پیش‌بینی مکانی زمین‌لغزش‌های سطحی با استفاده از الگوریتم‌ درخت تصمیم متناوب (مطالعۀ موردی: مسیر ارتباطی یوزیدر- دگاگا در استان کردستان)

نویسندگان

1 دانشگاه حکیم سبزواری

2 دانشگاه کردستان

3 دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

10.22052/deej.2021.11.34.39

چکیده

تهیۀ نقشۀ حساسیت‌پذیری زمین‌لغزش اولین گام مهم در ارزیابی خطر زمین‌لغزش است. هدف اصلی این پژوهش بررسی عملکرد الگوریتم‌ درخت تصمیم متناوب (Alternating Decision Tree) برای مدل‌سازی حساسیت به زمین‌لغزش در منطقۀ یوزیدر تا دگاگا در استان کردستان است. ابتدا نقشۀ پراکنش زمین‌لغزش‌های سطحی با تعداد ۱۷۵ موقعیت با استفاده از برداشت‌های میدانی تهیه و به‌صورت کاملاً تصادفی به دو دسته دادۀ مدل‌سازی (80%: 123 نقطه) و اعتبارسنجی (20%: 52 نقطه) تقسیم شدند. سپس بیست عامل مؤثر بر وقوع زمین‌لغزش‌های سطحی منطقۀ مورد مطالعه شناسایی شدند. بر اساس شاخص Information Gain Ratio (IGR) سیزده عامل مؤثر از بین آن‌ها انتخاب و برای مدل‌سازی به کار گرفته شدند. عملکرد مدل‌ بر اساس داده‌های تعلیمی و صحت‌سنجی با معیارهای آماری حساسیت، شفافیت، صحت، میانگین مجذور ریشۀ مربعات، سطح زیر منحنی مشخصۀ عملکرد (AUC) ارزیابی شد. نتایج نشان داد که مدل درخت تصمیم متناوب بر اساس داده‌های آموزشی و صحت‌سنجی دارای سطح زیرمنحنی برابر با ۶۶۵/۰ و ۶۷۷/۰ به‌ترتیب است؛ بنابراین بر اساس نتایج قدرت پیش‌بینی این مدل متوسط است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Spatial Prediction of Shallow Landslides Using Decision Tree Algorithm: A Case Study of Yozidar-Degaga Route in Kurdistan Province, Iran

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mitra Asadi 1
  • Ataolah Shirzadi 2
  • Himan Shahabi 2
  • Shahram Bahrami 3
1
2
3
چکیده [English]

Introduction: Iran's mostly mountainous topography, tectonic activity, high seismicity, diverse geological and climatic conditions, population growth-induced pressures on natural resources, and land-use changes in recent decades have created natural conditions for a wide range of landslides. Therefore, it is necessary to take appropriate measures to reduce the damage caused by landslides, identify their prone areas, determine the factors affecting them, and prepare their susceptibility maps. Thus, this study sought to identify the most important factors involved in the occurrence of landslides, and investigate the efficiency of the alternating decision tree models for preparing landslide susceptibility maps in the southwestern part of Kurdistan province (the communication route connecting Yozider to Degaga).

Materials and methods: First, a distribution map with 175 landslides and 100 non-landslide locations was identified and classified into a ratio of 80% and 20% for training and model validation, respectively. Thirteen factors derived from topographic, land cover and rainfall data were selected for modeling using the Information Gain Ratio (IGR) technique. Then, the ADT algorithm was used to train and prepare the landslide susceptibility maps. Moreover, statistical criteria were used to evaluate the models for both training and validation datasets. Finally, the model's performance was evaluated in terms of the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC).

Results: The highest IGR index values were found to belong to the distance from road, lithology, and road density, respectively. Furthermore, factors such as SPI, curvature, profile curvature, plan curvature, river density, distance from the river, and LS proved to have a negative effect on the modeling results, as zero value was assigned to these indices, which, in turn, led to the creation of noise. On the other hand, final modeling was performed and the 13 remaining factors were removed from the model due to their low impact on shallow landslides in the study area. Then, shallow landslide susceptibility maps were prepared based on the ADT algorithm, using quantile, natural breaks, and geometrical interval methods in the ArcGIS 10.2 environment. Finally, the best method was selected based on the landslides' frequency histogram in each susceptibility class of the maps. The results indicated that the natural breaks method was the best-known method, according to which the landslide susceptibility maps were divided into five classes, including very low susceptibility (VLS), low susceptibility (LS), moderate susceptibility (MS), high susceptibility (HS), and very high susceptibility (VHS).

Discussion and Conclusion: The results of IGR-based factor analysis revealed that distance from roads, lithology, and road density had the highest effects on the occurrence of landslides, which could be attributed to the existence of landslide-susceptible formations such as marl and shale, and inappropriate human-set policies including road construction and incorrect cutting off of heels, as road construction provides the grounds for more penetration of water into sensitive soil formations and saturation of these soils under force. Moreover, the soil saturation on slopes under the force of gravity can facilitate the occurrence of landslides in the study area, which is consistent with the results found by Pham et al. (2015, 2016, 2019) who reported that the existence of lithological units susceptible to landslides (i.e., marl and shale) in the middle parts of the slopes played an important role in the occurrence of landslides in such areas, considering the fact that marl and shales layers might act as a lubricant for overlying saturated soils, and, therefore,  facilitate the occurrence of landslides. However, it could be argued that the upper floors and higher altitudes of the area are less susceptible to landslides due to the presence of crystalline and basaltic units that are resistant to any mass movement, especially landslides. As for the land vegetation, it was found that landslides mostly occurred in drylands that were formerly semi-dense and grassland forests, indicating the significant role of forest degradation and land-use change in landslide occurrence.
The designed models for both the training and validation data were evaluated using the Kappa, TP, specificity, sensitivity, accuracy, and squared statistical measures. Finally, the models' performance was examined through the AUC. Accordingly, the results of model validation showed that the ADT model had a relatively moderate performance with the sub-curve level of 0.665. Furthermore, the sub-curve level of the ADT model was found to be 0.677 for the training data. Finally, the study area was divided into five classes, including the very high, high and moderate, low, and very low sensitivity. It was also found the severity of landslides increased when moving from low-sensitivity classes to the high-sensitivity ones, indicating higher chances for the occurrence of landslides in areas with high sensitivity. Therefore, considering the high influence of the roads in the model proposed in this study, it is suggested that the priority of taking appropriate measures to prevent and/or control landslides be taken into account so that the effect of road construction in the study area could be reduced. Moreover, in cases where future road development operations are considered along the route, principles of road construction and the stability of the slope must be strictly observed.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Decision Tree Algorithm
  • Shallow Landslide
  • Spatial Prediction
  • Validation
  • Yozidar-Degaga
  1. Ahmadi, H., Fayznya, S., 2006. Quaternary Formations (Theoretical and Practical Foundations in Natural Resources), Tehran: University of Tehran, Institute of Publishing and Printing
  2. Althuwaynee, O.F., Biswajeet, P., Park, H-J. and Lee, J.H., 2014. A novel ensemble decision tree-based CHi-squared automatic interaction detection (CHAID) and multivariate logistic regression models in landslide susceptibility mapping. Landslides, 11(6), 1063–1078.
  3. Arabameri, A., Karimi-Sangchini, E., Chandra Pal, S., Saha, A., Chowdhuri, I., Lee, S. and Tien Bui, D., 2020. Novel Credal Decision Tree-Based Ensemble Approaches for Predicting the Landslide Susceptibility, 12(20), 3389; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12203389.
  4. Bennett, N.D., Croke, B.F., Guariso, G., Guillaume, J.H., Hamilton, S.H., Jakeman, A.J., Marsili-Libelli, S., Newham, L.T., Norton, J.P. and Perrin, C., 2013. Characterising performance of environmental models. Environmental Modelling and Software, 40: 1-20.
  5. Bui, D.T., Tuan, T.A., Klempe, H., Pradhan, B. and Revhaug, I., 2016. Spatial prediction models for shallow landslide hazards: a comparative assessment of the efficacy of support vector machines, artificial neural networks, kernel logistic regression, and logistic model tree. Landslides, 13(2): 361-378.
  6. Bui, D.T., Pradhan, B., Revhaug, I., Nguyen, D.B., Pham, H.V. and Bui, Q. N., 2015. A novel hybrid evidential belief function-based fuzzy logic model in spatial prediction of rainfall-induced shallow landslides in the Lang Son city area (Vietnam). Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 6(3): 243-271.
  7. Carletta, J., 1996. Assessing agreement on classification tasks: the kappa statistic. ArXiv preprint cmp-lg/9602004.
  8. Chapi, K., Talebpour ASL, D. and Shirzadi, A., 2019. Comparison of logistic regression models and Bayesian logistic regression for spatial prediction of mass movements in Kurdistan province. Quantitative Geomorphology Research, Seventh year, number 2, 60-81
  9. Chen, W., Xie, X., Wang, J., Pradhan, B., Honge, H., Tieb Bui, D., Duan, Zh., Ma, J., 2017. A comparative study of logistic model tree, random forest, and classification and regression tree models for spatial prediction of landslide susceptibility, CATENA, Volume 151, Pages 147-160, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2016.11.032
  10. Clarestaghi, A.; Graismism, P. (2007). Landslide risk modeling using multi-criteria decision making system in the watershed and Mazandaran province. Geographical Research, 22 (4 (87)), 49-68.
  11. Dahal, R.K., Hasegawa, S., Nonomura, A., Yamanaka M., Masuda, T. and Nishino, K. (2008). GIS-based weights-of-evidence modelling of rainfall-induced landslides in small catchments for landslide susceptibility mapping, Environmental Geology, 54(2):311-324.
  12. Fazolafpoor, M., 2017. Zoning of landslide prone areas using fuzzy neural inference system (ANFIS) (Case study: Sangorchai river basin) Journal of Natural Hazards, No. 7, doi: 10.22111 / jneh.2017.3218.
  13. Freund, Y. and Mason, L., 1999. The alternating decision tree learning algorithm. In Leading International Machine Learning Conference, 124-133.
  14. Ghasemian, B., Abedini, M. and Rustaei, Sh., 2018. Landslide Sensitivity Evaluation Using Vector Support Algorithm (Case Study: Kamyaran County, Kurdistan Province) Quantitative Geomorphological Research, Year 6, Issue 3, Pages: 36
  15. Greco, R., Sorriso-Valvo, M., and Catalano, E., (2007). Logistic regression analysis in the evaluation of mass movement’s susceptibility: the Aspromonte case study, Calabria, Italy. Engineering Geology, 89(1): 47-66.
  16. Guha-Sapir, D., Below, R., Hoyois, P., 2020. EM-DAT: international disaster database. Brussels, Belgium: Université Catholique de Louvain. Available from: http://www.emdat.be [Accessed 3 March 2020]
  17. Hong, H., Pradhan, B., Xu, C. and Bui, D.T., 2015. Spatial prediction of landslide hazard at the Yihuang area (China) using two-class kernel logistic regression, alternating decision tree and support vector machines. Catena, 133: 266-281..
  18. 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–
  19. Doi: 10.1007/s00254-006-0256
  20. Mitchell, T., (1997). Machine Learning. McGraw Hill.
  21. Mohammadi Savadkuhi, N., Hosseini, S. A., 2013. The Effect of Physical and Mechanical Properties of Soil on Landslides along Forest Roads (Case Study: Pahneh Kola Series, Tajan Watershed) Journal of Watershed Management, Fourth Year / No. 8, pp. 28-42
  22. Mohammadi,A., Valizade Kamran. Kh., Karimzadeh, S., Shahabi, H., Ansari, N.A., 2020. Flood Detection and Susceptibility Mapping Using Sentinel-1 Time Series, Alternating Decision Trees, and Bag-ADTree Models, Complexiyt, Volume 2020, Article ID 4271376 , https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/4271376
  23. Nhu ,V.H., Mohammadi ,A., Shahabi ,H., Ahmad, B.B., Al-Ansari ,N., Shirzadi ,A., Clague ,J.J., Jaafari ,A., Chen ,W., Nguyen, H., (2020) Landslide susceptibility mapping using machine learning algorithms and remote sensing data in a tropical environment. International journal of environmental research and public health 17:4933.
  24. Niazi, Y., Manuel, E., Mendoza, Talebi, A., Bidaki, H., (2021). GIS-based support vector machine model in shallow landslide hazards prediction: A case study on Ilam dam watershed, Iran. Journal of Nature and Spatial Sciences, 1(1), 59–84
  25. Nguyen, Vu V., Binh T. Pham, Ba T. Vu, Indra Prakash, Sudan Jha, Himan Shahabi, Ataollah Shirzadi, Dong N. Ba, Raghvendra Kumar, Jyotir M. Chatterjee, and Dieu Tien Bui. 2019. Hybrid Machine Learning Approaches for Landslide Susceptibility Modeling, Forests 10, no. 2: 157. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10020157
  26. Ohlmacher, G.C., 2007. Plan curvature and landslide probability in regions dominated by earth flows and earth slides. Engineering Geology, 91(2):117-134.
  27. Pang, P. K., Tien, L. T. and Lateh, H., 2012. Landslide hazard mapping of penang island using decision tree model, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Systems and Electronic Engineering (ICSEE '12), Phuket, Thailand, December.
  28. Pearl, J., 2014. Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference. Morgan Kaufmann. 576 pages
  29. Pham, B. T., Bui, D. T., Pourghasemi, H. R., Indra, P. and Dholakia, M. B., 2015. Landslide susceptibility assesssment in the Uttarakhand area (India) using GIS: a comparison study of prediction capability of naïve bayes, multilayer perceptron neural networks, and functional trees methods. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 128(1-2), 255-273.
  30. Pham, BT., Bui, DT., Prakash, I. and Dholakia, M., 2016. Rotation forest fuzzy rule-based classifier ensemble for spatial prediction of landslides using GIS. Natural Hazards 83:97-127.
  31. Pham, BT., Bui, D. T. and Prakash, I., 2019. Landslide susceptibility modelling using different advanced decision trees methods. Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, Pp. 139-157, DOI:10.1080/10286608.2019.1568418
  32. Pham, BT., Luub, CH., Phong, TV., Trinh, PT., Shirzadi, A., Renoud,, Asadi, SH., Le, HV., Meding, J. and Clague, JJ., 2021. Can Deep Learning Algorithms Outperform Benchmark Machine Learning
    Algorithms in Flood Susceptibility Modeling, Journal of Hydrology, Volume 592, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125615
  33. Pourghasemi, H. R., Pradhan, B., Gokceoglu, C., Mohammadi, M. and Moradi, H.R., 2013. Application of weights-of-evidence and certainty factor models and their comparison in landslide susceptibility mapping at Haraz watershed, Iran. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 6(7): 2351-2365.
  34. Pourghasemi, H. R., Moradi H. R., Fatemi Aghda, S. M B. and Pradhan, G., 2013. GISbased landslide susceptibility mapping with probabilistic likelihood ratio and spatial multi-criteria evaluation models (North of Tehran, Iran). Arab J Geosci, DOI 10.1007/s12517-012-0825-
  35. Pong, L., Niu, R., Huang, B., Wua, X., Zhao, Y. and Ye, R., 2014. Landslide susceptibility mapping based on rough set theory and support vector machines: A case of the Three Gorges area, China. Geomorphology 204 287–301.
  36. Quinlan, J.R., 1993. C4.5: programs for machine learning. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, USA.
  37. Sahin, EK. and Colkesen, I., 2019. Performance Analysis of Advanced Decision Tree-Based Ensemble Learning Algorithms for Landslide Susceptibility Mapping, Geocarto International , DOI: 10.1080/10106049.2019.1641560.
  38. Shirzadi, A., 2017a. Spatial prediction of shallow landslide around Bijar county using advanced algorithms of Data mining. PhD Thesis, University of Sari. 132 pp.
  39. Shirzadi, A., Bui, D. T., Pham, B. T., Solaimani, K., Chapi, K., Kavian, A., ... and Revhaug, I., 2017b. Shallow landslide susceptibility assessment using a novel hybrid intelligence approach. Environmental Earth Sciences, 76(2), 60. ‏
  40. Shirzadi, A., Soleimani, K., Habibnejad Roshanbaha, M., Kavian, A. and Chapi, K., 2017c. "Introduction of a new hybrid model of the base algorithm in order to predict the sensitivity of surface landslides around the city of Bijar", Quarterly Journal of Geography and Development, Volume 14, Number 46. pp.225-246
  41. Shirzadi, A., Shahabi, H., Chapi, K., Bui, D. T., Pham, B. T., Shahedi, K. and Ahmad, B. B., 2017d. A comparative study between popular statistical and machine learning methods for simulating volume of landslides. CATENA, 157, 213-226.
  42. Shirzadi, A., Asadi, SH., Shahabi, H., Ronoud, S., ClGUE, J.J,. Khosravi, Kh., Pham. B., Ahmad, B., Bui, D., 2021. A novel ensemble learning based on Bayesian Belief Network coupled with an extreme learning machine for flash flood susceptibility mapping. Engineering Applications of Artifcial Intelligence, volume 98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2020.103971
  43. Talebi, A., Godarzi, S., Porghasemi, H., 2017. Investigating the possibility of preparing a landslide hazard map using a random forest algorithm (study area: Sardarabad watershed, Lorestan province) Journal of Natural Hazards,: 7, doi: 10.22111 / jneh.2017.3213.
  44. Tazeh, M., Taghi Zadeh, M.R., Fathabadi, A., Kalantari, S., 2016. Presentation of landslide hazard zoning model and its effective factors using quantitative geomorphology, Journal of Environmental Erosion Research 6 (22): 15-1
  45. Tien Bui. D., Pradhan, B., Lofman, O. and Revhaug, I., 2012. Landslide Susceptibility Assessment in Vietnam Using Support Vector Machines, Decision Tree, and Naıve Bayes Models. Mathematical
  46. Bui, Dieu., Pradhan, Biswajeet., Revhaug, Inge., Trung. Tran, Chuyen., (2014). A Comparative Assessment Between the Application of Fuzzy Unordered Rules Induction Algorithm and J48 Decision Tree Models in Spatial Prediction of Shallow Landslides at Lang Son City, Vietnam, Cartography from Pole to Pole pp 303-317, Problems in Engineering Volume 2012, Article ID 97463
  47. Tien Bui, D., Tuan, T.A., Klempe, H., Pradhan, B. and Revhaug, I., 2016. Spatial prediction models for shallow landslide hazards: a comparative assessment of the efficacy of support vector machines, artificial neural networks, kernel logistic regression, and logistic model tree. Landslides 13 (2), 361–378.
  48. Tien Bui, D., Shirzadi, A., Shahabi, H., Geertsema, M., Omidvar, E., Clague, J.J., Thai Pham, B., Dou, J., Talebpour Asl, D., Bin Ahmad, B., Lee, S., 2019. New Ensemble Models for Shallow Landslide Susceptibility Modeling in a Semi-Arid Watershed. Forests 2019, 10, 743. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10090743
  49. Tsangaratos, P. and Benardos, A., 2014. Estimating landslide susceptibility through an artificial neural networkclassifier. NaturalHazards, 74(3), 1489-1516.
  50. Tran, T. H., Dam, N,D., Jalal, F.E., Naseri, N.A., Siho, L., Phong, T.V., Iqbal, M., Le, H. V., Thi Nguyen, H.B., Prakash, I., Pham. B.T., 2021. GIS-Based Soft Computing Models for Landslide Susceptibility Mapping: A Case Study of Pithoragarh District, Uttarakhand State, India, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Volume 2021, Article ID 9914650, https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9914650
  51. Vu, B.T., Pham, V.M., Nguyen, Q.D., Nguyen, H.V., Ngo, T.T.H., 2019. Analyses on drainage capacity and sliding resistance of large diameter vertical wells for deep-seated landslide stabilization, CIGOS, Innovation for Sustainable Infrastructure. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, vol 54. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0802-8_104
  52. Wang, X. Ruiqing Niu. 2009. Spatial Forecast of Landslides in Three Gorges Based On Spatial Data Mining. Sensors 9, no. 3: 2035-2061. https://doi.org/10.3390/s90302035
  53. Wang, Y., Bouten, W. and Chen, Q., 2015. ted Landslide Field Data 12(2): 268-288
  54. Y., Ke, Y,. Chen, Zh., Liang, Sh., Zhao, H., Hong, h., 2020. Application of alternating decision tree with AdaBoost and bagging ensembles for landslide susceptibility mapping. Catena,volume187, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2019.104396
  55. Yeon, Y.K., Han, J.G. and Ryu, K.H., 2010. Landslide susceptibility mapping in Injae, Korea, using a decision tree. Engineering Geology, Pages 274-283.