Comparison of landslide susceptibility mapping methodologies for Koyulhisar, Turkey: conditional probability, logistic regression, artificial neural networks, and support vector machine

被引:422
作者
Yilmaz, Isik [1 ]
机构
[1] Cumhuriyet Univ, Fac Engn, Dept Geol Engn, TR-58140 Sivas, Turkey
关键词
Landslide; Susceptibility map; GIS; Conditional probability; Logistic regression; Artificial neural networks; Support vector machine; STATISTICAL-MODELS; PREDICTION MODELS; GIS; REGION; AREA; TOPOGRAPHY; SIMULATION; ZONATION; FAILURE; SLOPES;
D O I
10.1007/s12665-009-0394-9
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
This case study presented herein compares the GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping methods such as conditional probability (CP), logistic regression (LR), artificial neural networks (ANNs) and support vector machine (SVM) applied in Koyulhisar (Sivas, Turkey). Digital elevation model was first constructed using GIS software. Landslide-related factors such as geology, faults, drainage system, topographical elevation, slope angle, slope aspect, topographic wetness index, stream power index, normalized difference vegetation index, distance from settlements and roads were used in the landslide susceptibility analyses. In the last stage of the analyses, landslide susceptibility maps were produced from ANN, CP, LR, SVM models, and they were then compared by means of their validations. However, area under curve values obtained from all four methodologies showed that the map obtained from ANN model looks like more accurate than the other models, accuracies of all models can be evaluated relatively similar. The results also showed that the CP is a simple method in landslide susceptibility mapping and highly compatible with GIS operating features. Susceptibility maps can be easily produced using CP, because input process, calculation and output processes are very simple in CP model when compared with the other methods considered in this study.
引用
收藏
页码:821 / 836
页数:16
相关论文
共 82 条
[11]  
Barredo J.I., 2000, INT J APPL EARTH OBS, V2, P9, DOI [DOI 10.1016/S0303-2434(00)85022-9, 10.1016/S0303-2434(00)85022-9]
[12]  
Beven K.J., 1979, Hydrological Sciences Bulletin, V24, P43, DOI DOI 10.1080/02626667909491834
[13]   Slope instability zonation: A comparison between certainty factor and fuzzy Dempster-Shafer approaches [J].
Binaghi, E ;
Luzi, L ;
Madella, P ;
Pergalani, F ;
Rampini, A .
NATURAL HAZARDS, 1998, 17 (01) :77-97
[14]   Spatial prediction models for landslide hazards: review, comparison and evaluation [J].
Brenning, A .
NATURAL HAZARDS AND EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCES, 2005, 5 (06) :853-862
[15]   STIMULATION FROM SIMULATION - A TEACHING MODEL OF HILLSLOPE HYDROLOGY FOR USE ON MICROCOMPUTERS [J].
BURT, T ;
BUTCHER, D .
JOURNAL OF GEOGRAPHY IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 1986, 10 (01) :23-39
[16]   Geomorphological and historical data in assessing landslide hazard [J].
Carrara, A ;
Crosta, G ;
Frattini, P .
EARTH SURFACE PROCESSES AND LANDFORMS, 2003, 28 (10) :1125-1142
[17]   GIS TECHNIQUES AND STATISTICAL-MODELS IN EVALUATING LANDSLIDE HAZARD [J].
CARRARA, A ;
CARDINALI, M ;
DETTI, R ;
GUZZETTI, F ;
PASQUI, V ;
REICHENBACH, P .
EARTH SURFACE PROCESSES AND LANDFORMS, 1991, 16 (05) :427-445
[18]  
Cascini L, 1991, P 16 INT LANDSL C BA, P899
[19]  
Chacon J, 1996, LANDSLIDES - PROCEEDINGS OF THE EIGHTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE AND FIELD TRIP ON LANDSLIDES, P335
[20]  
CHACON J, 1994, P 7 IAEG C BALK ROTT, P4669