Abstract
The significance of seismic hazard maps as inputs in co-seismic landslide susceptibility mapping is well-established. However, a research gap exists as no previous study has compared the effectiveness of various seismic hazard map inputs. The present research conducts a comprehensive comparative study, evaluating probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA)-based and specific scenario-based PGA maps as inputs for co-seismic landslide susceptibility mapping. In the study, the first step involved generating PSHA-based and scenario-based PGA maps, which served as seismic intensity inputs for the modified Newmark’s model. The modified model incorporates the rock joint shear strength parameters in displacement computations. To address uncertainties associated with the spatial variability of shear strength parameters of rock joints, Latin hypercube sampling along with Monte Carlo simulations were employed, resulting in a set of displacement values. The Latin hypercube sampling method ensured a more efficient and stratified sampling approach, enhancing the representation of uncertainty in the model. The simulations were conducted 10,000 times, generating 10,000 displacement values for each pixel. Subsequently, statistical calculations were performed to determine both the means and standard deviations of these displacement values, resulting in the creation of probability distributions. The predicted displacement probabilities surpassing 5 cm as threshold value were then displayed as landslide susceptibility maps. After generating the susceptibility maps, a comprehensive comparison was conducted based on various evaluation metrics, including confusion matrix, Kappa Coefficient, F1-score, and AUC-ROC values. The analysis revealed that the PSHA-based PGA input performed better than the scenario-based PGA input for co-seismic landslide susceptibility mapping.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Code availability
Name of the code/library: MCS_CLSM. Hardware requirements: Minimum hardware requirements of MATLAB R2023a. Program language: Python. Software required: MATLAB, QGIS. Program size: 606 KB. The source codes are available for downloading at the link: https://github.com/KUN0206/MCS_CLSM.git.
References
Abraham MT, Satyam N, Pradhan B, Alamri AM (2020) Forecasting of landslides using rainfall severity and soil wetness: a probabilistic approach for Darjeeling Himalayas. Water 12:804. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12030804
Abraham MT, Satyam N, Lokesh R et al (2021) Factors affecting landslide susceptibility mapping: assessing the influence of different machine learning approaches. Sampl Strateg Data Splitt Land 10:989. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10090989
ALOSPALSAR (2015) Dataset: ASF DAAC 2015, ALOS PALSAR_Radiometric_Terrain_Corrected_high_res; Includes Material © JAXA/METI 2007. Accessed through ASF DAAC 12 December 2021
Atkinson GM (2009) Earthquake time histories compatible with the 2005 National building code of Canada uniform hazard spectrum. Can J Civ Eng 36:991–1000. https://doi.org/10.1139/L09-044
Azarafza M, Azarafza M, Akgün H et al (2021) Deep learning-based landslide susceptibility mapping. Sci Rep 11:24112. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-03585-1
Barnard PL, Owen LA, Sharma MC, Finkel RC (2001) Natural and human-induced landsliding in the Garhwal Himalaya of northern India. Geomorphology 40:21–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-555X(01)00035-6
Barton N (1973) Review of a new shear-strength criterion for rock joints. Eng Geol 7:287–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-7952(73)90013-6
Barton N, Choubey V (1977) The shear strength of rock joints in theory and practice. Rock Mech Felsmechanik Mécanique Des Roches 10:1–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01261801
Boore DM, Joyner WB (1997) Site amplifications for generic rock sites. Bull Seismol Soc Am 87:327–341. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0870020327
Caccavale M, Matano F, Sacchi M (2017) An integrated approach to earthquake-induced landslide hazard zoning based on probabilistic seismic scenario for Phlegrean Islands (Ischia, Procida and Vivara), Italy. Geomorphology 295:235–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.07.010
Chopra S, Kumar V, Suthar A, Kumar P (2012) Modeling of strong ground motions for 1991 Uttarkashi, 1999 Chamoli earthquakes, and a hypothetical great earthquake in Garhwal-Kumaun Himalaya. Nat Hazards 64:1141–1159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0289-z
Crespellani T, Madiai C, Vannucchi G (1998) Earthquake destructiveness potential factor and slope stability. Géotechnique 48:411–419. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1998.48.3.411
Cui Y, Liu A, Xu C, Zheng J (2019) A modified newmark method for calculating permanent displacement of seismic slope considering dynamic critical acceleration. Adv Civ Eng 2019:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/9782515
Dhanya J, Raghukanth STG (2019) A non-Gaussian random field model for earthquake slip. J Seismol 23:889–912. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-019-09840-3
Dhanya J, Gade M, Raghukanth STG (2017) Ground motion estimation during 25th April 2015 Nepal earthquake. Acta Geod Geophys 52:69–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40328-016-0170-8
Du W, Wang G (2016) A one-step Newmark displacement model for probabilistic seismic slope displacement hazard analysis. Eng Geol 205:12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2016.02.011
Du S, Hu Y, Hu X (2009) Measurement of joint roughness coefficient by using profilograph and roughness ruler. J Earth Sci 20:890–896. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12583-009-0075-3
Du W, Huang D, Wang G (2018) Quantification of model uncertainty and variability in Newmark displacement analysis. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 109:286–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.02.037
EL Jibson H, Michael JA (2000) A method for producing digital probabilistic seismic landslide hazard maps. Eng Geol 58:271–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7952(00)00039-9
Gade M, Raghukanth STG (2017) Simulation of strong ground motion for a MW 8.5 hypothetical earthquake in central seismic gap region. Himalaya Bull Earthq Eng 15:4039–4065. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0146-2
GSI (2022) Bhukosh-the spatial data portal and a geophysical data repository. https://bhukosh.gsi.gov.in/Bhukosh/Public. Accessed 2 Aug 2021
Gupta K, Satyam N (2022a) Co-seismic landslide hazard assessment of Uttarakhand state (India) based on the modified Newmark model. J Asian Earth Sci X 8:100120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaesx.2022.100120
Gupta K, Satyam N (2022b) Estimation of Arias intensity and peak ground acceleration (PGA) using probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of Uttarakhand state (India). Arab J Geosci 15:437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-022-09733-9
Gupta K, Satyam N, Gupta V (2023) Probabilistic physical modelling and prediction of regional seismic landslide hazard in Uttarakhand state (India). Landslides. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-022-02013-3
Jibson RW (1993) Predicting earthquake-induced landslide displacements using Newmark’s sliding block analysis. Transp Res Rec 1411:9–17
Jibson RW (2007) Regression models for estimating coseismic landslide displacement. Eng Geol 91:209–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2007.01.013
Jibson RW (2011) Methods for assessing the stability of slopes during earthquakes—A retrospective. Eng Geol 122:43–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2010.09.017
Jin KP, Yao LK, Cheng QG, Xing AG (2019) Seismic landslides hazard zoning based on the modified Newmark model: a case study from the Lushan earthquake, China. Nat Hazards 99:493–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-019-03754-6
Jing J, Wu Z, Chu C et al (2023) Prediction of landslide hazards induced by potential earthquake in Litang County, Sichuan, China. Nat Hazards 118:1301–1314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-023-06050-6
Joshi M (2022) Co-seismic landslides in the Sikkim Himalaya during the 2011 Sikkim Earthquake: Lesson learned from the past and inference for the future. Geol J 57(12):5039–5060. https://doi.org/10.1002/gj.4416
Kamp U, Owen LA, Growley BJ, Khattak GA (2010) Back analysis of landslide susceptibility zonation mapping for the 2005 Kashmir earthquake: an assessment of the reliability of susceptibility zoning maps. Nat Hazards 54:1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-009-9451-7
Kumar S, Gupta V, Kumar P, Sundriyal YP (2021) Coseismic landslide hazard assessment for the future scenario earthquakes in the Kumaun Himalaya, India. Bull Eng Geol Environ 80:5219–5235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-021-02267-6
Lombardo L, Tanyas H (2022) From scenario-based seismic hazard to scenario-based landslide hazard: fast-forwarding to the future via statistical simulations. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 36:2229–2242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-021-02020-1
Luo L, Lombardo L, van Westen C et al (2022) From scenario-based seismic hazard to scenario-based landslide hazard: rewinding to the past via statistical simulations. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 36:2243–2264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-020-01959-x
Matasci B, Stock GM, Jaboyedoff M et al (2018) Assessing rockfall susceptibility in steep and overhanging slopes using three-dimensional analysis of failure mechanisms. Landslides 15:859–878. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-017-0911-y
Motazedian D, Atkinson GM (2005) Stochastic finite-fault modeling based on a dynamic corner frequency. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95:995–1010. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120030207
Nayek PS, Gade M (2021) Seismic landslide hazard assessment of central seismic gap region of Himalaya for a M w 8.5 scenario event. Acta Geophys 69:747–759. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11600-021-00572-y
Newmark NM (1965) Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments. Géotechnique 15:139–160. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1965.15.2.139
Panahi M, Gayen A, Pourghasemi HR et al (2020) Spatial prediction of landslide susceptibility using hybrid support vector regression (SVR) and the adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) with various metaheuristic algorithms. Sci Total Environ 741:139937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139937
Rajabi AM, Khodaparast M, Mohammadi M (2022) Earthquake-induced landslide prediction using back-propagation type artificial neural network: case study in northern Iran. Nat Hazards 110:679–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-021-04963-8
Rajendran CP, Rajendran K (2005) The status of central seismic gap: a perspective based on the spatial and temporal aspects of the large Himalayan earthquakes. Tectonophysics 395:19–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2004.09.009
Ramamurthy T (2014) Engineering in rocks for slopes, foundations and tunnels, 3rd edn. PHI Learning Private Limited
Refice A, Capolongo D (2002) Probabilistic modeling of uncertainties in earthquake-induced landslide hazard assessment. Comput Geosci 28:735–749. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0098-3004(01)00104-2
Saha S, Arabameri A, Saha A et al (2021) Prediction of landslide susceptibility in Rudraprayag, India using novel ensemble of conditional probability and boosted regression tree-based on cross-validation method. Sci Total Environ 764:142928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142928
Sato HP, Une H (2016) Detection of the 2015 Gorkha earthquake-induced landslide surface deformation in Kathmandu using InSAR images from PALSAR-2 data. Earth Planets Sp 68:47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-016-0425-1
Segoni S, Pappafico G, Luti T, Catani F (2020) Landslide susceptibility assessment in complex geological settings: sensitivity to geological information and insights on its parameterization. Landslides 17:2443–2453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-019-01340-2
Shinoda M, Miyata Y (2017) Regional landslide susceptibility following the Mid NIIGATA prefecture earthquake in 2004 with NEWMARK’S sliding block analysis. Landslides 14:1887–1899. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-017-0833-8
Singh SK (2004) Q of the Indian shield. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94:1564–1570. https://doi.org/10.1785/012003214
Song Y, Gong J, Gao S et al (2012) Susceptibility assessment of earthquake-induced landslides using Bayesian network: A case study in Beichuan, China. Comput Geosci 42:189–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2011.09.011
Thingbaijam KKS, Martin Mai P, Goda K (2017) New empirical earthquake source-scaling laws. Bull Seismol Soc Am 107:2225–2246. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120170017
Tian S, Tregoning P, Renzullo LJ et al (2017) Improved water balance component estimates through joint assimilation of GRACE water storage and SMOS soil moisture retrievals. Water Resour Res 53:1820–1840. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019641
Valdiya KS (1988) Tectonics and evolution of the central sector of the Himalaya. Philos Trans R Soc London Ser A Math Phys Sci 326:151–175. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.1988.0083
Vose D (1996) Quantitative risk analysis: a guide to Monte Carlo simulation modeling. Wiley, Chichester, England
Wang H, Wang G, Wang F et al (2008) Probabilistic modeling of seismically triggered landslides using Monte Carlo simulations. Landslides 5:387–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-008-0131-6
Xi C, Hu X, Ma G et al (2022) Predictive model of regional coseismic landslides’ permanent displacement considering uncertainty. Landslides 19:2513–2534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-022-01918-3
Xu C, Xu X, Dai F et al (2013) Application of an incomplete landslide inventory, logistic regression model and its validation for landslide susceptibility mapping related to the May 12, 2008 Wenchuan earthquake of China. Nat Hazards 68:883–900. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0661-7
Yamagishi H, Yamazaki F (2018) Landslides by the 2018 Hokkaido Iburi-Tobu earthquake on september 6. Landslides 15:2521–2524. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-018-1092-z
Zang M, Qi S, Zou Y et al (2020) An improved method of Newmark analysis for mapping hazards of coseismic landslides. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 20:713–726. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-713-2020
Zhao B, Li W, Su L et al (2022) Insights into the landslides triggered by the 2022 Lushan Ms 6.1 Earthquake: spatial distribution and controls. Remote Sens 14:4365. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14174365
Zhao B, Su L, Xu Q et al (2023) A review of recent earthquake-induced landslides on the Tibetan Plateau. Earth-Sci Rev 244:104534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2023.104534
Zhu A-X, Wang R, Qiao J et al (2014) An expert knowledge-based approach to landslide susceptibility mapping using GIS and fuzzy logic. Geomorphology 214:128–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.02.003
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Department of Science and Technology, India [Grant No. NGP/LS/TPN-34229/2019]. We are grateful to Drs. Lewis A. Owen, Milap Chand Sharma and Patrick Barnard for providing a co-seismic landslide inventory database of the 1999 Chamoli earthquake.
Funding
The work was financially supported by the Department of Science and Technology, India, under response project number NGP/LS/TPN-34229/2019.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
KG: Formal analysis, Investigation, Validation, Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Software, Visualization, Writing—Original draft preparation. NS: Supervision, Writing—review & editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Gupta, K., Satyam, N. Optimizing seismic hazard inputs for co-seismic landslide susceptibility mapping: a probabilistic analysis. Nat Hazards (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-024-06517-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-024-06517-0