Point process-based modeling of multiple debris flow landslides using INLA: an application to the 2009 Messina disaster

  • Luigi LombardoEmail author
  • Thomas Opitz
  • Raphaël Huser
Original Paper


We develop a stochastic modeling approach based on spatial point processes of log-Gaussian Cox type for a collection of around 5000 landslide events provoked by a precipitation trigger in Sicily, Italy. Through the embedding into a hierarchical Bayesian estimation framework, we can use the integrated nested Laplace approximation methodology to make inference and obtain the posterior estimates of spatially distributed covariate and random effects. Several mapping units are useful to partition a given study area in landslide prediction studies. These units hierarchically subdivide the geographic space from the highest grid-based resolution to the stronger morphodynamic-oriented slope units. Here we integrate both mapping units into a single hierarchical model, by treating the landslide triggering locations as a random point pattern. This approach diverges fundamentally from the unanimously used presence–absence structure for areal units since we focus on modeling the expected landslide count jointly within the two mapping units. Predicting this landslide intensity provides more detailed and complete information as compared to the classically used susceptibility mapping approach based on relative probabilities. To illustrate the model’s versatility, we compute absolute probability maps of landslide occurrences and check their predictive power over space. While the landslide community typically produces spatial predictive models for landslides only in the sense that covariates are spatially distributed, no actual spatial dependence has been explicitly integrated so far. Our novel approach features a spatial latent effect defined at the slope unit level, allowing us to assess the spatial influence that remains unexplained by the covariates in the model. For rainfall-induced landslides in regions where the raingauge network is not sufficient to capture the spatial distribution of the triggering precipitation event, this latent effect provides valuable imaging support on the unobserved rainfall pattern.


Integrated nested Laplace approximation Landslide susceptibility Log-Gaussian Cox process Mapping units Spatial point pattern 



Part of the satellite images used to generate the landslide inventory were obtained thanks to the European Space Agency Project (ID: 14151) titled: A remote sensing based approach for storm triggered debris flow hazard modelling: application in Mediterranean and tropical Pacific areas. Principal Investigator: Dr. Luigi Lombardo.

Supplementary material

477_2018_1518_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (155 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 154 KB)


  1. 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):3975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnone E, Francipane A, Scarbaci A, Puglisi C, Noto L (2016) Effect of raster resolution and polygon-conversion algorithm on landslide susceptibility mapping. Environ Model Softw 84:467–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aronica G, Brigandí G, Morey N (2012) Flash floods and debris flow in the city area of Messina, north-east part of Sicily, Italy in October 2009: the case of the Giampilieri catchment. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 12(5):1295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Besag J (1975) Statistical analysis of non-lattice data. Statistician 24(3):179–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brenning A (2005) Spatial prediction models for landslide hazards: review, comparison and evaluation. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 5(6):853–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brenning A (2008) Statistical geocomputing combining R and SAGA: the example of landslide susceptibility analysis with generalized additive models. SAGA Seconds Out 19:23–32Google Scholar
  7. Cama M, Lombardo L, Conoscenti C, Agnesi V, Rotigliano E (2015) Predicting storm-triggered debris flow events: application to the 2009 Ionian Peloritan disaster (Sicily, Italy). Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 15(8):1785–1806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cama M, Conoscenti C, Lombardo L, Rotigliano E (2016) Exploring relationships between grid cell size and accuracy for debris-flow susceptibility models: a test in the Giampilieri catchment (Sicily, Italy). Environ Earth Sci 75(3):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cama M, Lombardo L, Conoscenti C, Rotigliano E (2017) Improving transferability strategies for debris flow susceptibility assessment: application to the Saponara and Itala catchments (Messina, Italy). Geomorphology 288:52–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carrara A, Cardinali M, Guzzetti F, Reichenbach P (1995) GIS technology in mapping landslide hazard. In Geographical information systems in assessing natural hazards. Springer, pp 135–175Google Scholar
  11. Castro Camilo D, Lombardo L, Mai P, Dou J, Huser R (2017) Handling high predictor dimensionality in slope-unit-based landslide susceptibility models through LASSO-penalized generalized linear model. Environ Model Softw 97:145–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen W, Pourghasemi HR, Kornejady A, Zhang N (2017) Landslide spatial modeling: introducing new ensembles of ANN, MaxEnt, and SVM machine learning techniques. Geoderma 305:314–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Conoscenti C, Rotigliano E, Cama M, Caraballo-Arias NA, Lombardo L, Agnesi V (2016) Exploring the effect of absence selection on landslide susceptibility models: a case study in Sicily, Italy. Geomorphology 261:222–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cressie NAC (1993) Statistics for spatial data. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cressie NAC, Wikle CK (2011) Statistics for spatio-temporal data. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  16. De Guidi G et al (2013) Landslide susceptibility assessment in the Peloritani Mts.(Sicily, Italy) and clues for tectonic control of relief processes. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 13(4):949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Devkota KC, Regmi AD, Pourghasemi HR, Yoshida K, Pradhan B, Ryu IC, Dhital MR, Althuwaynee OF (2013) Landslide susceptibility mapping using certainty factor, index of entropy and logistic regression models in GIS and their comparison at Mugling-Narayanghat road section in Nepal Himalaya. Nat Hazards 65(1):135–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Di Stefano P, Favara R, Luzio D, Renda P, Cacciatore M, Cal M, Napoli G, Parisi L, Todaro S, Zarcone G (2015) A regional-scale discontinuity in western Sicily revealed by a multidisciplinary approach: a new piece for understanding the geodynamic puzzle of the southern Mediterranean. Tectonics 34(10):2067–2085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Diggle PJ, Ribeiro PJ (2007) Model-based geostatistics. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Elkadiri R, Sultan M, Youssef AM, Elbayoumi T, Chase R, Bulkhi AB, Al-Katheeri MM (2014) A remote sensing-based approach for debris-flow susceptibility assessment using artificial neural networks and logistic regression modeling. IEEE J Sel Top Appl Earth Obs Remote Sens 7(12):4818–4835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Erener A, Düzgün H (2012) Landslide susceptibility assessment: what are the effects of mapping unit and mapping method? Environ Earth Sci 66(3):859–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gabriel E, Opitz T, Bonneu F (2017) Detecting and modeling multi-scale space-time structures: the case of wildfire occurrences. J French Stat Soc (Special Issue on Space-Time Statistics) 158(3):86–105Google Scholar
  23. Giunta G, Somma R (1996) Nuove osservazioni sulla struttura dell’Unità di Alì (M. ti Peloritani, Sicilia). Bollettino della Società geologica italiana 115(3):489–500Google Scholar
  24. Goetz JN, Guthrie RH, Brenning A (2011) Integrating physical and empirical landslide susceptibility models using generalized additive models. Geomorphology 129(3):376–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gómez-Rubio V, Cameletti M, Finazzi F (2015) Analysis of massive marked point patterns with stochastic partial differential equations. Spat Stat 14:179–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hastie T, Tibshirani R (1990) Generalized additive models. Wiley Online Library, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  27. Heckmann T, Gegg K, Gegg A, Becht M (2014) Sample size matters: investigating the effect of sample size on a logistic regression susceptibility model for debris flows. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 14(2):259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (2000) Applied logistic regression. John Wiley & sons, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Illian JB, Sørbye SH, Rue H et al (2012) A toolbox for fitting complex spatial point process models using integrated nested Laplace approximation (INLA). Ann Appl Stat 6(4):1499–1530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Imaizumi F, Sidle RC, Tsuchiya S, Ohsaka O (2006) Hydrogeomorphic processes in a steep debris flow initiation zone. Geophysical Research Letters 33(10):L10404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lenzi A, Pinson P, Clemmensen LH, Guillot G (2017) Spatial models for probabilistic prediction of wind power with application to annual-average and high temporal resolution data. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 31(7):1615–1631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lombardo L, Cama M, Maerker M, Rotigliano E (2014) A test of transferability for landslides susceptibility models under extreme climatic events: application to the Messina 2009 disaster. Nat Hazards 74(3):1951–1989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lombardo L, Cama M, Conoscenti C, Märker M, Rotigliano E (2015) Binary logistic regression versus stochastic gradient boosted decision trees in assessing landslide susceptibility for multiple-occurring landslide events: application to the 2009 storm event in Messina (Sicily, southern Italy). Nat Hazards 79(3):1621–1648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lombardo L, Bachofer F, Cama M, Märker M, Rotigliano E (2016a) Exploiting maximum entropy method and ASTER data for assessing debris flow and debris slide susceptibility for the Giampilieri catchment (north-eastern Sicily, Italy). Earth Surf Proc Land 41(12):1776–1789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lombardo L, Fubelli G, Amato G, Bonasera M (2016b) Presence-only approach to assess landslide triggering-thickness susceptibility: a test for the Mili catchment (north-eastern Sicily, Italy). Nat Hazards 84(1):565–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lombardo L, Saia S, Schillaci C, Mai PM, Huser R (2018) Modeling soil organic carbon with quantile regression: dissecting predictors’ effects on carbon stocks. Geoderma 318:148–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Malamud BD, Turcotte DL, Guzzetti F, Reichenbach P (2004) Landslide inventories and their statistical properties. Earth Surf Proc Land 29(6):687–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Møller J, Syversveen AR, Waagepetersen RP (1998) Log Gaussian Cox processes. Scand J Stat 25(3):451–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Opitz T (2017) Latent Gaussian modeling and INLA: a review with focus on space-time applications. J French Stat Soc (Special Issue on Space-Time Statistics) 158(3):62–65Google Scholar
  40. Ostrouchov G, Doll WE, Beard LP, Morris MD, Wolf DA (2009) Multiscale structure of UXO site characterization: spatial estimation and uncertainty quantification. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 23(2):215–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Petschko H, Brenning A, Bell R, Goetz J, Glade T (2014) Assessing the quality of landslide susceptibility maps-case study Lower Austria. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 14(1):95–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pisano L, Zumpano V, Malek Ž, Rosskopf C, Parise M (2017) Variations in the susceptibility to landslides, as a consequence of land cover changes: a look to the past, and another towards the future. Sci Total Environ 601:1147–1159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pourghasemi HR, Mohammady M, Pradhan B (2012) Landslide susceptibility mapping using index of entropy and conditional probability models in GIS: Safarood Basin, Iran. Catena 97:71–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reichenbach P, Mondini A, Rossi M et al (2014) The influence of land use change on landslide susceptibility zonation: the Briga catchment test site (Messina, Italy). Environ Manag 54(6):1372–1384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rossi M, Reichenbach P (2016) LAND-SE: a software for statistically based landslide susceptibility zonation, version 1.0. Geosci Model Dev 9(10):3533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rue H, Held L (2005) Gaussian Markov random fields: theory and applications. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rue H, Martino S, Chopin N (2009) Approximate Bayesian inference for latent Gaussian models by using integrated nested Laplace approximations. J R Stat Soc B 71(2):319–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rue H, Riebler A, Sørbye SH, Illian JB, Simpson DP, Lindgren FK (2016) Bayesian computing with INLA: a review. Annu Rev Stat Appl 4:395–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schillaci C, Acutis M, Lombardo L, Lipani A, Fantappiè M, Märker M, Saia S (2017a) Spatio-temporal topsoil organic carbon mapping of a semi-arid mediterranean region: the role of land use, soil texture, topographic indices and the influence of remote sensing data to modelling. Sci Total Environ 601:821–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schillaci C, Lombardo L, Saia S, Fantappiè M, Märker M, Acutis M (2017b) Modelling the topsoil carbon stock of agricultural lands with the stochastic gradient treeboost in a semi-arid mediterranean region. Geoderma 286:35–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Simpson D, Illian J, Lindgren F, Sørbye S, Rue H (2016) Going off grid: computationally efficient inference for log-Gaussian Cox processes. Biometrika 103(1):49–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Somma R, Messina A, Mazzoli S (2005) Syn-orogenic extension in the Peloritani Alpine thrust belt (NE Sicily, Italy): evidence from the Alì unit. CR Geosci 337(9):861–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stein ML (1999) Interpolation of spatial data: some theory for kriging, 1st edn. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Taylor BM, Diggle PJ (2014) INLA or MCMC? A tutorial and comparative evaluation for spatial prediction in log-Gaussian Cox processes. J Stat Comput Simul 84(10):2266–2284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tierney L, Kadane JB (1986) Accurate approximations for posterior moments and marginal densities. J Am Stat Assoc 81(393):82–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Torizin J (2016) Elimination of informational redundancy in the weight of evidence method: an application to landslide susceptibility assessment. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 30(2):635–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Van Westen C (1997) Statistical landslide hazard analysis. ILWIS 2:73–84Google Scholar
  58. Wackernagel H (2003) Multivariate geostatistics, 3rd edn. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zini A, Grauso S, Verrubbi V, Falconi L, Leoni G, Puglisi C (2015) The RUSLE erosion index as a proxy indicator for debris flow susceptibility. Landslides 12(5):847–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer, Electrical and Mathematical Sciences and Engineering (CEMSE) DivisionKing Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST)ThuwalSaudi Arabia
  2. 2.Physical Sciences and Engineering (PSE) DivisionKing Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST)ThuwalSaudi Arabia
  3. 3.UR546 Biostatistics and Spatial ProcessesINRAAvignonFrance

Personalised recommendations