Our system is currently under heavy load due to increased usage. We're actively working on upgrades to improve performance. Thank you for your patience.
2023
DOI: 10.3390/rs15204952
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Spatial Prediction of Landslide Susceptibility Using Logistic Regression (LR), Functional Trees (FTs), and Random Subspace Functional Trees (RSFTs) for Pengyang County, China

Hui Shang,
Lixiang Su,
Wei Chen
et al.

Abstract: Landslides pose significant and serious geological threat disasters worldwide, threatening human lives and property; China is particularly susceptible to these disasters. This paper focuses on Pengyang County, which is situated in the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region of China, an area prone to landslides. This study investigated the application of machine learning techniques for analyzing landslide susceptibility. To construct and validate the model, we initially compiled a landslide inventory comprising 972 hist… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 130 publications
(152 reference statements)
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Because there is no universally accepted framework for determining independent variables in LSM, the choice of LCFs was guided by a comprehensive review of the relevant literature, studyarea-specific data, and field investigations [53]. The current study employed twelve LCFs featuring a range of variables, including elevation, land use/land cover (LULC), lithology, distance to faults, rivers, and roads, curvature, "topographic wetness index (TWI)", aspect, rainfall, and slope [54][55][56] (refer to Table 1). Figures 4 and 5 depict the creation of thematic layers with 12.5 × 12.5 m pixel size conducted within the WGS84 Datum and UTM-Zone 43 coordinate system.…”
Section: Landslide Causative Factors (Lcfs)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because there is no universally accepted framework for determining independent variables in LSM, the choice of LCFs was guided by a comprehensive review of the relevant literature, studyarea-specific data, and field investigations [53]. The current study employed twelve LCFs featuring a range of variables, including elevation, land use/land cover (LULC), lithology, distance to faults, rivers, and roads, curvature, "topographic wetness index (TWI)", aspect, rainfall, and slope [54][55][56] (refer to Table 1). Figures 4 and 5 depict the creation of thematic layers with 12.5 × 12.5 m pixel size conducted within the WGS84 Datum and UTM-Zone 43 coordinate system.…”
Section: Landslide Causative Factors (Lcfs)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As for landslide hazard assessment, machine learning models can explore how historical landslides occurred under the effect of LCFs, and accordingly, predict landslide susceptibility values (V LS ) to generate the maps. Artificial neural network 28 , random forest 29 , regression models 30 , support vector models 31 , and fuzzy-based models 32 are prevalent machine learning methods that have been used for landslide susceptibility modeling in different parts of the globe. However, many scholars have suggested to enhance the efficiency of these models by incorporating optimization algorithms, a.k.a metaheuristic algorithms 33 , 34 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%