Journal of Mountain Science

, Volume 16, Issue 6, pp 1275–1288 | Cite as

GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping using hybrid integration approaches of fractal dimension with index of entropy and support vector machine

  • Ting-yu Zhang
  • Ling HanEmail author
  • Heng Zhang
  • Yong-hua Zhao
  • Xi-an Li
  • Lei Zhao


The loess area in the northern part of Baoji City, Shaanxi Province, China is a region with frequently landslide occurrences. The main aim of this study is to quantitatively predict the extent of landslides using the index of entropy model (IOE), the support vector machine model (SVM) and two hybrid models namely the F-IOE model and the F-SVM model constructed by fractal dimension. First, a total of 179 landslides were identified and landslide inventory map was produced, with 70% (125) of the landslides which was optimized by 10-fold cross-validation being used for training purpose and the remaining 30% (54) of landslides being used for validation purpose. Subsequently, slope angle, slope aspect, altitude, rainfall, plan curvature, distance to rivers, land use, distance to roads, distance to faults, normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), lithology, and profile curvature were considered as landslide conditioning factors and all factor layers were resampled to a uniform resolution. Then the information gain ratio of each conditioning factors was evaluated. Next, the fractal dimension for each conditioning factors was calculated and the training dataset was used to build four landslide susceptibility models. In the end, the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and three statistical indexes involving positive predictive rate (PPR), negative predictive rate (NPR) and accuracy (ACC) were applied to validate and compare the performance of these four models. The results showed that the F-SVM model had the highest PPR, NPR, ACC and AUC values for training and validation datasets, respectively, followed by the F-IOE model. Finally, it is concluded that the F-SVM model performed best in all models, the hybrid model built by fractal dimension has advantages than original model, and can provide reference for local landslide prevention and decision making.


GIS Landslide susceptibility Hybrid model Fractal dimension 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



This research was funded by National Key Research and Development Program of China (Grant No. 2017YFC0504700).

Supplementary material


  1. Abedini M, Tulabi S (2018) Assessing LNRF, FR, and AHP models in landslide susceptibility mapping index: a comparative study of Nojian watershed in Lorestan province, Iran. Environmental Earth Sciences 77(11): 405. Google Scholar
  2. Aditian A, Kubota T, Shinohara Y (2018) Comparison of GIS-based landslide susceptibility models using frequency ratio, logistic regression, and artificial neural network in a tertiary region of Ambon, Indonesia. Geomorphology 318: 101–111. Google Scholar
  3. Aghdam I N, Pradhan B (2016) Landslide susceptibility mapping using an ensemble statistical index (Wi) and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) model at Alborz Mountains (Iran). Environmental Earth Sciences 75(7): 1–20. Google Scholar
  4. Bai S B, Wang J, Lü G N, et al. (2010) GIS-based logistic regression for landslide susceptibility mapping of the Zhongxian segment in the Three Gorges area, China. Geomorphology 115(1): 23–31. Google Scholar
  5. Behnia P, Blais-Stevens A (2018) Landslide susceptibility modelling using the quantitative random forest method along the northern portion of the Yukon Alaska Highway Corridor, Canada. Natural Hazards 90(1): 1–20. Google Scholar
  6. Blaschke T, Piralilou S T (2018) The Near-Decomposability Paradigm Re-Interpreted for Place-Based GIS. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Platial Analysis (PLATIAL’18), Heidelberg, Germany, 20–21.
  7. Bui D T, Bui Q T, Nguyen Q P, et al. (2017) A hybrid artificial intelligence approach using GIS-based neural-fuzzy inference system and particle swarm optimization for forest fire susceptibility modeling at a tropical area. Agricultural & Forest Meteorology 233(Complete): 32–44. Google Scholar
  8. Bui D T, Pradhan B, Revhaug I, et al. (2015) A novel hybrid evidential belief function-based fuzzy logic model in spatial prediction of rainfall-induced shallow landslides in the Lang Son city area (Vietnam). Geomatics Natural Hazards & Risk 6(3): 243–271. Google Scholar
  9. Bui D T, Revhaug I, Dick O (2011) Landslide susceptibility analysis in the Hoa Binh province of Vietnam using statistical index and logistic regression. Natural Hazards 59(3): 1413–1444. Google Scholar
  10. Bui D T, Tuan T A, Klempe H, et al. (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): 361–378. Google Scholar
  11. Calvello, Michele, Cascini, et al. (2013) Landslide zoning over large areas from a sample inventory by means of;scale-dependent terrain units. Geomorphology 182(2): 33–48. Google Scholar
  12. Chen W, Himan S, Zhang S, et al. (2018a) Landslide Susceptibility Modeling Based on GIS and Novel Bagging-Based Kernel Logistic Regression. Applied Sciences 8(12): 2540. Google Scholar
  13. Chen W, Li H, Hou E, et al. (2018b) GIS-based groundwater potential analysis using novel ensemble weights-of-evidence with logistic regression and functional tree models. Science of the Total Environment 634: 853. Google Scholar
  14. Chen W, Panahi M, Khosravi K, et al. (2019a) Spatial prediction of groundwater potentiality using ANFIS ensembled with Teaching-learning-based and Biogeography-based optimization. Journal of Hydrology 572: 435–488. Google Scholar
  15. Chen W, Panahi M, Tsangaratos P, et al. (2019b) Applying population-based evolutionary algorithms and a neuro-fuzzy system for modeling landslide susceptibility. Catena 172: 212–231. Google Scholar
  16. Chen W, Pourghasemi H R, Panahi M, et al. (2017a) Spatial prediction of landslide susceptibility using an adaptive neurofuzzy inference system combined with frequency ratio, generalized additive model, and support vector machine techniques. Geomorphology 297: 69–85. Google Scholar
  17. Chen W, Pradhan B, Li S, et al. (2019c) Novel Hybrid Integration Approach of Bagging-Based Fisher’s Linear Discriminant Function for Groundwater Potential Analysis. 1–20.
  18. Chen W, Shahabi H, Shirzadi A, et al. (2018c) Novel hybrid artificial intelligence approach of bivariate statistical-methods-based kernel logistic regression classifier for landslide susceptibility modeling. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment: 1–23.
  19. Chen W, Shirzadi A, Shahabi H, et al. (2017b) A novel hybrid artificial intelligence approach based on the rotation forest ensemble and naïve Bayes tree classifiers for a landslide susceptibility assessment in Langao County, China. Geomatics Natural Hazards & Risk: 1–23.
  20. Chen W, Sun Z, Han J (2019d) Landslide susceptibility modeling using integrated ensemble weights of evidence with logistic regression and random forest models. Applied Sciences 9(1): 171. Google Scholar
  21. Chen W, Tsangaratos P, Ilia I, et al. (2019e) Groundwater spring potential mapping using population-based evolutionary algorithms and data mining methods. Science of The Total Environment: 684.
  22. Chen W, Zhao X, Shahabi H, et al. (2019f) Spatial prediction of landslide susceptibility by combining evidential belief function, logistic regression and logistic model tree. Geocarto International: 1–25.
  23. Colkesen I, Sahin E K, Kavzoglu T (2016) Susceptibility mapping of shallow landslides using kernel-based Gaussian process, support vector machines and logistic regression. Journal of African Earth Sciences 118(2016): 53–64. Google Scholar
  24. Dai F, Lee C F (2002) Landslides on Natural Terrain: Physical Characteristics and Susceptibility Mapping in Hong Kong. Mountain Research & Development 22(1): 40–47.[0040:LONT]2.0.CO;2 Google Scholar
  25. Demir G, Aytekin M, Akgun A, et al. (2013) A comparison of landslide susceptibility mapping of the eastern part of;the North Anatolian Fault Zone (Turkey) by likelihood-frequency ratio; and analytic hierarchy process methods. Natural Hazards 65(3): 1481–1506. Google Scholar
  26. Frattini P, Crosta G B (2013) The role of material properties and landscape morphology on landslide size distributions. Earth & Planetary Science Letters 361(1): 310–319. Google Scholar
  27. Ghorbanzadeh O, Blaschke T, Aryal J, et al. (2018a) A new GIS-based technique using an adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system for land subsidence susceptibility mapping. Spatial Science(2): 1–17.
  28. Ghorbanzadeh O, Blaschke T, Gholamnia K, et al. (2019) Evaluation of Different Machine Learning Methods and Deep-Learning Convolutional Neural Networks for Landslide Detection. Remote Sensing 11(2): 196. Google Scholar
  29. Ghorbanzadeh O, Rostamzadeh H, Blaschke T, et al. (2018b) A new GIS-based data mining technique using an adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) and k-fold cross-validation approach for land subsidence susceptibility mapping. Natural Hazards (12).
  30. Gorsevski P V, Brown M K, Panter K, et al. (2016) Landslide detection and susceptibility mapping using LiDAR and an artificial neural network approach: a case study in the Cuyahoga Valley National Park, Ohio. Landslides 13(3): 467–484. Google Scholar
  31. Guzzetti F, Carrara A, Cardinali M, et al. (1999) Landslide hazard evaluation; a review of current techniques and their application in a multi-scale study, central Italy. Geomorphology 31(1–4): 181–216. Google Scholar
  32. Hong H, Chen W, Xu C, et al. (2017a) Rainfall-induced landslide susceptibility assessment at the Chongren area (China) using frequency ratio, certainty factor, and index of entropy. Geocarto International 32(2): 139–154. Google Scholar
  33. Hong H, Ilia I, Tsangaratos P, et al. (2017b) A hybrid fuzzy weight of evidence method in landslide susceptibility analysis on the Wuyuan area, China. Geomorphology 290: 1–16. Google Scholar
  34. Hungr O, Leroueil S, Picarelli L (2014) The Varnes classification of landslide types, an update. Landslides 11(2): 167–194. Google Scholar
  35. Ilia I, Tsangaratos P (2016) Applying weight of evidence method and sensitivity analysis to produce a landslide susceptibility map. Landslides 13(2): 379–397. Google Scholar
  36. Jaafari A, Najafi A, Pourghasemi H R, et al. (2014) GIS-based frequency ratio and index of entropy models for landslide susceptibility assessment in the Caspian forest, northern Iran. International Journal of Environmental Science & Technology 11(4): 909–926. Google Scholar
  37. Kai C, Dong L, Wei L (2016) Comparison of landslide susceptibility mapping based on statistical index, certainty factors, weights of evidence and evidential belief function models. Geocarto International: 1–26.
  38. Kalantar B, Pradhan B, Naghibi S A, et al. (2018) Assessment of the effects of training data selection on the landslide susceptibility mapping: a comparison between support vector machine (SVM), logistic regression (LR) and artificial neural networks (ANN).
  39. Kavzoglu T, Sahin E K, Colkesen I (2014) Landslide susceptibility mapping using GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis, support vector machines, and logistic regression. Landslides 11(3): 425–439. Google Scholar
  40. Li C, Sun L, Wei L, et al. (2012) Application and verification of a fractal approach to landslide susceptibility mapping. Natural Hazards 61(1): 169–185. Google Scholar
  41. Lin C H, Lin M L, Peng H R, et al. (2018) Framework for susceptibility analysis of layered rock slopes considering the dimensions of the mapping units and geological data resolution at various map scales. Engineering Geology 246: 310–325. Google Scholar
  42. Ling P, Niu R, Bo H, et al. (2014) Landslide susceptibility mapping based on rough set theory and support vector machines: A case of the Three Gorges area, China. Geomorphology 204(1): 287–301. Google Scholar
  43. Lombardo L, Cama M, Conoscenti C, et al. (2015) Binary logistic regression versus stochastic gradient boosted decision trees in assessing landslide susceptibility for multiple-occurring landslide events: application to the 2009 storm event in Messina (Sicily, southern Italy). Natural Hazards 79(3): 1621–1648. Google Scholar
  44. Moosavi V, Niazi Y (2016) Development of hybrid wavelet packet-statistical models (WP-SM) for landslide susceptibility mapping. Landslides 13(1): 97–114. Google Scholar
  45. Ozdemir A, Altural T (2013) A comparative study of frequency ratio, weights of evidence and logistic regression methods for landslide susceptibility mapping: Sultan Mountains, SW Turkey. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 64: 180–197. Google Scholar
  46. Pham B T, Bui D T, Pourghasemi H R, et al. (2015) Landslide susceptibility assesssment in the Uttarakhand area (India) using GIS: a comparison study of prediction capability of naïve bayes, multilayer perceptron neural networks, and functional trees methods. Theoretical & Applied Climatology 122(3): 1–19. Google Scholar
  47. Pourghasemi H R, Moradi H R, Aghda S M F, et al. (2014) Assessment of fractal dimension and geometrical characteristics of the landslides identified in North of Tehran, Iran. Environmental Earth Sciences 71(8): 3617–3626. Google Scholar
  48. Pourghasemi H R, Rossi M (2017) Landslide susceptibility modeling in a landslide prone area in Mazandarn Province, north of Iran: a comparison between GLM, GAM, MARS, and M-AHP methods. Theoretical & Applied Climatology 130(1–2): 1–25. Google Scholar
  49. Pradhan B (2013) A comparative study on the predictive ability of the decision tree, support vector machine and neuro-fuzzy models in landslide susceptibility mapping using GIS. Computers & Geosciences 51(2): 350–365. Google Scholar
  50. Pradhan B, Abokharima M H, Jebur M N, et al. (2014) Land subsidence susceptibility mapping at Kinta Valley (Malaysia) using the evidential belief function model in GIS. Natural Hazards 73(2): 1019–1042. Google Scholar
  51. Sánchez-Reyes U J, Niño-Maldonado S, Barrientos-Lozano L, et al. (2017) Assessment of Land Use-Cover Changes and Successional Stages of Vegetation in the Natural Protected Area Altas Cumbres, Northeastern Mexico, Using Landsat Satellite Imagery. Remote Sensing 9(7).
  52. Saro L, Woo J S, Kwan-Young O, et al. (2016) The spatial prediction of landslide susceptibility applying artificial neural network and logistic regression models: A case study of Inje, Korea. Open Geosciences 8(1): 117–132. Google Scholar
  53. Shahabi H, Khezri S, Ahmad B B, et al. (2014) Landslide susceptibility mapping at central Zab basin, Iran: A comparison between analytical hierarchy process, frequency ratio and logistic regression models. Catena 115(4): 55–70. Google Scholar
  54. Sharma S, Mahajan A K (2018) A comparative assessment of information value, frequency ratio and analytical hierarchy process models for landslide susceptibility mapping of a Himalayan watershed, India. Bulletin of Engineering Geology & the Environment(1): 1–18.
  55. Shirani K, Pasandi M, Arabameri A (2018) Landslide susceptibility assessment by Dempster—Shafer and Index of Entropy models, Sarkhoun basin, Southwestern Iran. Natural Hazards(6): 1–40.
  56. Teerarungsigul S, Torizin J, Fuchs M, et al. (2016) An integrative approach for regional landslide susceptibility assessment using weight of evidence method: a case study of Yom River Basin, Phrae Province, Northern Thailand. Landslides 13(5): 1151–1165. Google Scholar
  57. Tehrany M S, Pradhan B, Jebur M N (2015) Flood susceptibility analysis and its verification using a novel ensemble support vector machine and frequency ratio method. Stochastic Environmental Research & Risk Assessment 29(4): 1149–1165. Google Scholar
  58. Vakhshoori V, Zare M (2016) Landslide susceptibility mapping by comparing weight of evidence, fuzzy logic, and frequency ratio methods. Geomatics 7(5): 1–21. Google Scholar
  59. Yalcin A, Reis S, Aydinoglu A C, et al. (2011) A GIS-based comparative study of frequency ratio, analytical hierarchy process, bivariate statistics and logistics regression methods for landslide susceptibility mapping in Trabzon, NE Turkey. Catena 85(3): 274–287. Google Scholar
  60. Yilmaz I (2010) Comparison of landslide susceptibility mapping methodologies for Koyulhisar, Turkey: conditional probability, logistic regression, artificial neural networks, and support vector machine. Environmental Earth Sciences 61(4): 821–836. Google Scholar
  61. Youssef A M, Pourghasemi H R, Pourtaghi Z S, et al. (2016) Landslide susceptibility mapping using random forest, boosted regression tree, classification and regression tree, and general linear models and comparison of their performance at Wadi Tayyah Basin, Asir Region, Saudi Arabia. Landslides 13(5): 839–856. Google Scholar
  62. Yu H, Lu Z (2018) Review on landslide susceptibility mapping using support vector machines. Catena 165: 520–529. Google Scholar
  63. Zhang T, Han L, Chen W, et al. (2018) Hybrid Integration Approach of Entropy with Logistic Regression and Support Vector Machine for Landslide Susceptibility Modeling. Entropy 20(11): 884. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press, Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, CAS and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Earth Science and ResourcesChang’an University, Key Laboratory of Degraded and Unutilized Land Remediation Engineering, Ministry of Land and Resources, Shaanxi Provincial Key Laboratory of Land RehabilitationXi’anChina
  2. 2.School of Geological and Surveying & Mapping EngineeringChang’an UniversityXi’anChina
  3. 3.Shaanxi Provincial Land Engineering Construction GroupXi’anChina
  4. 4.College of Geology & EnvironmentXi’an University of Science and TechnologyXi’anChina

Personalised recommendations