See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257793990

Landslide susceptibility mapping using

frequency ratio, analytic hierarchy process,
logistic regression, and artificial neural...

Article in Environmental Earth Sciences · March 2012

DOI: 10.1007/s12665-012-1842-5

CITATIONS READS

93 528

4 authors, including:

Chuluong Choi Jinsoo Kim

Pukyong National University Pukyong National University
43 PUBLICATIONS 358 CITATIONS 28 PUBLICATIONS 210 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jinsoo Kim on 28 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:1443–1464
DOI 10.1007/s12665-012-1842-5
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Landslide susceptibility mapping using frequency ratio, analytic
hierarchy process, logistic regression, and artificial neural
network methods at the Inje area, Korea
Soyoung Park • Chuluong Choi • Byungwoo Kim •
Jinsoo Kim
Received: 18 August 2011 / Accepted: 9 July 2012 / Published online: 9 August 2012
 Springer-Verlag 2012
Abstract Every year, the Republic of Korea experiences
numerous landslides, resulting in property damage and
casualties. This study compared the abilities of frequency
ratio (FR), analytic hierarchy process (AHP), logistic
regression (LR), and artificial neural network (ANN) models
to produce landslide susceptibility index (LSI) maps for use
in predicting possible landslide occurrence and limiting
damage. The areas under the relative operating characteristic
(ROC) curves for the FR, AHP, LR, and ANN LSI maps were
0.794, 0.789, 0.794, and 0.806, respectively. Thus, the LSI
maps developed by all the models had similar accuracy. A
cross-tabulation analysis of landslide occurrence against non-
occurrence areas showed generally similar overall accuracies
of 65.27, 64.35, 65.51, and 68.47 % for the FR, AHP, LR, and
ANN models, respectively. A correlation analysis between
the models demonstrated that the LR and ANN models had
the highest correlation (0.829), whereas the FR and AHP
models had the lowest correlation (0.619).
Keywords Frequency ratio (FR)  Analytic hierarchy
process (AHP)  Logistic regression (LR)  Artificial neural
network (ANN)  Landslide susceptibility index (LSI)
S. Park  C. Choi  B. Kim
Department of Spatial Information Engineering,
Pukyong National University, 45 Yongso-ro, Nam-gu,
Busan 608-737, Republic of Korea
e-mail: 100yac@hanmail.net
C. Choi
e-mail: cuchoi@pknu.ac.kr
B. Kim
e-mail: apple0039@lycos.co.kr
J. Kim (&)
ZEN21, 2nd Floor, RNC Building, 981-1 Bangbae 3-dong,
Seocho-gu, Seoul 137-848, Republic of Korea
e-mail: pknu9680@gmail.com
Introduction
Climate changes such as rising sea levels and more severe
rainstorms, typhoons, and floods are expected to occur with
global warming, increasing the frequency of natural
disasters. In the Republic of Korea (hereafter, Korea), the
Korean Meteorological Administration has reported that
temperatures have been persistently rising since 1908, the
year when meteorological observations began. During the
past 25 years, the annual average temperature has risen
1–2 C in each district of Korea, with temperatures rising
over time. In addition, torrential rain now occurs frequently
in some regions, resulting in natural disasters such as
landslides. Landslides are difficult to predict and are mostly
caused by shear fractures that appear at moving soil and
rock borders.
Landslides generate larger annual losses of property
than any other type of natural disaster, including earth-
quakes, floods, and windstorms (Garcia-Rodriguez et al.
2008). Landslides accounted for approximately 4.4 % of
natural disasters worldwide from 1990 to 2009, with 2.3 %
of reported landslides occurring in Asia (CRED 2009). In
Korea, approximately 70 % of the land is mountainous,
and large-scale landslides often result from the heavy rains
that accompany thunderstorms and torrential rains.
Typhoons Yanni (in 1998), Rusa (2002), Maemi (2003),
and Ewinia (2006) brought particularly heavy rains that
caused many landslides in Korea (Fig. 1). For example, in
August 1998 during Yanni, 511 landslides occurred
in Jangheung (588 mm), 788 in Sangju (522 mm), and 283
in Pohang (150 mm). Massive landslides also occurred in
August 2002, with 984 in Gangneung (984 mm), and
August 2006, with 748 in Pyeongchang (898 mm) (Lee
2011). Moreover, landslides caused 204 deaths in Korea in
the years 1997–2010, representing approximately 25 % of
123
1444
Fig. 1 Losses and areas
damaged by landslides in Korea
from 1997 to 2010 (Statistic
Korea 2011)
the total casualties due to natural disasters in that period
(Park et al. 2005).
According to Schuster (1996), this trend will likely
continue in future decades as a result of changes in climate
associated with increased urbanization and development,
further deforestation, and increased regional precipitation
in landslide-prone areas.
Mapping the areas that are susceptible to landslides is
essential for effective land-use management and should
become a standard tool to support land management deci-
sion-making (Akgun 2012). Landslide susceptibility maps
can be drawn using a qualitative or quantitative approach
(Soeters and Van Westen 1996; Aleotti and Chowdhury
1999; Guzzetti et al. 1999). Qualitative approaches were
widely used by geologists and geomorphologists until the
late 1970s. Quantitative approaches, which have been fre-
quently used in recent years, involve methods to analyze
the relations between causes of landslides based on prob-
abilistic models. These approaches have become popular in
the past few decades, assisted by developments in com-
puter and geographic information system (GIS) technol-
ogy. Probabilistic models are commonly used, and a large
number of methodologies have been developed. Addi-
tionally, methods to map landslide susceptibility can be
classified into four groups, namely landslide inventory-
based probabilistic, deterministic, heuristic, and statistical
techniques (Carrara et al. 1995; Guzzetti et al. 1999;
Chacon et al. 2006; Akgun 2012). Landslide inventory-
based probabilistic techniques involve the collection of
past landslide data, construction of databases, and creation
of inventory or susceptibility maps based on those data
(Chau et al. 2004; Duman et al. 2005). Deterministic
techniques are based on physical conservation laws and
require the creation of a map that displays the spatial dis-
tribution of input data. This form of analysis is based on the
slope safety model, which allows the calculation of quan-
titative values expressing the degree of safety (Godt et al.
123
Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:1443–1464
2008; Van Westen and Terlien 1996). Heuristic analysis is
used by geomorphologists to analyze aerial photographs or
to conduct field surveys. This approach combines geo-
morphological analysis with qualitative map development.
Geomorphological analysis is also known as the direct
mapping method, whereby susceptibility is established
directly by researchers in the field (Cardinali et al. 2002;
Van Westen et al. 2000; Yilmaz and Yildirim 2006).
Qualitative maps weight each factor affecting landslides
based on researchers’ expertise. This method has been used
widely to evaluate areas vulnerable to landslides (Ayalew
et al. 2004; Castellanos Abella and Van Westen 2007;
Yoshimatsu and Abe 2006). Statistical analysis is used to
select and analyze factors affecting landslides in areas with
environmental conditions similar to those where past
landslides have been reported. Bivariate (Naranjo 1994;
Suzen and Doyuran 2004a; Thiery et al. 2008; Yalcin
2008) or multivariate (Baeza and Corominas 2001; Carrara
1983; Chung et al. 1995; Suzen and Doyuran 2004b) sta-
tistical analyses may be used, depending on the number of
dependent variables. Recently, new techniques such as
fuzzy-logic, artificial neural network (ANN), and neuro-
fuzzy models have been used to evaluate landslide sus-
ceptibility (Ermini et al. 2005; Kanungo et al. 2006; Lee
et al. 2007; Oh and Pradhan 2011; Sezer et al. 2011;
Tangestani 2004). Some studies have used two or three
models to construct landslide susceptibility maps and
compare their accuracy; compared models have included
probability and statistical analyses (Lee and Sambath 2006;
Lee and Pradhan 2007), statistical and ANN analyses
(Yesilnacar and Topal 2005), and probability, statistical,
and ANN analyses (Lee et al. 2007; Yilmaz 2009).
This study investigated the Inje Town area located in
Inje County, Gangwon Province, Korea. The study area
experienced large-scale landslides caused by the intensive
rainfall that accompanied Typhoon Ewiniar in July 2006.
The goal of this study was to create landslide susceptibility
Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:1443–1464
maps of the Inje Town area using four different models and
then to analyze, evaluate, and compare the results of each
model. The four methods used were a probability model
(frequency ratio, FR), an analytical method (analytic
hierarchy process, AHP), a statistical model (logistic
regression, LR), and a data-mining method (artificial neural
network, ANN). As input data we considered the following
causative factors of landslides: topographic factors (ele-
vation, slope, aspect), hydrological factors (distance to
drainage, stream power index, topographic wetness index),
soil factors (soil texture, soil effective thickness), forest
factors (tree type, tree diameter, tree age, crown density),
and land-cover factors (land-use/land-cover type). The
susceptibility maps constructed by each model were ana-
lyzed based on the area under the curve (AUC) values of
relative operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and the
accuracy in defining landslide and non-landslide zones was
compared using cross-tabulation. Additionally, correlation
analysis was also conducted to examine correlations among
the models.
Methodology
Study area
Gangwon Province, located in the central eastern part of
Korea, has 1.25 million residents. The province occupies
16,875 km2, representing 17 % of the total national terri-
tory, making Gangwon the second largest province after
Gyeongsangbuk. Of the total territory of Gangwon, 81 %
(13,661 km2) is mountainous (Statistics Korea 2009).
Mountainous topography, combined with Korea’s rainfall
pattern, in which 50–60 % of total annual precipitation
occurs in summer (e.g., in 2008 total rainfall was
1,035 mm, of which 621 mm fell in summer), makes the
area susceptible to landslides. Typhoon Ewiniar brought
record-breaking rainfall to the region.
In Inje County, Gangwon Province, the maximum daily
rainfall of 355 mm/day recorded during Ewiniar was the
largest since scientific observations began in 1973 and
equivalent to *80–500 year rainfall frequency (Korea
Meteorological Administration 2006). The typhoon left 20
people dead and another nine persons missing and caused
412 million USD of property damage (Lee and Yoo 2009).
The Korea National Emergency Management Agency
(2009) also reported that approximately 400 landslides
occurred around Girin Township, Nam Township, and Inje
Town in Inje County, with the largest scale and frequency
of landslides occurring in Inje Town.
Because of the frequency and severity of landslides in
the Inje Town area, we chose it for our examination of
landslide frequency and distribution. The study area is
1445
located between 37.90 and 38.73N latitude and 128.08–
128.22E longitude, covering a total area of 57 km2
(Fig. 2). Many valleys exist in the study area. The valleys
trend north–northeast, and most were shaped by large
faults, which causes the ground to be very weak. The
geologic features of this area include gneisses of the Pre-
cambrian Era and granites of the Mesozoic Era. Various
fault activities, intensively distributed in this area, have
created surface discontinuities, with broken bedrock slop-
ing in various directions. In addition, many mountainous
areas have steep slopes (over 30) susceptible to slope
failure (Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs
2006).
Data preparation
In this study, 466 aerial photographs with 50-cm spatial
resolution were used to detect landslide locations. Photo-
graphs of Nerin-chun stream in Inje County were taken
using the Pukyong National University (PKNU) IV system
on 2 August 2006.
Figure 3 shows the process of creating detailed land-
slide-inventory maps of the study area. The aerial images
were orthorectified using the ERDAS Leica Photogram-
metry Suite (LPS) (Erdas 2011). Spatial data were obtained
by extracting landslide zones by digitizing via visual
interpretation using ArcGIS software. For the extraction of
landslide zones, the rupture areas were generated as a
polygon feature according to the classification method for
rocky mud flow, following field survey notes of the Korea
Forest Service (2006). The 708 landslide zones extracted
from the aerial photographs ranged from 6 to 3,994 m2
(average 162 m2, total 11,998 m2).
Various data such as geography, geology, soil, and
vegetation data are needed for landslide susceptibility
mapping. The relevant data for this study were collected
and compiled as spatial databases using the ArcGIS 9.3 and
ERDAS 9.2 programs. Supporting data used for this study
included 1:5,000-scale topographic maps, 1:5,000-scale
soil maps, 1:25,000-scale forest maps, and 1:25,000-scale
land-cover maps. From the maps, 13 factors were extracted
for landslide susceptibility analysis. Table 1 lists the clas-
ses, types, and scales of data input to the GIS database
constructed for this study area. Landslide-related factors
were established in a spatial data base with 5 9 5-m grid
size by considering the accumulation of input data and the
size of the research area (Fig. 4). The study area grid was
448 rows by 729 columns (total 326,592 grid cells;
8,164,800 m2). Of the grid cells, landslides occurred in 708
(11,998 m2).
Contour lines and survey base points with elevation
values were extracted from a 1:5,000-scale topographic
map produced by the Korea National Geographic
123
1446
Fig. 2 Study area for which landslide susceptibility maps were created. a Photo of a landslide and b locations of the study area and landslides
Information Institute (KNGII), and a digital elevation
model (DEM) was made. Using the DEM, topographic
factors of elevation, slope, and aspect were calculated.
Maps of soil factors, soil texture, and effective thickness
were constructed using a 1:5,000-scale soil map from the
Korea National Academy of Agricultural Science
(KNAAS) in South Korea. The soil texture refers to the
ratio of sand, silt, and clay. Soil with particle diameters of
0.004 mm or less was considered clay, soil with
0.002–0.02 mm particles was considered silt, and soil with
0.02–2.00 mm particles was considered sand. The effective
root depth is defined as the depth below which there is
limited root activity. Thus, it is the depth until the colluvial
horizon in the soil cross section. The effective root depth
was classified into very shallow (0–20 cm), shallow
(21–50 cm), normal (51–100 cm), and deep (101–150 cm).
The forest-related maps were created from maps of tree
type, tree diameter, tree age, and crown density using a
1:25,000-scale forest map. Here, crown density refers to
the degree of closure of the crown canopy. The latter is
composed of the adjoined crown of a tree and the crown,
and was classified into low (50 % or below), medium
(51–70 %), or high (71 % or above). For land-cover
123
Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:1443–1464
factors, a 1:25,000-scale land-cover map from the Korea
Ministry of Environment (KME) was used. Land-cover
data were classified by visual interpretation using SPOT-5
imagery. The classification had 22 items, including resi-
dential area, paddy, and conifer.
In addition, a topographic map was used to calculate the
distance to drainage, the topographic wetness index (TWI),
and the stream power index (SPI). The distance to drainage
was calculated using the distance function in ArcGIS 9.3.
The TWI, which was developed by Beven and Kirkby
(1979) within a runoff model, has been used to study
spatial-scale effects on hydrological processes and is
defined by Eq. (1). The SPI is directly proportional to
stream power, which is the time rate of energy expenditure,
and thus a measure of the erosive power of overland flow
(Moore etal. 1991),
 as defined by Eq. (2):
a
TWI = ln ð1Þ
tanb
SPI ¼ a  tan b ð2Þ
where a is the local upslope area draining through a certain
point per unit of contour length, and b is the local slope
gradient in degrees.
Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:1443–1464
Fig. 3 Flow chart of the process of creating and assessing landslide susceptibility maps of the study area
Landslide susceptibility assessment models
Various models such as the frequency ratio, logistic, spa-
tial, and geographically weighted regression, analytical
hierarchy processes, fuzzy logic, and artificial neural net-
works have been used to analyze landslide susceptibility. In
this study, frequency ratio (FR), analytic hierarchy process
(AHP), logistic regression (LR), and artificial neural net-
work (ANN) models were applied to landslide suscepti-
bility analysis using the 13 landslide-related factors
described above.
Frequency ratio
In probability models for the prediction of landslide hazard,
the hazard at each point or pixel is considered to be the
joint conditional probability that the pixel will be affected
by a future landslide given (conditional to) information
from the spatial input data at the pixel (Chung and Fabbri
1447
1999). To construct a probability model for landslide
hazard, it is necessary to assume that landslide occurrence
is determined by landslide-related factors, and that future
landslides will occur under the same conditions as past
landslides. The FR model is commonly used for landslide
hazard analysis (Lee and Dan 2005; Lee and Sambath
2006; Lee and Pradhan 2007; Akgun et al. 2008; Yilmaz
2009; Jadda et al. 2009; Erener and Düzgün 2010; Akgun
2012). The FR is the ratio of the probability of an occur-
rence to the probability of a non-occurrence for given
attributes (Bonham-Carter 1994).
The FR for each factor type or range was calculated
from its relationship to landslide events. The larger the
ratio was, the stronger the relationship between landslide
occurrence and the given factor’s attribute (Lee and Talib
2005). The 13 factors were converted to a grid format to
calculate the landslide susceptibility index (LSI). Using
GIS software, the grids were overlaid with the geographic
coverage for the study area. During the overlay process, the
123
1448 Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:1443–1464

Table 1 Classification, data type, and scale of the spatial database Fig. 4 Parameter maps of the study area. a elevation, b slope, c
and factors in the study area (Jin et al. 2010; Oh et al. 2010) c aspect, d distance to drainage, e stream power index, f topographic
wetness index, g soil texture, h soil effective thickness, i tree type,
Classification GIS data type Scale or j tree diameter, k tree age, l crown density, and m land-use/land-cover
resolution type
Spatial Factor
database
CI ¼ ðkmax  nÞ=ðn  1Þ; ð4Þ
Topographical Elevation Arc/Info grid 1:5,000
map where kmax is the largest or principal eigenvalue of the
Slope matrix, and n is the order of the matrix (Saaty 1977).
Aspect The consistency ratio (CR) is obtained by comparing the
Distance to Arc/Info line CI with the appropriate value in a set of numbers in which
drainagea coverage
each is an average random CI derived from a sample of
Stream power Arc/Info grid randomly generated reciprocal matrices using the scale 1/9,
indexa
1/8, …, 1. …, 8, 9:
Topographic
wetness indexa CR = CI/RI; ð5Þ
Soil map Texture Arc/Info polygon 1:25,000
coverage where RI is the average of the resulting CI depending on
Effective the order of the matrix given by Saaty (1977).
thickness A CR above 0.1 indicates an inconsistent treatment of
Forest map Type Arc/Info polygon 1:25,000 particular factor ratings, necessitating revision of the
coverage judgments in the matrix (Saaty 1977; Dai et al. 2001). In
Diameter general, the AHP calculates the relative weights for each
Age determinant based on a questionnaire survey; these weights
Crown density are used to generate a pair-wise comparison matrix.
Land-cover Land-use/land- Arc/Info grid 10 9 10 m However, we used the method of Wu (2002), who reported
map cover type that the weights for the spatial variables in the multi-cri-
a
Factors calculated from the topographic map teria evaluation (MCE) were difficult to determine accu-
rately and comprehensively. These issues arise from the
process of obtaining weights in the MCE. As a solution,
LSI was calculated by summation of each factor’s ratio Wu (2002) proposed the use of a LR procedure.
value using Eq. (3). The LSI represents the relative hazard
of landslide occurrence. The larger the value is, the higher Logistic regression
is the risk of landslide occurrence (Lee and Pradhan 2007;
Lee and Dan 2005). It is defined as Logistic regression, a type of multivariate analysis, is
X
LSI = Fr ð3Þ useful for predicting the presence or absence of a charac-
teristic or outcome based on the values of a set of predictor
where Fr is a rating of each factor’s type or range. variables (Lee and Sambath 2006). The LR model, which
was developed by McFadden (1973), uses independent
Analytic hierarchy process variables to create a mathematical formula for the proba-
bility that an event will occur on any given parcel of land.
The AHP model, developed by Saaty in the early 1970s, is The key to LR is that the dependent variable is dichoto-
a kind of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) process mous. The independent variables in this model are pre-
that can be used to examine complicated technological, dictors of the dependent variable and can be measured on a
economic, and social-political matters (Saaty 1977; Saaty nominal, ordinal, interval, or ratio scale. The relationship
and Vargas 1991). The process involves pair-wise com- between the dependent and independent variables is non-
parisons of decision variables (e.g., objectives, alterna- linear (Yesilnacar and Topal 2005). The relationship
tives). In the construction of a pair-wise comparison between the occurrence and its dependency on several
matrix, each factor is rated against every other factor by variables can be expressed quantitatively as
assigning a relative dominance value between 1 and 9 to
P = 1/(1 + eZ Þ; ð6Þ
the intersecting cell (Dai et al. 2001). In addition, the
measure of inconsistency can be used to successively where P is the probability that an event will occur. The
improve the consistency of judgments. The consistency probability varies from 0 to 1 on an S-shaped curve. In
index (CI) of a matrix of comparisons is other words, the higher the value of the independent

123
Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:1443–1464 1449

123
1450 Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:1443–1464

Fig. 4 continued

123
Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:1443–1464 1451

Fig. 4 continued

123
1452 Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:1443–1464

Fig. 4 continued

123
Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:1443–1464
Fig. 4 continued
variable with a positive relationship to P, the greater the
landslide susceptibility is. In Eq. (6), Z represents the linear
combination
Z ¼ B 0 þ B1 X 1 þ B2 X 2 þ    þ B n Xn ð7Þ
It follows that LR involves fitting the above equation to
the data, where B0 is the intercept of the model, Bi (i = 0,
1, 2, …, n) represents the coefficients of the LR model, and
Xi (i = 0, 1, 2, …, n) denotes the independent variables
(Lee and Sambath 2006).
As a first step in the analysis, a map showing the area
affected by landslides and factor maps (see Table 1) in
raster format were converted into ASCII format. The sta-
tistical package SPSS 13.0 was then used to estimate the
correlation between a landslide event and landslide-
affecting factors. In this process, coefficients were mostly
estimated based on the maximum likelihood model.
Artificial neural network
An ANN is a computational mechanism that can acquire,
represent, and compute a map of information from one
multivariate space to another using a data set representing
that mapping (Garrett 1994). The purpose of an ANN is to
build a model of the data-generating process so that the
network can generalize and predict outputs from inputs that
it has not previously seen (Lee et al. 2003).
The multi-layer perceptron (MLP) neural network,
which has been described by Rumelhart et al. (1986), is
one of the most widely used ANNs. The MLP consists of
three layers (input, hidden, and output layers) and can
identify relationships that are non-linear in nature (Pija-
nowski et al. 2002). The MLP networks are trained by
1453
error-correction learning, which means that the desired
response of the system must be known; a back-propaga-
tion (BP) algorithm must also be known (Zurada 1992).
The S-shaped sigmoid function is commonly used as the
transfer function.
The BP algorithm randomly selects the initial weights.
Then, the difference between the expected and calculated
output values across all observations is summarized using
the mean-square error. After all observations are presented
to the network, the weights are modified according to a
generalized delta rule (Rumelhart et al. 1986). This process
of feeding forward signals and back-propagating errors is
repeated iteratively until the error stabilizes at a low level
(Pijanowski et al. 2002).
Validation and comparison
Statistical methods must be developed to validate models
because it is essential to know a model’s prediction accu-
racy. The method of validation used in this study employed
a quantitative measurement called the relative operating
characteristic (ROC). The ROC curve is a useful method
for representing the quality of deterministic and probabi-
listic detection and forecast systems (Swets 1988). If there
are two dependent variables, the ROC curve can be drawn
using the predicted dependent variables through statistical
models. In this case, an error matrix calculated by the
classification standard value is required. The error matrix is
a table that suggests both the correctly classified frequency
and other frequencies for each scope of dependent vari-
ables between the real and predicted values, and the ROC
is a curve connecting the sensitivity and the 1-specificity
acquired by the error matrix.
123
1454 Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:1443–1464

Table 2 Result of the frequency ratio model for each factor

Factor Class Grids in Percentage Number of Percentage of Frequency
domain of grids showing grids showing ratio
grids in landslide landslide
domain occurrence occurrence

Elevation 400–450 m 2,592 0.79 0 0.00 0.00

451–500 m 21,274 6.51 64 3.66 0.56
501–540 m 35,521 10.88 215 12.30 1.13
541–580 m 55,284 16.93 379 21.68 1.28
581–620 m 53,631 16.42 324 18.54 1.13
621–660 m 49,754 15.23 387 22.14 1.45
661–700 m 42,271 12.94 195 11.16 0.86
701–740 m 27,731 8.49 129 7.38 0.87
741–780 m 19,673 6.02 37 2.12 0.35
More than 781 m 18,861 5.78 18 1.03 0.18
Slope 0–7 31,805 9.74 76 4.35 0.45
8–14 15,215 4.66 14 0.80 0.17
15–21 50,712 15.53 257 14.70 0.95
22–28 87,769 26.87 483 27.63 1.03
29–35 75,851 23.23 450 25.74 1.11
36–42 42,419 12.99 302 17.28 1.33
43–49 16,953 5.19 118 6.75 1.30
50–56 4,739 1.45 37 2.12 1.46
57–63 992 0.30 9 0.51 1.70
More than 64 137 0.04 2 0.11 2.73
Aspect Flat 30,137 9.23 76 4.35 0.47
North-facing 15,881 4.86 55 3.15 0.65
Northeast-facing 30,947 9.48 158 9.04 0.95
East-facing 36,781 11.26 225 12.87 1.14
Southeast-facing 37,287 11.42 296 16.93 1.48
South-facing 46,647 14.28 240 13.73 0.96
Southwest-facing 37,068 11.35 220 12.59 1.11
West-facing 34,173 10.46 229 13.10 1.25
Northwest-facing 38,578 11.81 192 10.98 0.93
North-facing 19,093 5.85 57 3.26 0.56
Distance to drainage 0–50 m 69,949 21.42 398 22.76 1.06
50–100 m 57,649 17.65 316 18.06 1.02
100–150 m 51,570 15.79 272 15.55 0.98
150–200 m 47,160 14.44 249 14.25 0.99
200–250 m 40,274 12.33 207 11.86 0.96
250–300 m 31,460 9.63 162 9.25 0.96
300–350 m 18,350 5.62 92 5.26 0.94
350–400 m 7,455 2.28 36 2.09 0.91
400–450 m 2,352 0.72 13 0.75 1.05
More than 451 m 373 0.11 3 0.16 1.43

123
Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:1443–1464 1455

Table 2 continued
Factor Class Grids in Percentage Number of Percentage of Frequency
domain of grids showing grids showing ratio
grids in landslide landslide
domain occurrence occurrence

Stream power index 0.0–3.5 308,890 94.58 1,628 93.14 0.98

3.6–6.7 15,230 4.66 110 6.29 1.35
6.8–7.2 671 0.21 2 0.11 0.56
7.3–7.7 510 0.16 6 0.34 2.20
7.8–8.2 359 0.11 1 0.06 0.52
8.3–8.7 177 0.05 0 0.00 0.00
8.8–9.2 119 0.04 0 0.00 0.00
9.3–9.7 153 0.05 1 0.06 1.22
9.8–10.2 162 0.05 0 0.00 0.00
More than 10.3 321 0.10 0 0.00 0.00
Topographic wetness index 0.0–2.2 12,728 3.90 16 0.92 0.23
2.3–4.4 806 0.25 9 0.51 2.09
4.5–6.6 288,186 88.24 1,637 93.65 1.06
6.7–8.8 18,987 5.81 64 3.66 0.63
8.9–11.0 4,052 1.24 16 0.92 0.74
11.1–13.2 1,062 0.33 6 0.34 1.06
13.3–15.4 550 0.17 0 0.00 0.00
15.5–17.6 198 0.06 0 0.00 0.00
17.7–19.8 21 0.01 0 0.00 0.00
More than 19.9 2 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
Soil texture Sandy loam 227,716 69.72 1,510 86.38 1.24
Loam 98,876 30.28 238 13.62 0.45
Soil effective thickness 20–50 cm 125,881 38.54 276 15.79 0.41
51–100 cm 178,074 54.52 1,433 81.98 1.50
More than 101 cm 22,637 6.93 39 2.23 0.32
Tree type Non-stocked forest land 1,830 0.56 0 0.00 0.00
Mixed forest of soft and hardwood 72,062 22.06 410 23.46 1.06
Hardwood forest 4,968 1.52 0 0.00 0.00
Pine forest 171,083 52.38 1,287 73.63 1.41
Larch forest 35,894 10.99 0 0.00 0.00
Nut pine forest 1,363 0.42 6 0.34 0.82
Artificial forest of pine 2,094 0.64 0 0.00 0.00
Farmland 819 0.25 0 0.00 0.00
Grassland 2,373 0.73 19 1.09 1.50
Non-forest land 34,106 10.44 26 1.49 0.14
Tree No data 39,127 11.98 45 2.57 0.21
diameter 0–5 cm 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
6–16 cm 85,018 26.03 417 23.86 0.92
18–28 cm 155,153 47.51 1,066 60.98 1.28
More than 30 cm 47,294 14.48 220 12.59 0.87

123
1456 Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:1443–1464

Table 2 continued
Factor Class Grids in Percentage Number of Percentage of Frequency
domain of grids showing grids showing ratio
grids in landslide landslide
domain occurrence occurrence

Tree age No data 39,127 11.98 45 2.57 0.21

1–10 years 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
11–20 years 40,734 12.47 6 0.34 0.03
21–30 years 44,284 13.56 411 23.51 1.73
31–40 years 97,816 29.95 723 41.36 1.38
41–50 years 57,337 17.56 343 19.62 1.12
More than 51 years 47,294 14.48 220 12.59 0.87
Crown density No data 45,266 13.86 21 1.21 0.09
Low 9,210 2.82 246 14.10 5.00
Medium 68,486 20.97 512 29.29 1.40
High 203,630 62.35 968 55.40 0.89
Land-use/land-cover type Inland wetland 1,548 0.47 0 0.00 0.00
Mixed forest 62,992 19.29 418 23.91 1.24
Coniferous forest 222,829 68.23 1,282 73.34 1.07
Hardwood forest 7,510 2.30 0 0.00 0.00
Field 24,539 7.51 41 2.35 0.31
Paddy 6,859 2.10 7 0.40 0.19
Residential area 315 0.10 0 0.00 0.00

Fig. 5 Landslide susceptibility

index map produced from the
frequency ratio model

The ROC statistic is the area under the curve (AUC) that where Y is the AUC and xi indicates 1-specificity while yi
connects the plotted points. The AUC can be calculated by indicates sensitivity.
the trapezoidal rule of integral calculus (Schneider and The closer the ROC curve approaches the upper left
Pontius 2001): corner, the better the evaluation model is. We can evaluate
X
n the ability of the overall explanation for the models from
Y¼ ðxiþ1  xi Þðyiþ1  yi  yi =2Þ; ð8Þ the size of the AUC. The AUC characterizes the quality of
i¼1 a forecast system by describing the system’s ability to

123
Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:1443–1464 1457

Table 3 Pair-wise comparison matrix for assessing the weights of factors

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Coeff. Weight

1 1.0 2.4 -9.9 2.0 -10.6 7.4 -0.5 -1.3 0.7 -3.3 -0.5 -38.6 1.6 0.3 -1.2
2 0.4 1.0 -4.1 0.8 -4.4 3.1 -0.2 -0.6 0.3 -1.4 -0.2 -16.0 0.7 0.1 -0.5
3 -0.1 -0.2 1.0 -0.2 1.1 -0.7 0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.3 0.1 3.9 -0.2 0.0 0.1
4 0.5 1.2 -5.0 1.0 -5.4 3.7 -0.3 -0.7 0.3 -1.7 -0.3 -19.6 0.8 0.2 -0.6
5 -0.1 -0.2 0.9 -0.2 1.0 -0.7 0.0 0.1 -0.1 0.3 0.1 3.7 -0.2 0.0 0.1
6 0.1 0.3 -1.3 0.3 -1.4 1.0 -0.1 -0.2 0.1 -0.4 -0.1 -5.2 0.2 0.0 -0.2
7 -1.9 -4.6 18.8 -3.8 20.1 -14.0 1.0 2.5 -1.3 6.3 1.0 73.4 -3.0 -0.7 2.2
8 -0.7 -1.8 7.4 -1.5 7.9 -5.5 0.4 1.0 -0.5 2.5 0.4 28.9 -1.2 -0.3 0.9
9 1.5 3.7 -15.0 3.0 -16.0 11.2 -0.8 -2.0 1.0 -5.0 -0.8 -58.5 2.4 0.5 -1.8
10 -0.3 -0.7 3.0 -0.6 3.2 -2.2 0.2 0.4 -0.2 1.0 0.2 11.7 -0.5 -0.1 0.4
11 -1.9 -4.6 18.6 -3.7 19.9 -13.9 1.0 2.5 -1.2 6.2 1.0 72.9 -3.0 -0.7 2.2
12 0.0 -0.1 0.3 -0.1 0.3 -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
13 0.6 1.5 -6.2 1.2 -6.6 4.6 -0.3 -0.8 0.4 -2.1 -0.3 -24.2 1.0 0.2 -0.7
1 Elevation, 2 slope, 3 aspect, 4 distance to drainage, 5 TWI, 6 SPI, 7 soil texture, 8 soil effective thickness, 9 tree type, 10 tree diameter, 11 tree
age, 12 crown density, 13 land-use/land-cover type

anticipate the occurrence or non-occurrence of pre-defined
‘‘events’’ correctly. Large AUC values (0.5–1.0) indicate
ideal models (Yesilnacar and Topal 2005). A perfect
method would have an AUC value of 1.0, and accuracy
ratings are usually given as 0.9–1.0 = excellent,
0.8–0.9 = good, 0.7–0.8 = acceptable, 0.6–0.7 = poor,
and 0.5–0.6 = failed (Yilmaz 2009). In this study, the
ROC curve was used to assess the performances of the FR,
AHP, LR, and ANN models in regard to LSI mapping.
Pearson’s correlation analysis was also conducted to
examine the similarity between the LSI maps produced by
the FR, AHP, LR, and ANN models. The correlation
coefficients ranged from -1 to 1, with values close to -1
or 1 indicating strong correlation, and values close to 0
indicating little or no correlation between two models.
Using absolute values, the correlation coefficients were
generally interpreted as follows: 0–0.2, little correlation;
0.3–0.6, correlation exists; and C0.7, strong correlation.
Results
Landslide susceptibility assessment
Frequency ratio
Using the probability model, FRs were calculated for 13
factors (Table 1). The FRs for each factor type or range
were calculated from their relationship to landslide events,
as shown in Table 2. Table 2 shows the relationship
between landslide occurrence and each factor. First, topo-
graphical factors, such as elevation, slope, and aspect were
used. In the case of the relationship between landslide
occurrence and elevation, landslides generally occurred in
the elevation range 501–660 m. Ratios greater than 1 were
distributed at topographic elevations between 501 and
660 m. For slope angles above 22, the ratio was [1,
indicating a high probability of landslide occurrence.
Generally, the shear stress was related to the slope. As the
slope angle increased, the shear stress on the slope material
increased. Analyses showed that the FR increased with the
slope degree. Slope aspect analyses showed that landslides
were most abundant on east, southeast, southwest, and
west-facing.
In the case of the relationship between landslide occur-
rence and distance to drainage, the ratio was [1 in both the
area with the distance to drainage 100 m or below and 400
m or above. The ratio was highest (2.09) when TWI was
2.3–4.4, and was still high ([1) even when TWI was in the
range 4.5–6.6 and 11.1–13.2. The ratio was \1 except when
SPI was in the range 3.6–6.7, 7.3–7.7, and 9.3–9.7, and was
highest when SPI was in the range 7.3–7.7. In the case of the
relationship between landslide occurrence and soil factors,
the ratio was [1 for sandy loam and soil depths in the range
51–100 cm. The relationships between the tree type, tree
age, tree diameter, and crown density were analyzed as
factors related to the landslide and forest type. The ratio was
high in mixed forest of soft and hardwood and pine forests.
Regarding the age class, the ratio was high for 21-year-old
or older, except for the age range of more than 51 years.
Regarding the tree diameter, the ratio was high for C18 cm
in diameter. In addition, the crown density was high in
low-density areas. Landslide occurrence values were higher
in mixed forest and coniferous forest (Table 2). Finally, an
LSI map was obtained by converting the file into raster
format (Fig. 5).

123
1458
Analytic hierarchy process
As mentioned in ‘‘Analytic hierarchy process’’, we
assessed landslide susceptibility using AHP with the LR
weight proposed by Wu (2002). A pair-wise comparison
matrix of AHP was calculated using ‘‘B,’’ a factor-wise
weight calculated through LR in SPSS after standardi-
zation of the factor measurements. The weighted values
for the 13 factors are shown in Table 3. The CR was
0.004. The weights for each topographical factor were
evaluated as -1.2 for elevation, -0.5 for slope, and 0.1
for aspect. Therefore, the priority order was aspect,
slope, and then elevation. The hydrological factor was
highest for TWI with a value of 0.1, followed by -0.2
for SPI; the lowest value was -0.6 for distance to
drainage. Among soil factors, soil texture had higher
weight than soil effective thickness. Therefore, soil tex-
ture had the higher priority. Forest factors were valued
as -1.8 for weight of type, 0.4 for diameter, 2.2 for age,
and 0.0 for crown density. Priority was arranged in the
order of age, diameter, crown density, and type. The
weight for land-cover factors was evaluated as -0.7.
Consequently, aspect, TWI, soil texture, and age for each
factor had high priorities. Among these, the items with
the highest values were soil texture and age. In this
research area, therefore, the soil texture and age are
believed to be the most critical factors for landslides.
The LSI for each cell was calculated by multiplying the
weight value for each factor by the raster map for each
factor and then combining them. Figure 6 shows the LSI
map created using ArcGIS 9.3
Fig. 6 Landslide susceptibility
index map produced from the
analytic hierarchy process
model
123
Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:1443–1464
Logistic regression
As a first step in LR, we converted a map showing the area
affected by landslides and factor maps (see Table 1) from
raster to ASCII format. The statistical package SPSS 13.0
was then used to estimate the correlation between a land-
slide event and landslide-related factors. In this process,
coefficients were mostly estimated based on the maximum
likelihood model.
The results are shown in Table 4. The ‘‘significance
probability value’’ was less than 0.05 against all variables
except ASP (aspect), TWI, SPI, FOR3 (farmland), DEPT
(soil effective thickness), LAND1 (mixed forest), and
LAND4 (field). This indicates that with the exception of
the above seven variables, the other variables had statisti-
cally significant effects on landslides at the 5 % signifi-
cance level.
From the analysis results for factors causing landslides,
we found that the higher the elevation and slope were, the
higher the likelihood was of a landslide occurring. For
hydrological factors, a longer distance to drainage and
larger SPI and TWI values increased landslide likelihood.
The soil factor showed a higher possibility in texture than
in effective thickness. The forest factors had higher values
in the order of type, age, crown density, and diameter.
Among forest types, mixed soft and hardwood forests
showed the highest possibility of landslide. The soil factors
showed higher landslide possibility by texture than by
effective thickness. The land-cover factors showed higher
values in the order of field, coniferous forest, cropland, and
mixed forest. The regression coefficients calculated for
Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:1443–1464 1459

Table 4 Coefficients of logistic regression model

Logistic Standard error Wald chi-square Degree of Significance Exponentiated 95.0 % confidence
coefficient of estimate values freedom probability coefficient interval for Exp (B)
Lower Upper

ELEa 0.0082 0.001 61.144 1 0.000 1.008 1.006 1.010

SLOb 0.0217 0.005 20.061 1 0.000 1.022 1.012 1.032
ASPc 0.0002 0.000 0.174 1 0.677 1.000 0.999 1.001
DRAd 0.0031 0.001 29.881 1 0.000 1.003 1.002 1.004
TWIe 0.0637 0.050 1.625 1 0.202 1.066 0.966 1.175
f
SPI 0.0244 0.040 0.367 1 0.544 1.025 0.947 1.109
FOR 53.697 4 0.000
FOR1g 6.4349 1.202 28.669 1 0.000 623.243 59.112 6,571.125
FOR2h 5.6841 1.160 24.014 1 0.000 294.146 30.285 2,856.892
FOR3i -15.9575 40,192.970 0.000 1 1.000 0.000 0.000
FOR4j 5.0071 1.221 16.830 1 0.000 149.478 13.666 1,634.939
k
DIAM -0.8492 0.380 4.994 1 0.025 0.428 0.203 0.901
AGEl 0.6257 0.224 7.801 1 0.005 1.869 1.205 2.900
DENSm -0.4151 0.133 9.685 1 0.002 0.660 0.508 0.858
TEXTn 4.7086 0.541 75.662 1 0.000 110.896 38.384 320.397
DEPTo -0.0218 0.149 0.021 1 0.884 0.978 0.731 1.311
LAND 33.779 4 0.000
LAND1p -20.4063 11,977.099 0.000 1 0.999 0.000 0.000
LAND2q -2.0739 0.602 11.867 1 0.001 0.126 0.039 0.409
LAND3r -2.2004 0.561 15.381 1 0.000 0.111 0.037 0.333
LAND4s -1.0388 0.592 3.077 1 0.079 0.354 0.111 1.130
Constant -14.0552 1.388 102.515 1 0.000 0.000
a
Elevation, slope, aspect, distance to drainage, TWI, SPI, mixed forest of soft and hardwood, pine forest, ifarmland, jlarch forest, ktree
b c d e f g h

diameter, ltree age, mcrown density, nsandy loam, osoil effective thickness, Pmixed forest, qconiferous forest, rcropland, sfield

each factor in Table 4 were expressed as shown in Eq. (9)
by Eq. (7).
Z ¼ 14:0552 þ ð0:0082ELEÞ þ ð0:0217SLOÞ þ ð0:002ASPÞ
þ ð0:0031DRAÞ þ ð0:0637TWIÞ þ ð0:0244SPIÞ
þ ð6:4349FOR1Þ þ ð5:6841FOR2Þ þ ð15:9575FOR3Þ
þ ð5:0071FOR4Þ þ ð0:8492DIAMÞ þ ð0:6257AGEÞ
þ ð0:4151DENSÞ þ ð4:7086TEXTÞ þ ð0:0218DEPTÞ
þ ð20:4063LAND1Þ þ ð2:0739LAND2Þ
þ ð2:2004LAND3Þ þ ð1:0388LAND4Þ
ð9Þ
To predict the possibility of landslide occurrence for all
pixels in the study area, the probability was calculated from
Eq. (9). Finally, an LSI map was obtained by converting
the file into raster format (Fig. 7).
(25 neurons), and one output layer was used for a network
structure of 13-25-1. Weights were randomly initialized in
a small range from -0.25 to 0.25, as proposed by Kavzoglu
(2001). Kavzoglu (2001) also suggested that the minimum
number of training samples should be more than
30  Ni  ðNi þ 1Þ, where Ni is the number of input nodes.
In this study, 2,983 training samples (landslide occurrence
locations: 1,368; no-landslide occurrence locations: 1,615)
were used. The input data were normalized to 0.1–0.9, the
learning rate was set at 0.01, and the initial weights were
randomly selected. The number of epochs was set to 2,500,
and the root mean-square error (RMSE) goal for the
stopping criterion was set to 0.01. The LSI map shown in
Fig. 8 was drawn using the LSI values for interpretation.
Validation and comparison

Artificial neural network To evaluate the performances of the models in analyzing

landslide susceptibility, the success and predication rate
The ANN modeling was computed in a program developed processes were applied (Dietrich et al. 1995; Chung and
in MATLAB 7.0. A three-layer feed-forward network Fabbri 2003; Neuhäuser et al. 2011). The success of all
consisting of an input layer (13 neurons), one hidden layer models was assessed using the correct and incorrect

123
1460
Fig. 7 Landslide susceptibility
index map produced from the
logistic regression model
Fig. 8 Landslide susceptibility
index map produced from the
artificial neural network model
classification results, as shown in Table 5. The success rate
was calculated as follows: first, the LSI values were cal-
culated from LSI maps in ascending power for the cumu-
lative total and cumulative total in descending power. Next,
each calculated cumulative value was cross-applied to
analyze the cross point. The cross point is the average point
with the highest R-square for the LSI value. The areas with
values larger than the LSI value of the cross point were set
to the areas with high landslide susceptibility (event: 1) and
the areas with low landslide susceptibility (event: 0). As a
result, the LSI maps were classified into values of 0 and 1
according to the crossing point. The accuracy was calcu-
lated by comparing known landslide locations with these
123
Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:1443–1464
maps using ERDAS software. The overall accuracy was
computed by dividing the total correct (sum of the major
diagonal) by the total number of pixels in the error matrix
(Table 5). The overall accuracy rates of the FR, AHP, LR,
and ANN LSI maps were generally similar, with mean
values C65.90 %. The ANN, LR, FR, and AHP models
had overall accuracies of 68.47, 65.51, 65.27, and 64.35 %,
respectively.
Because the LSI calculated using each model was an
assessment value, it should be validated. As mentioned in
‘‘Validation and comparison’’, we validated the LSI using a
ROC curve. A ROC graph is a technique for visualizing,
organizing, and selecting classifiers based on their
Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:1443–1464 1461

Table 5 Landslides predicted by each model used for landslide

susceptibility analysis in this research
Predicted (pixels)
0 1 User’s
accuracy (%)

FR 0 96,198 50,652 65.51

1 488 907 65.02
Overall accuracy (%) 65.27
AHP 0 94,859 52,030 64.58
1 501 895 64.11
Overall accuracy (%) 64.35
LR 0 96,286 50,603 65.55
1 536 860 61.60
Overall accuracy (%) 65.51
ANN 0 114,306 49,462 69.80
1 487 995 67.14
Overall accuracy (%) 68.47
The error matrix between occurrence and non-occurrence for land-
slides predicted by each model and for actual landslides in Inje is Fig. 9 Assessment of model performance based on the ROC curves
shown. A value of 1 (0) refers to landslide occurrence (non-
occurrence) manipulation. There have been many studies of landslide
susceptibility using GIS-based modeling. In this study, the
performance. The area under the ROC curve can assess the FR, AHP, LR, and ANN models were compared for
prediction accuracy qualitatively. Figure 9 shows AUC landslide susceptibility assessment.
values indicating the accuracy of the models for landslide Each model has advantages and disadvantages. The FR
prediction. The FR, AHP, LR, and ANN models had AUC model can simply and rapidly be applied, whereas the LR
values of 0.794, 0.789, 0.794, and 0.806, respectively. All model needs data conversion for access by the statistical
models were found to be acceptable, with AUC values of software program and is of limited value when the dataset
0.794–0.806. Similar accuracy was found for all models, is large. In addition, the AHP model generally requires a
although the LSI map produced by the ANN model appeared questionnaire survey to calculate relative weights and
to be slightly more accurate than those generated by other requires a separate software program called Idrisi GIS. In
models. Additionally, the model used for this research this study, the calculation time was reduced by calculating
exhibited an asymptotic significance probability \0.05 and weights via LR with a statistical software program and
lower and upper boundaries of the 95 % asymptotic confi- without a questionnaire survey. The ANN model is time
dence interval [0.5, indicating statistical significance. consuming and requires high computer capacity for actual
Table 6 shows that all four models satisfied both cases. applications, because the internal calculation process can-
We performed a correlation analysis between the FR, not be easily understood and the calculation is intensive
AHP, LR, and ANN models by examining the similarity (Lee et al. 2000).
between the LSI maps produced by each model (Table 7). Various models have been used for landslide suscepti-
The results showed strong correlation between the LR and bility analysis and some previous studies have analyzed or
ANN models, with a correlation coefficient of 0.829. compared one or some of the four models used for this
Correlation coefficients were 0.821 between the AHP and research. However, few studies have analyzed and com-
ANN models, 0.812 between the AHP and LR models, pared all four of the models. The LSI maps created using
0.763 between the FR and LR models, and 0.693 between the FR, AHP, LR, and ANN models were not thought to be
the FR and ANN models. The lowest coefficient, 0.619, significantly different as they had similar accuracy and
was found between the AHP and FR models. high correlation (Table 6; Fig. 9). Lee and Sambath (2006)
reported in their comparative papers that an FR model
(86.97 %) and an LR model (86.37 %) showed higher and
Conclusion and discussion similar accuracy. Akgun (2012) compared LSI maps pro-
duced by LR, AHP, and FR models and reported that the
GIS-based techniques have been generally used as basic AUC values of the ROC curve for these models were 81.0,
analysis tools for spatial management and data 76.4, and 71.0 % respectively. Lim Khai-Wern et al.

123
1462 Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:1443–1464

Table 6 AUC value of the ROC curve in the random sample area used in this study are valid for generalized planning and
Area Std. Asymptotic Asymptotic 95 %
assessment purposes, although they may be less useful at a
errora sig.b confidence interval site-specific scale, where local geologic and geographic
heterogeneities may prevail.
Lower Upper
bound bound Additionally, recent studies of landslides have attempted
using new approaches such as neuro-fuzzy (Oh and Prad-
FR 0.794 0.008 0.0 0.779 0.810 han 2011; Vahidnia et al. 2010), fuzzy logic (Lee 2007;
AHP 0.789 0.008 0.0 0.773 0.805 Pradhan 2010), and back-propagation-based neural net-
LR 0.794 0.008 0.0 0.779 0.810 work models (Pradhan et al. 2010a, b; Yilmaz 2010).
ANN 0.806 0.008 0.0 0.771 0.821 Assessment of landslide susceptibility using more reliable
a
Under a nonparametric assumption and variable analysis models for various regions will aid in
b
Null hypothesis : true area = 0.5 prevention planning, effective forest management, and
land-use planning.
Table 7 The comparison of the correlation coefficient Acknowledgments This work was researched by the supporting
FR AHP LR ANN project to educate GIS experts. Thanks are also extended to two
anonymous reviewers who suggested some improvements to the
FR 1 manuscript.
AHP 0.619 1
LR 0.763 0.812 1
References
ANN 0.693 0.821 0.829 1
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. Landslide
(2011) created landslide hazard maps of Penang Island, 9:93–106
Malaysia, using probabilistic methods and LR. Their Akgun A, Dag S, Bulut F (2008) Landslide susceptibility mapping for
results showed LR as the best method to predict landslide a landslide-prone area (Findikli, NE of Turkey) by likelihood-
occurrences in Penang Island with an accuracy of 80.05 %, frequency ration and weighted linear combination models.
Environ Geol 54:1127–1143
followed by FR with an accuracy of 79.68 %. Aleotti P, Chowdhury R (1999) Landslide hazard assessment:
In a study by Yilmaz (2009), AUC values for LSI maps summary review and new perspectives. Bull Eng Geol Environ
built by FR, LR, and ANN models were 82.6, 84.2, and 58:21–44
85.3 %, respectively. These values and the higher value for Ayalew L, Yamagishi H, Ugawa N (2004) Landslide susceptibility
mapping using GIS-based weighted linear combination, the case
the ANN model than for others were similar to the findings in Tsugawa area of Agano River, Niigata Prefecture, Japan.
of this study. The results obtained in this study also showed Landslides 1:73–81
that the FR model could be used as a simple tool in the Baeza C, Corominas J (2001) Assessment of shallow landslide
assessment of landslide susceptibility when a sufficient susceptibility by means of multivariate statistical techniques.
Earth Surf Proc Land 26(12):1251–1263
number of data are collected (Yilmaz 2009). In addition, Beven KJ, Kirkby MJ (1979) A physically based, variable contrib-
Yesilnacar and Topal (2005) reported AUC values of 76 % uting area model of basin hydrology. Hydrolog Sci Bull
for an LR model but 89 % for an ANN model. Mahiny and 24:43–69
Turner (2003) and Manel et al. (1999) also reported Bonham-Carter GF (1994) Geographic information systems for
geoscientists, modeling with GIS. Pergamon Press, Oxford,
superior performance by an ANN model. In those studies, p 398
the ANN model was more sensitive than the LR model to Cardinali M, Reichenbach R, Guzzetti F, Ardizzone F, Antonini G,
the inclusion or exclusion of variables. Galli M, Cacciano M, Castellani M, Salvati P (2002) A
As described earlier, the results from the various models geomorphological approach to the estimation of landslide
hazards and risks in Umbria, Central Italy. Nat Hazards Earth
were similar to or slightly less accurate than those of pre- Sys Sci 2:57–72
vious analyses of landslide susceptibility in terms of ROC. Carrara A (1983) Multivariate models for landslide hazard evaluation.
The slightly lower accuracy may have been because we did Math Geol 15(3):403–426
not take geologic factors (such as lithology and lineament) Carrara A, Cardinali M, Guzetti F, Reichenbach P (1995) GIS-based
techniques for mapping landslide hazard. http://deis158.deis.
into account, and these factors are closely related to land- unibo.it
slides. Although geologic maps at 1:50,000 and 1:250,000 Castellanos Abella EA, Van Westen CJ (2007) Generation of a
scales were available for the study area, no map at the more landslide risk index map for Cuba using spatial multi-criteria
precise 1:25,000 scale existed. However, the LSI maps evaluation. Landslides 4:311–325
Chacon J, Irigaray C, Fernandez T, El Hamdouni R (2006)
created using the FR, AHP, LR, and ANN methods had Engineering geology maps: landslides and geographical infor-
similar accuracy and were highly correlated. The models mation systems. Bull Eng Geol Environ 65:341–411

123
Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:1443–1464
Chau KT, Sze YL, Fung MK, Wong WY, Fong EL, Chan LCP (2004)
Landslide hazard analysis of Hong Kong using landslide
inventory and GIS. Comput Geosci 30:429–443
Chung CJ, Fabbri AG (1999) Probabilistic prediction models for
landslide hazard mapping. Photogramm Eng Rem S 65(12):
1389–1399
Chung CJF, Fabbri A (2003) Validation of spatial prediction models
for landslide hazard mapping. Nat Hazard 30:451–472
Chung CF, Fabbri AG, Van Westen CJ (1995) Multivariate regression
analysis for landslide hazard zonalition. In: Carrara A, Guzetti F
(eds) Geographical informations systems in assessing natural
hazards. Kluwer Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 107–133
CRED (2009) Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters
(CREM) website. http://www.dmdat.be/
Dai FC, Lee CF, Zhang XH (2001) GIS-based geo-environmental
evaluation for urban land-use planning : a case study. Eng Geol
61:257–271
Dietrich EW, Reiss R, Hsu ML, Montgomery DR (1995) A process-
based model for colluvial soil depth and shallow landsliding
using digital elevation data. Hydrol Process 9:383–400
Duman TY, Can T, Emre O, Kecer M, Dogan A, Ates S, Durmaz S
(2005) Landslide inventory of northwestern Anatolia, Turkey.
Eng Geol 77:99–114
Erdas (2011) Intergraph corporate website, http://www.erdas.com/
Erener A, Düzgün HSB (2010) Improvement of statistical landslide
susceptibility mapping by using spatial and global regression
methods in the case of More and Romsdal (Norway). Landslides
7:55–68
Ermini L, Catani F, Casagli N (2005) Artificial neural networks
applied to landslide susceptibility assessment. Geomorphology
66:327–343
Garcia-Rodriguez MJ, Malpica JA, Benito B, Diaz M (2008)
Susceptibility assessment of earthquake-triggered landslides in
El Salvador using logistic regression. Geomorphology
95:172–191
Garrett J (1994) Where and shy artificial neural networks are
applicable in civil engineering. J Comput Civil Eng 8:129–130
Godt JW, Baum RL, Savage WZ, Salciarini D, Schulz WH, Harp EL
(2008) Transient deterministic shallow landslide modeling :
Requirements for susceptibility and hazard assessment in a GIS
framework. Eng Geol 102:214–226
Guzzetti F, Carrara A, Cardinali M, Reichenbach P (1999) Landslide
hazard evaluation: a review of current techniques and their
application in a multi-scale study, Central Italy. Geomorphology
31:181–216
Jadda M, Shafri HZM, Mansor SB, Sharifikia M, Pirasteh S (2009)
Landslide susceptibility evaluation and factor effect analysis
using probabilistic-frequency ratio model. Eur J Sci Res
33:654–668
Jin CG, Oh CY, Choi CU (2010) The comparative research of
landslide susceptibility mapping. In: Proceedings of ESRI
Education User Conference 2010
Kanungo DP, Arora MK, Sarkar S, Gupta RP (2006) A comparative
study of conventional, ANN black box, fuzzy and combined
neural and fuzzy weighting procedures for landslide suscepti-
bility zonation in Darjeeling Himalayas. Eng Geol 85:347–366
Kavzoglu T (2001) An investigation of the design and use of feed-
forward artificial neural networks in the classification of
remotely sensed images. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Nottingham, School of Geography, UK, p 306
Korea Forest Service (2006) Korea Forest Service website.
http://sansatai.forest.go.kr/
Korea Meteorological Administration (2006) Korea Meteorological
Administration website. http://www.kma.go.kr/
Lee S (2007) Application and verification of fuzzy algebraic operators
to landslide susceptibility mapping. Environ Geol 52(4):615–623
1463
Lee HW (2011) Analysis of landslide susceptibility using probabi-
listic method and GIS. Sejong university, mater’s thesis (in
Korean)
Lee S, Dan NT (2005) Probabilistic landslide susceptibility mapping
in the Lai Chau province of Vietnam: Focus on the relationship
between tectonic fractures and landslides. Environ Geol
48(6):778–787
Lee S, Pradhan B (2007) Landslide hazard mapping at Selangor,
Malaysia using frequency ratio and logistic regression models.
Landslides 4:33–41
Lee S, Sambath T (2006) Landslide susceptibility mapping in the
damrei romel area, cambodia using frequency ratio and logistic
regression models. Environ Geol 50:847–855
Lee S, Talib JA (2005) Probabilistic landslide susceptibility and
factor effect analysis. Environ Geol 47(7):982–990
Lee CJ, Yoo NJ (2009) A study on debris flow landslide disasters and
restoration at Inje of Kangwon Province, Korea. J Korean Soc
Hazard Mitig 9(1):99–105 (in Korean)
Lee S, Kim YJ, Min KD (2000) Development of spatial landslide
information system and application of spatial landslide informa-
tion. J GIS assoc Korea 8:141–153 (in Korean)
Lee S, Ryu JH, Lee MJ, Won JS (2003) Use of an artificial neural
network for analysis of the susceptibility to landslides at Boun,
Korea. Environ Geol 44:820–833
Lee S, Ryu JH, Kim IS (2007) Landslide susceptibility analysis and
its verification using likelihood ratio, logistic regression, and
artificial neural network models : case study of Youngin, Korea.
Landslides 4(4):327–338
Lim Khai-Wern K, Lea Tien T, Lateh H (2011) Landslide hazard
mapping of Penang Island using probabilistic methods and
logistic regression. Imaging System and Techniques (IST), 2011
IEEE International Conference on, pp 273–278
Mahiny AS, Turner BJ (2003) Modeling past vegetation change
through remote sensing and GIS: a comparison of neural
networks and logistic regression methods. In: Proceedings of
the 7th international conference on geocomputation. University
of Southampton, UK
Manel S, Dias JM, Ormerod SJ (1999) Comparing discriminant
analysis, neural networks and logistic regression for predicting
species’ distributions: a case study with a Himalayan river bird.
Ecol Model 120:337–347
McFadden D (1973) Conditional logit analysis of quantitative choice
behavior. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers in Econometrics.
Academic Press, New York, pp 105–142
Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (2006) Investiga-
tion on the typhoon and heavy rainfall, p 497 (in Korean)
Moore ID, Grayson RB, Ladson AR (1991) Digital terrain model-
ing—a review of hydro-hydrological, geomorphological, and
biological application. Hydrol Process 5:3–30
Naranjo JL, van Western CJ, Soeters R (1994) Evaluating the use of
training areas in bivariate statistical landslide hazard analysis: a
case study in Colombia. J Int Inst Aerospace Surv Earth Sci
3:292–300
National Emergency Management Agency (2009) Development of
landslide prediction technology and damage mitigation counter-
measures, pp 41, 114–116 (in Korean)
Neuhäuser B, Damm B, Terhorst B (2011) GIS-based assessment of
landslide susceptibility on the base of the weights-of-evidence
model. Landslides. doi:10.1007/s10346-011-0305-5
Oh H, Pradhan B (2011) Application of a neuro-fuzzy model to
landslide-susceptibility mapping for shallow landslides in a
tropical hilly area. Comput Geosci 37:1264–1276
Oh CY, Jin CG, Choi CU (2010) The comparative research of
landslide susceptibility mapping using FR, AHP, LR, ANN. In:
Proceedings of The Korean Society for Geo-Spatial Information
System Conference 2010 (in Korean)
123
1464
Park DG, Kim TH, Oh JL, Han TG (2005) Improvement of
Countermeasures for Slope Failure Mitigation in Korea. Proc
Korean Geotech Soc Confer 103:107–116 (in Korean)
Pijanowski BC, Brown DG, Shellito BA, Manik GA (2002) Using
neural networks and GIS to forecast land use changes : a Land
Transformation Model. Comput Environ Urban 26:552–575
Pradhan B (2010) Regional landslide susceptibility analysis using
back-propagation neural network model at Cameron Highland,
Malaysia. Landslides 7(1):13–30
Pradhan B, Lee S, Buchroithner MF (2010a) A GIS-based back-
propagation neural network model and its cross-application and
validation for landslide susceptibility analyses. Comput Environ
Urban Syst 34:216–235
Pradhan B, Sezer EA, Gokceoglu C, Buchroithner MF (2010b)
Landslide Susceptibility Mapping by Neuro-Fuzzy Approach in
a Landslide-Prone Area (Cameron Highlands, Malaysia). IEEE
Trans Geosci Remote Sens 48(12):4164–4177
Rumelhart D, Hinton G, Williams R (1986) Learning internal
representations by error propagation. In: Rumelhart DE, McClel-
land JL (eds) Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the
microstructures of cognition. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 318–362
Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical
structures. J Math Psychol 15:234–281
Saaty TL, Vargas LG (1991) Prediction, projection and forecasting:
applications of the analytic hierarchy process in economics,
finance, politics, games, and sports. Kluwer Academic Publish-
ers, Boston, p 251p
Schneider L, Pontius RG Jr (2001) Modeling land-use change: the
case of the Ipswich watershed, Massachusetts, USA. Agric
Ecosyst Environ 85:83–94
Schuster R (1996) Socioeconomic significance of landslides. In:
Turner AK, Schuster RL (eds) Landslides : investigation and
mitigation, special report, vol 247. National Academic Pres-
sWashington, DC, pp 12–36
Sezer EA, Pradhan B, Gokceoglu C (2011) Manifestation of an
adaptive neuro-fuzzy model on landslide susceptibility mapping:
Klang valley, Malaysia. Expert Syst Appl 38:8208–8219
Soeters R, Van Westen CJ (1996) Slope instability recognition,
analysis and zonation. In: AK Turner, RL Schuster (eds) Landslides
investigation and mitigation. Transportation Research Board, spec
rep 247, National Academy Press, Washington, pp 129–177
Statistics Korea (2009) Gangwon-Do annual statistic report (in
Korean)
Suzen ML, Doyuran V (2004a) A comparison of the GIS based
landslide susceptibility assessment methods multivariate versus
bivariate. Environ Geol 45(5):665–679
Suzen ML, Doyuran V (2004b) Data driven bivariate landslide
susceptibility assessment using geographical information
123
View publication stats
Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:1443–1464
systems : a method and application to Asarsuyu catchment,
Turkey. Eng Geol 71:303–321
Swets JA (1988) Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems.
Science 240:1285–1293
Tangestani MH (2004) Landslide susceptibility mapping using the
fuzzy gamma approach in a GIS, Kakan catchment area,
southwest Iran. Aust J Earth Sci 51:439–450
Thiery Y, Malet JP, Sterlacchini S, Puissant A, Maquaire O (2008)
Landslide susceptibility assessment by bivariate methods at large
scales: application to a complex mountainous environment.
Geomorphology 92:38–59
Vahidnia MH, Alesheikh AA, Alimohammadi A, Hosseinali F (2010)
A GIS-based neuro-fuzzy procedure for integrating knowledge
and data in landslide susceptibility mapping. Comput Geosci
36:1101–1114
Van Westen CJ, Terlien MJ (1996) An approach towards determin-
istic landslide hazard analysis in GIS, A case study from
Manizales (Colombia). Earth Surf Proc Land 21(9):853–868
Van Westen CJ, Soeters R, Sijmons K (2000) Digital geomorpho-
logical landslide hazard mapping of the Alpago area, Italy. Int J
Appl Earth Obser Geoinf 2(1):51–59
Wu F (2002) Calibration of stochastic cellular automata: The
application to rural-urban land conversions. Int J Geogr Inf Sci
16(8):795–818
Yalcin A (2008) GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping using
analytical hierarchy process and bivariate statistics in Ardesen
(Tukey): Comparisons of results and confirmations. Catena
71:1–12
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
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
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(4):821–836
Yilmaz I, Yildirim M (2006) Structural and geomorphological aspects
of the Kat landslides (Tokat-Turkey), and susceptibility mapping
by means of GIS. Environ Geol 50(4):461–472
Yoshimatsu H, Abe S (2006) A review of landslide hazards in Japan
and assessment of their susceptibility using an analytical process
(AHP) method. Landslides 3:149–158
Zurada JM (1992) Introduction to artificial neural systems, Wet Pub.
Co., pp 163–248