Geoscience Frontiers (Mar 2021)

GIS-based landslide susceptibility modeling: A comparison between fuzzy multi-criteria and machine learning algorithms

  • Sk Ajim Ali,
  • Farhana Parvin,
  • Jana Vojteková,
  • Romulus Costache,
  • Nguyen Thi Thuy Linh,
  • Quoc Bao Pham,
  • Matej Vojtek,
  • Ljubomir Gigović,
  • Ateeque Ahmad,
  • Mohammad Ali Ghorbani

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 12, no. 2
pp. 857 – 876

Abstract

Read online

Hazards and disasters have always negative impacts on the way of life. Landslide is an overwhelming natural as well as man-made disaster that causes loss of natural resources and human properties throughout the world. The present study aimed to assess and compare the prediction efficiency of different models in landslide susceptibility in the Kysuca river basin, Slovakia. In this regard, the fuzzy decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory combining with the analytic network process (FDEMATEL-ANP), Naïve Bayes (NB) classifier, and random forest (RF) classifier were considered. Initially, a landslide inventory map was produced with 2000 landslide and non-landslide points by randomly divided with a ratio of 70%:30% for training and testing, respectively. The geospatial database for assessing the landslide susceptibility was generated with the help of 16 landslide conditioning factors by allowing for topographical, hydrological, lithological, and land cover factors. The ReliefF method was considered for determining the significance of selected conditioning factors and inclusion in the model building. Consequently, the landslide susceptibility maps (LSMs) were generated using the FDEMATEL-ANP, Naïve Bayes (NB) classifier, and random forest (RF) classifier models. Finally, the area under curve (AUC) and different arithmetic evaluation were used for validating and comparing the results and models. The results revealed that random forest (RF) classifier is a promising and optimum model for landslide susceptibility in the study area with a very high value of area under curve (AUC = 0.954), lower value of mean absolute error (MAE = 0.1238) and root mean square error (RMSE = 0.2555), and higher value of Kappa index (K = 0.8435) and overall accuracy (OAC = 92.2%).

Keywords