Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison of landslide susceptibility maps produced by logistic regression, multi-criteria decision, and likelihood ratio methods: a case study at İzmir, Turkey

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Landslides Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The main purpose of this study is to compare the use of logistic regression, multi-criteria decision analysis, and a likelihood ratio model to map landslide susceptibility in and around the city of İzmir in western Turkey. Parameters, such as lithology, slope gradient, slope aspect, faults, drainage lines, and roads, were considered. Landslide susceptibility maps were produced using each of the three methods and then compared and validated. Before the modeling and validation, the observed landslides were separated into two groups. The first group was for training, and the other group was for validation steps. The accuracy of models was measured by fitting them to a validation set of observed landslides. For validation process, the area under curvature (AUC) approach was applied. According to the AUC values of 0.810, 0.764, and 0.710 for logistic regression, likelihood ratio, and multi-criteria decision analysis, respectively, logistic regression was determined to be the most accurate method among the other used landslide susceptibility mapping methods. Based on these results, logistic regression and likelihood ratio models can be used to mitigate hazards related to landslides and to aid in land-use planning.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akgun A, Bulut F (2007) GIS-based landslide susceptibility for Arsin-Yomra (Trabzon, North Turkey) region. Environ Geol 51:1377–1387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akgun A, Turk N (2010) Landslide susceptibility mapping for Ayvalik (Western Turkey) and its vicinity by multicriteria decision analysis. Environ Earth Sci 61(3):595–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akgun A, Dag S, Bulut F (2008) Landslide susceptibility mapping for a landslide-prone area (Findikli, NE of Turkey) by likelihoodfrequency ratio and weighted linear combination models. Environ Geol 54(6):1127–1143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akgun A, Sezer EA, Nefeslioglu HA, Gokceoglu C, Pradhan B (2011) An easy-to-use MATLAB program (MamLand) for the assessment of landslide susceptibility using a Mamdani fuzzy algorithm. Comput Geosci. doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2011.04.012

  • Atkinson PM, Massari R (1998) Generalized linear modelling of susceptibility to landsliding in the central Appennines, Italy. Computers and Geoscience 24(4):373–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson PM, Massari R (2011) Autologistic modelling of susceptibility to landsliding in the Central Apennines, Italy. Geomorphology 130:55–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avşar M (1997) General assessment of landslides in Izmir metropolitan area. MSc Thesis, Dokuz Eylul University

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayalew L, Yamagishi H, Marui H, Kanno T (2005) Landslide in Sado Island of Japan: part II. GIS-based susceptibility mapping with comparision of results from two methods and verifications. Eng Geol 81:432–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bai SB, Wang J, Lü GN, Zhou PG, Hou SS, Xu SN (2010) GIS-based logistic regression for landslide susceptibility mapping of the Zhongxian segment in the Three Gorges area, China. Geomorphology 115(1–2):23–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Can T, Nefeslioglu HA, Gokceoglu C, Sonmez H, Duman TY (2005) Susceptibility assessment of shallow earthflows triggered by heavy rainfall at three subcatchments by logistic regression analyses. Geomorphology 72:250–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrara A (1983) A multivariate model for landslide hazard evaluation. Math Geol 15:403–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrara A, Cardinali M, Guzetti F, Reichenbach P (1995) GIS-based techniques for mapping landslide hazard. http://deis158.deis.unibo.it

  • Carstensen LW (1987) A measure of similarity for cellular maps. Am Cartogr 14(4):345–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castellanos Abella EA, Van Westen CJ (2007) Qualitative landslide susceptibility assessment by multicriteria analysis: a case study from San Antonio del Sur, Guantanamo, Cuba. Geomorphology 94(3–4):453–466

    Google Scholar 

  • Cervi F, Berti M, Borgatti L, Rochetti F, Manenti F, Corsini A (2010) Comparing predictive capability of statistical and deterministic methods for landslide susceptibility mapping: a case study in the northern Apennines (Reggio Emilia Province, Italy). Landslides 7:433–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chacon J, Irigaray C, Fernandez T, El Hamdouni R (2006) Engineering geology maps: landslides and geographical information systems. Bull Eng Geol Environ 65:341–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung C-J, Fabbri AG (2003) Validation of spatial prediction models for landslide hazard mapping. Natural Hazards 30:451–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clerici A, Perego S, Tellini C, Vescovi P (2002) A procedure for landslide susceptibility zonation by the conditional analysis method. Geomorphology 48:349–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das I, Sahoo S, Van Westen C, Stein A, Hack R (2010) Landslide susceptibility assessment using logistic regression and its comparison with a rock mass classification system, along a road section in the northern Himalayas (India). Geomorphology 114(4):627–637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duman TY, Can T, Gokceoglu C, Nefeslioglu HA, Sonmez H (2006) Application of logistic regression for landslide susceptibility zoning of Cekmece Area, Istanbul, Turkey. Environ Geol 51:241–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eastman R (2003) IDRISI Kilimanjaro: guide to GIS and image processing. Clark Labs, Clark University, Worcester

    Google Scholar 

  • Egan JP (1975) Signal detection theory and ROC analysis. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ercanoglu M, Gokceoglu C (2002) Assessment of landslide susceptibility for a landslide-prone area (north of Yenice, NW Turkey) by fuzzy approach. Environ Geol 41:720–730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ercanoglu M, Temiz AF (2011) Application of logistic regression and fuzzy operators to landslide susceptibility assessment in Azdavay (Kastamonu, Turkey). Environmental Earth Sciences. doi:10.1007/s12665-011-0912-4

  • Erdogan B, Altiner D, Gungor T, Ozer S (1990) Stratigraphy of the Karaburun Peninsula (In Turkish). MTA Dergisi 111:1–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Ermini L, Filippo C, Casagli N (2005) Artificial neural networks applied to landslide susceptibility assessment. Geomorphology 66:327–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fawcett T (2006) An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognation Letters 27:861–874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García-Rodríguez MJ, Malpica JA, Benito B, Díaz M (2008) Susceptibility assessment of earthquake-triggered landslides in El Salvador using logistic regression. Geomorphology 95:172–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • General Directory of Meteorological Services of Turkey (2010) Electronic document. http://www.meteor.gov.tr Accessed 16 December 2010

  • Gorsevski PV, Jankowski P (2010) An optimized solution of multi-criteria evaluation analysis of landslide susceptibility using fuzzy sets and Kalman filter. Comput Geosci 36(8):1005–1020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorsevski PV, Gessler PE, Foltz RB, Elliot WJ (2006) Spatial prediction of landslide hazard using logistic regression and ROC analysis. Trans GIS 10(3):395–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzetti F, Carrarra A, Cardinali M, Reichenbach P (1999) Landslide hazard evaluation: a review of current techniques and their application in a multiscale study, Central Italy. Geomorphology 31:181–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (2000) Applied logistic regression, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute (KOERI) (2008) Bogazici University Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute: Electronic document, available at http://www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/.

  • Kıncal C (2005) Engineering geological evaluation of geological units Outcrop in and around the Izmir City Centre with the help of geographical ınformation systems and remote sensing techniques. PhD Thesis Dokuz Eylul University

  • Kıncal C, Akgun A, Koca MY (2009) Landslide susceptibility assessment in the Izmir (West Anatolia, Turkey) city center and its near vicinity by the logistic regression method. Environ Earth Sci 59:745–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koca MY, Kıncal C (2004) Abandoned stone quarries in and around the Izmir City Centre and their geo-environmental ımpacts, Turkey. Eng Geol 75:49–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koca MY, Kıncal C, Turk N (2001) Relations between the P-wave velocity and other selected engineering properties of andesitic lavas and autobreccias in Izmir. IESCA 2000, Izmir, pp. 69–82.

  • Komac M (2006) A landslide susceptibility model using analytical hierarchy process method and multivariate statistics in perialpine Slovenia. Geomorphology 74:17–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle river

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee S (2005) Application of logistic regression model and its validation for landslide susceptibility mapping using GIS and remote sensing data. Int J Remote Sens 26:1477–1491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee S, Pradhan B (2007) Landslide hazard mapping at Selangor, Malaysia using frequency ratio and logistic regression models. Landslides 4:33–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee S, Ryu JH, Lee MJ, Won JS (2006) The application of artificial neural networks to landslide susceptibility mapping at Janghung. Korea Math Geol 38(2):199–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee S, Ryu JH, Kim LS (2007) Landslide susceptibility analysis and its verification using likelihood ratio, logistic regression, and artificial neuralnetwork models: case study of Youngin, Korea. Landslides 4(4):327–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M.T.A. (2000) Geological map of Turkey,1,25.000-scaled Izmir Sheet

  • Malczewski J (1999) GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Melchiorre C, Matteucci M, Azzoni A, Zanchi A (2008) Artificial neural networks and cluster analysis in landslide susceptibility zonation. Geomorphology 94:379–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melchiorre C, Castellanos EA, Van Westen CJ, Matteucci M (2011) Evaluation of prediction capability, robustness and sensitivity in non linear landslide susceptibility models, Guantanamo, Cuba. Comput Geosci 37(4):410–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nandi A, Shakoor A (2009) A GIS-based landslide susceptibility evaluation using bivariate and multivariate statistical analyses. Eng Geol 110:11–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nefeslioglu HA, Duman TY, Durmaz S (2008) Landslide susceptibility mapping for a part of tectonic Kelkit Valley (Eastern Black Sea region of Turkey). Geomorphology 94(3–4):401–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nefeslioglu HA, Sezer E, Gokceoglu C, Bozkır AS, Duman TY (2010) Assessment of landslide susceptibility by decision trees in the metropolitan area of Istanbul, Turkey. Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2010: Article ID: 901095.

  • Oh HJ, Lee S (2010) Cross-application used to validate landslide susceptibility maps using a probabilistic model from Korea. Environ Earth Sci. doi:10.1007/s12665-010-0864-0

  • Oh HJ, Lee S, Soedradjat GM (2010) Quantitative landslide susceptibility mapping at Pemalang area, Indonesia. Environ Earth Sci 60:1317–1328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohlmacher CG, Davis CJ (2003) Using multiple regression and GIS technology to predict landslide hazard in northeast Kansas, USA. Eng Geol 69:331–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ott L, Larson RF, Mendenhall W (1983) Statistics: a tool for the social sciences. Duxbury Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Pradhan B (2010) Remote sensing and GIS-based landslide hazard analysis and cross-validation using multivariate logistic regression model on three test areas in Malaysia. Advances in Space Research 45:1244–1256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pradhan B (2011) Use of GIS-based fuzzy logic relations and its cross applicationto produce landslide susceptibility maps in three test areas in Malaysia. Environ Earth Sci 63:329–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pradhan B, Lee S (2010a) Landslide susceptibility assessment and factor effect analysis: backpropagation artificial neural networks and their comparison with frequency ratio and bivariate logistic regression modeling. Environ Model Softw 25(6):747–759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pradhan B, Lee S (2010b) Regional landslide susceptibility analysis using backpropagation neural network model at Cameron Highland, Malaysia. Landslides 7(1):13–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pradhan B, Oh HJ, Buchroithner MF (2010a) Weights-of-evidence model applied to landslide susceptibility mapping in a tropical hilly area. Geomatics, Natural Hazard and Risk 1(3):199–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pradhan B, Sezer EA, Gokceoglu C, Buchroithner MF (2010b) Landslide susceptibility mapping by neuro-fuzzy approach in a landslide prone area (Cameron Highland, Malaysia). IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 48(12):4164–4177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regmi NR, Giardino JR, Vitek JD (2010) Modeling susceptibility to landslides using the weight of evidence approach: Western Colorado, USA. Geomorphology 115(1–2):172–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi M, Guzzetti F, Reichenbach P, Mondini AC, Peruccacci S (2010) Optimal landslide susceptibility zonation based on multiple forecasts. Geomorphology 114(3):129–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1980) The analytical hierarchy process. McGraw Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuster RL (1996) Socioeconomic significance of landslides. In: Turner A K, Schuster R L (eds), Landslides: investigation and mitigation. Transportation Research Board National Research Council, Special Report no. 247, Washington, DC

  • Sezer EA, Pradhan B, Gokceoglu C (2011) Manifestation of an adaptive neuro-fuzzy model on landslide susceptibility mapping: Klang valley, Malaysia. Expert Systems with Applications. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.12.167

  • Soeters R, Van Westen CJ (1996) Slope instability recognition analysis and zonation. In: Turner KT, Schuster RL (eds) Landslides: investigation and mitigation. Transportation Research Board National Research Council, Special report no 247, Washington, DC.

  • Sterlacchini S, Ballabio C, Blahut J, Masetti M, Sorichetta A (2011) Spatial agreement of predicted patterns in landslide susceptibility maps. Geomorphology 125(1):51–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suzen ML, Doyuran V (2004) A comparison of the GIS based landslide susceptibility assessment methods: multivariate versus bivariate. Environ Geol 45:665–679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweets JA (1988) Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 240:1285–1293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terlien MT, Van Westen CJ, Van Asch ThW (1995) Deterministic modelling in GIS-based landslide hazard assessment. In: Carrara A, Guzetti F (eds) Geographical information systems in assessing in natural hazards. Kluwer, The Netherlands, pp 57–77

    Google Scholar 

  • USGS. (1993) USCS data user guide 5 for DEM’s. ftp://mapping.usgs.gov/pub/ti/DEM/demguide. Accessed 12 April 2006.

  • Vahidnia MH, Alesheikh AA, Alimohammadi A, Hosseinali F (2010) A GIS-based neuro-fuzzy procedure for integrating knowledge and data in landslide susceptibility mapping. Comput Geosci 36(9):101–1114

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Den Eeckhaut M, Marre A, Poesen J (2010) Comparison of two landslide susceptibility assessments in the Champagne–Ardenne region (France). Geomorphology 115(1–2):141–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Westen CJ (2000) The modelling of landslide hazards using GIS. Surveys in Geophysics 21(2–3):241–255

  • Van Westen CJ, Van Asch TWJ, Soeters R (2006) Landslide hazard and risk zonation—why is it still so difficult? Bull Eng Geol Environ 65:167–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 12–33.

  • Williams CJ, Lee SS, Fisher RA, Dickerman LH (1999) A comparison of statistical methods for prenatal screening for Down syndrome. Applied Stochastic Models and Data Analysis 15:89–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu CH, Chen SC (2009) Determining landslide susceptibility in Central Taiwan from rainfall and six site factors using the analytical hierarchy process method. Geomorphology 112(3–4):190–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yalcın A (2008) GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping using analytical hierarchy process and bivariate statistics in Ardesen (Turkey): comparisons of results and confirmations. Catena 1:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Yesilnacar E, Topal T (2005) Landslide susceptibility mapping: a comparison of logistic regression and neural networks methods in a moderate scale study, Hendek region (Turkey). Eng Geol 79:251–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yilmaz I (2009) Landslide susceptibility using frequency ratio, logistic regression, artificial neural networks and their comparison: a case study from Kat landslides (Tokat-Turkey). Comput Geosci 35(6):1125–1138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yohsimatsu H, Abe S (2006) A review of landslide hazards in Japan and assessment of their susceptibility using an analytical hierarchic process (AHP) method. Landslides 3:149–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to Prof. Dr. M.Yalçın Koca and Dr. Cem Kıncal (Dokuz Eylul University) for their help and valuable contributions. Thanks also to the two anonymous reviewers and the journal editor for their constructive suggestions for improving the scientific quality of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Geological Engineering Department, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey

    Aykut Akgun

Authors
  1. Aykut Akgun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aykut Akgun.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Akgun, A. A comparison of landslide susceptibility maps produced by logistic regression, multi-criteria decision, and likelihood ratio methods: a case study at İzmir, Turkey. Landslides 9, 93–106 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-011-0283-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-011-0283-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation