Assessment of Landslide Susceptibility using Geospatial Techniques: A Comparative Evaluation of Machine Learning and Statistical Models

IF 1.4 4区 地球科学 Q3 GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Geological Journal Pub Date : 2024-11-20 DOI:10.1002/gj.5080
Subrata Raut, Dipanwita Dutta, Debarati Bera, Rajeeb Samanta
{"title":"Assessment of Landslide Susceptibility using Geospatial Techniques: A Comparative Evaluation of Machine Learning and Statistical Models","authors":"Subrata Raut,&nbsp;Dipanwita Dutta,&nbsp;Debarati Bera,&nbsp;Rajeeb Samanta","doi":"10.1002/gj.5080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study delineates landslide susceptibility zones in the Kalimpong district by integrating multi-sensor datasets and assessing the effectiveness of statistical and machine learning models for precision mapping. The analysis utilises a comprehensive geospatial dataset, including remote sensing imagery, topographical, geological, and climatic factors. Four models were employed to generate landslide susceptibility maps (LSMs) using 16 influencing factors: two bivariate statistical models, frequency ratio (FR) and evidence belief function (EBF) and two machine learning models, random forest (RF) and support vector machine (SVM). Out of 1244 recorded landslide events, 871 events (70%) were used for training the models, and 373 events (30%) for validation. The distribution of susceptibility classes predicted by The RF and SVM models produced similar susceptibility distributions, predicting 13.30% and 14.30% of the area as highly susceptible, and 2.42% and 2.82% as very highly susceptible, respectively. In contrast, the FR model estimated 20.98% of the area as highly susceptible and 4.30% as very highly susceptible, whereas the EBF model predicted 17.42% and 5.89% for these categories, respectively. Model validation using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves revealed that the machine learning models (RF and SVM) had superior prediction accuracy with AUC values of 95.90% and 86.60%, respectively, compared to the statistical models (FR and EBF), which achieved AUC values of 74.30% and 76.80%. The findings indicate that Kalimpong-I is most vulnerable, with 6.76% of its area categorised as very high susceptibility and 24.80% as high susceptibility. Conversely, the Gorubathan block exhibited the least susceptible, with 0.95% and 6.48% of its area classified as very high and high susceptibility, respectively. This research provides essential insights for decision-makers and policy planners in landslide-prone regions and can be instrumental in developing early warning systems, which are vital for enhancing community safety through timely evacuations and preparedness measures.</p>","PeriodicalId":12784,"journal":{"name":"Geological Journal","volume":"60 5","pages":"1129-1149"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geological Journal","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gj.5080","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study delineates landslide susceptibility zones in the Kalimpong district by integrating multi-sensor datasets and assessing the effectiveness of statistical and machine learning models for precision mapping. The analysis utilises a comprehensive geospatial dataset, including remote sensing imagery, topographical, geological, and climatic factors. Four models were employed to generate landslide susceptibility maps (LSMs) using 16 influencing factors: two bivariate statistical models, frequency ratio (FR) and evidence belief function (EBF) and two machine learning models, random forest (RF) and support vector machine (SVM). Out of 1244 recorded landslide events, 871 events (70%) were used for training the models, and 373 events (30%) for validation. The distribution of susceptibility classes predicted by The RF and SVM models produced similar susceptibility distributions, predicting 13.30% and 14.30% of the area as highly susceptible, and 2.42% and 2.82% as very highly susceptible, respectively. In contrast, the FR model estimated 20.98% of the area as highly susceptible and 4.30% as very highly susceptible, whereas the EBF model predicted 17.42% and 5.89% for these categories, respectively. Model validation using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves revealed that the machine learning models (RF and SVM) had superior prediction accuracy with AUC values of 95.90% and 86.60%, respectively, compared to the statistical models (FR and EBF), which achieved AUC values of 74.30% and 76.80%. The findings indicate that Kalimpong-I is most vulnerable, with 6.76% of its area categorised as very high susceptibility and 24.80% as high susceptibility. Conversely, the Gorubathan block exhibited the least susceptible, with 0.95% and 6.48% of its area classified as very high and high susceptibility, respectively. This research provides essential insights for decision-makers and policy planners in landslide-prone regions and can be instrumental in developing early warning systems, which are vital for enhancing community safety through timely evacuations and preparedness measures.

Abstract Image

利用地理空间技术评估滑坡易感性:机器学习和统计模型的比较评估
本研究通过整合多传感器数据集,并评估统计和机器学习模型的精度映射的有效性,描绘了噶伦堡地区的滑坡易感性区。该分析利用了一个综合的地理空间数据集,包括遥感图像、地形、地质和气候因素。采用频率比(FR)和证据信念函数(EBF)两种二元统计模型以及随机森林(RF)和支持向量机(SVM)两种机器学习模型,利用16个影响因子构建滑坡易感性图(LSMs)。在记录的1244个滑坡事件中,871个事件(70%)用于训练模型,373个事件(30%)用于验证。RF和SVM模型预测的易感等级分布相似,分别预测13.30%和14.30%的区域为高易感区,2.42%和2.82%的区域为非常高易感区。相比之下,FR模型估计20.98%的区域为高易感区,4.30%为非常高易感区,而EBF模型分别预测17.42%和5.89%。利用受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线对模型进行验证,结果表明,机器学习模型(RF和SVM)的AUC值分别为95.90%和86.60%,而统计模型(FR和EBF)的AUC值分别为74.30%和76.80%。结果表明,噶伦蓬一号区易感区面积为6.76%,易感区面积为高易感区,易感区面积为24.80%。戈鲁巴坦区块的易感程度最低,分别为0.95%和6.48%的区域为非常高和高易感。这项研究为滑坡易发地区的决策者和政策规划者提供了重要的见解,并有助于开发早期预警系统,这对于通过及时疏散和准备措施加强社区安全至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Geological Journal
Geological Journal 地学-地球科学综合
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
11.10%
发文量
269
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: In recent years there has been a growth of specialist journals within geological sciences. Nevertheless, there is an important role for a journal of an interdisciplinary kind. Traditionally, GEOLOGICAL JOURNAL has been such a journal and continues in its aim of promoting interest in all branches of the Geological Sciences, through publication of original research papers and review articles. The journal publishes Special Issues with a common theme or regional coverage e.g. Chinese Dinosaurs; Tectonics of the Eastern Mediterranean, Triassic basins of the Central and North Atlantic Borderlands). These are extensively cited. The Journal has a particular interest in publishing papers on regional case studies from any global locality which have conclusions of general interest. Such papers may emphasize aspects across the full spectrum of geological sciences.
×
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