Advertisement

Machine Learning and Landslide Assessment in a GIS Environment

Chapter
Part of the Advances in Geographic Information Science book series (AGIS)

Abstract

This chapter introduces theoretical and practical aspects for applying GIS and geocomputation methods in landslide assessment problems. Machine Learning techniques in combination with GIS are proven useful for computation and building of complex non-linear spatial models, which is why they have been chosen in our work. Modeling principles that include basic Machine Learning techniques (Artificial Neural Networks, Decision trees, Support Vector Machines) and additional useful procedures are described to show how they can be applied to address a complex problem such as landslide assessment. Two types of models are proposed in the work herein that are useful for describing landslide susceptibility and landslide prediction. The region of Halenkovice in Czech Republic is presented as a case study to illustrate and bring closer the practical aspects of landslide assessment. These aspects consider data preparation and preprocessing, scale effects, model optimization, and evaluation. The results show that Support Vector Machines and similar Machine Learning (ML) techniques can be successfully applied to address the zoning of landslide susceptibility, which might be an important breakthrough for potential applications in regional planning and decision-making.

Keywords

Landslide susceptibility SVM ANN Decision Trees Cross-scaling 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Ministry of Science of the Republic of Serbia (Contracts No. III 47014 and TR 36009).

References

  1. 1.
    Petley D (2012) Global patterns of loss of life from landslides. Geology 40(10):927–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gokceoglu C, Sezer E (2009) A statistical assessment on international landslide literature (1945–2008). Landslides 6:345–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chacón J, Irigaray C, Fernández T, El Hamdouni R (2006) Engineering geology maps: landslides and geographical information systems. Bull Eng Geol Environ 65:341–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nadim F, Kjekstad O, Peduzzi P, Herold C, Jaedicke C (2006) Global landslide and avalanche hotspots. Landslides 3:159–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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 112:42–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hwang SG, Guevarra IF, Yu BO (2009) Slope failure prediction using a decision tree: a case study of engineered slopes in South Korea. Eng Geol 104:126–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Saito H, Nakayama D, Matsuyama H (2009) Comparison of landslide susceptibility based on a decision-tree model and actual landslide occurrence: the Akaishi Mountains, Japan. Geomorphology 109:108–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brus, J, Dobesova Z, Kanok J, Pechanec V (2010) Design of intelligent system in cartography. In: Proceedings of the 9th Roedunet IEEE international conference, Sibiu, Romania, 24–26 June 2010Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brenning A (2005) Spatial prediction models for landslide hazards: review, comparison and evaluation. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 5:853–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee S, Ryu JH, Kim LS (2007) Landslide susceptibility analysis and its verification using likelihood ratio, logistic regression, and artificial neural network models: case study of Youngin, Korea. Landslides 4:327–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee S, Ryu JH, Won JS, Park HJ (2004) Determination and verification of weights for landslide susceptibility mapping using an artificial neural network. Eng Geol 71:289–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aleotti P, Chowdhury R (1999) Landslide hazard assessment: summary review and new perspectives. Bull Eng Geol Environ 58:21–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Caniani D, Pascale S, Sdao F, Sole A (2008) Neural networks and landslide susceptibility: a case study of the urban area of Potenza. Nat Hazards 45:55–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ermini L, Catani F, Casagli N (2005) Artificial neural networks applied to landslide susceptibility assessment. Geomorphology 66:327–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kanungo DP, Arora MK, Sarkar S, Gupta RP (2006) A comparative study of conventional, ANN black box, fuzzy and combined neural and fuzzy weighting procedures for landslide susceptibility zonation in Darjeeling Himalayas. Eng Geol 85:347–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nefeslioglu HA, Gokceoglu C, Sonmez H (2008) An assessment on the use of logistic regression and artificial neural networks with different sampling strategies for the preparation of landslide susceptibility maps. Eng Geol 97:171–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yao X, Dai FC (2006) Support vector machine modeling of landslide susceptibility using GIS: a case study. In: Proceedings of the 10th IAEG conference, Nottingham, UK, 6–10 September 2006Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yao X, Tham LG, Dai FC (2008) Landslide susceptibility mapping based on support vector machine: a case study on natural slopes of Hong Kong, China. Geomorphology 101:572–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yuan L, Li W, Zhang Q, Zou L (2006) Debris flow hazard assessment based on support vector machine. In: IEEE International Symposium on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, IGARSS 2006, Denver, 31 July–4 Aug 2006Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yilmaz I (2009) Comparison of landslide susceptibility mapping methodologies for Koyulhisar, Turkey: conditional probability, logistic regression, artificial neural networks, and support vector machine. Environ Earth Sci 61(4):821–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marjanović M, Bajat B, Kovačević M (2009) Landslide susceptibility assessment with machine learning algorithms. In: Proceedings of international conference on intelligent networking and collaborative systems, INCoS 2009, Barcelona, Spain, 4–6 November 2009Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Marjanović M, Kovačević M, Bajat B, Voženílek V (2011a) Landslide susceptibility assessment using SVM machine learning algorithm. Eng Geol 123:225–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Marjanović M, Kovačević M, Bajat B, Mihalić S, Abolmasov B (2011b) Landslide assessment of the Starča basin (Croatia) using machine learning algorithms. Acta Geotech Slovenica 8(2):45–55Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pourghasemi HR, Jirandeh AG, Pradhan B, Xu C, Gokceoglu C (2013) Landslide susceptibility mapping using support vector machine and GIS at the Golestan Province, Iran. J Earth Syst Sci 122(2):349–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Xu C, Dai F, Xu X, Hsi Lee Y (2012a) GIS-based support vector machine modeling of earthquake-triggered landslide susceptibility in the Jianjiang River watershed, China. Geomorphology 145:70–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Xu C, Xu X, Dai F, Saraf AK (2012b) Comparison of different models for susceptibility mapping of earthquake triggered landslides related with the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in China. Comput Geosci 46:317–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lai T, Dragićević S (2011) Development of an urban landslide cellular automata model: a case study of North Vancouver, Canada. Earth Sci Inf 4(2):69–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    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 65:135–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bai SB, Wang J, Lü GN, Zhou PG, Hou SS, Xu SN (2010) GIS-based logistic regression for landslide susceptibility mapping of the Zhoungxian segment in the three gorges area, China. Geomorphology 115:23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Falaschi F, Giacomelli F, Fedrici PR, Pucinelli A, D’Amato Avanzi G, Pochini A, Ribolini A (2009) Logistic regression versus artificial neural networks: landslide susceptibility evaluation in a sample area of the Serchio River valley, Italy. Nat Hazards 50:551–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Erener A, Düzgün H (2010) Improvement of statistical landslide susceptibility mapping by using spatial and global regression methods in the case of more and Romsdal (Norway). Landslides 7(1):55–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fotheringham AS, Brunsdon C, Charlton M (2002) Geographically weighted regression: the analysis of spatially varying relationships. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Voženílek V (2009) Artificial intelligence and GIS: mutual meeting and passing. In: Proceedings of international conference on intelligent networking and collaborative systems, INCoS 2009, Barcelona, Spain, 4–6 November 2009Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Development Core Team R (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kanevski M, Pozdnoukhov A, Timonin V (2009) Machine learning for spatial environmental data: theory, applications and software. EPFL Press, LausanneCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Witten IH, Frank E, Hall MA (2011) Data mining practical machine learning tools and techniques. Elsevier, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gerath R, Jakob M, Mitchell P, Van Dine D (2010) Guidelines for legislated landslide assessment for proposed residential developments in BC. Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia (APEGBC), British ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lee EM, Jones DKC (2004) Landslide risk assessment. Thomas Thelford, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mitchell TM (1997) Machine learning. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Quinlan JR (1993) C4.5: programs for machine learning. Morgan-Caufman, San MateoGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Woods KS, Bowyer KW (1997) Generating ROC curves for artificial neural networks. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 16(3):329–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fawcett T (2006) An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recogn Lett 27:861–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Marjanović M (2013) Comparing the performance of different landslide susceptibility models in ROC space. In: Margottini C, Canuti P, Sassa K (eds) Landslide science and practice. Landslide inventory and susceptibility and hazard zoning, vol 1. Springer, Berlin, pp 579–584Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Dvorský J, Snášel V, Voženílek V (2010) On maps comparison methods. In: Proceedings of the international conference on computer information systems and industrial management applications, CISIM 2010, Krakow, Poland, 8–10 October 2010Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hagen A (2003) Fuzzy set approach to assessing similarity of categorical maps. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 17(3):235–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Klimeš J, Baroň I, Pánek T, Kosačík T, Burda J, Kresta F, Hradecký J (2009) Investigation of recent catastrophic landslides in the flysch belt of Outer Western Carpathians (Czech Republic): progress towards better hazard assessment. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9:119–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Marjanović M (2014) Conventional and machine learning methods for landslide assessment in GIS. Palacky University in Olomouc, OlomoucGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Varnes DJ (1984) Landslide hazard zonation: a review of principles and practice. International Association for Engineering Geology, ParisGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bíl M, Müller I (2008) The origin of shallow landslides in Moravia (Czech Republic) in the spring of 2006. Geomorphology 99:246–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kircher K, Krejčí O, Máčka Z, Bíl M (2000) Slope deformations in eastern Moravia, Vsetín District (Outer Western Carpathians). Acta Univ Carol Geogr 35:133–143Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Fox J (2008) Applied regression analysis and generalized linear models, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Clerici A, Perego S, Tellini C, Vescovi P (2006) A GIS-based automated procedure for landslide susceptibility mapping by the conditional analysis method: the Baganza valley case study (Italian northern Apennines). Environ Geol 50:941–961CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Mining and GeologyUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia
  2. 2.Faculty of Civil EngineeringUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia

Personalised recommendations