Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Application and comparison of different ensemble learning machines combining with a novel sampling strategy for shallow landslide susceptibility mapping

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

Abstract

The existence of shallow landslide brings huge threats to the human lives and economic development, as the Lang County, Southeastern Tibet prone to landslide. Landslide susceptibility mapping (LSM) is considered as the key for the prevention of hazard. The primary goal of the present study is to assess and compare four models: classification and regression tree, gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT), adaptive boosting-decision tree and random forest for the performance of landslide susceptibility modeling. Firstly, a landslide inventory map consisting of 229 historical shallow landslide locations was prepared and the same number of non-landslide points was determined by k-means clustering. Secondly, 12 conditioning factors were considered in the landslide susceptibility modeling. The prediction performance of the four models were estimated by fivefold cross validation and relative operating characteristic curve (ROC), area under the ROC curve (AUC) and statistical measures. The results showed that the GBDT performed best in the training and validation dataset, with the highest prediction capability (AUC = 0.986 and 0.940), highest accuracy value (95.3% and 88.1%) and highest kappa index (0.904 and 0.772), respectively. Therefore, the GBDT was considered to be the most suitable model and applied to the whole study area for LSM. The results of this study also demonstrate that the performance can be enhanced with the use of ensemble learning. The sampling strategy of non-landslide points can be improved by combining with clustering analysis which are more reasonable.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anil K (2010) Data clustering: 50 years beyond K-Means. Pattern Recogn Lett 31:651–666

    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 65:12–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett GL, Miller SR, Roering JJ, Schmidt DA (2016) Landslides, threshold slopes, and the survival of relict terrain in the wake of the Mendocino Triple Junction. Geology 44(5):363–366

    Google Scholar 

  • Bregoli F, Medina V, Chevalier G, Hürlimann M, Bateman A (2015) Debris-flow susceptibility assessment at regional scale: validation on an alpine environment. Landslides 12(3):437–454

    Google Scholar 

  • Breiman L (1994) Bagging predictors. Machine Learn 24:23–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45(1):5–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Breiman L, Friedman JH, Olshen RA, Stone CJ (1984) Classification and regression trees. Chapman & Hall, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucci F, Santangelo M, Cardinali M et al (2016) Landslide distribution and size in response to Quaternary fault activity: the Peloritani Range, NE Sicily. Italy. Earth Surf Process Land 41(5):711–720

    Google Scholar 

  • Bui DT, Pradhan B, Lofman O, Revhaug I, Dick OB (2012) Landslide susceptibility assessment in the Hoa Binh Province of Vietnam: a comparison of the Levenberg-Marquardt and Bayesian regularized neural networks. Geomorphology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.04.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calle ML, Urrea V (2010) Letter to the Editor: stability of random forest importance measures. Brief Bioinform 12(1):86–89. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbq011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cao J, Zhang Z, Wang C, Liu J, Zhang L (2019) Susceptibility assessment of landslides triggered by earthquakes in the Western Sichuan Plateau. CATENA 175:63–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen W, Xie X, Wang J, Pradhan B, Hong H, Bui DT, Ma J (2017) A comparative study of logistic model tree, random forest, and classification and regression tree models for spatial prediction of landslide susceptibility. CATENA 151:147–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Chung CF, Fabbri AG (2003) Validation of spatial prediction models for landslide hazard mapping. Nat Hazards 30:451–472

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciurleo M, Calvello M, Cascini L (2016) Susceptibility zoning of shallow landslides in fine grained soils by statistical methods. CATENA 139:250–264

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciurleo M, Cascini L, Calvello M (2017) A comparison of statistical and deterministic methods for shallow landslide susceptibility zoning in clayey soils. Eng Geol 223:71–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Colkesen I, Sahin EK, Kavzoglu T (2016) Susceptibility mapping of shallow landslides using kernel-based Gaussian process, support vector machines and logistic regression. J Afr Earth Sci 118:53–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruden DM, Varnes DJ (1996) Landslide types and processes. In: Turner AK, Schuster RL (eds) Landslides, investigation and mitigation, Special Report 247. Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., pp 36–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietterich TG (2000) An experimental comparison of three methods for constructing ensembles of decision trees: Bagging, boosting, and randomization. Mach Learn 40(2):139–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Dou J, Yunus AP, Bui DT, Merghadi A, Sahana M, Zhu Z, Pham BT (2020) Improved landslide assessment using support vector machine with bagging, boosting, and stacking ensemble machine learning framework in a mountainous watershed Japan. Landslides 17(3):641–658

    Google Scholar 

  • Du J, Glade T, Woldai T, Chai B, Zeng B (2020) Landslide susceptibility assessment based on an incomplete landslide inventory in the Jilong Valley, Tibet. Chin Himal Eng Geol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2020.105572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans IS (1979) An integrated system of terrain analysis and slope mapping. FinalReport on Grant DA-ERO-591-73-G0040. University of Durham, England

  • Fan W, Stolfo SJ, Zhang J (1999). The application of AdaBoost for distributed, scalable and on-line learning.In: Proceedings of the fifth SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (pp.362–366).

  • Feizizadeh B, Blaschke T, Nazmfar H (2014) GIS-based ordered weighted averaging and Dempster-Shafer methods for landslide susceptibility mapping in the Urmia Lake Basin Iran. Int J Digital Earth 7(8):688–708

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernández-Delgado M, Cernadas E, Barro S et al (2014) Do we need hundreds of classifiers to solve real world classification problems? J Mach Learn Res 15(1):3133–3181

    Google Scholar 

  • Freund Y, Schapire RE (1997) A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting. J Comput Syst Sci 55:119–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman JH (2001) Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Ann Stat 29(5):1189–1232

    Google Scholar 

  • Furlani S, Ninfo A (2015) Is the present the key to the future? Earth-Sci Rev 142(C):38–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Goetz JN, Brenning A, Petschko H, Leopold P (2015) Evaluating machine learning and statistical prediction techniques for landslide susceptibility modeling. Comput Geosci 81:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2015.04.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green DM, Swets JM (1966) Signal detection theory and psychophysics. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzzetti F, Reichenbach P, Ardizzone F, Cardinali M, Galli M (2006a) Estimating the quality of landslide susceptibility models. Geomorphology 81:166–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.206.04.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzzetti F, Galli M, Reichenbach P, Ardizzone F, Cardinali M (2006b) Landslide hazard assessment in the Collazzone area, Umbria, central Italy. Nat Hazard Earth Syst Sci 6:115–131. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-6-115-2006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartigan J, Wong M (1979) Algorithm AS 136: A K-means clustering algorithm. J R Stat Soc C 28:100–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Heckmann T, Gregg K, Gregg A, Becht M (2014) Sample size matters: investigating the effect of sample size on a logistic regression susceptibility model for debris flows. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 14:259–278

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 133:266–281

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong H, Liu J, Bui DT, Pradhan B, Acharya TD, Pham BT, Zhu AX, Chen W, Ahmad BB (2018) Landslide susceptibility mapping using J48 decision tree with AdaBoost, bagging and rotation forest ensembles in the Guangchang area (China). CATENA 163:399

    Google Scholar 

  • Hussin HY, Zumpano V, Reichenbach P, Sterlacchini S, Micu M, van Westen C, Bălteanu D (2015) Different landslide sampling strategies in a grid-based bi-variate statistical susceptibility model. Geomorphology 253:508–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.10.030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James G, Witten D, Hastie T, Tibshirani R (2013) An introduction to statistical learning. Springer, New York, p 441

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornejady A, Ownegh M, Bahremand A (2017) Landslide susceptibility assessment using maximum entropy model with two different data sampling methods. CATENA 152:144–162

    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(8):1957–1972

    Google Scholar 

  • Liang Z, Wang C, Han S, Khan KUJ, Liu Y (2020a) Classification and susceptibility assessment of debris flow based on a semi-quantitative method combination of the fuzzy C-means algorithm, factor analysis and efficacy coefficient. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 20:1287–1304. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-1287-2020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang Z, Wang C, Zhang Z-M, Khan K-U-J (2020b) A comparison of statistical and machine learning methods for debris flow susceptibility mapping. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-020-01851-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Likas A, Vlassis N, Verbeek JJ (2003) The global K-means clustering algorithm. Pattern Recogn 36:451–461

    Google Scholar 

  • MacQueen J (1967) Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. Proc 5th Berkeley Symp Math Stat Probab 1(14):281–297

    Google Scholar 

  • Magliulo P, DiLisio A, Russo F, Zelano A (2008) Geomorphology and landslide susceptibility assessment using GIS and bivariate statistics: a case study in southern Italy. Nat Hazards 47:411–435

    Google Scholar 

  • Merghadi A, Yunus AP, Dou J, Whiteley J, Thai Pham Binh Bui DT, Ram A, Abderrahmane B (2020) Machine learning methods for landslide susceptibility studies: a comparative overview of algorithm performance. Earth Sci Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2020.103225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mingoti SA, Lima JO (2006) Comparing SOM neural network with Fuzzy c-means, K-means and traditional hierarchical clustering algorithms. Eur J Oper Res 174(3):1742–1759

    Google Scholar 

  • Nefeslioglu HA, Gökceoglu 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(3):171–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2008.01.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A et al (2011) Scikit-learn: machine learning in python. J Mach Learn Res 12(10):2825–2830

    Google Scholar 

  • Pham BT, Prakash I (2019) A novel hybrid model of bagging-based naïve bayes trees for landslide susceptibility assessment. Bull Eng Geol Env 78(3):1911–1925

    Google Scholar 

  • Pham BT, Van Phong T, Nguyen-Thoi T, Trinh PT, Tran QC, Ho LS, Singh SK, Duyen TT, Nguyen LT, Le HQ, Van Le H, Hanh TB, Quoc NK, Prakash I (2020) GIS-based ensemble soft computing models for landslide susceptibility mapping. Adv Space Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2020.05.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pourghasemi HR, Rahmati O (2018) Prediction of the landslide susceptibility: which algorithm, which precision? Catena 162:177–192

    Google Scholar 

  • Pradhan B (2010) Landslide susceptibility mapping of a catchment area using frequency ratio, fuzzy logic and multivariate logistic regression approaches. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 38(2):301–320

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichenbach P, Rossi M, Malamud BD et al (2018) A review of statistically-based landslide susceptibility models. Earth Sci Rev 180(5):60–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2018.03.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samadi M, Jabbari E, Azamathulla HM (2014) Assessment of M5 model tree and classification and regression trees for prediction of scour depth below free overfall spillways. Neural Comput Appl 24:357–366

    Google Scholar 

  • Schapire RE (1990) The strength of weak learnability. Mach Learn 5(2):197–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Segal MR (2004) Machine Learning Benchmarks and Random Forest Regression. Center for Bioinformatics and Molecular Biostatistics UC, San Francisco. https://eprints.cdlib.org/uc/item/35x3v9t4.

  • Swets JA (1988) Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 240:1285–1293

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tien Bui D, Ho TC, Revhaug I, Pradhan B, Nguyen DB (2014) Landslide susceptibility mapping along the national road 32 of Vietnam using GIS-based J48 decision tree classifier and its ensembles Cartography from Pole to Pole. Springer, Berlin, pp 303–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Tien Bui D, Ho T-C, Pradhan B et al (2016a) GIS-based modeling of rainfall-induced landslides using data mining-based functional trees classifier with AdaBoost, Bagging, and MultiBoost ensemble frameworks. Environ Earth Sci 75:1101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-5919-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tien Bui D et al (2016b) GIS-based modeling of rainfall-induced landslides using data mining based functional trees classifier with AdaBoost, bagging, and MultiBoost ensemble frameworks. Environ Earth Sci 75:1101–1123

    Google Scholar 

  • Tong L, Qi W, An G, Liu C (2019) Remote sensing survey of major geological disasters in the Himalayas. J Eng Geol 27(03):496

    Google Scholar 

  • Trigila A, Catani F, Casagli N, Crosta G, Esposito C, Frattini P, Iadanza C, Lagomarsino D, Lari S Scarascia-Mugnozza G, Segoni S, Spizzichino D, Tofani V (2012) The landslide susceptibility map of Italy at 1:1 million scale. Geophysical Research Abstracts, European Geosciences Union — General Assembly 2012, Vienna 22–27 April 2012

  • van Westen CJ, Castellanos E, Kuriakose SL (2008) Spatial data for landslide susceptibility, hazard, and vulnerability assessment: an overview. Eng Geol 102(3–4):112–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Varnes DJ (1978) Slope movement types and processes. In: Schuster RL, Krizek RJ (eds), Landslides: analysis and control, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., Transportation Research Board, National Academy Press, Special Report 176, pp 11–33

  • Varnes, D.J., 1984. Landslide hazard zonation: a review of principles and practice. Commission on Landslides of the IAEG, UNESCONatural Hazards No. 3 (61 pp.).

  • Woods M, Guivant J, Katupitiya J (2013) Terrain classification using depth texture features. In: Proceeding Australian Conference of Robotics and Automation, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2013, pp 1–8

  • Wu X, Ren F, Niu R (2014) Landslide susceptibility assessment using object mapping units, decision tree, and support vector machine models in the Three Gorges of China. Environ Earth Sci 71(11):4725–4738

    Google Scholar 

  • Youssef AM, Pradhan B, Jebur MN et al (2015a) Landslide susceptibility mapping using ensemble bivariate and multivariate statistical models in Fayfa area Saudi Arabia. Environ Earth Sci 73(7):3745–3761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-014-3661-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Youssef AM, Pradhan B, Jebur MN, El-Harbi HM (2015b) Landslide susceptibility mapping using ensemble bivariate and multivariate statistical models in Fayfa area Saudi Arabia. Environ Earth Sci 73:3745–3761

    Google Scholar 

  • Youssef AM, Pourghasemi HR, Pourtaghi ZS, Al-Katheeri MM (2016) 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, Asir Region Saudi Arabia. Landslides 13(5):839–856

    Google Scholar 

  • Zezere JL, Pereira S, Melo R et al (2017) Mapping landslide susceptibility using data-driven methods. Sci Total Environ 589:250–267

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 41972267 and 41572257).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Changming Wang.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liang, Z., Wang, C. & Khan, K.U.J. Application and comparison of different ensemble learning machines combining with a novel sampling strategy for shallow landslide susceptibility mapping. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 35, 1243–1256 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-020-01893-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-020-01893-y

Keywords

Navigation