A comparative study of various combination strategies for landslide susceptibility mapping considering landslide types

IF 8.5 1区 地球科学 Q1 GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Lanbing Yu , Biswajeet Pradhan , Yang Wang
{"title":"A comparative study of various combination strategies for landslide susceptibility mapping considering landslide types","authors":"Lanbing Yu ,&nbsp;Biswajeet Pradhan ,&nbsp;Yang Wang","doi":"10.1016/j.gsf.2024.101999","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Landslide susceptibility mapping (LSM) assists planners, local administrations, and decision-makers in preventing, mitigating and managing associated risks. This study proposes a novel DES-based framework that effectively captures the spatial developmental patterns of different landslide types, leading to higher precision LSM. The Wanzhou district (administrative division) of Chongqing Province, southwestern China, was selected as the test area, encompassing 881 landslides classified into rockfalls, reservoir-affected (RA) landslides, and non-reservoir-affected (NRA) landslides. Subsequently, three inventory maps and sixteen environment factors were used as inputs, with multicollinearity and importance analyses used to select the best factor combination for three types of landslides. Finally, the susceptibilities of rockfalls, RA and NRA landslides were combined by six combination strategies: Maximum, Mean, Probability, Voting, Stacking, and Dynamic Ensemble Selection (DES) models, and the optimal strategy was identified by area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC), confusion matrix, and landslide distribution statistic. For LSM of individual landslide types, ResNet consistently outperformed traditional machine learning models, achieving testing AUC values of 0.8925, 0.9427, and 0.6754 for rockfalls, RA, and NRA landslides, respectively. The evaluation of the combination strategies revealed that the DES model achieved the highest testing AUC value of 0.8779, followed by Stacking (0.8728), Maximum (0.8704), Probability (0.8669), and Voting (0.8653), whereas the widely-used Mean method performed the worst (0.8503), even lower than the non-classified LSM (0.8587). The findings offer a robust approach for mitigating future landslide risks and minimizing their adverse impacts, providing valuable insights for geohazard management and decision-making.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12711,"journal":{"name":"Geoscience frontiers","volume":"16 2","pages":"Article 101999"},"PeriodicalIF":8.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geoscience frontiers","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987124002238","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Landslide susceptibility mapping (LSM) assists planners, local administrations, and decision-makers in preventing, mitigating and managing associated risks. This study proposes a novel DES-based framework that effectively captures the spatial developmental patterns of different landslide types, leading to higher precision LSM. The Wanzhou district (administrative division) of Chongqing Province, southwestern China, was selected as the test area, encompassing 881 landslides classified into rockfalls, reservoir-affected (RA) landslides, and non-reservoir-affected (NRA) landslides. Subsequently, three inventory maps and sixteen environment factors were used as inputs, with multicollinearity and importance analyses used to select the best factor combination for three types of landslides. Finally, the susceptibilities of rockfalls, RA and NRA landslides were combined by six combination strategies: Maximum, Mean, Probability, Voting, Stacking, and Dynamic Ensemble Selection (DES) models, and the optimal strategy was identified by area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC), confusion matrix, and landslide distribution statistic. For LSM of individual landslide types, ResNet consistently outperformed traditional machine learning models, achieving testing AUC values of 0.8925, 0.9427, and 0.6754 for rockfalls, RA, and NRA landslides, respectively. The evaluation of the combination strategies revealed that the DES model achieved the highest testing AUC value of 0.8779, followed by Stacking (0.8728), Maximum (0.8704), Probability (0.8669), and Voting (0.8653), whereas the widely-used Mean method performed the worst (0.8503), even lower than the non-classified LSM (0.8587). The findings offer a robust approach for mitigating future landslide risks and minimizing their adverse impacts, providing valuable insights for geohazard management and decision-making.

Abstract Image

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Geoscience frontiers
Geoscience frontiers Earth and Planetary Sciences-General Earth and Planetary Sciences
CiteScore
17.80
自引率
3.40%
发文量
147
审稿时长
35 days
期刊介绍: Geoscience Frontiers (GSF) is the Journal of China University of Geosciences (Beijing) and Peking University. It publishes peer-reviewed research articles and reviews in interdisciplinary fields of Earth and Planetary Sciences. GSF covers various research areas including petrology and geochemistry, lithospheric architecture and mantle dynamics, global tectonics, economic geology and fuel exploration, geophysics, stratigraphy and paleontology, environmental and engineering geology, astrogeology, and the nexus of resources-energy-emissions-climate under Sustainable Development Goals. The journal aims to bridge innovative, provocative, and challenging concepts and models in these fields, providing insights on correlations and evolution.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信