Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Statistical and spatial analysis of landslide susceptibility maps with different classification systems

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Environmental Earth Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A landslide susceptibility map is an essential tool for land-use spatial planning and management in mountain areas. However, a classification system used for readability determines the final appearance of the map and may therefore influence the decision-making tasks adopted. The present paper addresses the spatial comparison and the accuracy assessment of some well-known classification methods applied to a susceptibility map that was based on a discriminant statistical model in an area in the Eastern Pyrenees. A number of statistical approaches (Spearman’s correlation, kappa index, factorial and cluster analyses and landslide density index) for map comparison were performed to quantify the information provided by the usual image analysis. The results showed the reliability and consistency of the kappa index against Spearman’s correlation as accuracy measures to assess the spatial agreement between maps. Inferential tests between unweighted and linear weighted kappa results showed that all the maps were more reliable in classifying areas of highest susceptibility and less reliable in classifying areas of low to moderate susceptibility. The spatial variability detected and quantified by factorial and cluster analyses showed that the maps classified by quantile and natural break methods were the closest whereas those classified by landslide percentage and equal interval methods displayed the greatest differences. The difference image analysis showed that the five classified maps only matched 9 % of the area. This area corresponded to the steeper slopes and the steeper watershed angle with forestless and sunny slopes at low altitudes. This means that the five maps coincide in identifying and classifying the most dangerous areas. The equal interval map overestimated the susceptibility of the study area, and the landslide percentage map was considered to be a very optimistic model. The spatial pattern of the quantile and natural break maps was very similar, but the latter was more consistent and predicted potential landslides more efficiently and reliably in the study area.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Armstrong MP, Xiao N, Bennett DA (2003) Using genetic algorithms to create multicriteria class intervals for choropleth maps. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 93(3):595–623. doi:10.1111/1467-8306.9303005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(1–2):15–31. doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2004.06.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baeza C, Corominas J (2001) Assessment of shallow landslide susceptibility by means of multivariate statistical techniques. Earth Surf Proc Land 26:1251–1263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baeza C, Lantada N, Moya J (2010) Validation and evaluation of two multivariate statistical models for predictive shallow landslide susceptibility mapping of the Eastern Pyrenees (Spain). Environ Earth Sci 61:507–523. doi:10.1007/s12665-009-0361-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Begueria S (2006) Validation and evaluation of predictive models in hazard assessment and risk management. Nat Hazards 37(3):315–329. doi:10.1007/s11069-005-5182-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1968) Weighed Kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scale disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 70(4):213–220. doi:10.1037/h0026256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Congalton R (1991) A review of assessing the accuracy of classifications of remotely sensed data. Remote Sens Environ 37:35–46. doi:10.1016/0034-4257(91)90048-B

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corder GW, Foreman DI (2009) Nonparametric statistics for non-statisticians: a step-by-step approach. Wiley, London. doi:10.1002/9781118165881

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Corominas J, Alonso E (1990) Geomorphological effects of extrem floods (November 1982) in the Southern Pyrenees. In: Proceedings of 2nd symposia of hydrology in mountainous regions. Artificial reservoirs: water and slopes, Lausanne. IAHS Publ. no 194. http://hydrologie.org/redbooks/a194/iahs_194_0295.pdf. Accessed 9 Sept 2016

  • Corominas J, Baeza C (1992) Landslide occurrence in eastern pyrenees. Movimenti franosi e metodi di stabilizzazione. CNR 481:25–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Coulson MRC (1987) In the matter of class intervals for choropleth maps: with particular reference to the work of George F. jenks. Cartographica 24(2):16–39. doi:10.3138/U7X0-1836-5715-3546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cromley RG, Mrozinski RD (1997) An evaluation of classification schemes based on the statistical versus the spatial structure properties of geographic distributions in choropleth mapping. 1997 ACSM/ASPRS Annual Convention & Exposition. Technical Papers, Seattle, Washington. http://mapcontext.com/autocarto/proceedings/auto-carto-13/pdf/auto-carto-13.pdf. Accessed 5 Sept 2016

  • Dai FC, Lee CF (2002) Landslide characteristics and slope instability modeling using GIS, Lantau Island, Hong Kong. Geomorphology 42(3–4):213–228. doi:10.1016/S0169-555X(01)00087-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans IS (1977) The selection of class intervals. Trans Inst Br Geogr Contemp Cartogr 2(1):98–124. doi:10.2307/622195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleiss JL, Levin B, Paik MC (2003) Statistical methods for rates and proportions, book series: Wiley series in probability and statistics. Wiley, London. doi:10.1002/0471445428

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Foody GM (2004) Thematic map comparison: evaluating the statistical significance of differences in classification accuracy. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 70(5):627–633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foote KE, Crum S (2014) Issues of statistical generalization. Cartographic communication, section 6. Colorado, The Geographer’s Craft Project, Department of Geography. The University of Colorado at Boulder. http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/notes/cartocom/cartocom_f.html. Accessed 5 Sept 2016

  • Gupta RP, Kanungo DP, Arora MK, Sarkar S (2008) Approaches for comparative evaluation of raster GIS-based landslide susceptibility zonation maps. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 10(3):330–341. doi:10.1016/j.jag.2008.01.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzzetti F, Reichenbach P, Ardizzone F, Cardinali M, Galli M (2006) Estimating the quality of landslide susceptibility models. Geomorphology 81(1–2):166–184. doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.04.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hürlimann M, Baeza C (2002) Analysis of debris-flow events in the Eastern Pyrenees, Spain. In: Proceedings of the first european conference on landslides, Prague, Czech. Republic. Eds. J. Rybar, Stemberk and Wagner. ISBN: 905809393X

  • Kiang MY (2003) A comparative assessment of classification methods. Decis Support Syst 35(4):441–454. doi:10.1016/S0167-9236(02)00110-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landis J, Koch G (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1):159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu C, Frazier P, Kumar L (2007) Comparative assessment of the measures of thematic classification accuracy. Remote Sens Environ 107(4):606–616. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2006.10.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muñoz JA, Martínez A, Verges J (1986) Thrust sequences in the Spanish Eastern Pyrenees. J Struct Geol 8(3–4):399–405. doi:10.1016/0191-8141(86)90058-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohlmacher G, Davis J (2003) Using multiple logistic regression and GIS technology to predict landslide hazard in northeast Kansas, USA. Eng Geol 69(3–4):331–343. doi:10.1016/S0013-7952(03)00069-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poli S, Sterlacchini S (2007) Landslide representation strategies in susceptibility studies using weights-of-evidence modeling technique. Nat Resour Res 16(2):121–134. doi:10.1007/s11053-007-9043-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell RL, Matzke N, de Souza Jr C, Clark M, Numata I, Hess LL, Roberts DA (2004) Sources of error accuracy assessment of thematic land-cover maps in the Brazilian Amazon. Remote Sens Environ 90(2):221–234. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2003.12.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SAFELAND (2010) Living with landslide risk in Europe: assessment, effects of global change, and risk management strategies. Grant Agreement No.: 226479. http://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/projects/safeland

  • Santacana N, Baeza C, Corominas J, De Paz A, Marturià J (2003) A GIS-based multivariate statistical analysis for shallow landslide susceptibility mapping in La Pobla de Lillet area (Eastern Pyrenees, Spain). Nat Hazards 30(3):281–295. doi:10.1023/B:NHAZ.0000007169.28860.80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smits PC, Dellepiane SG, Schowengerdt RA (1999) Quality assessment of image classification algorithms for land-cover mapping: a review and proposal for a cost-based approach. Int J Remote Sens 20:1461–1486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stehman SV, Czaplewski RL (1998) Design and analysis of thematic map accuracy assessment: fundamental principles. Remote Sens Environ 64:331–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterlacchini S, Blahut J, Ballabio C, Masetti M, Sorichetta A (2008) A methodological approach for comparing predictive maps derived from statistic-probabilistic methods. European Geosciences Union General Assembly (EGU), Vienna, Austria. http://w3.unicaen.fr/mountainrisks/spip/IMG/pdf/poster_EGU_2008_Sterla.pdf. Accessed 9 Sept 2016

  • Story M, Congalton RG (1986) Accuracy assessment: a user’s perspective. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 52(3):397–399

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiery Y, Malet J-P, Sterlacchini S, Puissant A, Maquaire O (2007) Landslide susceptibility assessment by bivariate methods at large scales: application to a complex mountainous environment. Geomorphology 92(1–2):38–59. doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2007.02.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Den Eeckhaut M, Vanwalleghem T, Poesen J, Govers G, Verstraeten G, Vandekerckhove L (2006) Prediction of landslide susceptibility using rare events logistic regression: a case-study in the Flemish Ardennes (Belgium). Geomorphology 76(3–4):392–410. doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2005.12.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are indebted to the Cartographic and Geologic Institute of Catalonia (Spain) for providing the large-scale DEM of the study area.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Scientific Department, ACUIDAD Consulting, Barcelona, Spain

    Cristina Baeza

  2. Division of Geotechnical Engineering and Geosciences, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Jordi Girona 1-3, Building D2, 08034, Barcelona, Spain

    Nieves Lantada

  3. Universidade Católica de Pernambuco (UNICAP), Recife, PE, Brazil

    Samuel Amorim

Authors
  1. Cristina Baeza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nieves Lantada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Samuel Amorim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nieves Lantada.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baeza, C., Lantada, N. & Amorim, S. Statistical and spatial analysis of landslide susceptibility maps with different classification systems. Environ Earth Sci 75, 1318 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-6124-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-6124-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation