CONTACT US: Contact info
|
Citation |
Dou J, Yunus AP, Merghadi A, Shirzadi A, Nguyen H, Hussain Y, Avtar R, Chen Y, Pham BT, Yamagishi H. Sci. Total Environ. 2020; 720: e137320. |
|
Affiliation |
Hokkaido Research Center of Geology（HRCG）, Sapporo, Japan. Electronic address: hiromitsuyamagishi88@gmail.com. |
|
Copyright |
(Copyright © 2020, Elsevier Publishing) |
|
DOI |
|
PMID |
32325551 |
|
Abstract |
Predictive capability of landslide susceptibilities is assumed to be varied with different sampling techniques, such as (a) the landslide scarp centroid, (b) centroid of landslide body, (c) samples of the scrap region representing the scarp polygon, and (d) samples of the landslide body representing the entire landslide body. However, new advancements in statistical and machine learning algorithms continuously being updated the landslide susceptibility paradigm. This paper explores the predictive performance power of different sampling techniques in landslide susceptibility mapping in the wake of increased usage of artificial intelligence. We used logistic regression (LR), neural network (NNET), and deep learning neural network (DNN) model for testing and validation of the models. The tests were applied to the 2018 Hokkaido Earthquake affected areas using a set of 11 predictor variables (seismic, topographic, and hydrological). We found that the prediction rates are inconsequential with the DNN model irrespective of the sampling technique (AUC: 0.904 - 0.919). Whereas, testing with LR (AUC: 0.825 - 0.785) and NNET (AUC: 0.882 - 0.858) produces larger differences in the accuracies between the four datasets. Nonetheless, the highest success rates were obtained for samples within the landslide scarp area. The analogy was then validated with a published landslide inventory from the 2015 Gorkha earthquake. We, therefore, suggest that DNN models as an appropriate technique to increase the predictive performance of landslide susceptibilities if the landslide scarp and body are not characterized properly in an inventory. Language: en |
|
Keywords |
Deep learning; Landslide sampling strategies; Lidar DEM; M(w)6.6 Hokkaido earthquake; Susceptibility |