Skip to main content
Log in

Estimating landslide susceptibility areas considering the uncertainty inherent in modeling methods

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Landslides are one of the most dangerous types of natural disasters, and damage due to landslides has been increasing in certain regions of the world because of increased precipitation. Policy decision makers require reliable information that can be used to establish spatial adaptation plans to protect people from landslide hazards. Researchers presently identify areas susceptible to landslides using various spatial distribution models. However, such data are associated with a high amount of uncertainty. This study focuses on quantifying the uncertainty of several spatial distribution models and identifying the effectiveness of various ensemble methods that can be used to provide reliable information to support policy decisions. The area of study was Inje-gun, Republic of Korea. Ten models were selected to assess landslide susceptibility. Moreover, five ensemble methods were selected for the aggregated results of the 10 models. The uncertainty was quantified using the coefficient of variation and the uncertainty map we developed revealed areas with strongly differing values among single models. A matrix map was created using an ensemble map and a coefficient of variation map. Using matrix analysis, we identified the areas that are most susceptible to landslides according to the ensemble model with a low uncertainty. Thus, the ensemble model can be a useful tool for supporting decision makers. The framework of this study can also be employed to support the establishment of landslide adaptation plans in other areas of the Republic of Korea and in other countries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. An ROC curve is a plot graph that shows the diagnostic ability of a binary classification method considering a threshold value. ROC curves are created by plotting the true positive rate (TPR) against the false positive rate (FPR). The TPR is also called the sensitivity and the FPR is also known as the probability of false alarm, and it can be calculated as (1 − specificity). Thus, the ROC curve represents the sensitivity as a function of FPR. ROC analysis is used as a tool to select optimal models and to discard suboptimal ones. The area under the curve (AUC) is the same as the probability that a classifier will grade a randomly chosen positive case higher than a randomly chosen negative case. The AUC is similar to the Mann–Whitney U, which tests whether positive cases are graded higher than negative cases.

  2. Coefficient of variation is also known as relative standard deviation. It is a standardized value of dispersion of a probability distribution. It is calculated by the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean. In this study, it is used for quantifying uncertainty of modeling results.

References

  • Akgun A (2012) A comparison of landslide susceptibility maps produced by logistic regression, multi-criteria decision, and likelihood ratio methods: a case study at Izmir, Turkey. Landslides 9:93–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akgun A, Dag S, Bulut F (2008) Landslide susceptibility mapping for a landslide-prone area (Findikli, NE of Turkey) by likelihood-frequency ratio and weighted linear combination models. Environ Geol 54:1127–1143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Althuwaynee OF, Pradhan B, Park H-J, Lee JH (2014) A novel ensemble bivariate statistical evidential belief function with knowledge-based analytical hierarchy process and multivariate statistical logistic regression for landslide susceptibility mapping. CATENA 114:21–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayalew L, Yamagishi H (2005) The application of GIS-based logistic regression for landslide susceptibility mapping in the Kakuda-Yahiko Mountains, Central Japan. Geomorphology 65:15–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett P, Shawe-Taylor J (1999) Generalization performance of support vector machines and other pattern classifiers. In: Advances in Kernel Methods—Support Vector Learning, pp 43–54

  • Bonachea J, Remondo J, Terán D et al (2009) Landslide risk models for decision making. Risk Anal 29:1629–1643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boo K, Kwon W, Baek H (2006) Change of extreme events of temperature and precipitation over Korea using regional projection of future climate change. Geophys Res Lett 33:8–11. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL023378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bühlmann P, Yu B (2003) Boosting with the L 2 loss: regression and classification. J Am Stat Assoc 98:324–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bui DT, Pradhan B, Lofman O et al (2012) Landslide susceptibility mapping at Hoa Binh province (Vietnam) using an adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system and GIS. Comput Geosci 45:199–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buisson L, Thuiller W, Casajus N et al (2010) Uncertainty in ensemble forecasting of species distribution. Glob Change Biol 16:1145–1157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catani F, Casagli N, Ermini L et al (2005) Landslide hazard and risk mapping at catchment scale in the Arno River basin. Landslides 2:329–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiou I-J, Chen C-H, Liu W-L et al (2015) Methodology of disaster risk assessment for debris flows in a river basin. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 29:775–792. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-014-0932-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi JH, Oh JY, Kim YS, Kim HT (2011) Analysis of the controlling factors of an urban-type landslide at Hwangryeong mountain based on tree growth patterns and geomorphology. J Eng Geol 21:281–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claessens L, Schoorl JM, Veldkamp A (2007) Modelling the location of shallow landslides and their effects on landscape dynamics in large watersheds: an application for Northern New Zealand. Geomorphology 87:16–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clinton N, Yu L, Gong P (2015) Geographic stacking: decision fusion to increase global land cover map accuracy. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 103:57–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2015.02.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dehnavi A, Aghdam IN, Pradhan B, Varzandeh MHM (2015) A new hybrid model using step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA) technique and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) for regional landslide hazard assessment in Iran. CATENA 135:122–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimitriadou E, Weingessel A, Hornik K (2003) A cluster ensembles framework. IOS Press, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Ermini L, Catani F, Casagli N (2005) Artificial neural networks applied to landslide susceptibility assessment. Geomorphology 66:327–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felicísimo ÁM, Cuartero A, Remondo J, Quirós E (2013) Mapping landslide susceptibility with logistic regression, multiple adaptive regression splines, classification and regression trees, and maximum entropy methods: a comparative study. Landslides 10:175–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin J (2009) Mapping species distributions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh J, Acharya A (2011) Cluster ensembles. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Data Min Knowl Discov 1:305–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzzetti F, Peruccacci S, Rossi M, Stark CP (2008) The rainfall intensity–duration control of shallow landslides and debris flows: an update. Landslides 5:3–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SL, Röjvall AS, Rastam M et al (2005) Psychiatric telephone interview with parents for screening of childhood autism–tics, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and other comorbidities (A–TAC) Preliminary reliability and validity. Br J Psychiatry 187:262–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kappes MS, Papathoma-Köhle M, Keiler M (2012) Assessing physical vulnerability for multi-hazards using an indicator-based methodology. Appl Geogr 32:577–590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim J (2012) The analysis of planning methode and case study for Model “Climate Change Adaptation City”. J Korea Inst Ecol Archit Environ 12:13–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim WY, Chae BG (2009) Characteristics of rainfall, geology and failure geometry of the landslide areas on natural terrains, Korea. J Eng Geol 19:331–344

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim GH, Yune CY, Lee HG, Hwang JS (2011a) Debris flow analysis of landslide area in Inje using GIS. J Korean Soc Surv Geod Photogramm Cartogr 29:47–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim KH, Jung HR, Park JH, Ma HS (2011b) Analysis on rainfall and geographical characteristics of landslides in Gyeongnam Province. J Korean Environ Restor Technol 14:33–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim HG, Lee DK, Park C et al (2015) Evaluating landslide hazards using RCP 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios. Environ Earth Sci 73:1385–1400

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Korea Ministry of Environment (KME) (2005) GIS map of forest type for Republic of Korea

  • Korea Ministry of Environment (KME) (2008) Digital elevation model for Republic of Korea

  • Korea Meteorological Administration (2011) White Paper for Typhoon of Republic of Korea

  • Kovalchuk SV, Krikunov AV, Knyazkov KV, Boukhanovsky AV (2017) Classification issues within ensemble-based simulation: application to surge floods forecasting. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 31:1183–1197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-016-1324-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krishnamurti TN, Kishtawal CM, Zhang Z et al (2000) Multimodel ensemble forecasts for weather and seasonal climate. J Clim 13:4196–4216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwon HS (2014) Applying ensemble model for identifying uncertainty in the species distribution models. J Korean Soc Geospat Inf Syst 2955:47–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladle R, Hortal J (2013) Mapping species distributions: living with uncertainty. Front Biogeogr 5:4–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee S, Oh H-J (2012) Ensemble-based landslide susceptibility maps in Jinbu area, Korea. In: Pradhan B, Buchroithner M (eds) Terrigenous mass movements. Springer, Berlin, pp 193–220

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lee M-J, Park I, Lee S (2015) Forecasting and validation of landslide susceptibility using an integration of frequency ratio and neuro-fuzzy models: a case study of Seorak mountain area in Korea. Environ Earth Sci 74:413–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li Y, Chen G, Tang C et al (2012) Rainfall and earthquake-induced landslide susceptibility assessment using GIS and artificial neural network. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 12:2719–2729

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lian C, Zeng Z, Yao W, Tang H (2014) Extreme learning machine for the displacement prediction of landslide under rainfall and reservoir level. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 28:1957–1972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-014-0875-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu K, Yao C, Chen J et al (2016) Comparison of three updating models for real time forecasting: a case study of flood forecasting at the middle reaches of the Huai River in East China. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 31:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-016-1267-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miao F, Wu Y, Xie Y et al (2016) Research on progressive failure process of Baishuihe landslide based on Monte Carlo model. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-016-1224-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niedzielski T, Miziński B (2016) Real-time hydrograph modelling in the upper Nysa Klodzka river basin (SW Poland): a two-model hydrologic ensemble prediction approach. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-016-1251-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nourani V, Pradhan B, Ghaffari H, Sharifi SS (2014) Landslide susceptibility mapping at Zonouz Plain, Iran using genetic programming and comparison with frequency ratio, logistic regression, and artificial neural network models. Nat Hazards 71:523–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oh HJ (2010) Landslide detection and landslide susceptibility mapping using aerial photos and artificial neural networks. Korean J Remote Sens 26:47–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Oh CY, Choi CU, Kim KT (2009) Analysis of landslide characteristics of Inje area using SPOT5 images and GIS analysis. Korean J Remote Sens 25:445–454

    Google Scholar 

  • Park S, Choi C, Kim B, Kim J (2013) Landslide susceptibility mapping using frequency ratio, analytic hierarchy process, logistic regression, and artificial neural network methods at the Inje area, Korea. Environ Earth Sci 68:1443–1464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 51:350–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pradhan B, Lee S (2010) Delineation of landslide hazard areas on Penang Island, Malaysia, by using frequency ratio, logistic regression, and artificial neural network models. Environ Earth Sci 60:1037–1054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riebau AR, Fox DG (2005) Damage assessment of agrometeorological relevance from natural disasters: economic and social consequences. In: Sivakumar MV, Motha RP, Das HP (eds) Natural disasters and extreme events in agriculture. Springer, Berlin, pp 119–135

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rokach L (2010) Ensemble-based classifiers. Artif Intell Rev 33:1–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Son JW, Kim KT, Lee CH, Choi CU (2009) Analysis of landslide in Inje region using aerial photograph and GIS. J Korean Soc Geo-spat Inf Syst 17:61–69. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Son CY, Kim JS, Il Moon Y, Lee JH (2014) Characteristics of tropical cyclone-induced precipitation over the Korean River basins according to three evolution patterns of the Central-Pacific El Nino. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 28:1147–1156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-013-0804-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sudmeier-Rieux K, Jaquet S, Derron M-H et al (2012) A case study of coping strategies and landslides in two villages of Central-Eastern Nepal. Appl Geogr 32:680–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sung JH, Kang H-S, Park S et al (2012) Projection of extreme precipitation at the end of 21st Century over South Korea based on Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP). Korean Meteorol Soc 22:221–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Thuiller W, Lafourcade B, Engler R, Araújo MB (2009) BIOMOD—a platform for ensemble forecasting of species distributions. Ecography (Cop) 32:369–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thuiller W, Georges D, Engler R (2015) biomod2 package manual

  • Tongal H, Booij MJ (2017) Quantification of parametric uncertainty of ANN models with GLUE method for different streamflow dynamics. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 31:993–1010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-017-1408-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torizin J (2016) Elimination of informational redundancy in the weight of evidence method: an application to landslide susceptibility assessment. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 30:635–651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-015-1077-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang X, Yang T, Li X et al (2016a) Spatio-temporal changes of precipitation and temperature over the Pearl River basin based on CMIP5 multi-model ensemble. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 31:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-016-1286-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang YY, Huang GH, Wang S (2016b) CVaR-based factorial stochastic optimization of water resources systems with correlated uncertainties. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 31:1543–1553. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-016-1276-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Water Resources Management Information System (WAMIS) (2006) GIS map of soil for Republic of Korea

  • Yeon YK (2011) Evaluation and analysis of Gwangwon-do landslide susceptibility using logistic regression. J Korean Assoc Geogr Inf Stud 14:116–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yesilnacar E, Topal T (2005) Landslide susceptibility mapping: a comparison of logistic regression and neural networks methods in a medium scale study, Hendek region (Turkey). Eng Geol 79:251–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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). Comput Geosci 35:1125–1138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yilmaz I (2010) Comparison of landslide susceptibility mapping methodologies for Koyulhisar, Turkey: conditional probability, logistic regression, artificial neural networks, and support vector machine. Environ Earth Sci 61:821–836

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yoo N, Yoon B, Um D et al (2012) Analysis of rainfall characteristics and landslides at the west side area of Gangwon Province. J Korean Geoenviron Soc 13:75–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Zare M, Pourghasemi HR, Vafakhah M, Pradhan B (2013) Landslide susceptibility mapping at Vaz Watershed (Iran) using an artificial neural network model: a comparison between multilayer perceptron (MLP) and radial basic function (RBF) algorithms. Arab J Geosci 6:2873–2888

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by Korea Ministry of Environment (MOE, Project No. 2016000210004) as “Public Technology Program based on Environmental Policy” and the BK 21 Plus Project in 2015 (Seoul National University Interdisciplinary Program in Landscape Architecture, Global Leadership Program toward Innovative Green Infrastructure).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dong Kun Lee.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Key features of the 10 SDMs (Franklin 2009)

Model

Full name of model

Category

Occurrence data required

Response function

Features of the model

GLM

Generalized linear model

Statistically based model

Occurrence/No occurrence

Parametric linear, polynomial, piecewise, interaction terms

GLMs are a representative model among SDMs. GLMs are a generalization of the multiple regression model that uses the link function to accommodate response variables that are distributed normally, namely, the response distributions

GAM

Generalized additive model

Statistically based model

Occurrence/No occurrence

Smoothing function, estimated using local regression, splines or other methods

GAMs in SDMs are suggested as a powerful methodology to detect and describe non-linear response functions. The results of GAMs can be used to build a parametric model

MARS

Multivariate adaptive regression splines

Statistically based model

Occurrence/No occurrence

Adaptive piecewise linear regression combines splines and binary recursive partitioning

MARS can give a type of a generalization of a stepwise linear regression. MARS are suited to analyses with large numbers of variables or a modification of the regression tree method

GBM

Generalized boosted regression model

Machine learning based model

Occurrence/No occurrence

Weighted and unweighted model averaging applied to decision trees

GBMs are similar to weighting variables that consider higher probabilities of selection, instead of weighting equal probabilities for subsequent variables

CTA

Classification tree analysis

Machine learning based model

Occurrence/No occurrence

Divisive, monothetic decision rules (thresholds) from binary recursive partitioning

The goal of CTA is to divide data into homogeneous subgroups. The subgroups consist of variables that have similar values or are in the same class in regard to the ranges of values for the variables

ANN

Artificial neural network

Machine learning based model

Occurrence/No occurrence

Non-linear decision boundaries in covariate space

ANN can be described as a two-stage classification or regression model. A hidden layer of ANN comprises features that are linear combinations of input variables. The output variable is a weighted combination of features in the hidden layer

SRE

Rectilinear envelope similar to BIOCLIM

Machine learning based model

Occurrence only

Fuzzy classification approach

SRE is a boxcar or parallelepiped classifier that uses BIOCLIM. SRE assesses the potential distribution of the dependent variable by using the multi-dimensional environmental space bounded by the values for all dependent variables

MDA

Mixture discriminant analysis

Machine learning based model

Occurrence/No occurrence

Linear

MDA is a type of linear discriminant analysis that models the multivariate density of variables by using a mixture of multivariate normal distributions

RF

Random forest

Machine learning based model

Occurrence/No occurrence

Weighted and unweighted model averaging applied to decision trees

Random forests is a type of bootstrap aggregating method that builds de-correlated trees and averages the trees. Many trees are constructed with subsets of input data. Furthermore, each division of the tree model is also constructed with a random subset of input variables

MAXENT

Maximum entropy algorithm

Machine learning based model

Occurrence only

Non-linear response functions can be described

Maximum entropy is based on statistical mechanics and information theory. MAXENT can analyze the best approximation of an unknown distribution by using the maximum entropy method, which considers the most spread out and closest to uniform values

Appendix 2: Maps of variables for landslide susceptibility model

figure a
figure b

Appendix 3: Landslide projections of the 10 models for present conditions

1. MAXENT

figure c

2. CTA

figure d

3. SRE

figure e

4. FDA

figure f

5. MARS

figure g

6. RF

figure h

7. GLM

figure i

8. GBM

figure j

9. GAM

figure k

10. ANN

figure l

Appendix 4: ROC plots for each model

Axis

Value

Scope

X

Value of each variable

The scope of value varies on variables. Please see the Table 1

Y

Probability of landslide occurrence

0–1

1. MAXENT

figure m

2. CTA

figure n

3. SRE

figure o

4. FDA

figure p

5. MARS

figure q

6. RF

figure r

7. GLM

figure s

8. GBM

figure t

9. GAM

figure u

10. ANN

figure v

Appendix 5: Results of ensemble models for the present conditions

1. PM

figure w

2. PCI lower

figure x

3. PCI upper

figure y

4. PME

figure z

5. CA

figure aa

6. PMW

figure ab

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, H.G., Lee, D.K., Park, C. et al. Estimating landslide susceptibility areas considering the uncertainty inherent in modeling methods. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 32, 2987–3019 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-018-1609-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-018-1609-y

Keywords

Navigation