Advertisement

Landslides

pp 1–14 | Cite as

An integrated approach for landslide susceptibility mapping by considering spatial correlation and fractal distribution of clustered landslide data

  • Linan Liu
  • Shouding Li
  • Xiao Li
  • Yue Jiang
  • Wenhui Wei
  • Zhanhe Wang
  • Yaheng Bai
Original Paper
  • 74 Downloads

Abstract

Natural disasters often show highly heterogeneous character due to complex geo-environmental settings. The spatial distribution of landslides is generally clustered at different scales. In this paper, we proposed a methodology for landslide susceptibility mapping (LSM) with consideration of spatial correlation and distribution of clustered landslide data. To quantify the spatial correlation of landslides, a normalized spatial-correlated scale index (NSCI) was introduced. Based on the definition of landslide frequency ratio, calibrated landslide potential index (CLPI) was proposed to account for the effect of landslide clustering. Considering the fractal distribution of landslides, the variable fractal dimension model (VFDM) was introduced to measure the spatial association between clustered landslides and conditional factors. Based on the definition of fractal dimension (D), the weights of the factors were obtained from fractal perspective. We proposed a weighted calibrated landslide potential model (WCLPM), obtained by the combination of CLPI values and weights of the factors. The proposed method is illustrated by example in Xinjiang, NW China, where landslide points are clustered at regional scale. In the example, the landslides were randomly split into two groups: one for building landslide model (training dataset) and the other for validating the model (validating dataset). Five landslide conditional factors (lithology, tectonic faults, elevation, slope, aspect) were selected, processed, and analyzed in a geographic information system (GIS) environment. Predictive accuracy of the WCLPM was evaluated and compared based on the calculation of area under the prediction-rate curve (AUPRC). The example shows that the proposed WCLPM provides good prediction for the study area (AUPRC = 0.8700). This study provided a novel and practical method for LSM.

Keywords

Landslide clustering Fractal Spatial statistics Validation statistics Landslide susceptibility mapping 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable and insightful comments to improve the paper. The first author gratefully acknowledges Ms. Yue Jiang at Xinjiang Institute of Geological Environment Monitoring (Urumchi, China) for providing the geological data.

Funding information

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 41272352), the National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2018YFC1504803-01) and Science and Technology Project of Xinjiang Land and Resource Department (No. XJDZFZ-XX2013).

References

  1. Agterberg FP (2013) Fractals and spatial statistics of point patterns. J Earth Sci 24(1):1–11Google Scholar
  2. Aleotti P, Chowdhury R (1999) Landslide hazard assessment: summary review and new perspectives. Bull Eng Geol Environ 58:21–44Google Scholar
  3. Ayalew L, Yamagishi H (2005) The application of GIS-based logistic regression for landslide susceptibility mapping in the Kakuda-Yahiko Mountains, Central Japan. Geomorphology 65, 15-31.Google Scholar
  4. Ayalew L, Yamagishi H, Marui H, Kanno T (2005) Landslides in Sado Island of Japan: part II. GIS-based susceptibility mapping with comparisons of results from two methods and verifications. Eng Geol 81:432–445Google Scholar
  5. Ba QQ, Chen YM, Deng SS, Wu QJ, Yang JX, Zhang JY (2017) An improved information value model based on gray clustering for landslide susceptibility mapping. ISPRS Int J Geo-Inf 6(1):18Google Scholar
  6. Ballabio C, Sterlacchini S (2012) Support vector machine for landslide susceptibility mapping: the Staffora River Basin case study, Italy. Math Geosci 44:47–70Google Scholar
  7. Chung CJ, Fabbri AG (1999) Probabilistic prediction models for landslide hazard mapping. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 65(12):1389–1399Google Scholar
  8. Corominas J, van Westen C, Frattini P, Cascini L, Malet JP, Fotopoulou S, Catani F, Van DenEeckhaut M, Marouli O, Agliardi F, Pitilakis K, Winte MG, Pastor M, Ferlisi S, Tofani V, Hervas J, Smith JT (2014) Recommendations for the quantitative analysis of landslide risk. Bull Eng Geol Environ 73:209–263Google Scholar
  9. Crosta GB, Clague JJ (2006) Large landslides: dating, triggering, modelling, and hazard assessment. Eng Geol 83(s1–3):1–3Google Scholar
  10. Dai FC, Lee CF, Ngai YY (2002) Landslide risk assessment and management: an overview. Eng Geol 64(1):65–87Google Scholar
  11. Davis JC (2002) Statistics and data analysis in geology, 3rd edn. Wiley, Hoboken 638pGoogle Scholar
  12. Dou J, Yamagishi H, Pourghasemi HR, Yunus AP, Song X, Xu YR, Zhu ZF (2015a) An integrated artificial neural network model for the landslide susceptibility assessment of Osado Island, Japan. Nat Hazards 78(3):1749–1776Google Scholar
  13. Dou J, Tien Bui D, Yunus A, Jia K, Song X, Revhaug I, Xia H, Zhu ZF (2015b) Optimization of causative factors for landslide susceptibility evaluation using remote sensing and GIS data in parts of Niigata, Japan. PLoS One 10(7):e0133262Google Scholar
  14. Fawcett T (2006) An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recogn Lett 27:861–847Google Scholar
  15. Feizizadeh B, Blaschke T, Nazmfar H, Rezaei Moghaddam MH (2013) Landslide susceptibility mapping for the Urmia Lake basin, Iran: a multi-criteria evaluation approach using GIS. Int J Environ Res 7(2):319–336Google Scholar
  16. Feizizadeh B, Roodposhti MS, Jankowski P, Blaschke T (2014) A GIS-based extended fuzzy multi-criteria evaluation for landslide susceptibility mapping. Comput Geosci 73:208–221Google Scholar
  17. Gao XJ, Zhao ZC, Giorgi F (2002) Changes of extreme events in regional climate simulations over East Asia. Adv Atmos Sci 19:927–942Google Scholar
  18. Ghosh S, van Westen CJ, Carranza EJM, Jetten VG (2012) Integrating spatial, temporal, and magnitude probabilities for medium-scale landslide risk analysis in Darjeeling Himalayas, India. Landslides 9(3):371–384Google Scholar
  19. Goetz JN, Brenning A, Petschko H, Leopold P (2015) Evaluating machine learning and statistical prediction techniques for landslide susceptibility modeling. Comput Geosci 81:1–11Google Scholar
  20. Guzzetti F, Carrara A, Cardinalli M, Reichenbach P (1999) Landslide hazard evaluation: a review of current techniques and their application in a multi-scale study, Central Italy. Geomorphology 31:181–216Google Scholar
  21. 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 152:150–165Google Scholar
  22. Jenks GF (1963) Generalization in statistical mapping. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 53(1):15–26Google Scholar
  23. Jiménez-Perálvarez JD, Irigaray C, El Hamdouni R, Chacon J (2011) Landslide susceptibility mapping in a semi-arid mountain environment: an example from the southern slopes of Sierra Nevada (Granada, Spain). Bull Eng Geol Environ 70:265–277Google Scholar
  24. Kubota T (1994) A study of fractal dimension of landslides-the feasibility for susceptibility index. J Jpn Landslide Soc 31(3):9–15Google Scholar
  25. Lee S, Pradhan B (2007) Landslide hazard mapping at Selangor, Malaysia using frequency ratio and logistic regression models. Landslides 4:33–41Google Scholar
  26. Lee S, Talib JA (2005) Probabilistic landslide susceptibility and factor effect analysis. Environ Geol 47:982–990Google Scholar
  27. Lee S, Choi J, Woo I (2004) The effect of spatial resolution on the accuracy of landslide susceptibility mapping: a case study in Boun, Korea. Geosci J 8(1):51–60Google Scholar
  28. Li CJ, Ma TH, Zhu XS, Li W (2011) The power-law relationship between landslide occurrence and rainfall level. Geomorphology 130(3/4):221–229Google Scholar
  29. Li Y, Chen G, Tang C, Zhou G, Zheng L (2012a) Rainfall and earthquake-induced landslide susceptibility assessment using GIS and artificial neural network. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 12(8):2719–2729Google Scholar
  30. Li CJ, Ma TH, Sun LL, Li W, Zheng AP (2012b) Application and verification of a fractal approach to landslide susceptibility mapping. Nat Hazards 61:169–185Google Scholar
  31. Lineback M, Marcus WA, Aspinall R, Custer SG (2011) Assessing landslide potential using GIS, soil wetness modeling and topographic attributes Payette River, Idaho. Geomorphology 37(1):149–165Google Scholar
  32. Liucci L, Mellelli L, Suteanu C (2015) Scale-invariance in the spatial development of landslide in the Umbria region (Italy). Pure Appl Geophys 172:1959–1973Google Scholar
  33. Malamud BD, Turcotte DL, Guzzetti F, Reichenbach P (2004) Landslide inventories and their statistical properties. Earth Surf Process Landf 29(6):687–711Google Scholar
  34. Mandelbrot BB (2006) Fractal analysis and synthesis of fracture surface roughness and related forms of complexity and disorder. Int J Fract 138(1–4):13–17Google Scholar
  35. Mora OE, Lenzano MG, Toth CK, Grejner-Brzezinska DA (2014) Analyzing the effects of spatial resolution for small landslide susceptibility and hazarding mapping. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci XL-1:293–300Google Scholar
  36. Neuhauser B, Damm B, Terhorst B (2011) GIS-based assessment of landslide susceptibility on the base of the Weights-of-Evidence model. Landslides 9:511–528Google Scholar
  37. Oliveira SC, Zêzere JL, Garcia RAC (2014) Structure and characteristics of landslide input data and consequences on landslide susceptibility assessment and prediction capability. In: Lollino G et al (eds) Engineering geology for society and territory, vol 2. Springer International Publishing, BaselGoogle Scholar
  38. Petschok H, Brenning A, Bell R, Goetz J, Glade T (2014) Assessing the quality of landslide susceptibility maps-case study Lower Austria. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 14:95–118Google Scholar
  39. Pourghasemi HR, Moradi HR, Fatemi Aghda SM, Sezer EA, Goli Jirandeh A, Pradhan B (2014) Assessment of fractal dimension and geometrical characteristics of the landslides identified in North of Tehran, Iran. Environ Earth Sci 71:3617–3626Google Scholar
  40. Pradhan B, Mansor S, Pirastech S, Buchroithner MF (2011) Landslide hazard and risk analyses at a landslide prone catchment area using statistical based geospatial model. Int J Remote Sens 32(14):4075–4087Google Scholar
  41. Qin ZH, Qin P (2010) Using improved variable dimension fractal to model seawall settlement. IEEE International Conference on Information Management & Engineering, pp 325–328Google Scholar
  42. Regmi NR, Giardino JR, Vitek JD (2010) Assessing susceptibility to landslides: using models to understand observed changes in slopes. Geomorphology 122:25–38Google Scholar
  43. Rouai M, Jaaidi EB (2003) Scaling properties of landslides in the Rif Mountains of Morocco. Eng Geol 68(3/4):353–359Google Scholar
  44. Sezer E (2010) A computer program for fractal dimension (FRACEK) with application on type of mass movement characterization. Comput Geosci 36:391–396Google Scholar
  45. Shirzadi A, Tien Bui D, 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 76:60Google Scholar
  46. Sun G, Chen Y, Li W, Pan C, Li J, Yang Y (2014) Intra-annual distribution and decadal change in extreme hydrological events in Xinjiang, northwestern China. Nat Hazards 70(1):119–133Google Scholar
  47. Swets JA (1988) Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 240:1285–1293Google Scholar
  48. Thanh L, De Smedt F (2014) Slope stability analysis using a physically based model: a case study from a Luoi district in Thua Thien-Hue province, Vietnam. Landslide 11:897–907Google Scholar
  49. Tien Bui D, Pradhan B, Lofman O, Revhaug I (2012a) Landslide susceptibility assessment in Vietnam using support vector machines, decision tree, and naive Bayes models. Math Probl Eng 2012:1–26Google Scholar
  50. Tien Bui D, Pradhan B, Lofman O, Revhaug I, Dick OB (2012b) Landslide susceptibility assessment in the Hoa Binh province of Vietnam: a comparison of the Levenberg-Marquardt and Bayesian regularized neural networks. Geomorphology 171-172:2–29Google Scholar
  51. Tien Bui D, Anh Tuan T, Klempe H, Pradhan B, Revhaug I (2016) 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):361–378Google Scholar
  52. van Westen CJ, Rengers N, Soeters R (2003) Use of geomorphological information in indirect landslide susceptibility assessment. Nat Hazards 30:399–419Google Scholar
  53. Varnes DJ (1978) Slope movement types and processes. In: Schuster RL, Krizek RJ (eds) Landslides analysis and control, Special report, vol 176. Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, New York, pp 11–33Google Scholar
  54. Wang LJ, Sawada K, Moriguchi S (2013) Landslide-susceptibility analysis using light detection and ranging derived digital elevation models and logistic regression models: a case study in Mizunami City, Japan. J Appl Remote Sens 7:073561Google Scholar
  55. Wang XL, Zhang LQ, Wang SJ, Lari S (2014) Regional landslide susceptibility zoning with considering the aggregation of landslide points and the weights of factors. Landslides 11:399–409Google Scholar
  56. Wang Q, Wang Y, Niu RQ, Peng L (2017) Integration of information theory, K-means cluster analysis and the logistic regression model for landslide susceptibility mapping in the Three Gorges Area, China. Remote Sens 9:938Google Scholar
  57. Wu YP, Zhang QX, Tang HM, Cheng C, Shen L (2013) Deformation Prediction of Baishuihe landslide based on cumulative variable dimension fractal-artificial neural network model. Disaster Adv 13Google Scholar
  58. Wu MH, Chen YN, Wang HJ, Sun GL (2015) Characteristics of meteorological disasters and their impacts on the agricultural ecosystems in the northwest of China: a case study in Xinjiang. Geoenviron Disasters 2:3Google Scholar
  59. Yalcin A, Reis S, Aydinoglu AC, Yomralioglu T (2011) A GIS-based comparative study of frequency ratio, analytical hierarchy process, bivariate statistic and logistics regression methods for landslide susceptibility mapping in Trabzon, NE Turkey. Catena 85:274–287Google Scholar
  60. Yilmaz I (2009) Landslide susceptibility mapping using frequency ratio, logistic regression, artificial neural networks and their comparison: a case study from Kat landslides (Tokat-Turkey). Comput Geosci 35:1125–1138Google Scholar
  61. Zou RG, Carranza EJM (2017) A fractal measure of spatial association between landslides and conditional factors. J Earth Sci 28(4):588–594Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Linan Liu
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Shouding Li
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Xiao Li
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Yue Jiang
    • 4
  • Wenhui Wei
    • 4
  • Zhanhe Wang
    • 4
  • Yaheng Bai
    • 5
  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Shale Gas and Geo-engineering, Institute of Geology and GeophysicsChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  2. 2.Institutions of Earth ScienceChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  3. 3.University of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  4. 4.Xinjiang Institute of Geological Environment MonitoringUrumchiChina
  5. 5.Henan Provincial Communications Planning & Design Institute Co., Ltd.ZhengzhouChina

Personalised recommendations