Advertisement

Journal of Mountain Science

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 721–736 | Cite as

Landslide susceptibility mapping by using landslide ratio-based logistic regression: A case study in the southern Taiwan

  • Chun-Hung WuEmail author
Article

Abstract

The object of the research is to compare the model performance and explain the error source of original logistic regression landslide susceptibility model (abbreviated as or-LRLSM) and landslide ratio-based logistic regression landslide susceptibility model (abbreviated as lr-LRLSM) in the Chishan watershed with a serious landslide disaster after 2009 Typhoon Morakot. The landslide inventory induced by 2009 Typhoon Morakot in South Taiwan is the main research material, while the Chishan watershed is the research area. Six variables, including elevation, slope, aspect, geological formation, accumulated rainfall, and bank erosion, were included in the two models. The performance of lr-LRLSM is better than that of or-LRLSM. The Cox & Snell R 2, Nagelkerke R 2 value, and the area under the relative operating characteristic curve (abbreviated as AUC) of lr-LRLSM is larger than those of or-LRLSM, and the average correct ratio for the lr-LRLSM to predict landslide or non-landslide is larger than that of or-LRLSM by 5.0%. The increase of the average correct ratio (abbreviated as ACR) difference from or-LRLSM to lr-LRLSM shows in slope, revised accumulated rainfall, aspect, geological formation and bank erosion variables, and only light decreases in elevation variable. The error sources of continuous variables in building the or-LRLSM is the dissimilarity between the distribution of landslide ratio and production of coefficient and characteristic values, while those of categorical variables is due to low correlation of landslide ratio and the coefficient value of each parameter. Using the classification of landslide ratio as the database to build logistic regression landslide susceptibility model (abbreviated as LRLSM) can revise the errors. The comparison of or-LRLSM and lr-LRLSM in the Chishan watershed also shows that building the landslide susceptibility model (abbreviated as LSM) by using lr-LRLSM is practical and of better performance than that by using the or-LRLSM.

Keywords

Logistic regression Landslide susceptibility Landslide ratio Chishan watershed Typhoon Morakot 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Carrara A, Cardinali M, Guzzetti F, Reichenbach P (1995) GIS technology in mapping landslide hazard. Geographical Information Systems in Assessing Natural Hazards: 135-175. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-015-8404-3_8Google Scholar
  2. Central Geological Survey (2009). The topographic and geological database. Central Geological Survey, Taiwan. Available online at: http://gwh.moeacgs.gov.tw/mp/Portal/index.cfm (Accessed on 22 November 2014)Google Scholar
  3. Chang KT, Chiang SH, Hsu ML (2007) Modeling typhoon- and earthquake-induced landslides in a mountainous watershed using logistic regression. Geomorphology 89: 335–347. DOI: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.12.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen SC, Chou HT, Chen SC, Wu CH, Lin BS (2014) Characteristics of rainfall-induced landslides in Miocene formations: A case study of the Shenmu watershed, Central Taiwan. Engineering Geology 169: 133–146. DOI: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2013.11.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dai FC, Lee CF (2002) Landslide characteristics and slope instability modeling using GIS, Lantau Island, Hong Kong. Geomorphology 42: 213–228. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-555X(01)00087-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Felicisimo A, Cuartero A, Remondo J, Quiros E (2013) Mapping landslide susceptibility with logistic regression, multiple adaptive regression splines, classification and regression tress, and maximum entropy methods: a comparative study. Landslide 10:175–189. DOI: 10.1007/s10346-012-0320-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Guzzetti F, Carrara A, Cardinali M, Reichenbach P (1999) Landslide hazard evaluation: a review of current techniques and their application in a multi-scale study, Central Italy. Geomorphology 31: 181–216. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-555X(99) 00078-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (2000) Applied Logistic Regression, New York, America. Wiley-Interscience Publiction.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hung JJ, Hung PY (2003) Carbon and nutrient dynamics in a hypertrophic lagoon in southwestern Taiwan. Journal of Marine Systems 42: 97–114. DOI: 10.1016/S0924-7963(03) 00069-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Keijsersa JGS, Schoorla JM, Chang KT, Chiang SH, Claessensa L, Veldkampa A (2011) Calibration and resolution effects on model performance for predicting shallow landslide locations in Taiwan. Geomorphology 133: 168–177. DOI: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.03.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lee CT, Huang CC, Lee JF, Pan KL, Lin ML, Dong JJ (2008) Statistical approach to earthquake-induced landslide susceptibility. Engineering Geology 100: 43–58. DOI: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2008.03.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lee CT, Fei LY (2014) Nationwide landslide hazard analysis and mapping in Taiwan. Engineering Geology for Society and Territory 2: 971–974. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-09057-3_169Google Scholar
  13. Liu JT, Liu KJ, Huang JC (2002) The effect of a submarine canyon on the river sediment dispersal and inner shelf sediment movements in southern Taiwan. Marine Geology 181: 357–386. DOI: 10.1016/S0025-3227(01)00219-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lombardo L, Cama M, Maerker M, et al. (2014) A test of transferability for landslides susceptibility models under extreme climatic events: application to the Messina 2009 disaster. Natural Hazards 74: 1951–1989. DOI: 10.1007/s11069-014-1285-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Milliman JD, Syyitski JPM (1992) Geomorphic/tectonic control of sediment discharge to the ocean: the importance of small mountainous rivers. Journal of Geology 100: 525–544. DOI: 10.1086/629606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 64: 180–197. DOI: 10.1016/j.jseaes.2012.12.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wang LJ, Sawada K, Moriguchi S (2013) Landslide susceptibility analysis with logistic regression model based on FCM sampling strategy. Computers & Geosciences 57: 81–92. DOI: doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2013.04.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pietro A (2004) A warning system for rainfall-induced shallow failures. Engineering Geology 73: 247–265. DOI: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2004.01.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pontius RG, Batchu K (2003) Using the relative operating characteristic to quantify certainty in prediction of location of land cover change in India. Transactions in GIS 7: 467–484. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9671.00159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shiu CJ, Liu SC, Chen JP (2009) Diurnally asymmetric trends of temperature, humidity, and precipitation in Taiwan. Journal of Climate 22: 5635–5649. DOI: 10.1175/2009JCLI2514.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Soil and Water Conservation Bureau (2014) Debris flow disaster prevention information. Soil and Water Conservation Bureau, Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan, Chinese Taipei. Available online at: http://246eng.swcb.gov.tw/ (Accessed on 15 November 2014)Google Scholar
  22. Su FH, Cui P, Zhang JQ, Xiang LZ (2010) Susceptibility assessment of landslides caused by the wenchuan earthquake using a logistic regression model. Journal of Mountain Science 7: 234–245. DOI: 10.1007/s11629-010-2015-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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: 190–204. DOI: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2009.06.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wu CH, Chen SC, Chou HT (2011) Geomorphologic Characteristics of Catastrophic Landslides during Typhoon Morakot in the Kaoping Watershed, Taiwan. Engineering Geology 123: 13–21. DOI: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2011.04.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Varnes DJ (1978) Slope movements and types and processes. Landslides: Analysis and Control. Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Science, 176: 11–33.Google Scholar
  26. von Ruette J, Papritz A, Lehmann P, Rickli C, Or D (2011) Spatial statistical modeling of shallow landslides-Validating predictions for different landslide inventories ad rainfall events. Geomorphology 133: 11–22. DOI: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.06.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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). Computers & Geosciences 35: 1125–1138. DOI: 10.1016/j.cageo.2008.08.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press, Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, CAS and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Water Resources Engineering and ConservationFeng Chia UniversityTaichungChinese Taipei

Personalised recommendations