Advertisement

Quantifying the Performances of Simplified Physically Based Landslide Susceptibility Models: An Application Along the Salerno-Reggio Calabria Highway Open image in new window

  • Giuseppe FormettaEmail author
  • Giovanna Capparelli
  • Pasquale Versace
Conference paper

Abstract

Landslides are one of the most dangerous natural hazards in the world causing fatalities, destructive effects on properties, infrastructures, and environment. A correct evaluation of landslide risk is based on an accurate landslide susceptibility mapping that will affect urban planning, landuse planning, and infrastructure designs. Great effort has been devoted by the scientific community to develop landslide susceptibility models. Only few studies have been focused on defining accurate procedures for model selection, assessment, and inter-comparison. In this study we applied a methodology for objectively calibrate and compare different landslide susceptibility models in a framework based on three steps. The first step involves the automatic model parameter calibration based on different objective functions and the comparison of the models results in the ROC plane. The second step involves the intercomparison of a set of model performance indicators in order to exclude objective functions that provide the same information. Finally the third step involves a model parameter sensitivity analysis to understand how model parameter variations affect the model performances. In this study the three-step procedure was applied to compare two different simplified physically based landslide susceptibility models along the highway Salerno-Reggio Calabria in Italy. The model M2, able to consider the spatial variability of the soil depth respect to the model M1, coupled the distance to perfect classification index provided the most accurate result for the study area.

Keywords

Landslide susceptibility analysis Model performances evaluation ROC 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the PON project no. 01_01503 “Integrated Systems for Hydrogeological Risk Monitoring, Early Warning and Mitigation Along the Main Lifelines”, CUP B31H11000370005, within the framework of the National Operational Program for “Research and Competitiveness” 2007–2013.

References

  1. Beguería S (2006) Validation and evaluation of predictive models in hazard assessment and risk management. Nat Hazards 37:315–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett ND, Croke BF, Guariso G, Guillaume JH, Hamilton SH, Jakeman AJ, Marsili-Libelli S, Newham LT, Norton JP, Perrin C, Pierce SA (2013) Characterising performance of environmental models. Environ Model Softw 40:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beven KJ, Kirkby MJ (1979) A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology/Un modèle à base physique de zone d’appel variable de l’hydrologie du bassin versant. Hydrol Sci J 24(1):43–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brabb EE (1984) Innovative approaches to landslide hazard and risk mapping. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Landslides, vol 1. Canadian Geotechnical Society, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 16–21 September, pp 307–324Google Scholar
  5. Cascini L, Bonnard C, Corominas J, Jibson R, Montero-Olarte J (2005) Landslide hazard and risk zoning for urban planning and development. In: Landslide risk management. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 199–235Google Scholar
  6. Cascini L, Ciurleo M, Di Nocera S (2016) Soil depth reconstruction for the assessment of the susceptibility to shallow landslides in fine-grained slopes. Landslides, 1–13Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Corominas J, Van Westen C, Frattini P, Cascini L, Malet JP, Fotopoulou S, Catani F, Van Den Eeckhaut M, Mavrouli O, Agliardi F, Pitilakis K (2014) Recommendations for the quantitative analysis of landslide risk. Bull Eng Geol Environ 73(2):209–263Google Scholar
  9. Dietrich WE, Bellugi D, Real De Asua R (2001) Validation of the shallow landslide model, SHALSTAB, for forest management. In: Wigmosta MS, Burges SJ (eds) Land use and watersheds: human influence on hydrology and geomorphology in urban and forest areas. American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C. doi: 10.1029/WS002p0195 Google Scholar
  10. Formetta G, Capparelli G, Rigon R, Versace P (2014) Physically based landslide susceptibility models with different degree of complexity: calibration and verification. In: Ames DP, Quinn NWT, Rizzoli AE (eds) International Environmental Modelling and Software Society (iEMSs). 7th International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software, San Diego, CA, USA, 15–19 June 2014. http://www.iemss.org/sites/iemss2014/papers/iemss2014_submission_157.pdf
  11. Formetta G, Capparelli G, Versace P (2015) Evaluating performances of simplified physically based models for landslide susceptibility. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss 12:13217–13256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frattini P, Crosta G, Carrara A (2010) Techniques for evaluating the performance of landslide susceptibility models. Eng Geol 111(1):62–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goodenough DJ, Rossmann K, Lusted LB (1974) Radiographic applications of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Radiology 110:89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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(1):181–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guzzetti F, Reichenbach P, Ardizzone F, Cardinali M, Galli M (2006) Estimating the quality of landslide susceptibility models. Geomorphology 81(1):166–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heimsath AM, DiBiase RA, Whipple KX (2012) Soil production limits and the transition to bedrock-dominated landscapes. Nat Geosci 5:210–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jolliffe IT, Stephenson DB (eds) (2012) Forecast verification: a practitioner’s guide in atmospheric science. Wiley, University of Exeter, UKGoogle Scholar
  18. Kennedy J, Eberhart R(1995) Particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks, 1995, vol 4. IEEE, PerthGoogle Scholar
  19. Kuriakose SL, Devkota S, Rossiter DG, Jetten VG (2009) Prediction of soil depth using environmental variables in an anthropogenic landscape, a case study in the Western Ghats of Kerala, India. CATENA 79:27–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lanni C, Borga M, Rigon R, Tarolli P (2012) Modelling shallow landslide susceptibility by means of a subsurface flow path connectivity index and estimates of soil depth spatial distribution. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 16(11):3959–3971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lu N, Godt J (2008) Infinite slope stability under steady unsaturated seepage conditions. Water Resour Res 44:W11404. doi: 10.1029/2008WR006976 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Montgomery DR, Dietrich WE (1994) A physically based model for the topographic control on shallow landsliding. Water Resour Res 30(4):1153–1171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Murdoch DJ, Chow ED (1996) A graphical display of large correlation matrices. Am Stat 50:178–180Google Scholar
  24. Naranjo JL, van Westen CJ, Soeters R (1994) Evaluating the use of training areas in bivariate statistical landslide hazard analysis: a case study in Colombia. ITC J 3:292–300Google Scholar
  25. O’loughlin EM (1986) Prediction of surface saturation zones in natural catchments by topographic analysis. Water Resour Res 22(5):794–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Park NW (2011) Application of Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence to GIS-based landslide susceptibility analysis. Environ Earth Sci 62:367–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rosso R, Rulli MC, Vannucchi G (2006) A physically based model for the hydrologic control on shallow landsliding. Water Resour Res 42:W06410. doi: 10.1029/2005WR004369 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Simoni S, Zanotti F, Bertoldi G, Rigon R (2008) Modeling the probability of occurrence of shallow landslides and channelized debris flows using GEOtop-FS. Hydrol Process 22:532–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Varnes DJ (1984) Landslide hazard zonation: a review of principles and practice. No. 3Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giuseppe Formetta
    • 1
    Email author
  • Giovanna Capparelli
    • 2
  • Pasquale Versace
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Ecology & HydrologyWallingfordUK
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Ingegneria Informatica, Modellistica, Elettronica e Sistemistica Ponte Pietro BucciUniversity of CalabriaRendeItaly

Personalised recommendations