic regression (LR), artificial neural network (ANN), support vector machine (SVM) are analyzed and compared through the overall accuracy (OA), confusion matrix and landslide density. The results show that it can effectively complete the landslide hazard assessment in data-deficient areas with help of RS and GIS, and the three combination models proposed in this research are superior to the other three single models, and the evaluation effect of the LA-SVM combination model is the best.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

combination model; data-deficient areas; geographic information system; landslide hazard assessment; remote sensing

• Wydawca: Instytut Geofizyki PAN ; Springer
• Czasopismo: Acta Geophysica
• Rocznik: 2023
• Tom: Vol. 71, no. 4
• Strony: 1763--1774
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 42 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Li Xia

• College of Geoscience and Surveying Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology (Beijing), Beijing 100083, China

autor

Cheng Jiulong

• College of Geoscience and Surveying Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology (Beijing), Beijing 100083, China

• https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6470-6406

autor

Yu Dehao

• Research Institute of Engineering Design, Beijing 100083, China

autor

Han Yangchun

• College of Geoscience and Surveying Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology (Beijing), Beijing 100083, China

Bibliografia

• 1. Akgun A (2012) A comparison of landslide susceptibility maps produced by logistic regression, multi-criteria decision, and likelihood ratio methods: a case study at İzmir, Turkey. Landslides 9:93–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-011-0283-7
• 2. Azimi SR, Nikraz H, Yazdani-Chamzini A (2018) landslide risk assessment by using a new combination model based on a fuzzy inference system method. KSCE J Civ Eng 22(11):4263–4271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-018-0041-7
• 3. Biçer ÇT, Ercanoglu M (2020) A semi-quantitative landslide risk assessment of central Kahramanmaraş City in the Eastern Mediterranean region of Turkey. Arab J Geosci 13(15):732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-05697-w
• 4. Biswajeet P, Saro L (2010) Landslide susceptibility assessment and factor effect analysis: backpropagation artificial neural networks and their comparison with frequency ratio and bivariate logistic regression modelling. Environ Model Softw 25(6):747–759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2009.10.016
• 5. Bui DT, Tuan TA, Klempe H, Pradhan B, Revhaug I (2015) Spatial prediction models for shallow landslide hazards: a comparative assessment of the efficacy of support vector machines, artificial neural networks, kernel logistic regression, and logistic model tree. Landslides 13(2):361–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-015-0557-6
• 6. Bui DT, Shahabi H, Shirzadi A, Chapi K, Alizadeh M, Chen W, Mohammadi A, Ahmad B, Panahi M, Hong H, Tian Y (2018) Landslide detection and susceptibility mapping by AIRSAR data using support vector machine and index of entropy models in cameron highlands. Malays Remote Sens 10(10):1527. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10101527
• 7. Chen WT, Li XJ, Wang YX (2013) Landslide susceptibility mapping using LiDAR and DMC data:a case study in the three gorges area, China. Environ Earth Sci 70:673–685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-012-2151-8
• 8. Chen WT, Ouyang SB, Tong W, Li XJ, Zheng XJ, Wang LZ (2022a) GCSANet: a global context spatial attention deep learning network for remote sensing scene classification. IEEE J Sel Top Appl Earth Obs Remote Sens 15:1150–1162. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTARS.2022.3141826
• 9. Chen WT, Ouyang SB, Yang JW, Li XJ, Zhou GD, Wang LZ (2022b) JAGAN: a framework for complex land cover classification using gaofen-5 AHSI images. IEEE J Sel Top Appl Earth Obs Remote Sens 15:1591–1603. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTARS.2022.3144339
• 10. Dang VH, Dieu TB, Tran XL, Hoang ND (2019) Enhancing the accuracy of rainfall-induced landslide prediction along mountain roads with a GIS-based random forest classifier. Bull Eng Geology Environ 78(4):2835–2849. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-018-1273-y
• 11. Dou J, Li X, Yunus A (2015) Automatic detection of sinkhole collapses at finer resolutions using a multi-component remote sensing approach. Nat Hazards 78(2):1021–1044. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1756-0
• 12. Dou J, Yunus AP, Bui DT, Merghadi A, Sahana M, Zhu ZF, Chen CW, Han Z, Pham BT (2019) Improved landslide assessment using support vector machine with bagging, boosting, and stacking ensemble machine learning framework in a mountainous watershed. Japan Landslides 17(3):641–658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-019-01286-5
• 13. Du GL, Zhang YS, Yang ZH, Guo CB, Yao X, Sun DY (2018) Landslide susceptibility mapping in the region of eastern Himalayan syntaxis, Tibetan Plateau, China: a comparison between analytical hierarchy process information value and logistic regression-information value methods. Bull Eng Geol Environ 78(6):4201–4215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-018-1393-4
• 14. Ge YF, Chen HZ, Zhao BB, Tang HM, Lin ZS, Xie ZG, Lv L, Zhong P (2018) A comparison of five methods in landslide susceptibility assessment: a case study from the 330-kV transmission line in Gansu Region. China Environ Earth Sci 77(19):662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-018-7814-7
• 15. Guzzetti F (2015) Forecasting natural hazards, performance of scientists, ethics, and the need for transparency. Toxicol Environ Chem 98(9):1043–1059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2014.06.007
• 16. Hung LQ, Van NTH, Duc DM, Ha LTC, P VS, Khanh NH, Binh LT, (2016) Landslide susceptibility mapping by combining the analytical hierarchy process and weighted linear combination methods: a case study in the upper Lo River catchment (Vietnam). Landslides 13(5):1285–1301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-015-0657-3
• 17. Jebur MN, Pradhan B, Tehrany MS (2014) Optimization of landslide conditioning factors using very high-resolution airborne laser scanning (LiDAR) data at catchment scale. Remote Sens Environ 152:150–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.05.013
• 18. Kavzoglu T, Mather PM (2003) The use of backpropagating artificial neural networks in land cover classification. Int J Remote Sens 24(23):4907–4938. https://doi.org/10.1080/0143116031000114851
• 19. Kavzoglu T, Sahin EK, Colkesen I (2013) Landslide susceptibility mapping using GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis, support vector machines, and logistic regression. Landslides 11(3):425–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-013-0391-7
• 20. Li Y, Chen G, Tang C, Zhou G, Zheng L (2012) Rainfall and earthquake-induced landslide susceptibility assessment using GIS and artificial neural network. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 12(8):2719–2729. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-12-2719-2012
• 21. Li XJ, Cheng XW, Chen WT, Chen G, Liu SW (2015) Identification of forested landslides using lidar data, object-based image analysis, and machine learning algorithms. Remote Sens 7:9705–9726. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs70809705
• 22. Liu Y, Chen Z, Hu BD, Jin JK, Wu Z (2018) A non-uniform spatiotemporal kriging interpolation algorithm for landslide displacement data. Bull Eng Geology Environ 78(6):4153–4166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-018-1388-1
• 23. Luo Y, He SM, Liu W (2017) Full dynamic process simulation of landslides using a combination of limit analysis and Savage-Hutter model. Environ Earth Sci 76(3):104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-017-6415-1
• 24. Luo XG, Lin FK, Zhu S, Yu ML, Zhang Z, Meng LS, Peng J (2019) Mine landslide susceptibility assessment using IVM, ANN and SVM models considering the contribution of affecting factors. PLoS One 14(4):e0215134. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215134
• 25. Miliaresisa G, Kokkas N (2007) Segmentation and object-based classification for the extraction of the building class from LIDAR DEMs. Comput Geosci 33(8):1076–1087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2006.11.012
• 26. Nefeslioglu HA, a EAS, b CG, c ZA, (2013) A modified analytical hierarchy process (M-AHP) approach for decision support systems in natural hazard assessments. Comput Geosci 59:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2013.05.010
• 27. Patriche CV, Pirnau R, Grozavu A, Rosca B (2016) A comparative analysis of binary logistic regression and analytical hierarchy process for landslide susceptibility assessment in the dobrov river basin. Romania Pedosphere 26(3):335–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1002-0160(15)60047-9
• 28. Pham BT, Pradhan B, Tien Bui D, Prakash I, Dholakia MB (2016) A comparative study of different machine learning methods for landslide susceptibility assessment: a case study of Uttarakhand area (India). Environ Model Softw 84:240–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.07.005
• 29. Pourghasemi H, Pradhan B, Gokceoglu C, Moezzi KD (2013) A comparative assessment of prediction capabilities of Dempster-Shaferand weights-of-evidence models in landslide susceptibility mapping using GIS. Geomat Nat Hazards Risk 4(2):93–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2012.662915
• 30. Pradhan B, Lee S (2009) Delineation of landslide hazard areas on Penang Island, Malaysia, by using frequency ratio, logistic regression, and artificial neural network models. Environ Earth Sci 60(5):1037–1054. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-009-0245-8
• 31. Sharma S, Mahajan AK (2018) A comparative assessment of information value, frequency ratio and analytical hierarchy process models for landslide susceptibility mapping of a Himalayan watershed. India Bull Eng Geol Environ 78(4):2431–2448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-018-1259-9
• 32. Shirzadi A, Bui DT, Pham BT, Solaimani K, Chapi K, Kavian A, Shahabi H, Revhaug I (2017) Shallow landslide susceptibility assessment using a novel hybrid intelligence approach. Environ Earth Sci 76(2):60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-6374-y
• 33. Su QM, Zhang J, Zhao SM, Wang L, Liu J, Guo JL (2017) Comparative assessment of three nonlinear approaches for landslide susceptibility mapping in a coal mine area. ISPRS Int J Geoinf 6(7):228. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi6070228
• 34. Sumer E, Turker M (2013) An adaptive fuzzy-genetic algorithm approach for building detection using highresolution satellite images. Comput Environ Urban Syst 39:48–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2013.01.004
• 35. Tsangaratos P, Ilia I, Hong H, Chen W, Xu C (2016) Applying information theory and GIS-based quantitative methods to produce landslide susceptibility maps in Nancheng County. China Landslides 14(3):1091–1111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-016-0769-4
• 36. Tu JV (1996) Advantages and disadvantages of using artificial neural networks versus logistic regression for predicting medical outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 49(11):1225–1231. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00002-9
• 37. Wang WD, Li JY, Qu X, Han Z, Liu P (2019) Prediction on landslide displacement using a new combination model: a case study of Qinglong landslide in China. Nat Hazards 96(3):1121–1139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-019-03595-3
• 38. Xiong J, Sun M, Zhang H, Cheng W, Yang Y, Sun M, Cao Y, Wang J (2019) Application of the Levenburg–Marquardt back propagation neural network approach for landslide risk assessments. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 19(3):629–653. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-19-629-2019
• 39. Xu C, Dai FC, Xu XW, Lee YH (2012) GIS-based support vector machine modeling of earthquake-triggered landslide susceptibility in the Jianjiang River watershed, China. Geomorphology 145–146:70–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.12.040
• 40. Yilmaz I (2009) Landslide susceptibility mapping using frequency ratio, logistic regres-sion, artificial neural networks and their comparison: a case study from Kat landslides (Tokat—Turkey). Comput Geosci 35(6):1125–1138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2008.08.007
• 41. Zhang KX, Wu XL, Niu RQ, Yang K, Zhao LR (2017) The assessment of landslide susceptibility mapping using random forest and decision tree methods in the Three Gorges Reservoir area. China Environ Earth Sci 76(11):405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-017-6731-5
• 42. Zhou GD, Chen WT, Gui QS, Li XJ, Wang LZ (2022) Split depth-wise separable graph-convolution network for road extraction in complex environments from high-resolution remote-sensing images. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens. https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2021.3128033

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MEiN, umowa nr SONP/SP/546092/2022 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2024).