Landslide susceptibility mapping using various soft computing techniques (Case study: A part of Haraz Watershed)

Document Type : Research/Original/Regular Article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Watershed Science and Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Lorestan University, Lorestan, Khorramabad.

2 Former MSc student, Department of Range and Watershed Management, Faculty of Natural Resources, Lorestan University, Khorramabad, Lorestan Province, Iran.

Abstract

Introduction
A landslide is one of the mass movements on the top surface of the earth. Landslides have resulted in notable injury and damage to human life and destroyed infrastructure and property. Landslides represented approximately Nine percent of the natural disasters worldwide during the 1990s. According to studies, this trend is expected to continue due to increased human development. Many studies have been done to determine the factors affecting mass movement. In large part of Iran including the mountain areas, tectonic activity and seismic high with diverse geological and weather conditions led to many countries prone to landslide. Landslides cause wide damage to natural resources, human settlements, infrastructure, mud floods, and filling reservoirs. Landslides cause extensive property damage and occasionally result in loss of life. Besides, should not be ignored the social and environmental impacts resulting from the occurrence of this phenomenon, such as immigration and unemployment. One of the strategies for reducing losses due to a range of movements is the identification and management of unstable slope areas. To identify unstable regions pay to landslide hazard mapping. The main purpose of this research is to assess the effective parameter on landslide occurrence and to compare different machine learning models including SVM, GP regression, and RF for landslide susceptibility zoning.
 
Materials and Methods
The study area is a part of the Haraz Watershed, Mazandaran Province, Iran, occurrence many landslides are damaged after each heavy rain. So, it was selected as a suitable Watershed to evaluate the landslide susceptibility mapping (LSM). The vegetation covers and land mainly consists of rangeland. The geology of the study area consists mainly of Quaternary and Shemshak formations. The first step for the assessment of landslide susceptibility is gathering the necessary data and preparing information. These data were determined based on several factors. Considering the literature review, the local conditions, and previous studies. In this study, nine parameters such as slope angle, slope aspect, elevation, geology, land use, the distance of fault, the distance of the road, the distance of the river, and precipitation were identified as key factors for the prediction of landslide susceptibility. To assess the effectiveness of GP-PUK, GP-RBF, SVM-PUK, SVP-RBF, AND RF to estimate the landslide susceptibility map (LSM), data used in the present study were taken from field data. In this study, the dataset contains 148 observations of landslide occurrence and landslide non-occurrence points. The landslide data have been randomly separated into training (70% of landslides; 103) and testing (30% of the landslides; 45). To judge the performance of the soft computing techniques, statistical evaluation parameters were used. In this research, three statistical evaluation parameters were used. These parameters are the correlation coefficient (C.C.), root mean square error (RMSE), and Nash–Sutcliffe model efficiency (NSE).
 
Results and Discussion
According to the results of the comparison of methods, RF was the best model and the accuracy of the RF model was more suitable for the estimation of the landslide occurrence. So, in this study, RF was used for the landslide susceptibility map. Single-factor ANOVA test suggests that there is an insignificant difference between observed and predicted values of landslide occurrence and landslide non-occurrence using GP_PUK, GP_RBF, SVM_PUK, SVM_RBF and Random Forest approaches. According to the results of the comparison of methods, RF was the best model and the accuracy of the RF model was more suitable for the estimation of the landslide occurrence. The map of landslide susceptibility map was divided into five classes from none susceptible to very high susceptibility. According to the final Landslide susceptibility map, the area belonging to the “non-susceptible” class covers 35.86 km2, “low susceptibility” class 36.19 km2, “moderate susceptibility” class 15.06 km2, “high susceptibility” class 10.95 km2 and “very high susceptibility” class 14.46 km2 of Haraz Watershed. Sensitivity analysis was performed to find the most significant input parameter in the prediction of landslide occurrence and landslide non-occurrence. The result shows that aspect has a major role in predicting landslide occurrence and landslide non-occurrence in comparison to other input parameters, respectively.
 
Conclusion
Due to all results, some zones are potentially dangerous for any future habitation and development. Thus, there is an immediate need to implement mitigation measures in the very high-hazard and high-hazard zones, or such zones need to be avoided for habitation or any future developmental activities. The results of this research can be used by the local authority to manage properly, and systematically and plan development within their areas.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

References
Ahmadabadi, A., & Rahmati, M. (2016). An application of quantitative geomorphometric indicators in identifying ‘[susceptible zones by using SVM model. Quantitative Geomorphological Research, 4(3),197-213. dor:20.1001.1.22519424.1394.4.3.14.1 [In Persian]
Ahmadi, H. (2007). Applied Geomorphology. 4th Edition:Tehran University Press, 688 pages. [In Persian]
Alijani, B., Ghahrodi Tali, M., & Amir Ahmadi, A. (2007). Landslide risk zoning in the northern slopes of Shahjahan using GIS. Geographical Research, 22(1), 117-132. [In Persian]
Caniani, D., Pascale, S., Sdao, F., & Sole A. (2008) Neural networks and landslide susceptibility: a case study of the urban area of Potenza. Natural Hazards, 45, 55–72. doi:10.1007/s11069-007-9169-3
Chang, Z., Huang, F., Huang, J., Jiang, Sh.H., Yuting Liu, Y., Meena, S.R., & Catani, F. (2023). An updating of landslide susceptibility prediction from the perspective of space and time. Geoscience Frontiers, 14(5), 101619. doi:10.1016/j.gsf.2023.101619
Chen, J., Li, L., Xu, C., Huang, Y., Luo, Z., Xu, X., & Lyu, Y. (2023). Freely accessible inventory and spatial distribution of large-scale landslides in Xianyang City, Shaanxi Province, China. Earthquake Research Advances, 3(3), 100217. doi: 10.1016/j.eqrea.2023.100217.
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, 53-64. doi:10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2016.02.019
Cortes, C. & Vapnik, V. (1995). Support-vector networks. Machine Learning,  20(3), 273-297. doi: 10.1007/BF00994018.
Crosta, B.G. (2009). Dating, triggering, modelling and hazard assessment of large landslides. Geomorphology, 103(1), 1-4. doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2008.04.007
Es-smairi, A., Elmoutchou, B., Mir, R.A., Touhami, A.E.O., & Namous, M. (2023). Delineation of landslide susceptible zones using Frequency Ratio (FR) and Shannon Entropy (SE) models in northern Rif, Morocco. Geosystems and Geoenvironment, 2(4), 100195. doi:10.1016/j.geogeo.2023.100195.
Ganesh, B., Vincent, Sh., Pathan, S., & Benitez, S.R.G. (2023). Machine learning based landslide susceptibility mapping models and GB-SAR based landslide deformation monitoring systems: Growth and evolution. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment, 29, 100905. doi:10.1016/j.rsase.2022. 100905.
Ghasemian, B., Abedini, M., Raushiti, Sh., & Shirzadi, A. (2018). Comparative study of support vector machine and tree logistic models for landslide susceptibility assessment. Natural Geography Quarterly, 10(39), 47-68. [In Persian]
Gill, M.K., Asefa, T., Kemblowski, M.W., & McKee, M. (2006). Soil moisture prediction using support vector machines. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 42(4), 1033-1046. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2006.tb04512.x
Goli-Mokhtar, L., & Naimi Tabar, M. (2022). Spatial modeling and prediction of landslide hazard using advanced data mining algorithm (case study: Kalat city). Quantitative Geomorphology Research, 10(4), 116-137. doi: 10.22034/gmpj.2022.291242.1284 [In Persian]
Gomez, H., & Kavzoglu, T. (2005) Assessment of shallow landslide susceptibility using artificial neural networks in Jabonosa River Basin, Venezuela. Engineering Geology, 78(1–2), 11–27. doi: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2004.10.004
Huang, F., Xiong, H., Yao, C., Catani, F., Zhou, C., & Huang, J. (2023b). Uncertainties of landslide susceptibility prediction considering different landslide types. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 15(11), 2954-2972.  doi: 10.1016/j.jrmge.2023.03.001.
Huang, W., Ding, M., Li, ZH., Yu, J., Ge, D., Liu, Q., & Yang, J. (2023a). Landslide susceptibility mapping and dynamic response along the Sichuan-Tibet transportation corridor using deep learning algorithms. Catena, 222, 106866. doi:10.1016/j.catena.2022.106866
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. doi:10.1007/s10346-013-0391-7
Kia, E., & Karimi, V.A. (2021). Investigation of temperature and rainfall parameters of Haraz River Basin affected by climate change. Journal of Natural Environment Hazards, 9(26), 145-160. doi:10.22111/jneh.2020.32606.1596. [In Persian]
Kornejady, A., & Pourghasemi, H.R. (2019). Landslide susceptibility assessment using data mining models. Watershed Engineering and Management, 11(1), 28-43. doi:10.22092/ijwmse.2019.118436 [In Persian]
Lan, H.X., Zhou, C.H., Wang, L.J. Zhang, H.J., & Li, R.H. (2004). Landslide watershed, Yunnan, China. Engineering Geology, 76, 101-128. doi: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2004.06.009
Lee, S, Ryu, J.H, Lee, M.J., & Won, J.S. (2006). The Application of artificial neural networks to landslide susceptibility mapping at Janghung, Korea. Mathematical Geology, 38(2), 199-220. doi:10.1007/s11004-005-9012-x
Lee, S., Ryu J.H., Lee, M.J. & Won, J.S. (2003). Use of an artificial neural network for analysis of the susceptibility to landslides at Boun, Korea. Environmental Geology, 44, 820–833. doi:10.1007/s00254-003-0825-y
Lima, P., Steger, S., Glade, T., & Mergili, M. (2023). Conventional data-driven landslide susceptibility models may only tell us half of the story: Potential underestimation of landslide impact areas depending on the modeling design, Geomorphology, 430, 108638. doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2023.108638.
Melesse, A.M., Khosravi, K., Tiefenbacher, J.P., Heddam, S., Kim, S., Mosavi, A., & Pham, B.T. (2020). River water salinity prediction using Hybrid machine learning models. Water, 12(10), 2951. doi:10.3390/w12102951
Moghim, H., & Najabat, M. (2019). Comparison of the efficiency of modified Nielsen models and their relative effect in landslide risk zoning in Sedparsian watershed, Fars province. Watershed Engineering and Management, 11(1), 272-264. doi:10.22092/ijwmse.2019.118748 [In Persian]
Montaseri, M., & Zaman Zad Ghavidel, S. (2017). Comparing the performance of artificial intelligence models in estimating water quality parameters in periods of low and high water flow. Journal of Water and Soil, 30(6), 1733-1747. [In Persian]
Ngo, Ph.T.T., Panahi, M., Khosravi, KH., Ghorbanzadeh, O., Kariminejad, N., Artemi Cerda, A., & Lee, S. (2021). Evaluation of deep learning algorithms for national scale landslide susceptibility mapping of Iran. Geoscience Frontiers, 12(2), 505-519. doi:10.1016/j.gsf.2020.06.013
Nojavan, M.R., Shahzaidi, S.S., Davoudi, M., & Amin al-Raaiai, H. (2019). Landslide risk zoning using the combination of two hierarchical and fuzzy analysis process models. Quantitative Geomorphology Researches, 7(4), 159-142. dor:20.1001.1.22519424.1398.7.4.9.3 [In Persian]
Norouzi Goshbalag, H., & Nadiri, A. (2018). Forecasting the underground water level of Bukan Plain using fuzzy logic, random forest and neural network models. Pasture and Watershed Quarterly, 72(1), 291-306. doi:10.22059/jrwm.2018.68924 [In Persian]
Pal, M., & Deswal, S. (2010). Modelling plie capacity using Gaussian process regression. Computers and geotechnics, 37(7-8), 942-947. doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2010.07.012
Pourghasemi, H.R, Yansari, Z.T., Panagos, P., & Pradhan, B. (2018). Analysis and evaluation of landslide susceptibility: a review on articles published during 2005–2016 (periods of 2005–2012 and 2013–2016). Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 11(9), 193. doi:10.1007/s12517-018-3531-5
Pourghasemi, H.R., & Rahmati, O. (2018). Prediction of the landslide susceptibility: Which algorithm, which precision?. Catena, 162, 177-192. doi:10.1016/j.catena.2017.
11.022
Rodriguez, V., Ghimire, B., Rogan, J., Chica-Olmo, M., & Rigol-Sánchez, J.P. (2012). An assessment of the effectiveness of a Random Forest classifier for land-cover classification. ISPRS Journal of Photogram Remote Sens, 67, 9-104. doi:10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2011.11.002
Rossi, M., Guzzetti, F., Salvati, P., Donnini, M., Napolitano, E., & Bianch, C. (2019). A predictive model of societal landslide risk in Italy. Earth-Science Reviews, 196, 1-19. doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.04.021
Sepahvand, A., Sihag, P., Singh, B., & Zand, M. (2018). Comparative evaluation of infiltration models. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 22, 4173–4184. doi:10.1007/s12205-018-1347-1
Sepahvand, A., Singh B.,Ghobadi, M., & Sihag, P. (2021). Estimation of infiltration rate using data-driven models. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 14(42), doi:10.1007/s12517-020-06245-2.
Sepahvand, A.R.,  Ahmadi, H., Nazari Samani, A.A., Fiznia, S. (2018). Landforms classification by Topographic Position Index and assessment of teh relation between landforms and lithological features. Researches in Earth Sciences, 9(1-Serial Number 33), 30-4. doi: 10.29252/esrj.9.1.30 [In Persian]
Sepahvand, A.R., Moradi, H.R., & Abdul Maleki, P. (2016). Landslide risk zoning using artificial neural network in a part of Haraz watershed. Watershed Management Research, 29(4), 9-19. doi:10.22092/wmej.2017.115313 [In Persian]
Silalahi, F.E.S., Pamela., Arifanti, Y., & Hidayat, F. (2019). Landslide susceptibility assessment using frequency ratio model in Bogor, West Java, Indonesia. Official Journal of the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS), 6(10), 1-17. doi:10.1186/s40562-019-0140-4
Singh, P., Singh, V.P., Angelaki, A., Kumar, V., Sepahvand, A., & Golia, E. (2019). Modelling of infiltration using artificial intelligence techniques in semi-arid Iran. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 64(13), 1647-1658. doi:10.1080/02626667.2019.1659965
Solaimani, K., Zandi, J., & Habibnejad, M. (2015). Evaluating the efficiency of frequency ratio, bivariate (Wi), and (Wf) methods of landslide susceptibility mapping. Journal of Geoscience, 24(94), 41-50.
Tran, T.H., Dam, D.D., Jalal, F.E., Al-Ansari, N., Ho, L.S., Phong, T.V., Iqbal, M., Le, H.V., Nguyen, H.B.T., Prakash, I., & Pham, B.T. (2021). GIS-based soft computing models for landslide susceptibility mapping, hindawi. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 9914650. doi:10.1155/2021/9914650
Trigila, A., Iadanza, C., Esposito, C., & Scarascia-Mugnozza, G. (2015). Comparison of logistic regression and random forests techniques for shallow landslide susceptibility assessment in Giampilieri (NE Sicily, Italy). Geomorphology, 249, 119–136. doi:10.1016/j.
geomorph.2015.06.001
Vapnik, V. (1999), An overview of statistical learning theory. IEEE Transactions on Neural Network, 10(5), 988-999. http://www.mit.edu/~6.454/www_spring_2001/emin/slt.pdf
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). Computers and Geosciences, 35(6), 1125–1138. doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2008.08.007
Water and Soil Management and Modelling
Volume 4, Issue 2
2024
Pages 261-278

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 09 April 2023
  • Revise Date: 01 May 2023
  • Accept Date: 03 May 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics