| Literature DB >> 31207868 |
Fumeng Zhao1,2, Xingmin Meng3,4, Yi Zhang5,6, Guan Chen7,8, Xiaojun Su9,10, Dongxia Yue11,12.
Abstract
Geological conditions along the Karakorum Highway (KKH) promote the occurrence of frequent natural disasters, which pose a serious threat to its normal operation. Landslide susceptibility mapping (LSM) provides a basis for analyzing and evaluating the degree of landslide susceptibility of an area. However, there has been limited analysis of actual landslide activity processes in real-time. The SBAS-InSAR (Small Baseline Subsets-Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar) method can fully consider the current landslide susceptibility situation and, thus, it can be used to optimize the results of LSM. In this study, we compared the results of LSM using logistic regression and Random Forest models along the KKH. Both approaches produced a classification in terms of very low, low, moderate, high, and very high landslide susceptibility. The evaluation results of the two models revealed a high susceptibility of land sliding in the Gaizi Valley and the Tashkurgan Valley. The Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve and historical landslide verification points were used to compare the evaluation accuracy of the two models. The Area under Curve (AUC) value of the Random Forest model was 0.981, and 98.79% of the historical landslide points in the verification points fell within the range of high and very high landslide susceptibility degrees. The Random Forest evaluation results were found to be superior to those of the logistic regression and they were combined with the SBAS-InSAR results to conduct a new LSM. The results showed an increase in the landslide susceptibility degree for 2808 cells. We conclude that this optimized landslide susceptibility mapping can provide valuable decision support for disaster prevention and it also provides theoretical guidance for the maintenance and normal operation of KKH.Entities:
Keywords: KKH; SBAS-InSAR; landslide susceptibility mapping; logistic regression; random forest
Year: 2019 PMID: 31207868 PMCID: PMC6631178 DOI: 10.3390/s19122685
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The study area and distribution of landslides (The yellow line is the border between China and Pakistan. The red line on the up-right is the border of Chinese provinces).
Multicollinearity diagnostics for the variables used in this study.
| Variable | TOL | VIF |
|---|---|---|
| Elevation | 0.611 | 1.638 |
| Slope | 0.576 | 1.735 |
| Aspect | 0.989 | 1.011 |
| Profile curvature | 0.801 | 1.248 |
| Planar curvature | 0.815 | 1.226 |
| TWI | 0.958 | 1.044 |
| NDVI | 0.916 | 1.092 |
| Precipitation | 0.644 | 1.553 |
| Distance from fault | 0.756 | 1.271 |
| Lithology | 0.691 | 1.446 |
Figure 2Landslide predisposing factors: (a) is the elevation, (b) is the slope, (c) is the aspect, (d) is the profile curvature, (e) is the planar curvature, (f) is the TWI, (g) is the NDVI, (h) is the precipitation, (i) is the distance from the fault, and (j) is the lithology. In (j), a represents plagioclase, monzonite, potassium feldspar granite, diorite, granodiorite, b represents calcareous siltstone, quartz sandstone, phyllite, clastic rock containing pyrite crystals, c is clastic rock sandwiched limestone, occasionally sandwiched siltstone, quartz sandstone, d is gray mudstone, sandstone, black argillaceous siltstone, gray sandy mudstone, limestone, e is gray medium thick, massive limestone, bio-limestone, marl, variegated conglomerate, f is sericite green clay schist, quartz schist marble, quartz marble, dolomite quartz schist, g is gravel, sand, sand soil, gravel soil, sub-clay, and h is snow area.
Figure 3Spatial-temporal baselines of the generated interferograms using SBAS-InSAR (each dot represents an interferogram).
Contingency matrix applied to the LSM, considering the average value of Vslope in each cell (the susceptibility degree from 1 to 5 represents very low, low, moderate, high, and very high, respectively).
| Vslope (mm/yr) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Susceptibility degree | 0–15 | 15–30 | 30–50 | 50–100 | >100 | |
| 1 | 0 | +1 | +2 | +3 | +4 | |
| 2 | 0 | 0 | +1 | +2 | +3 | |
| 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | +1 | +2 | |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | +1 | |
| 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Results of logistic regression analysis.
| B | S.E. | Wald | Sig. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elevation | −0.928 | 0.040 | 551.073 | 0.000 |
| Slope | 1.022 | 0.032 | 991.807 | 0.000 |
| Aspect | 0.080 | 0.023 | 12.127 | 0.000 |
| Profile curvature | 0.298 | 0.032 | 89.027 | 0.000 |
| Planar curvature | −0.125 | 0.025 | 24.136 | 0.000 |
| TWI | 0.069 | 0.034 | 4.151 | 0.042 |
| NDVI | −0.308 | 0.049 | 38.809 | 0.000 |
| Precipitation | 0.496 | 0.034 | 215.025 | 0.000 |
| Distance from fault | −0.566 | 0.036 | 246.496 | 0.000 |
| Lithology | −0.021 | 0.017 | 1.520 | 0.218 |
| Constant | −1.126 | 0.272 | 17.182 | 0.000 |
Figure 4Landslide susceptibility map of the KKH and the related ROC curve, using logistic regression.
Figure 5Random forest results: analysis of the relative importance of the variables. (a) is Mean Decrease Accuracy, (b) is Mean Decrease in Gini.
Figure 6Landslide susceptibility map of KKH and the related ROC curve using the Random Forest model.
Figure 7Ground deformation velocity map using SBAS-InSAR along the KKH. (a) Deformation velocity along the LOS direction. (b) Deformation velocity along the slope direction.
Figure 8(a) New landslide susceptibility mapping results after the application of the correction matrix. (b) Difference between the original landslide susceptibility degree and the new landslide susceptibility degree for each cell. The circled areas labelled 1–3 correspond, respectively, to the Blumkou Reservoir, the Muztag Mountains, and an area of mining activity.
Comparison of the original landslide susceptibility assessment degrees with the revised degrees after correction.
| Landslide Susceptibility Degree | Original LSM | New LSM | Susceptibility Degree Increase | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Class | No. Cells | % | No. Cells | % | Class | No. Cells |
| 1 | 481,668 | 57.11 | 480,041 | 56.91 | 0 | 840,628 |
| 2 | 166,190 | 19.70 | 167,670 | 19.88 | +1 | 1387 |
| 3 | 91,057 | 10.80 | 90,059 | 10.68 | +2 | 1084 |
| 4 | 56,650 | 6.71 | 57,130 | 6.77 | +3 | 305 |
| 5 | 47,880 | 5.68 | 48,536 | 5.76 | +4 | 32 |
Figure 9Results of landslide assessment for locality 1 (west of Blumkou Reservoir). (a) Landslide susceptibility assessment results obtained using the Random Forest method. (b) SBAS deformation rate values along the slope direction. (c) Optimized landslide susceptibility assessment results. (d) Mapping results of the difference in the degree of landslide susceptibility assessment before and after optimization.
Figure 10Results of landslide assessment for locality 2 (Muztag Mountains). (a) Landslide susceptibility assessment results obtained by the random forest method. (b) SBAS deformation rate values along the slope direction. (c) Optimized landslide susceptibility assessment results. (d) Mapping results of the difference in the degree of landslide susceptibility assessment before and after optimization.