GIS-based landslide susceptibility evaluation using fuzzy-AHP multi-criteria decision-making techniques in the Abha Watershed, Saudi Arabia

  • Javed Mallick
  • Ram Karan Singh
  • Mohammed A. AlAwadh
  • Saiful Islam
  • Roohul Abad Khan
  • Mohamed Noor Qureshi
Original Article
  • 67 Downloads

Abstract

Landslides are natural geological disasters causing massive destructions and loss of lives, as well as severe damage to natural resources, so it is essential to delineate the area that probably will be affected by landslides. Landslide susceptibility mapping (LSM) is making increasing implications for GIS-based spatial analysis in combination with multi-criteria evaluation (MCE) methods. It is considered to be an effective tool to understand natural disasters related to mass movements and carry out an appropriate risk assessment. This study is based on an integrated approach of GIS and statistical modelling including fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (FAHP), weighted linear combination and MCE models. In the modelling process, eleven causative factors include slope aspect, slope, rainfall, geology, geomorphology, distance from lineament, distance from drainage networks, distance from the road, land use/land cover, soil erodibility and vegetation proportion were identified for landslide susceptibility mapping. These factors were identified based on the (1) literature review, (2) the expert knowledge, (3) field observation, (4) geophysical investigation, and (5) multivariate techniques. Initially, analytical hierarchy process linked with the fuzzy set theory is used in pairwise comparisons of LSM criteria for ranking purposes. Thereafter, fuzzy membership functions were carried out to determine the criteria weights used in the development of a landslide susceptibility map. These selected thematic maps were integrated using a weighted linear combination method to create the final landslide susceptibility map. Finally, a validation of the results was carried out using a sensitivity analysis based on receiver operator curves and an overlay method using the landslide inventory map. The study results show that the weighted overlay analysis method using the FAHP and eigenvector method is a reliable technique to map landslide susceptibility areas. The landslide susceptibility areas were classified into five categories, viz. very low susceptibility, low susceptibility, moderate susceptibility, high susceptibility, and very high susceptibility. The very high and high susceptibility zones account for 15.11% area coverage. The results are useful to get an impression of the sustainability of the watershed in terms of landsliding and therefore may help decision makers in future planning and mitigation of landslide impacts.

Keywords

Multi-criteria decision analysis Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process Fuzzy membership functions Geoinformation technology Landslide susceptibility maps 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support by Deanship of Scientific Research, King Khalid University, Saudi Arabia: Project Code: 411/2017-2018. NASA-USGS personnel at the land DAAC who provided the latest LANDSAT-8 satellite image which is also much appreciated. We are also thankful to the General Authority of Meteorology and Environmental, Saudi Arabia and Saudi Geological Survey for providing the Rainfall and geological data for the present study.

References

  1. Abba AH, Noor ZZ, Yusuf RO, Din MF, Hassan MAA (2013) Assessing environmental impacts of municipal solid waste of Johor by analytical hierarchy process. Resour Conserv Recycl 73:188–196Google Scholar
  2. Abdulaziz MB, Faisal KZ, Mohammad TH (2014) Natural hazards in Saudi Arabia. In: Ismail-Zadeh A, Fucugauchi JU, Kijko A, Takeuchi K, Zaliapin I (eds) Extreme natural hazards, disaster risks and societal implications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Abulfatih HA (1981) Wild plants of Abha and its surroundings. Saudi Publishing and Distributing House, vol 5, pp 125–159Google Scholar
  4. Ahmad HA, Zainura ZN, Rafiu O, Mohd FMD, Mohd AAH (2013) Assessing environmental impacts of municipal solid waste of Johor by analytical hierarchy process. Resour Conserv Recycl 73:188–196Google Scholar
  5. Akgun A, Türk N (2010) Landslide susceptibility mapping for Ayvalik (Western Turkey) and its vicinity by multicriteria decision analysis. Environ Earth Sci 61:595–611Google Scholar
  6. Altrock CV, Krause B (1994) Multi-criteria decision-making in German automotive industry using fuzzy logic. Fuzzy Sets Syst 63(3):375–380Google Scholar
  7. Andreo B, Vías J, Durán JJ, Jiménez P, López-Geta JA, Carrasco F (2008) Methodology for ground water recharge assessment in carbonate aquifers: application to pilot sites in southern Spain. Hydrogeology 16(5):911–925Google Scholar
  8. Arlegui LE, Soriano MA (1998) Characterizing lineaments from satellite images and field studies in the central Ebro basin (NE Spain). Int J Remote Sens 19:3169–3185Google Scholar
  9. 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 1:73–81Google Scholar
  10. Balezentiene L, Streimikiene D, Balezentis T (2013) Fuzzy decision support methodology for sustainable energy crop selection. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 17:83–93Google Scholar
  11. Barredo J, Benavides A, Hervas J, VanWesten CJ (2000) Comparing heuristic landslide hazard assessment techniques using GIS in the Tirajana basin, Gran Canaria Island, Spain. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 2:9–23Google Scholar
  12. Berhanu B, Melesse AM, Sleshi Y (2013) GIS-based hydrological zones and soil geo-database of Ethiopia. Catena.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2012.12.007 Google Scholar
  13. Brabb E (1984) Innovative approaches for landslide hazard evaluation. In: IV international symposium on landslides, Toronto, pp 307–323Google Scholar
  14. Buckley JJ (1985) Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst 17(1):233–247Google Scholar
  15. Cammeraat LH, Imeson AC (1999) The evolution and significance of soil-vegetation patterns following land abandonment and fire in Spain. Catena 37:107–127Google Scholar
  16. Cardinali M, Reichenbach P, Guzzetti F, Ardizzone F, Antonini G, Galli M, Cacciano M, Castellani M, Salvati P (2002) A geomorphological approach to estimation of landslide hazards and risks in Umbria, Central Italy. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 2:57–72.  https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2-57-2002 Google Scholar
  17. Carlos AB, Odette IJ (2012) Soil erodibility mapping and its correlation with soil properties in central Chile. Geoderma 189–190:116–123Google Scholar
  18. Carrara A (1983) Multivariate models for landslide hazard evaluation. J Int Assoc Math Geol 15:403–426Google Scholar
  19. Carter MR (1993) Soil sampling and methods of analysis. Canadian society of soil science, Lewis Publishers, CharlottetownGoogle Scholar
  20. Carver SJ (1991) Integrating multi-criteria evaluation with geographical information systems. Int J Geogr Inf Syst 5(3):321–339Google Scholar
  21. Chen K, Blong R, Jacobson C (2001) MCE-RISK: integrating multicriteria evaluation and GIS for risk decision-making in natural hazards. Environ Model Softw 16:387–397Google Scholar
  22. Chen Y, Yu J, Khan S (2010) Spatial sensitivity analysis of multi-criteria weights in GIS-based land suitability evaluation. Environ Modell Softw 25(12):1582–1591Google Scholar
  23. Chen VYC, Pang Lien H, Liu CH, Liou JJH, Hshiung Tzeng G, Yang LS (2011) Fuzzy MCDM approach for selecting the best environment-watershed plan. Appl Soft Comput 11:265–275Google Scholar
  24. Cheung FKT, Kuen JLF, Skitmore M (2002) Multi-criteria evaluation model for the selection of architecture consultants. Constr Manag Econ 20(7):569–580Google Scholar
  25. Chowdhury A, Jha MK, Chowdary VM, Mal BC (2009) Integrated remote sensing and GIS-based approach for assessing ground water potential in West Medinipur District, West Bengal, India. Int J Remote Sens 30(1):231–250Google Scholar
  26. 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). Environ Earth Sci 2011(63):397–406.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-010-0724-y Google Scholar
  27. Dou J, Yamagishi H, Pourghasemi HR, Yunus AP, Song X, Xu Y, Zhu Z (2015) An integrated artificial neural network model for the landslide susceptibility assessment of Osado Island, Japan. Nat Hazards 78:1749–1776Google Scholar
  28. Duman TY, Can T, Gokceoglu C, Nefeslioglu HA (2005) Landslide susceptibility mapping of Cekmece area (Istanbul, Turkey) by conditional probability. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss 2:155–208Google Scholar
  29. Duru O, Bulut E, Yoshida S (2012) Regime switching fuzzy AHP model for choicevarying priorities problem and expert consistency prioritization: a cubic fuzzypriority matrix design. Expert Syst Appl 39:4954–4964Google Scholar
  30. Dwivedi RS, Sreenivas K, Ramana KV (2005) Land-use/land-cover change analysis in part of Ethiopia using Landsat Thematic Mapper data. Int J Remote Sens 26(7):1285–1287Google Scholar
  31. Feizizadeh B, Blaschke T (2013) GIS-multicriteria decision analysis for landslide susceptibility mapping: comparing three methods for the Urmia lake basin, Iran. Nat Hazards 65:2105–2128Google Scholar
  32. Feizizadeh B, Blaschke T, Nazmfar H, Rezaei Moghaddam MH (2013) Landslide susceptibility mapping for the Urmia Lake basin, Iran: a multi-criteria evaluation approach using GIS. Int J Environ Res 7(2):319–3336Google Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Gomez B, Jones PJ (2010) Research methods in geography—a critical introduction. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  35. Gorsevski PV, Jankowski P (2010) An optimized solution of multi-criteria evaluation analysis of landslide susceptibility using fuzzy sets and Kalman filter. Comput Geosci 36:1005–1020Google Scholar
  36. Greenwood WR (1985) Geologic map of the Abha quadrangle, sheet 18 F. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources, Deputy Ministry for Mineral Resources GM-75 c, scale 1:250,000Google Scholar
  37. GSI and NRSC (2010) Manual for national geomorphological and lineament mapping on 1:50,000 scale (Document control number: NRSC-RS&GISAA-ERG-G&GD-FEB’ 10- TR149). National Remote Sensing Centre, HyderabadGoogle Scholar
  38. Guzzetti F, Mondini AC, Cardinali M, Fiorucci F, Santangelo M, Chang KT (2012) Landslide inventory maps: new tools for an old problem. Earth Sci Rev 112(1–2):42–66Google Scholar
  39. Guzzetti F, Reichenbach P, Ardizzone F, Cardinali M, Galli M (2006) Estimating the quality of landslide susceptibility models. Geomorphology 81:166–184Google Scholar
  40. Hill J, Schutt B (2000) Mapping complex patterns of erosion and stability in dry Mediterranean ecosystems. Remote Sens Environ 74:557–569Google Scholar
  41. Hong H, Pradhan B, Xu C, Bui DT (2015) Spatial prediction of landslide hazard at the Yihuang area (China) using two-class kernel logistic regression, alternating decision tree and support vector machines. Catena 133:266–281Google Scholar
  42. Hsieh TY, Lu ST, Tzeng GH (2004) Fuzzy MCDM approach for planning and design tenders selection in public office buildings. Int J Project Manage 22(7):573–584Google Scholar
  43. Ilanloo M (2011) A comparative study of fuzzy logic approach for landslide susceptibility mapping using GIS: an experience of Karaj dam basin in Iran. In: The 2nd international geography symposium-mediterranean environment. Proc Soc Behav Sci 19, 668–676Google Scholar
  44. Intarawichian N, Dasananda S (2010) Analytical Hierarchy Process for landslide susceptibility mapping in lower Mae Chem watershed, Northern Thailand. Suranaree J Sci Technol 17(3):277–292Google Scholar
  45. Ishizaka A, Labib A (2011) Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert Syst Appl 38:14336–14345Google Scholar
  46. Jensen JR (2005) Introductory digital image processing: a remote sensing perspective, 3rd edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  47. Jha MK, Chowdary VM, Chowdhury A (2010) Groundwater assessment in Salboni Block, West Bengal (India) using remote sensing, geographical information system and multi-criteria decision analysis techniques. Hydrogeol J 18(7):1713–1728Google Scholar
  48. Kahraman C, Cebeci U, Ulukan Z (2003) Multi-criteria supplier selection using fuzzy AHP. Logist Inf Manage 16(6):382–394Google Scholar
  49. Katz O, Morgan JK, Aharonov E, Dugan B (2014) Controls on the size and geometry of landslides: insights from discrete element numerical simulations. Geomorphology 220:104–113Google Scholar
  50. Kutlu AC, Ekmekçioglu M (2012) Fuzzy failure modes and effects analysis by using fuzzy TOPSIS-based fuzzy AHP. J Expert Syst Appl 39:61–67Google Scholar
  51. Lee S (2004) Application of likelihood ratio and logistic regression models to landslide susceptibility mapping using GIS. Environ Manage 34(2):223–232Google Scholar
  52. Lee S, Min K (2001) Statistical analysis of landslide susceptibility at Yongin, Korea. Environ Geol 40:1095–1113.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s002540100310 Google Scholar
  53. Lee S, Choi J, Woo I (2004a) The effect of spatial resolution on the accuracy of landslide susceptibility mapping: a case study in Boun, Korea. Geosci J 8:51–60Google Scholar
  54. Lee S, Ryu JH, Won JS, Park HJ (2004b) Determination and application of the weights for landslide susceptibility mapping using an artificial neural network. Eng Geol 71:289–302Google Scholar
  55. Li SP, Will BF (2005) A fuzzy logic system for visual evaluation. Environ Plan 32(2):293–304Google Scholar
  56. Lillesand TM, Kiefer RW (1999) Remote sensing and image interpretation. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  57. Liu B (2004) Uncertainty theory: an introduction to its axiomatic foundations. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  58. Lu GY, Wong DW (2008) An adoptive inverse-distance weighting spatial interpolation techniques. Comput Geosci 34:1044–1055Google Scholar
  59. Madrucci V, Taioli F, De Araújo CC (2008) Groundwater favourability map using GIS multicriteria data analysis on crystalline terrain, São Paulo State, Brazil. J Hydrol 357:153–173Google Scholar
  60. Maerz NH, Youssef AM, Pradhan B, Bulkhi A (2014) Remediation and mitigation strategies for rock fall hazards along the highways of Fayfa Mountain, Jazan Region, Kingdom of Saudi. Arab J Geosci.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-014-1423-x Google Scholar
  61. Malczewski J (1999) GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. Wiley, New York, p 392Google Scholar
  62. Malczewski J (2004) On the use of weighted linear combination method in GIS: common and best practice approaches. Trans GIS 4(1):5–22Google Scholar
  63. Mallick J (2016) Geospatial-based soil variability and hydrological zones of Abha semi-arid mountainous watershed, Saudi Arabia. Arab J Geosci 9:281.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-015-2302-9 Google Scholar
  64. Mallick J, Alashker Y, Shams M, Mohd A, Mohd AH (2014) Risk assessment of soil erosion in semi-arid mountainous watershed in Saudi Arabia by RUSLE model coupled with remote sensing and GIS. Taylor and Francis, Oxford, pp 1–26Google Scholar
  65. Mandal S, Maiti R (2014) Role of lithological composition and lineaments in landsliding: a case study of Shivkhola watershed, Darjeeling Himalaya. Int J Geol Earth Environ Sci 4(1):126–132Google Scholar
  66. Marinoni O, Higgins A, Hajkowicz S, Collins K (2009) The multiple criteria analysis tool (MCAT): a new software tool to support environmental investment decision making. Environ Modell Softw 24(2):153–164Google Scholar
  67. Mason PJ, Rosenbaum M (2002) Geohazard mapping for predicting landslides: an example from the Langhe Hills in Piemonte, NW Italy. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 35:317–326Google Scholar
  68. Mcintyre C, Parfitt MK (1998) Decision support system for residential land development site selection process. J Archit Eng 4(4):125–131Google Scholar
  69. Mijani N, Samani NN (2017) Comparison of fuzzy-based models in landslide hazard mapping. The international archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences, XLII-4/W4, pp 407–416Google Scholar
  70. Millet I, Saaty TL (2000) On the relativity of relative measures—accommodating both rank preservation and rank reversal in the AHP. Eur J Oper Res 121:205–212Google Scholar
  71. Nalbant S, Alptekin O (1995) The use of Landsat Mapper imagery for analyzing lithology and structure of Korucu-Dugla area in western Turkey. Int J Remote Sens 16(13):2357–2374Google Scholar
  72. Nandi A, Shakoor A (2010) A GIS-based landslide susceptibility evaluation using bivariate and multivariate statistical analyses. Eng Geol 110(1):11–20Google Scholar
  73. Napolitano P, Fabbri AG (1996) Single-parameter sensitivity analysis for aquifer vulnerability assessment using DRASTIC and SINTACS. In: Proceedings of the Vienna conference on HydroGIS 96: application of geographic information systems in hydrology and water resources management, IAHS Pub. No. 235, pp 559–566Google Scholar
  74. Neaupane KM, Piantanakulchai M (2006) Analytic network process model for landslide hazard zonation. Eng Geol 85:281–294Google Scholar
  75. Nicholas MS (2005) The remote sensing tutorial, NASA’s Goddard, USA. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/EarthSci/people/lidunka/GEOL2014/Geophysics%2010%20-Remote%20sensing/Remote%20Sensing%20Tutorial%20Overview.htm. Accessed 31 Mar 2018
  76. Oguzitimur S (2011) Why fuzzy analytic hierarchy process approach for transport problems? In: European regional science association ERSA conference papers, Aug 2–6, 1090 Vienna, Austria, ersa11, p 438Google Scholar
  77. Ohta K, Kobashi G, Takato S, Kagaya S, Yamada H, Minakami H, Yamamura E (2007) Analysis of the geographical accessibility of neurosurgical emergency hospitals in Sapporo city using GIS and AHP. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 21(6):687–698Google Scholar
  78. Oikonomidis D, Dimogianni S, Kazakis N, Voudouris K (2015) A GIS/remote sensing-based methodology for groundwater potentiality assessment in Tirnavos area, Greece. J Hydrol 525:197–208Google Scholar
  79. Opricovic S, Tzeng GH (2003) Defuzzification within a fuzzy multicriteria decision model. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowl Syst 11:635–652Google Scholar
  80. Ouma Y, Tateishi R (2014) Urban flood vulnerability and risk mapping using integrated multi-parametric AHP and GIS: methodological overview and case study assessment. Water 6(6):1515–1545Google Scholar
  81. Pourghasemi HR, Mohammady M, Pradhan B (2012) Landslide susceptibility mapping using index of entropy and conditional probability models in GIS: safarood Basin, Iran. Catena 97:71–84Google Scholar
  82. Pourghasemi HR, Moradi HR, Fatemi Aghda SM (2013) Landslide susceptibility mapping by binary logistic regression, analytical hierarchy process, and statistical index models and assessment of their performances. Nat Hazards 69:749–779.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0728-5 Google Scholar
  83. Pradeep KS, Kumar S, Singh RP (2000) Neotectonic study of Ganga and Yamunatear faults, NW Himalaya using remote sensing and GIS. Int J Remote Sens 21:499–518Google Scholar
  84. Pradhan B (2013) A comparative study on the predictive ability of the decision tree, support vector machine and neuro-fuzzy models in landslide susceptibility mapping using GIS. Comput Geosci 51:350–365Google Scholar
  85. Pradhan B, Lee S (2010) Regional landslide susceptibility analysis using back-propagation neural network model at Cameron Highland, Malaysia. Landslides 7:13–30Google Scholar
  86. Rahaman SA, Abdulajeez S, Aruchamy S, Jegankumar R (2015) Prioritization of Sub watershed based on morphometric characteristics using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process and geographical information system—a study of Kallar watershed, Tamil Nadu. Aquat Proc 4:1322–1330Google Scholar
  87. Renard KG, Foster GR, Weesies GA, McCool DK, Yoder DC (1997) Predicting soil erosion by water: a guide to conservation planning with the revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE). US Department of Agriculture (editor). Washington (DC): US Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Handbook, vol 703, pp 1–251Google Scholar
  88. Roodposhti MS, Rahimi S, Beglou MJ (2014) PROMETHEE II and fuzzy AHP: an enhanced GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping. Nat Hazards 73:77–95Google Scholar
  89. Roodposhti MS, Aryal J, Shahabi H, Safarrad T (2016) Fuzzy shannon entropy: a hybrid GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping method. Entropy 18:343.  https://doi.org/10.3390/e18100343 Google Scholar
  90. Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structure. J Math Psychol 15(3):34–39Google Scholar
  91. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  92. Saaty TL, Vargas LG (2008) Prediction, projection and forecasting, vol 251. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  93. 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
  94. Sheldrick BH, Wang C (1993) Particle size distribution. In: Carter MR (ed) Soil sampling and methods of analysis. Canadian society of soil science, Lewis, Ann Arbor (MI), pp 499–511Google Scholar
  95. Singh BR, Singh S, Singh P, Mishra DK (2014) A study on geomorphological response for runoff prediction in small watershed. IOSR J Comput Eng (IOSR-JCE) e-ISSN: 2278– 0661, p-ISSN: 2278–8727, volume 16, issue 4, version VI (Jul–Aug 2014), pp 86–94Google Scholar
  96. Suzan ML, Toprak V (1998) Filtering of satellite images in geological lineament analyses: an application to a fault zone in central Turkey. Int J Remote Sens 19:1101–1114Google Scholar
  97. Swets JA (1988) Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 240:1285–1293Google Scholar
  98. Tarboton DG, Bras RL, Rodriguez I (1991) On the extraction of channel networks from digital elevation data. Hydrol Process 5:81–100Google Scholar
  99. Valor E, Caselles V (1996) Mapping land surface emissivity from NDVI. Application to European, African and South American areas. Remote Sens Environ 57:167–184Google Scholar
  100. Van Westen CJ, Van Asch TWJ, Soeters R (2006) Landslide hazard and risk zonation—why is it still so difficult? Bull Eng Geol Environ 65:167–184.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-005-0023-0 Google Scholar
  101. Vincent P (2008) Saudi Arabia: an environmental overview. Taylor and Francis, London.  https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203030882 Google Scholar
  102. Wang WD, Guo J, Fang LG, Chang XS (2012) A subjective and objective integrated weighting method for landslides susceptibility mapping based on GIS. Environ Earth Sci 65:1705–1714Google Scholar
  103. Wheater HS, Larentis P, Hamilton GS (1989) Design rainfall characteristics for south-west of Saudi Arabia. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2, pp 517–538Google Scholar
  104. Willey HB (1979) Fuzzy theory and environmental control in buildings. Environ Plan B 6(3):279–291Google Scholar
  105. Williams CJ, Lee SS, Fisher RA, Dickerman LH (1999) A comparison of statistical methods for prenatal screening for Down syndrome. Appl Stoch Models Data Anal 15:89–101Google Scholar
  106. Wischmeier WH, Smith DD (1978) Predicting rainfall erosion losses—a guide to conservation planning agriculture handbook no 537. US Department of Agriculture Science and Education Administration, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  107. Xu C (2015) Preparation of earthquake-triggered landslide inventory maps using remote sensing and GIS technologies: principles and case studies. Geosci Front 6:825–836Google Scholar
  108. Yalcin A (2008) GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping using analytical hierarchy process and bivariate statistics in Ardesen (Turkey): comparisons of results and confirmations. Catena 72:1–12Google Scholar
  109. Yalcin A, Bulut F (2007) Landslide susceptibility mapping using GIS and digital photogrammetric techniques: a case study from Ardesen (NE-Turkey). Nat Hazards 41:201–226.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-006-9030-0 Google Scholar
  110. Yalcin A, Reis S, Aydinoglu AC, Yomralioglu T (2011) A GIS-based comparative study of frequency ratio, 875 analytical hierarchy process, bivariate statistics and logistics regression methods for landslide susceptibility mapping in Trabzon, NE Turkey. Catena 85:274–287.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2011.01.014 Google Scholar
  111. Yilmaz I (2009) A case study from Koyulhisar (Sivas-Turkey) for landslide susceptibility mapping by artificial neural networks. Bull Eng Geol Environ 68(3):297–306.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-009-0185-2 Google Scholar
  112. Youssef AM, Maerz N (2013) Overview of some geological hazards in the Saudi Arabia. Environ Earth Sci 70:3115–3130.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-013-2373-4 Google Scholar
  113. Youssef AM, Maerz HN, Al-Otaibi AA (2012) Stability of rock slopes along Raidah Escarpment Road, Aseer Area, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. J Geogr.  https://doi.org/10.5539/jgg.v4n2p48 Google Scholar
  114. Youssef AM, Al-kathery M, Pradhan B (2014) Landslide susceptibility mapping at Al-Hasher Area, Jizan (Saudi Arabia) using GIS-based frequency ratio and index of entropy models. Geosci J.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12303-014-0032-8 Google Scholar
  115. Youssef AM, Al-kathery M, Pradhan B (2015a) Assessment of impact of mass movements on the upper Tayyah valley’s bridge along Shear escarpment highway, Asir region (Saudi Arabia) using remote sensing data and field investigation. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci Discuss 3:497–533Google Scholar
  116. Youssef AM, Pourghasemi HR, Pourtaghi ZS, Mohamed M (2015b) Landslide susceptibility mapping using random forest, boosted regression tree, classification and regression tree, and general linear models and comparison of their performance at Wadi Tayyah Basin, Aseer Region, Saudi Arabia. Landslides 13:839–856.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-015-0614-1 Google Scholar
  117. Youssef AM, Pourghasemi HR, El-Haddad BA, Dhahry BK (2016) Landslide susceptibility maps using different probabilistic and bivariate statistical models and comparison of their performance at Wadi Itwad Basin, Aseer Region, Saudi Arabia. Bull Eng Geol Environ 75:63–87Google Scholar
  118. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Javed Mallick
    • 1
  • Ram Karan Singh
    • 1
  • Mohammed A. AlAwadh
    • 2
  • Saiful Islam
    • 1
  • Roohul Abad Khan
    • 1
  • Mohamed Noor Qureshi
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, College of EngineeringKing Khalid UniversityAbhaSaudi Arabia
  2. 2.Department of Industrial Engineering, College of EngineeringKing Khalid UniversityAbhaSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations