Hazard zoning for spatial planning using GIS-based landslide susceptibility assessment: a new hybrid integrated data-driven and knowledge-based model

  • Qadir Ashournejad
  • Ali HosseiniEmail author
  • Biswajeet PradhanEmail author
  • Seyed Javad Hosseini
Original Paper


The popular use of geographical information system (GIS) technology in landslide assessment ensures good, accurate and fast results with less cost and manages mass movements and identifies safe areas for the development of new settlements. In the literature, different methods have been applied in landslide susceptibility assessment using various models. In these studies, the methods are either expert knowledge-based or data-driven approaches. These two approaches produce different outcomes based on their specific characteristics. Thus, the simultaneous use of a set of methods using fusion techniques at the decision-level improves the results. This study aims to investigate and identify a landslide zonation model by combining different methods in GIS and integrate the results (incorporated in the decision level) to achieve optimum accuracy. In this study, landslide hazard mapping was performed using knowledge-based models such as simple additive weighting (SAW) and fuzzy gamma operator and data-driven models namely radial basis function link network (RBFLN) and probabilistic neural network (PNN). Evaluation results indicate that data-driven methods have better performance than knowledge-based methods based on expert opinion. The SAW method also has a better result than other knowledge-based methods, such as fuzzy gamma. The assessment results of the randomly selected landslide control points indicate that PNN, SAW, RBFLN and fuzzy gamma have accuracies of 82.3, 69.62, 65.39 and 61.26% in landslide zoning, respectively. Meanwhile, weighted mean, maximum, median and minimum were used to incorporate the results in decision-level fusion; results show improved accuracies of 70.53, 83.5, 67.39 and 60.27% for each criterion, respectively.


Landslide susceptibility Hazard zoning Data-driven models Knowledge-based models Geographic information system (GIS) 


Author contributions

The manuscript is the final outcome of a close teamwork: individual contributions are not distinguishable. All the authors read and approved the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.


  1. Aghda SF, Bagheri V (2015) Evaluation of earthquake-induced landslides hazard zonation methods: a case study of Sarein, Iran, earthquake (1997). Arab J Geosci 8(9):7207–7227Google Scholar
  2. Akgün A, Türk N (2011) Mapping erosion susceptibility by a multivariate statistical method: a case study from the Ayvalık region, NW Turkey. Computers & geosciences 37(9):1515–1524Google Scholar
  3. Alkhasawneh MS, Ngah UK, Tay LT, Isa M, Ashidi N, Al-Batah MS (2014) Modeling and testing landslide hazard using decision tree. J Appl Math 2014:1–9Google Scholar
  4. Alvioli M, Marchesini I, Reichenbach P, Rossi M, Ardizzone F, Fiorucci F, Guzzetti F (2016) Automatic delineation of geomorphological slope units with r. slopeunits v1. 0 and their optimization for landslide susceptibility modeling. Geosci Model Dev 9(11):3975–3991Google Scholar
  5. Atkinson PM, Massari R (1998) Generalised linear modelling of susceptibility to landsliding in the central Apennines, Italy. Comput Geosci 24(4):373–385Google Scholar
  6. Atkinson PM, Massari R (2011) Autologistic modelling of susceptibility to landsliding in the central Apennines, Italy. Geomorphology 130(1–2):55–64Google Scholar
  7. Avalon Cullen C, Al-Suhili R, Khanbilvardi R (2016) Guidance index for shallow landslide hazard analysis. Remote Sens 8(10):866Google Scholar
  8. Ayalew L, Yamagishi H, Ugawa N (2004) Landslide susceptibility mapping using GIS-based weighted linear combination, the case in Tsugawa area of Agano River, Niigata Prefecture, Japan. Landslides 1(1):73–81Google Scholar
  9. Ayenew T, Barbieri G (2005) Inventory of landslides and susceptibility mapping in the Dessie area, northern Ethiopia. Eng Geol 77(1–2):1–15Google Scholar
  10. Bai SB, Wang J, Lu GN, Zhou PG, Hou SS, Xu SN (2009) GIS-based and data-driven bivariate landslide-susceptibility mapping in the Three Gorges area, China. Pedosphere 19(1):14–20Google Scholar
  11. 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):23–31Google Scholar
  12. Basnet BB, Apan AA, Raine SR (2001) Selecting suitable sites for animal waste application using a raster GIS. Environ Manag 28(4):519–531Google Scholar
  13. Behnia P (2007) Application of radial basis functional link networks to exploration for Proterozoic mineral deposits in Central Iran. Nat Resour Res 16(2):147–155Google Scholar
  14. Bibalani GH, Majnonian B, Adeli E, Sanii H (2006) Slope stabilization with Gleditshia caspica and Parrotia persica. Int J Environ Sci Technol 2(4):381–385Google Scholar
  15. Bui DT, Ho TC, Pradhan B, Pham BT, Nhu VH, Revhaug I (2016) GIS-based modeling of rainfall-induced landslides using data mining-based functional trees classifier with AdaBoost, Bagging, and MultiBoost ensemble frameworks. Environ Earth Sci 75(14):1101Google Scholar
  16. Bui DT, Nguyen QP, Hoang ND, Klempe H (2017) A novel fuzzy K-nearest neighbor inference model with differential evolution for spatial prediction of rainfall-induced shallow landslides in a tropical hilly area using GIS. Landslides 14(1):1–17Google Scholar
  17. Chalkias C, Ferentinou M, Polykretis C (2014) GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping on the Peloponnese Peninsula, Greece. Geosciences 4(3):176–190Google Scholar
  18. Chen Z, Wang J (2007) Landslide hazard mapping using logistic regression model in Mackenzie Valley, Canada. Nat Hazards 42(1):75–89Google Scholar
  19. Chen W, Panahi M, Pourghasemi HR (2017a) Performance evaluation of GIS-based new ensemble data mining techniques of adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) with genetic algorithm (GA), differential evolution (DE), and particle swarm optimization (PSO) for landslide spatial modelling. Catena 157:310–324Google Scholar
  20. Chen W, Pourghasemi HR, Zhao Z (2017b) A GIS-based comparative study of Dempster-Shafer, logistic regression and artificial neural network models for landslide susceptibility mapping. Geocarto International 32(4):367–385Google Scholar
  21. Chen W, Peng J, Hong H, Shahabi H, Pradhan B, Liu J, Zhu AX, Pei X, Duan Z (2018a) Landslide susceptibility modelling using GIS-based machine learning techniques for Chongren County, Jiangxi Province, China. Sci Total Environ 626:1121–1135Google Scholar
  22. Chen W, Xie X, Peng J, Shahabi H, Hong H, Bui DT, Li S, Zhu AX (2018b) GIS-based landslide susceptibility evaluation using a novel hybrid integration approach of bivariate statistical based random forest method. Catena 164:135–149Google Scholar
  23. 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 113:236–250Google Scholar
  24. Constantin M, Bednarik M, Jurchescu MC, Vlaicu M (2011) Landslide susceptibility assessment using the bivariate statistical analysis and the index of entropy in the Sibiciu Basin (Romania). Environmental earth sciences 63(2):397–406Google Scholar
  25. Corominas J, & Mavrouli J (2011). Living with landslide risk in Europe: assessment, effects of global change, and risk management strategies. Guidelines for landslide susceptibility, hazard and risk zoning. Documento técnico, SafeLand. 7th Framework Programme Cooperation Theme 6 Environment (including climate change) Sub-Activity 6.1.3 Natural HazardsGoogle Scholar
  26. Corsini A, Cervi F, Ronchetti F (2009) Weight of evidence and artificial neural networks for potential groundwater spring mapping: an application to the Mt. Modino area (Northern Apennines, Italy). Geomorphology 111(1–2):79–87Google Scholar
  27. Couture R (2011) Landslide terminology—national technical guidelines and best practices on landslides. Geological Survey of Canada, p. 12Google Scholar
  28. Daneshvar MRM, Bagherzadeh A (2011) Landslide hazard zonation assessment using GIS analysis at Golmakan watershed, northeast of Iran. Front Earth Sci 5(1):70–81Google Scholar
  29. Erener A, Mutlu A, Düzgün HS (2016) A comparative study for landslide susceptibility mapping using GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), logistic regression (LR) and association rule mining (ARM). Eng Geol 203:45–55Google Scholar
  30. Fabbri AG, Chung CJF, Cendrero A, Remondo J (2003) Is prediction of future landslides possible with a GIS? Nat Hazards 30(3):487–503Google Scholar
  31. Feizizadeh B, Roodposhti MS, Jankowski P, Blaschke T (2014) A GIS-based extended fuzzy multi-criteria evaluation for landslide susceptibility mapping. Comput Geosci 73:208–221Google Scholar
  32. 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(3):85–98Google Scholar
  33. Fernández DS, Lutz MA (2010) Urban flood hazard zoning in Tucumán Province, Argentina, using GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. Eng Geol 111(1–4):90–98Google Scholar
  34. Gupta RP, Joshi BC (1990) Landslide hazard zoning using the GIS approach—a case study from the Ramganga catchment, Himalayas. Eng Geol 28(1–2):119–131Google Scholar
  35. Guzzetti F, Reichenbach P, Ardizzone F, Cardinali M, Galli M (2006) Estimating the quality of landslide susceptibility models. Geomorphology 81(1–2):166–184Google Scholar
  36. Hamza T, Raghuvanshi TK (2017) GIS based landslide hazard evaluation and zonation—a case from Jeldu District, Central Ethiopia. J King Saud Univ-Sci 29(2):151–165Google Scholar
  37. Hong Y, Adler R, Huffman G (2007) Use of satellite remote sensing data in the mapping of global landslide susceptibility. Nat Hazards 43(2):245–256Google Scholar
  38. Huabin W, Gangjun L, Weiya X, Gonghui W (2005) GIS-based landslide hazard assessment: an overview. Prog Phys Geogr 29(4):548–567Google Scholar
  39. Jaafari A, Najafi A, Pourghasemi HR, Rezaeian J, Sattarian A (2014) GIS-based frequency ratio and index of entropy models for landslide susceptibility assessment in the Caspian forest, northern Iran. Int J Environ Sci Technol 11(4):909–926Google Scholar
  40. Kavzoglu T, Sahin EK, Colkesen I (2014) Landslide susceptibility mapping using GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis, support vector machines, and logistic regression. Landslides 11(3):425–439Google Scholar
  41. Kayastha P, Dhital MR, De Smedt F (2013) Application of the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) for landslide susceptibility mapping: a case study from the Tinau watershed, west Nepal. Comput Geosci 52:398–408Google Scholar
  42. 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(4):745–756Google Scholar
  43. Kuncheva LI, Bezdek JC, Duin RP (2001) Decision templates for multiple classifier fusion: an experimental comparison. Pattern Recogn 34(2):299–314Google Scholar
  44. 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. Eng Geol 76(1–2):109–128Google Scholar
  45. Lee S (2007) Application and verification of fuzzy algebraic operators to landslide susceptibility mapping. Environ Geol 52(4):615–623Google Scholar
  46. Lee S, Min K (2001) Statistical analysis of landslide susceptibility at Yongin, Korea. Environ Geol 40(9):1095–1113Google Scholar
  47. Lee S, Ryu JH, Won JS, Park HJ (2004) Determination and application of the weights for landslide susceptibility mapping using an artificial neural network. Eng Geol 71(3–4):289–302Google Scholar
  48. Leite EP, de Souza Filho CR (2009) Probabilistic neural networks applied to mineral potential mapping for platinum group elements in the Serra Leste region, Carajás Mineral Province, Brazil. Comput Geosci 35(3):675–687Google Scholar
  49. Lepore C, Kamal SA, Shanahan P, Bras RL (2012) Rainfall-induced landslide susceptibility zonation of Puerto Rico. Environ Earth Sci 66(6):1667–1681Google Scholar
  50. Ließ M, Glaser B, Huwe B (2012) Uncertainty in the spatial prediction of soil texture: comparison of regression tree and Random Forest models. Geoderma 170:70–79Google Scholar
  51. Looney CG (2002) Radial basis functional link nets and fuzzy reasoning. Neurocomputing 48(1–4):489–509Google Scholar
  52. Machiwal D, Rangi N, Sharma A (2015) Integrated knowledge-and data-driven approaches for groundwater potential zoning using GIS and multi-criteria decision making techniques on hard-rock terrain of Ahar catchment, Rajasthan, India. Environ Earth Sci 73(4):1871–1892Google Scholar
  53. Maharaj RJ (1993) Landslide processes and landslide susceptibility analysis from an upland watershed: a case study from St. Andrew, Jamaica, West Indies. Eng Geol 34(1–2):53–79Google Scholar
  54. Marinoni O (2004) Implementation of the analytical hierarchy process with VBA in ArcGIS. Comput Geosci 30(6):637–646Google Scholar
  55. Melchiorre C, Matteucci M, Azzoni A, Zanchi A (2008) Artificial neural networks and cluster analysis in landslide susceptibility zonation. Geomorphology 94(3–4):379–400Google Scholar
  56. Nazmfar H, Behesti A (2016) Application of combined model analytical network process and fuzzy logic models in landslide susceptibility zonation (case study: Chellichay catchment). Geogr Environ Plan 27(1):53–68Google Scholar
  57. Nefeslioglu HA, Sezer E, Gokceoglu C, Bozkir AS, Duman TY (2010) Assessment of landslide susceptibility by decision trees in the metropolitan area of Istanbul, Turkey. Math Probl Eng 2010:1–15Google Scholar
  58. Neuhäuser B, Damm B, Terhorst B (2012) GIS-based assessment of landslide susceptibility on the base of the weights-of-evidence model. Landslides 9(4):511–528Google Scholar
  59. Nykänen V (2008) Radial basis functional link nets used as a prospectivity mapping tool for orogenic gold deposits within the Central Lapland Greenstone Belt, Northern Fennoscandian Shield. Nat Resour Res 17(1):29–48Google Scholar
  60. Osna T, Sezer EA, Akgun A (2014) GeoFIS: an integrated tool for the assessment of landslide susceptibility. Comput Geosci 66:20–30Google Scholar
  61. Ozdemir A, Altural T (2013) A comparative study of frequency ratio, weights of evidence and logistic regression methods for landslide susceptibility mapping: Sultan Mountains, SW Turkey. J Asian Earth Sci 64:180–197Google Scholar
  62. Park I, Lee S (2014) Spatial prediction of landslide susceptibility using a decision tree approach: a case study of the Pyeongchang area, Korea. Int J Remote Sens 35(16):6089–6112Google Scholar
  63. Perotto-Baldiviezo HL, Thurow TL, Smith CT, Fisher RF, Wu XB (2004) GIS-based spatial analysis and modeling for landslide hazard assessment in steeplands, southern Honduras. Agric Ecosyst Environ 103(1):165–176Google Scholar
  64. Pham BT, Prakash I, Bui DT (2018) Spatial prediction of landslides using a hybrid machine learning approach based on random subspace and classification and regression trees. Geomorphology 303:256–270Google Scholar
  65. Pourghasemi HR, Pradhan B, & Gokceoglu C (2012). Remote sensing data derived parameters and its use in landslide susceptibility assessment using Shannon’s entropy and GIS. In Applied Mechanics and Materials. Trans Tech Publications (Vol. 225, pp. 486–491)Google Scholar
  66. Pradhan B (2011) Use of GIS-based fuzzy logic relations and its cross application to produce landslide susceptibility maps in three test areas in Malaysia. Environ Earth Sci 63(2):329–349Google Scholar
  67. Radiarta IN, Saitoh SI, Miyazono A (2008) GIS-based multi-criteria evaluation models for identifying suitable sites for Japanese scallop (Mizuhopecten yessoensis) aquaculture in Funka Bay, southwestern Hokkaido, Japan. Aquaculture 284(1–4):127–135Google Scholar
  68. Raja NB, Çiçek I, Türkoğlu N, Aydin O, Kawasaki A (2017) Landslide susceptibility mapping of the Sera River Basin using logistic regression model. Nat Hazards 85(3):1323–1346Google Scholar
  69. Reichenbach P, Mondini AC, Rossi M (2014) The influence of land use change on landslide susceptibility zonation: the Briga catchment test site (Messina, Italy). Environ Manag 54(6):1372–1384Google Scholar
  70. Reichenbach P, Rossi M, Malamud B, Mihir M, Guzzetti F (2018) A review of statistically-based landslide susceptibility models. Earth Sci Rev 180:60–91Google Scholar
  71. Roodposhti MS, Rahimi S, Beglou MJ (2014) PROMETHEE II and fuzzy AHP: an enhanced GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping. Nat Hazards 73(1):77–95Google Scholar
  72. Ruff M, Czurda K (2008) Landslide susceptibility analysis with a heuristic approach in the Eastern Alps (Vorarlberg, Austria). Geomorphology 94(3):314–324Google Scholar
  73. Saaty TL (2003) Decision-making with the AHP: why is the principal eigenvector necessary. Eur J Oper Res 145(1):85–91Google Scholar
  74. Saaty TL, & Vargas LG (1991). Prediction, projection, and forecasting: applications of the analytic hierarchy process in economics, finance, politics, games, and sports. Kluwer AcademicGoogle Scholar
  75. Sabokbar HF, Roodposhti MS, Tazik E (2014) Landslide susceptibility mapping using geographically-weighted principal component analysis. Geomorphology 226:15–24Google Scholar
  76. Sadeghi B, Khalajmasoumi M (2015) A futuristic review for evaluation of geothermal potentials using fuzzy logic and binary index overlay in GIS environment. Renew Sust Energ Rev 43:818–831Google Scholar
  77. Samodra G, Chen G, Sartohadi J, Kasama K (2017) Comparing data-driven landslide susceptibility models based on participatory landslide inventory mapping in Purwosari area, Yogyakarta, Java. Environ Earth Sci 76(4):184Google Scholar
  78. Schuster RL, 1996. Socioeconomic significance of landslides. In: Turner AK, Schuster RL (Eds.), Landslides: investigation and mitigation, Chapter 2, special report 247. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp. 12–35Google Scholar
  79. Shahabi H, Hashim M (2015) Landslide susceptibility mapping using GIS-based statistical models and remote sensing data in tropical environment. Sci Rep 5:9899Google Scholar
  80. Smith K (2013). Environmental hazards: assessing risk and reducing disaster. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  81. Srivastava V, Srivastava HB, Lakhera RC (2010) Fuzzy gamma based geomatic modelling for landslide hazard susceptibility in a part of Tons river valley, northwest Himalaya, India. Geomat Nat Haz Risk 1(3):225–242Google Scholar
  82. Stavrakoudis DG, Dragozi E, Gitas IZ, Karydas CG (2014) Decision fusion based on hyperspectral and multispectral satellite imagery for accurate forest species mapping. Remote Sensing 6(8):6897–6928Google Scholar
  83. Süzen 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(3–4):303–321Google Scholar
  84. Tangestani MH (2004) Landslide susceptibility mapping using the fuzzy gamma approach in a GIS, Kakan catchment area, southwest Iran. Aust J Earth Sci 51(3):439–450Google Scholar
  85. Thanh LN, De Smedt F (2012) Application of an analytical hierarchical process approach for landslide susceptibility mapping in A Luoi district, Thua Thien Hue Province, Vietnam. Environ Earth Sci 66(7):1739–1752Google Scholar
  86. Tissari S, Nykänen V, Lerssi J, Kolehmainen M (2007) Classification of soil groups using weights-of-evidence-method and RBFLN-neural nets. Nat Resour Res 16(2):159–169Google Scholar
  87. 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):1101–1114Google Scholar
  88. 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):141–155Google Scholar
  89. Van Westen CJ, Van Asch TW, Soeters R (2006) Landslide hazard and risk zonation—why is it still so difficult? Bull Eng Geol Environ 65(2):167–184Google Scholar
  90. Wang G, Zhang S, Yan C, Song Y, Sun Y, Li D, Xu F (2011) Mineral potential targeting and resource assessment based on 3D geological modeling in Luanchuan region, China. Comput Geosci 37(12):1976–1988Google Scholar
  91. Weirich F, Blesius L (2007) Comparison of satellite and air photo based landslide susceptibility maps. Geomorphology 87(4):352–364Google Scholar
  92. Yalcin A (2008) GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping using analytical hierarchy process and bivariate statistics in Ardesen (Turkey): comparisons of results and confirmations. Catena 72(1):1–12Google Scholar
  93. 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(3–4):251–266Google Scholar
  94. 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). Comput Geosci 35(6):1125–1138Google Scholar
  95. Yoshimatsu 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(2):149–158Google Scholar
  96. Yu X, Wang Y, Niu R, Hu Y (2016) A combination of geographically weighted regression, particle swarm optimization and support vector machine for landslide susceptibility mapping: a case study at Wanzhou in the Three Gorges Area, China. Int J Environ Res Public Health 13(5):487Google Scholar
  97. Zêzere JL, Pereira S, Melo R, Oliveira SC, Garcia RAC (2017) Mapping landslide susceptibility using data-driven methods. Sci Total Environ 589:250–267Google Scholar
  98. Zhang K, Wu X, Niu R, Yang K, Zhao L (2017) The assessment of landslide susceptibility mapping using random forest and decision tree methods in the Three Gorges Reservoir area, China. Environ Earth Sci 76(11):405Google Scholar
  99. Zhao H, Yao L, Mei G, Liu T, Ning Y (2017) A fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method based on AHP and entropy for a landslide susceptibility map. Entropy 19(8):396Google Scholar
  100. Zhu AX, Wang RX, Qiao JP, Qin CZ, Chen YB, Liu J, Du F, Yang L, Zhu TX (2014) An expert knowledge-based model to landslide susceptibility mapping using GIS and fuzzy logic. Geomorphology 214:128–138Google Scholar
  101. Zhu AX, Miao Y, Wang R, Zhu T, Deng Y, Liu J, Yang L, Qin CZ, Hong H (2018) A comparative study of an expert knowledge-based model and two data-driven models for landslide susceptibility mapping. Catena 166:317–327Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Remote Sensing and GISUniversity of TehranTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of Geography and Urban PlanningUniversity of TehranTehranIran
  3. 3.The Centre for Advanced Modelling and Geospatial Information Systems (CAMGIS), Faculty of Engineering and ITUniversity of Technology SydneySydneyAustralia
  4. 4.Department of Physical GeographyUniversity of TehranTehranIran

Personalised recommendations