Advertisement

Landslide susceptibility mapping at Ovacık-Karabük (Turkey) using different artificial neural network models: comparison of training algorithms

  • Aslı Can
  • Gulseren Dagdelenler
  • Murat ErcanogluEmail author
  • Harun Sonmez
Original Paper
  • 288 Downloads

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the performances of different training algorithms used for an artificial neural network (ANN) method to produce landslide susceptibility maps. For this purpose, Ovacık region (southeast of Karabük Province), located in the Western Black Sea Region (Turkey), was selected as the study area. A total of 196 landslides were mapped, and a landslide database was prepared. Topographical elevation, slope angle, aspect, wetness index, lithology, and vegetation index parameters were taken into account for the landslide susceptibility analyses. Two different ANN structures, which were composed of single and double hidden layers, were applied to compare the effects of the ANN. Four different training algorithms, namely batch back-propagation, quick propagation, conjugate gradient descent (CGD), and Levenberg–Marquardt, were used for the training stage of the ANN models. Thus, eight different landslide susceptibility maps were produced for the study area using different ANN structures and algorithms. In order to assess the effects and spatial performances of the considered training algorithms on the ANN models, the relative operating characteristics (ROC) and relation value (rij) approaches were used. The susceptibility map produced by CGD1 has the highest AUC (0.817) and rij values (0.972). Comparison of the susceptibility maps indicated that CGD training algorithm is the slowest one among the other algorithms, but this algorithm showed the highest performance on the results.

Keywords

Artificial neural network Landslide susceptibility map Ovacık (Karabuk) Training algorithm 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Hacettepe University Scientific Researches Coordination Section (Project No: 735). The authors would also like to thank Mr. Alphan Haktanır and Mr. Arda Öncü for their logistic support during the field studies.

References

  1. Aleotti P, Chowdhury R (1999) Landslide hazard assessment: summery review and new perspective. Bull Eng Geol Env 58(1):28–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alimohammadlou Y, Najafi A, Gokceoglu C (2014) Estimation of rainfall-induced landslides using ANN and fuzzy clustering methods: a case study in Saeen Slope, Azerbaijan province, Iran. Catena 120:149–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnone E, Francipane A, Scarbaci A, Puglisi C, Noto LV (2016) Effect of raster resolution and polygon-conversion algorithm on landslide susceptibility mapping. Env Model and Software 84:467–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ayalew L, Yamagishi H, Marui H, Kanno T (2005) Landslides in Sado Island of Japan: part II. GIS-based susceptibility mapping with comparisons of results from two methods and verifications. Eng Geol 81(4):432–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Begueira S (2006) Validation and evaluation of predictive models in hazard assessment and risk management. Nat Haz 37:315–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beven KJ, Kirkby MJ (1979) A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology. Hydrol Sci Bull 24:43–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bui DT, Pradhan B, Lofman O, Revhaug I, Dick OB (2012) Landslide susceptibility assessment in the Hoa Binh province of Vietnam: a comparison of the Levenberg–Marquardt and Bayesian regularized neural networks. Geomorphology 171–172:12–29Google Scholar
  8. Chen J, Zenga Z, Jiang P, Tang H (2015) Deformation prediction of landslide based on functional network. Neurocomputing 149:151–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Choi J, Oh H, Won J, Lee S (2010) Validation of an artificial neural network model for landslide susceptibility mapping. Env Earth Sci 60:473–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Choi J, Oh H-J, Lee H-J, Lee C, Lee S (2012) Combining landslide susceptibility maps obtained from frequency ratio, logistic regression, and artificial neural network models using ASTER images and GIS. Eng Geol 124:12–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conforti M, Pascale S, Robustelli G, Sdao F (2014) Evaluation of prediction capability of the artificial neural networks for mapping landslide susceptibility in the Turbolo River catchment (northern Calabria, Italy). CATENA 113:236–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dagdelenler G, Nefeslioglı HA, Gokceoglu C (2015) Modification of seed cell sampling strategy for landslide susceptibility mapping: an application from the Eastern part of the Gallipoli Peninsula (Canakkale, Turkey). Bull Eng Geol Env 75:575–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Das HO, Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C, Nefeslioglu HA (2013) Influence of seismic acceleration on landslide susceptibility maps: a case study from NE Turkey (the Kelkit Valley). Landslides 10:433–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ding L, Matthews J (2009) A contemporary study into the application of neural network techniques employed to automate CAD/CAM integration for 130 die manufacture. Comput Ind Eng 57:1457–1471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ercanoglu M (2005) Landslide susceptibility assessment of SE Bartin (West Black Sea region, Turkey) by artificial neural networks. Nat Haz Earth Sys Sci 5:979–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ercanoglu M, Dagdelenler G, Ozsayın E, Alkevli T, Sonmez H, Ozyurt NN, Kahraman B, Ucar İ, Cetinkaya S (2016) Application of Chebyshev theorem to data preparation in landslide susceptibility mapping studies: an example from Yenice (Karabuk, Turkey) region. J Mt Sci 13(11):1923–1940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ermini L, Catani F, Casagli N (2005) Artificial Neural Networks applied to landslide susceptibility assessment. Geomorphology 66:327–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fahlman SE (1988) Faster-Learning Variations on Back-Propagation: An Empirical Study. In Proceedings of the 1988 Connectionist Models Summer School, Morgan Kaufmann, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  19. Fell R, Corominas J, Bonnard C, Cascini L, Leroi E, Savage WZ (2008) Guidelines for landslide susceptibility, hazard and risk zoning for land-use planning. Eng Geol 102:99–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. García-Rodríguez MJ, Malpica JA (2010) Assessment of earthquake-triggered landslide susceptibility in El Salvador based on an artificial neural network model. Nat Haz Earth Sys Sci 10:1307–1315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Glade T, Crozier MJ (2005) Landslide hazard and risk—Concluding comment and perspectives. In: Glade T, Anderson M, Crozier M (eds) Landslide hazard and risk. Wiley, Chichester, pp 767–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gomez H, Kavzoglu T (2005) Assessment of shallow landslide susceptibility using artificial neural networks in Jabonosa River Basin, Venezuela. Eng Geol 78:11–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gorum T, Gonencgil B, Gokceoglu C, Nefeslioglu H (2008) Implementation of reconstructed geomorphologic units in landslide susceptibility mapping: the Melen Gorge (NW Turkey). Nat Haz 46(3):323–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Guzzetti F, Reichenbach P, Ardizzonne F, Cardinali M, Galli M (2006) Estimating the quality of landslide susceptibility models. Geomorphology 81:166–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hagan MT, Menhaj MB (1994) Training feedforward networks with the Marquardt algorithm. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 5:989–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hagan MT, Demuth HB, Beale MH (1996) Neural network design. PWS, BostonGoogle Scholar
  27. Hasekiogullari GD, Ercanoglu M (2012) A new approach to use AHP in landslide susceptibility mapping: a case study at Yenice (Karabuk, NW Turkey). Nat Haz 63:1157–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hestenes MR, Stiefel E (1952) Methods of conjugate gradients for solving linear systems. J Res Natl Bur Stand 49:2379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kanungo D, Arora M, Sarkar S, Gupta R (2006) A comparative study of conventional, ANN black box, fuzzy and combined neural and fuzzy weighting procedures for landslide susceptibility zonation in Darjeeling. Eng Geol 85:347–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kawabata D, Bandidas J (2009) Landslide susceptibility mapping using geological data, a DEM from ASTER images and an Artificial Neural Network (ANN). Geomorphology 113:97–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lan HX, Zhou CH, Wang LJ, Zhang HY, Li RH (2004) Landslide hazard spatial analysis and prediction using GIS in the Xiaojiang watershed, Yunnan, China. Engineering Geology 76(1–2):109–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lasko TA, Bhagwat JG, Zou KH, Ohno-Machado L (2005) The use of receiver operating characteristic curves in biomedical informatics. J Biomed Inform 38(5):404–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lee CF, Ye H, Yeung MR, Shan X, Chen G (2001) AIGIS-based methodology for natural terrain landslide susceptibility mapping in Hong Kong. Episodes 24(3)Google Scholar
  34. Lee S, Ryu J-H, Min K, Won J-S (2003) Landslide susceptibility analysis using GIS and artificial neural network. Earth Surf Proc Landf 28:1361–1376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lee S, Ryu J-H, Min K, Won J-S, Park H-J (2004) Determination and application of the weights for landslide susceptibility mapping using an artificial neural network. Eng Geol 71:289–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Li Y, Chen G, Zhou G, Zheng I (2012) Rainfall and earthquake-induced landslide susceptibility assessment using GIS and Artificial Neural Network. Nat Haz Earth Syst Sci 12:2719–2729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lippmann R (1987) An introduction to computing with neural nets. ASSP Mag, IEEECrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McCulloch WS, Pitts W (1990) A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity. Bull Math Biol 52(1/2):99–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. MTA (2002) Geological map of Turkey. General directorate of mineral research and exploration, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  40. Nadim F, Kjekstad O, Peduzzi P, Herold C, Jaedicke C (2006) Global landslide and avalanche hotspots. Landslides 3(2):159–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nauck D, Klawonn F, Kruse R (1997) Foundations of neuro-fuzzy systems. Wiley, New York. ISBN 0471971510Google Scholar
  42. Nefeslioglu HA, Gokceoglu C, Sonmez H (2008) An assessment on the use of logistic regression and artificial neural networks with different sampling strategies for the preparation of landslide susceptibility maps. Eng Geol 97(3/4):171–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Park S, Choi C, Kim B, Kim J (2013) Landslide susceptibility mapping using frequency ratio, analytic hierarchy process, logistic regression, and artificial neural network methods at the Inje area, Korea. Env Earth Sci 68:1443–1464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pradhan B, Lee S (2007) Utilization of optical remote sensing data and GIS tools for regional landslide hazard analysis by using an artificial neural network model. Earth Sci Front 14(6):143–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pradhan B, Lee S, Buchroithnera MF (2010) A GIS-based back-propagation neural network model and its cross-application and validation for landslide susceptibility analyses. Comput Environ Urban Syst 34:216–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ramakrishnan D, Singh TN, Verma AK, Gulati A, Tiwari KC (2013) Soft computing and GIS for landslide susceptibility assessment in Tawaghat area, Kumaon Himalaya, India. Nat Haz 65:315–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Romer C, Ferentinou M (2016) Shallow landslide susceptibility assessment in a semiarid environment- A Quaternary catchment of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Eng Geol 201:29–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rosenblatt F (1958) Theperceptron: aprobabilistic model for information storage and organization in the brain. Psychol Rev 6:386–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ross TJ (1995) Fuzzy logic with engineering applications. Mc-Graw-Hill, New MexicoGoogle Scholar
  50. Rumelhart D, Hinton G, Williams R (1985) Learning internal representations by error propagation. ICS Report 8506Google Scholar
  51. Sejnowski T, Rosenberg C (1987) Parallel networks that learn to pronounce English text. Comp Syst 1(1):145–168Google Scholar
  52. Shanthi D, Sahoo G, Saravanan N (2009) Evolving connection weights of artificial neural networks using genetic algorithm with application to the prediction of stroke disease. Int J Soft Comput 4:95–102Google Scholar
  53. Sooters R, Van Westen CJ (1996) Slope stability recognition analysis and zonation. In: Turner AK, Schuster RI (eds) Landslides: investigation and mitigation, transportation research board special report 247. National Academy Press Washington DC 129–177 ppGoogle Scholar
  54. Suzen ML, Doyuran V (2004) Data driven bivariate landslide susceptibility assessment using geographical information systems: a method and application to Asarsuyu catchment, Turkey. Eng Geol 71:303–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sweet JA (1988) Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 240:1285–1293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Timur E, Aksay A (2002) 1/100.000 scaled geological maps of Turkey, Zonguldak F29 Quadrangle. MTA Institution PublicationGoogle Scholar
  57. Van Den Eeckhaut M, Hervás J (2012) State of the art of national landslide databases in Europe and their potential for assessing landslide susceptibility, hazard and risk. Geomorphology 139–140:545–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Varnes DJ (1978) Slope movement, types and processes. In: Schuster RL, Krizek RJ (eds) Landslides, analysis and control, special report 176: Transportaion research board. National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC, pp 11–33Google Scholar
  59. Wu X, Niu R, Ren F, Peng L (2013) Landslide susceptibility mapping using rough sets and backpropagation neural networks in the Three Gorges, China. Env Earth Sci 70:1307–1318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yesilnacar E, Topal T (2005) Landslide susceptibility mapping: a comparison of logistic regression and neural networks methods in a medium scale study, Hendek region (Turkey). Eng Geol 79:251–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yilmaz I (2009a) Landslide susceptibility mapping using frequency ratio, logistic regression, artificial neural networks and their comparison: a case study from Kat landslides (Tokat-Turkey). Comp and Geosci 35:1125–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Yilmaz I (2009b) Comparison of landslide susceptibility mapping methodologies for Koyulhisar, Turkey: conditional probability, logistic regression, artificial neural networks, and support vector machine. Env Earth Sci 61:821–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Yilmaz I (2010) The effect of the sampling strategies on the landslide susceptibility mapping by conditional probability and artificial neural networks. Env Earth Sci 60:505–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zare M, Pourghasemi HR, Vafakhah M, Pradhan B (2013) Landslide susceptibility mapping at Vaz Watershed (Iran) using an artificial neural network model: a comparison between multilayer perceptron (MLP) and radial basic function (RBF) algorithms. Arab J Geosci 6:2873–2888CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geological Engineering DepartmentHacettepe UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations