Uncertainties of landslide susceptibility prediction due to different spatial resolutions and different proportions of training and testing datasets

被引:0
作者
Huang F. [1 ,2 ]
Chen J. [1 ]
Tang Z. [1 ]
Fan X. [2 ]
Huang J. [3 ]
Zhou C. [1 ]
Chang Z. [1 ]
机构
[1] School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Nanchang University, Nanchang
[2] State Key Laboratory of Geohazard Prevention and Geoenvironment Protection, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu
[3] ARC Centre of Excellence for Geotechnical Science and Engineering, University of Newcastle, 2287, NSW
来源
Yanshilixue Yu Gongcheng Xuebao/Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering | 2021年 / 40卷 / 06期
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Environmental factors; Landslide susceptibility prediction; Machine learning; Proportions of training and testing datasets; Slope engineering; Spatial resolution; Uncertainty analysis;
D O I
10.13722/j.cnki.jrme.2020.1119
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
It is of great significance to explore the influences of the spatial resolution and the proportion of model training and testing dataset on the uncertainties of landslide susceptibility prediction(LSP). Taking the landslides in Ningdu County of Jiangxi Province as examples, the frequency ratios of various environmental factors under different spatial resolutions(15, 30, 60, 90 and 120 m) are firstly calculated. Then, the landslide and non-landslide samples are divided into different model training and testing datasets with the proportions of 9/1, 8/2, 7/3, 6/4 and 5/5, and the model input and output variables under 25 combined conditions are obtained. Furthermore, these input and output variables are imported into the Support Vector Machine(SVM) and Random Forest(RF) models to carry out LSP. Finally, the uncertainties of LSP modeling under the 25 combined conditions are discussed using the accuracy assessment as well as the distribution characteristics of landslide susceptibility indexes. The results show that the landslide susceptibility accuracy predicted by the RF model under the spatial resolution of 15 m and training and testing dataset proportion of 9: 1 is the highest, and that the more important environmental factors under each condition are elevation, slope and topographic relief, etc. With decreasing the spatial resolution and/or the proportion of training and testing dataset, the LSP accuracies of both SVM and RF models decrease gradually, and the mean values of landslide susceptibility indexes increase with a decrease of the corresponding standard deviation value. For all combined conditions, as the spatial resolutions and the proportions of training and testing dataset decrease, the LSP accuracies decrease gradually while the corresponding uncertainties increase. It is also indicated that the LSP accuracy of the RF model is better than that of the SVM model under various combined conditions, and that the influence of the spatial resolution on the RF model is significantly greater than that of the proportion of training and testing dataset while there is little difference between the effects of the two factors on the SVM model. © 2021, Science Press. All right reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1155 / 1169
页数:14
相关论文
共 39 条
[1]  
ZHANG Jun, YIN Kunlong, WANG Jiajia, Et al., Evaluation of landslide susceptibility for Wanzhou district of Three Gorges Reservoir, Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 35, 2, pp. 284-296, (2016)
[2]  
GUO Zizheng, YIN Kunlong, TANG Yang, Et al., Stability evaluation and presiction of Maliulin landslide under reservoir water level decline and rainfall, Geological Science and Technology Information, 36, 4, pp. 260-265, (2017)
[3]  
CHEN Z, YE F, FU W, Et al., The influence of DEM spatial resolution on landslide susceptibility mapping in the Baxie River basin, NW China, Natural Hazards, 101, 3, pp. 853-877, (2020)
[4]  
ZHAO Y, WANG R, JIANG Y, Et al., GIS-based logistic regression for rainfall-induced landslide susceptibility mapping under different grid sizes in Yueqing, Southeastern China, Engineering Geology, 259, (2019)
[5]  
HUNAG Faming, YE Zhou, YAO Chi, Et al., Uncertainties of landslide susceptibility prediction: different attribute interval divisions of environmental factors and different data-based models, Earth Science, 45, 12, pp. 4535-4549, (2020)
[6]  
SHIRZADI A, SOLAIMANI K, ROSHAN M H, Et al., Uncertainties of prediction accuracy in shallow landslide modeling: Sample size and raster resolution, Catena, 178, pp. 172-188, (2019)
[7]  
YANG P, AMES D P, FONSECA A, Et al., What is the effect of LiDAR-derived DEM resolution on large-scale watershed model results?, Environmental Modelling and Software, 58, pp. 48-57, (2014)
[8]  
IWAHASHI J, KAMIYA I, YAMAGISHI H., High-resolution DEMs in the study of rainfall- and earthquake-induced landslides: Use of a variable window size method in digital terrain analysis, Geomorphology, 153-154, pp. 29-38, (2012)
[9]  
ARNONE E, FRANCIPANE A, SCARBACI A, Et al., Effect of raster resolution and polygon-conversion algorithm on landslide susceptibility mapping, Environmental Modelling and Software, 84, pp. 467-481, (2016)
[10]  
CAVAZZI S, CORSTANJE R, MAYR T, Et al., Are fine resolution digital elevation models always the best choice in digital soil mapping, Geoderma, 195, 1, pp. 111-121, (2013)