Advertisement

Comparison Between Statistical Models: A Review and Evaluation

  • Sujit Mandal
  • Subrata Mondal
Chapter

Abstract

The development of various models and their application in studies have brought a significant change in the subject discipline of geography. In the present study, various geomorphic and geohydrologic parameters, i.e. elevation, slope aspect, slope angle, slope curvature, geology, soil, lineament density, distance to lineament, drainage density, distance to drainage, stream power index (SPI), topographic wetted index (TWI), rainfall, normalized differential vegetation index (NDVI) and land use and land cover (LULC) were considered, and their integration was made on GIS environment to prepare landslide susceptibility zonation map of Darjeeling Himalaya, India. To generate all data layers, Google earth imagery, toposheet and GPS field survey data (2015–2016); geological and soil map; SRTM DEM (30 m spatial resolution); Landsat TM Image, Feb. 2009 (30 m spatial resolution), rainfall data (1950–2010) and some other information were processed with the help of GIS. To integrate all the data layers and to prepare landslide susceptibility map, several models such as frequency ratio (FR) model, modified information value (MIV) model, logistic regression (LR) model, artificial neural network (ANN) model, weighted overlay analysis (WOA) model, certainty factor (CF) model, analytical hierarchy process (AHP) model and fuzzy logic (FL) approach were applied. The prepared landslide susceptibility maps using all the models were classified into five, i.e. very low, low, moderate, high, and very high. All the developed landslide susceptibility maps of Darjeeling Himalaya were being validated using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve). The study concluded that artificial neural network model (ANN), certainty factor (CF) model, and frequency ratio-based fuzzy logic approach are most reliable statistical techniques in the assessment and prediction of landslide susceptibility in Darjeeling Himalaya because of high level of accuracy in comparison to models applied in the study.

Keywords

Landslide susceptibility Statistical models Models validation and comparison 

References

  1. Akbar, T., & Ha, S. (2011). Landslide hazard zoning along Himalaya Kaghan Valley of Pakistan by integration of GPS, GIS and remote sensing technology. Landslides, 8(4), 527–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berry, B. J. L., & Marble, D. F. (Eds.). (1968). Spatial analysis. Inglewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  3. Beven, K. J., & Kirkby, M. J. (1979). A physically based contributing area model of basin hydrology. Hydrological Sciences Bulletin, 24, 43–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boven, M. (1981). Empiricism and geographical thought. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bui, D. T., Pradhan, B., Lofman, O., Revhaug, I., & Dick, O. B. (2012). Spatial prediction of landslide hazards in Hoa Binh province (Vietnam): a comparative assessment of the efficacy of evidential belief functions and fuzzy logic models. Catena, 96, 28–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carrara, A., Cardinali, M., Guazzetti, F., & Reichenbach, P. (1995). GIS techniques in mapping landslide hazard. In A. Carrara & F. Guzzetti (Eds.), Geographical information systems in assessing natural hazards (pp. 135–175). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chapman, G. P. (1977). Human and environmental systems. A geographer’s appraisal. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chojnicki, Z. (1985). Orientacje filozoficzno-metodologiczne geografii – ich koncepcje i model (Philosophical-methodological orientations in geography: conceptions and models). Przegląd Geograficzny, 57(3), 255–281.Google Scholar
  9. Chojnicki, Z. (2004). Podstawy filozoficzne geografii – jakiej filozofii potrzebuje geografia? (Philosophical foundations of geography: What philosophy does geography need?). In Z. Chojnicki (Ed.), Geografia wobec problemów teraźniejszości i przyszłości (pp. 191–207). Poznań: Bogucki Wyd Naukowe.Google Scholar
  10. Chojnicki, Z., & Marble D. F. (Eds) (1973) Perspectives on spatial analysis. Geographia Polonica 25.Google Scholar
  11. Chorley, R. (1962). Geomorphology and general systems theory. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 500 B.Google Scholar
  12. Ciołkosz, A. (2007). Nowe narzędzia i metody badawcze w geografii oraz ich rola w rejestracji i wyjaśnianiu zjawisk i zmian w skali globalnej (New research tools and methods in geography and their role in the registration and explanation of phenomena and changes at a global scale). In W. Maik, K. Rembowska, & A. Suliborski (Eds.), Geografia a przemiany współczesnego świata (pp. 103–118). Bydgoszcz: Wyd. Uczelniane WSG.Google Scholar
  13. Cloke, P., Philo, C., & Sadler, D. (1991). Approaching human geography. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. Dietrich, W. E., Reiss, R., Hsu, M. L., & Montgomery, D. R. (1995). A process-based model for colluviums soil depth and shallow landsliding using digital elevation model data. Hydrological Processes, 9, 383–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dietrich, W. E., Bellugi, D., & Real de Asua, R. (2001). Validation of shallow landslide model, SHALSTAB, for forest management. In M. S. Wigmosta & S. J. Burges (Eds.), Land use and watersheds: human influence on hydrology and geomorphology in urban and forest areas, Water science and application monograph (Vol. 2, pp. 195–227). Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union.Google Scholar
  16. Emami, S. M. R., Iwao, Y., & Harada, T. (1998) Performance of Artificial Network system in prediction issues of earthquake engineering. Proceedings of 8th International IAEG Congress (pp. 733–738).Google Scholar
  17. Fotheringham, A. S. (2006). Quantification, evidence and positivism. In S. Aitken & G. Valentine (Eds.), Approaches to human geography (pp. 237–250). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haggett, P. (1965). Locational analysis in human geography. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  19. Haykin, S. (1999). Neural networks. A comprehensive foundation (2nd ed.p. 696). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  20. Kanungo, D. P., Arora, M. K., Sarkar, S., & Gupta, R. P. (2006). A comparative study of conventional, ANN black box, fuzzy and combined neural and fuzzy weighting procedures for landslide susceptibility zonation in Darjeeling Himalayas. Engineering Geology, 85, 347–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kirkby, M. J. (1996). A role for theoretical models in Geomorphology? The Scientific Nature of Geomorphology. In B. L. Rhoads & C. E. Thorn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Binghamton Symposium in Geomorphology held 27–29 September 1996. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
  22. Lee, S., & Pradhan, B. (2007). Landslide hazard mapping at Selangor, Malaysia using frequencyratio and logistic regression models. Landslides, 4(1), 33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lee, S., Ryu, J., Min, K., & Won, J. (2001). Proceedings of the Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, IGARSS ‘01 (vol. 5, pp. 2364–2366). IEEE 2001 International.Google Scholar
  24. Lee, S. & Sambath, T. (2006). Landslide Susceptibility mapping in the Damrei Romel area, Cambodia using frequency ratio and logistic regression models. Environmental Geology, 50, 847–856.Google Scholar
  25. Maik, W. (2007). Geografia a współczesność w świetle tradycji myśli geograficznej (Geography and modernity in the light of the tradition of geographical thought). In W. Maik, K. Rembowska, & A. Suliborski (Eds.), Geografia a przemiany współczesnego świata (pp. 25–37). Bydgoszcz: Wyd. Uczelniane WSG.Google Scholar
  26. McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice analysis. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics (pp. 105–142). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  27. Montgomery, D. R., & Dietrich, W. E. (1994). A physically based model for the topographic control on shallow landsliding. Water Resources Research, 30(4), 1153–1171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Peet, R. (1998). Modern geographical thought. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  29. Pradhan, B. (2010). Application of an advanced fuzzy logic model for landslide susceptibility analysis. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 3(3), 370–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pradhan, B., & Lee, S. (2010). Regional landslide susceptibility analysis using back propagation neural network model at Cameron Highland, Malaysia. Landslides, 7, 13–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pradhan, B., Lee, S., & Buchroithner, M. F. (2009). Use of geospatial data for the development of fuzzy algebraic operators to landslide hazard mapping: A case study in Malaysia. Applied Geomatics, 1, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytical hierarchy process (p. 350). New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  33. Sharma, L., Patel, N., Ghosh, M., & Debnath, P. (2009). Geographical information system based landslide probabilistic model with trivariate approach - a case study in Sikkim Himalaya. Eighteenth United Nations Regional Cartographic Conference for Asia and the Pacific, UN, Bankok, Economic and Social Council.Google Scholar
  34. Shortliffe, E. H., & Buchanan, B. G. (1975). A model of inexact reasoning in medicine. Mathematical Biosciences, 23(3), 351–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wilson, A. G. (1972). Theoretical geography: Some speculations. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, (57), 32–44.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sujit Mandal
    • 1
  • Subrata Mondal
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of GeographyDiamond Harbour Women’s UniversitySarishaIndia
  2. 2.University of Gour BangaMokdumpurIndia

Personalised recommendations