Submitted:
05 September 2023
Posted:
07 September 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Principles and Methods
2.1 Convolutional Neural Networks for Bayesian Optimization
,

2.2 Random Forests
2.3 Support Vector Machines
2.4 Technical routes
3. Data Preparation and Analysis
3.1 Overview of the Study Area

3.2 Landslide Cataloging
3.3 Data Sources
| Data categories | data scale | data time phase | data sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| DEM | 30m | 2021 | ASTER GDEM V2 |
| Slope, slope direction, curvature | 30m | 2021 | Elevation data acquisition |
| GF-2 remote sensing imagery | 1.0m | 2020, 2021 | Yunnan Remote Sensing Center |
| Google Remote Sensing imagery | -- | 2018-2021 | Google Earth |
| Quantity of rainfall | 30m | 2016-2020 | Yunnan Provincial Bureau of Statistics |
| Rivers and roads | -- | 2020 | Data from the Third National Land Survey |
| Stratigraphic lithology and faults | 1:50,000 | 2015 | Natural Resources Bureau (NRB) |
| NDVI | 30m | 2020 | Landsat 8 data |
| Sentinel data | 5m×20m | 2018.7-2021.5 | European Space Agency (ESA) |
3.4. Selection of Evaluation Factors
3.5 Independence Test
3.6 Evaluation Factor Analysis

(i is the serial number of the evaluation factor; j is the serial number of the secondary classification)
4 Analysis of Evaluation Results
4.1 Results of the Vulnerability Assessment
4.2 Evaluation Accuracy Analysis
,
,
5 Conclusion
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Chi T H, Su Y F. Integrated System for Remote Sensing Monitoring and Assessment of Major Natural Disasters [M]. China Science and Technology Press, 1995.
- Wasowski, J, Bovenga, F, Casarano, D, et al. Application of PSI techniques to landslide investigations in the Caramanico area (Italy): lessons learnt[C Application of PSI techniques to landslide investigations in the Caramanico area (Italy): lessons learnt[C]//Fringe 2005 Workshop. 2006, 610.
- Guzzetti, F, Reichenbach, P, Ardizzone, F, et al. Estimating the quality of landslide susceptibility models[J]. Geomorphology, 2006, 81(1/2):166-184. [CrossRef]
- Cheng T, San X J, Dong W T, et al. A study of landslide distribution in loess area with InSAR [J]. Hydrogeology and Engineering Geology, 2008, (1): 4. [CrossRef]
- Carlà, T, Tofani, V, Lombardi, L, et al. Combination of GNSS, satellite InSAR, and GBInSAR remote sensing monitoring to improve the understanding of a large landslide in high alpine environment[J]. Geomorphology, 2019, 335: 62-75. [CrossRef]
- Ge D Q, Dai K R, Guo Z C et al. Early Identification of serious geological hazards with integrated remote sensing technologies:thoughts and recommendations[J]. Journal of Wuhan University (Information Science Edition), 2019, 44(07): 949-956. [CrossRef]
- Xu Q, Dong X J, Li W L. Integrated space-air-ground early detection,Monitoring and warming system for potentianl catastrophic geohazards[J]. Journal of Wuhan University (Information Science Edition), 2019, 44(07):957-966. [CrossRef]
- Shi X G, Xu J H, Jiang H J, et al. Slope stability state monitoringandn updating of the outang landslide,Three gorges area with time series InSAR analysis[J]. Earth Science, 2019, 44(12): 4284-4292. [CrossRef]
- Liu B, Ge D Q, Wang S S, et al. Combining application of TOPS and scanSAR InSAR in large-scale geohazards identification[J]. Journal of Wuhan University (Information Science Edition), 2020, 45(11): 1756-1762. [CrossRef]
- Cai J H, Zhang L, Dong J, et al. Detection and monitoring of post-earthquake landslides in jiuzhaigou using radar remote sensing[J]. Journal of Wuhan University (Information Science Edition), 2020, 45(11): 1707-1716. [CrossRef]
- Dai, C, Li, W L, Lu, H Y, et al. Active landslides detection in Zhouqu county,gansu province using InSAR technology[J]. Journal of Wuhan University (Information Science), 2021,46(07): 994-1002. [CrossRef]
- Zhang C L, Li Z H, Yu C, et al. Landslide detection of the jinsha river region using GACOS assisted InSAR stacking[J]. Journal of Wuhan University (Information Science Edition), 2021, 46(11): 1649-1657. [CrossRef]
- Li M H, Zhang L, Dong J, et al. Detection and monitoring of potential landslides along Minjiang river valley in maoxian county,sichuan using radar remote sensing[J]. Journal of Wuhan University (Information Science), 2021 ,46(10): 1529-1537. [CrossRef]
- Zhou D Y, Zuo X Q, Xi W F, et al. Early identification of landslide hazards in deep-cut alpine canyon using SBAS-InSAR technology[J]. Chinese Journal of Geological Hazards and Prevention, 2022, 33(02): 16-24. [CrossRef]
- Xu Q, Lu H Y, Li W L, et al. Types of potential landslide and corresponding identification technologies[J]. Journal of Wuhan University (Information Science), 2022, 47(03): 377-387. [CrossRef]
- He J Y, Ju N P, Xie M L, et al. Comparison of InSAR technology for identification of hidden dangers of geological hazards in alpine and canyon areas[J/OL]. Earth Science: 1-20[2023-02-16].
- Jiang, Z, Zhao, C, Yan, M, et al. The Early Identification and Spatio-Temporal Characteristics of Loess Landslides with SENTINEL-1A Datasets: A Case of Dingbian County, China[J]. Remote Sensing, 2022, 14(23): 6009. [CrossRef]
- Zhou P, Deng H, Zhang W J et al. Landslide susceptibility evaluation based on information value model and machine learning method: A case study of lixian county, sichuan province[J]. Geoscience, 2022, 42(09): 1665-1675.
- Luo L G, Pei X J, Cui S H, et al. Combined selection of susceptibility assessment factors for Jiuzhaigou earthquake-induced landslides[J]. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2021, 40(11): 2306-2319 .
- Zhang Z Y, Dang M G, Xu S G, et al. Comparison of landslide susceptibility assessment models in Zhenkang County, Yunnan Province, China[J]. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2022, 41(01): 157-171 . [CrossRef]
- Li Y W, Xu L R, Zhang L L,et al. Study on development patterns and susceptibility evaluation of coseismic landslides within mountainous regions Influenced by strong earthquakes[J/OL]. Earth Science, 2022, : 1-14. [CrossRef]
- S. B, T. F, B. A H. Landslide susceptibility mapping using maximum entropy (MaxEnt) and geographically weighted logistic regression (GWLR) models in the Río Aguas catchment (Almería, SE Spain)[J]. Natural Hazards, 2023, 117(1). [CrossRef]
- Wubiao H,Mingtao D,Zhenhong L, et al. An Efficient User-Friendly Integration Tool for Landslide Susceptibility Mapping Based on Support Vector Machines: SVM-LSM Toolbox[J]. Remote Sensing,2022,14(14). [CrossRef]
- Huang W B, Ding M T, Wang D et al. Landslide susceptibility assessment along the Sichuan-Tibet transportation corridor based on layer adaptive weighted convolutional neural network[J]. Earth Science, 2022, 47(06): 2015-2030. [CrossRef]
- Yuke H,Lei S,Umair K, et al. Stacking ensemble of machine learning methods for landslide susceptibility mapping in Zhangjiajie City, Hunan Province, China[J]. China[J]. Environmental Earth Sciences,2022,82(1). [CrossRef]
- Kong J X, Zhong J Q, Peng J B et al. Evaluation of landslide susceptibility in chinese loess plateau based on IV-RF and IV-CNN coupling models[J]. Earth Science, 2023, 48(05): 1711-1729. [CrossRef]
- Hidayatul M U,Rohmaneo M D. Landslide Susceptibility Spatial Modelling Using Random Forest Algorithm: a Case Study of Malang Regency[J]. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science,2023,1127(1). [CrossRef]
- Jingyun G,Rafael L A,Miao Y, et al. GIS-Based Landslide Susceptibility Modeling: a Comparison between Best-First Decision Tree and Its Two Ensembles ( BagBFT and RFBFT)[J]. Remote Sensing,2023,15(4). [CrossRef]
- Teruyuki K,Koki S,Satoshi N, et al. Landslide susceptibility mapping using automatically constructed CNN architectures with pre-slide topographic DEM of deep-seated catastrophic landslides caused by Typhoon Talas[J]. Natural Hazards,2023,117(1). [CrossRef]
- Behnia P, Blais-Stevens A. Landslide susceptibility modelling using the quantitative random forest method along the northern portion of the Yukon Alaska Highway Corridor, Canada[J]. Natural hazards, 2018, 90(3): 1407-1426. [CrossRef]
- Phong T V, Phan T T, Prakash I, et al. Landslide susceptibility modeling using different artificial intelligence methods: a case study at Muong Lay district, Vietnam[J]. Geocarto International, 2021, 36(15): 1685-1708. [CrossRef]
- Shibao W, Jianqi Z, Jia Z, et al. Application of Bayesian Hyperparameter Optimized Random Forest and XGBoost Model for Landslide Susceptibility Mapping [J]. Frontiers in Earth Science,2021,9. [CrossRef]
- Bin Y Z,Yi P X,Jing L, et al. Comparison of LR, 5-CV SVM, GA SVM, and PSO SVM for landslide susceptibility assessment in Tibetan Plateau area, China[J]. Journal of Mountain Science,2023,20(4). [CrossRef]
- Wu X L,Yang J Y,Niu R Q. A Landslide susceptibility assessment method using SMOTE and convolutional neural network[J]. Journal of Wuhan University (Information Science Edition),2020,45(08):1223-1232. [CrossRef]
- Hubel D H, Wiesel T N. Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat's visual cortex[J]. The Journal of physiology, 1962, 160(1): 106. [CrossRef]
- Breiman L. Random forests [J]. Machine learning, 2001, 45(1): 5-32. [CrossRef]
- Vapnik V, Lerner A. Pattern recognition using generalized portrait method[J]. Automation and Remote Control, 1963, 24:774-780.
- Vapnik V. The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory[M]. Springer. 2000. [CrossRef]
- Sunil S,Anik S,Bishnu R, et al. Correction to: integrating the Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) with machine learning methods for improving the accuracy of the landslide susceptibility model[J]. Earth Science Informatics,2022,15(4). [CrossRef]
- Zou S L, Duan H C. Study on the distribution pattern of geologic hazards in Gengma County, Yunnan Province[J]. Sichuan Journal of Geology, 2016, 36(S1): 38-41+46. [CrossRef]
- Gorokhovich Y, Machado E A, Melgar L I G, et al. Improving landslide hazard and risk mapping in Guatemala using terrain aspect [J]. Nat Hazards, 2016, 81(2): 869-886. [CrossRef]
- Qi W J, Yang X M, Li Z, et al. Study on the correlation between topographic features and distribution of land use types in Jinggang Mountain[J]. Remote Sensing Information, 2018, 33(04): 64-71. [CrossRef]
- Yang Y G, Li Z F, Liu M Y, et al. Analysis of topographic differences of yongshou county based on different resolutions of DEM[J]. Research on Soil and Water Conservation, 2018, 25(06): 131-136.
- Guo Z Z, Yin K L, Huang F M, et al. Evaluation of landslide susceptibility based on landslide classification and weighted frequency ratio model[J]. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2019, 38(02): 287-300. [CrossRef]
- Khouz A, Trindade J, Oliveira S C, et al. Landslide susceptibility assessment in the rocky coast subsystem of Essaouira, Morocco[J]. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 2022, 22(11): 3793-3814. [CrossRef]
- Agrawal N, Dixit J. GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping of the Meghalaya-Shillong Plateau region using machine learning algorithms[J]. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 2023, 82(5): 170. [CrossRef]
- Sun D L, Chen D L, Mi C L et al. Evaluation of landslide susceptibility in the gentle hill-valley areas based on the interpretable random forest-recursive feature elimination model[J]. Journal of Geomechanics, 2023, 29(02): 202-219. [CrossRef]






| EF | a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | i | j | k | l | m |
| a | 1.00 | ||||||||||||
| b | 0.04 | 1.00 | |||||||||||
| c | 0.00 | 0.02 | 1.00 | ||||||||||
| d | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 1.00 | |||||||||
| e | 0.03 | -0.02 | -0.04 | 0.00 | 1.00 | ||||||||
| f | 0.13 | 0.15 | -0.20 | 0.05 | -0.03 | 1.00 | |||||||
| g | 0.15 | 0.09 | 0.02 | 0.01 | -0.17 | 0.14 | 1.00 | ||||||
| h | 0.20 | -0.01 | 0.04 | 0.01 | -0.11 | 0.06 | 0.12 | 1.00 | |||||
| i | -0.10 | -0.14 | -0.04 | -0.01 | 0.09 | -0.16 | -0.12 | -0.01 | 1.00 | ||||
| j | -0.04 | -0.06 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.13 | -0.04 | 0.00 | -0.05 | 0.13 | 1.00 | |||
| k | 0.10 | 0.11 | -0.02 | 0.01 | -0.20 | 0.15 | 0.12 | -0.01 | -0.09 | 0.01 | 1.00 | ||
| l | -0.11 | 0.04 | 0.04 | -0.01 | 0.01 | -0.09 | -0.02 | -0.12 | 0.02 | 0.01 | -0.03 | 1.00 | |
| m | 0.01 | 0.03 | -0.04 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.02 | -0.02 | 0.01 | -0.01 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 1.00 |
| Evaluation factors | Classification | Type | Nij | Sij | Sij/S | Nij/N | FR |
| Elevation | low mountains | continuous | 147862 | 52 | 3.76% | 5.07% | 1.35 |
| middle mountains | 3783952 | 973 | 96.24% | 94.93% | 0.99 | ||
| Slope | flat | continuous | 179825 | 1 | 4.57% | 0.10% | 0.02 |
| moderate | 903278 | 95 | 22.97% | 9.27% | 0.40 | ||
| incline | 1543192 | 340 | 39.25% | 33.17% | 0.85 | ||
| steep | 1018128 | 334 | 25.89% | 32.59% | 1.26 | ||
| rapid | 245035 | 184 | 6.23% | 17.95% | 2.88 | ||
| dangerous | 42356 | 71 | 1.08% | 6.93% | 6.43 | ||
| Slope direction | Else | continuous | 10215 | 0 | 0.26% | 0.00% | 0.00 |
| north | 487498 | 15 | 12.40% | 1.46% | 0.12 | ||
| northeastern | 485069 | 114 | 12.34% | 11.12% | 0.90 | ||
| easth | 500801 | 117 | 12.74% | 11.41% | 0.90 | ||
| southeast | 509367 | 186 | 12.96% | 18.15% | 1.40 | ||
| south | 482217 | 123 | 12.26% | 12.00% | 0.98 | ||
| southwestern | 517237 | 240 | 13.16% | 23.41% | 1.78 | ||
| western | 479561 | 121 | 12.20% | 11.80% | 0.97 | ||
| northwest | 459849 | 39 | 11.70% | 3.80% | 0.33 | ||
| Curvature | ≤0 | continuous | 2365223 | 647 | 60.16% | 63.12% | 1.05 |
| >0 | 1566591 | 378 | 39.84% | 36.88% | 0.93 | ||
| Quantity of rainfall | <1200mm | continuous | 396165 | 223 | 10.08% | 21.76% | 2.16 |
| 1200~1300mm | 853043 | 242 | 21.70% | 23.61% | 1.09 | ||
| 1300~1400mm | 962239 | 114 | 24.47% | 11.12% | 0.45 | ||
| 1400~1500mm | 806605 | 230 | 20.51% | 22.44% | 1.09 | ||
| 1500~1600mm | 692583 | 115 | 17.61% | 11.22% | 0.64 | ||
| >1600mm | 221179 | 61 | 5.63% | 5.95% | 1.06 | ||
| NDVI | 0~0.30 | continuous | 170370 | 113 | 4.33% | 11.02% | 2.54 |
| 0.30~0.60 | 1357292 | 535 | 34.52% | 52.20% | 1.51 | ||
| 0.60~0.80 | 1219988 | 238 | 31.03% | 23.22% | 0.75 | ||
| 0.80~0.90 | 471944 | 68 | 12.00% | 6.63% | 0.55 | ||
| 0.90~1.00 | 712220 | 71 | 18.11% | 6.93% | 0.38 | ||
| Distance from road | 0~200m | discrete | 407332 | 344 | 10.36% | 33.56% | 3.24 |
| 200~400m | 333967 | 112 | 8.49% | 10.93% | 1.29 | ||
| 400~600m | 298890 | 77 | 7.60% | 7.51% | 0.99 | ||
| 600~800m | 271858 | 50 | 6.91% | 4.88% | 0.71 | ||
| 800~1000m | 249179 | 37 | 6.34% | 3.61% | 0.57 | ||
| >1000m | 2370588 | 405 | 60.29% | 39.51% | 0.66 | ||
| Distance from river | 0~200m | discrete | 392232 | 293 | 9.98% | 28.59% | 2.87 |
| 200~400m | 367396 | 126 | 9.34% | 12.29% | 1.32 | ||
| 400~600m | 352797 | 45 | 8.97% | 4.39% | 0.49 | ||
| 600~800m | 333975 | 125 | 8.49% | 12.20% | 1.44 | ||
| 800~1000m | 313162 | 56 | 7.96% | 5.46% | 0.69 | ||
| >1000m | 2172252 | 380 | 55.25% | 37.07% | 0.67 | ||
| Stratigraphic lithology | Pt1-2L | discrete | 456693 | 36 | 11.62% | 3.51% | 0.30 |
| T3sc | 364912 | 78 | 9.28% | 7.61% | 0.82 | ||
| P1d | 969094 | 270 | 24.65% | 26.34% | 1.07 | ||
| J2h | 453505 | 62 | 11.53% | 6.05% | 0.52 | ||
| D1w | 254016 | 60 | 6.46% | 5.85% | 0.91 | ||
| C1pz | 831436 | 368 | 21.15% | 35.90% | 1.70 | ||
| φω | 4203 | 0 | 0.11% | 0.00% | 0.00 | ||
| Qh | 58522 | 0 | 1.49% | 0.00% | 0.00 | ||
| N1n | 249953 | 15 | 6.36% | 1.46% | 0.23 | ||
| Eγδπ | 62648 | 116 | 1.59% | 11.32% | 7.10 | ||
| O1lj | 35968 | 0 | 0.91% | 0.00% | 0.00 | ||
| Pz1ln | 190864 | 20 | 4.85% | 1.95% | 0.40 | ||
| Distance from faults | 0~300m | discrete | 517925 | 161 | 13.17% | 15.71% | 1.19 |
| 300~600m | 472810 | 110 | 12.03% | 10.73% | 0.89 | ||
| 600~900m | 416287 | 66 | 10.59% | 6.44% | 0.61 | ||
| 900~1200m | 362051 | 81 | 9.21% | 7.90% | 0.86 | ||
| >1200m | 2162741 | 607 | 55.01% | 59.22% | 1.08 | ||
| Line of equations | Ⅸ | continuous | 284748 | 64 | 7.24% | 6.24% | 0.86 |
| Ⅷ | 560974 | 96 | 14.27% | 9.37% | 0.66 | ||
| Ⅶ | 1456770 | 407 | 37.05% | 39.71% | 1.07 | ||
| Ⅶoutside(10km) | 1629322 | 458 | 41.44% | 44.68% | 1.08 | ||
| Rate of deformation of the descending rail | <-50mm/y | continuous | 53117 | 2 | 1.35% | 0.20% | 0.14 |
| (-50,-30]mm/y | 98026 | 2 | 2.49% | 0.20% | 0.08 | ||
| (-30,-10]mm/y | 632192 | 68 | 16.08% | 6.63% | 0.41 | ||
| (-10,-5]mm/y | 558989 | 106 | 14.22% | 10.34% | 0.73 | ||
| (-5,5]mm/y | 1376991 | 419 | 35.02% | 40.88% | 1.17 | ||
| (5,10]mm/y | 489349 | 200 | 12.45% | 19.51% | 1.57 | ||
| >10mm/y | 723150 | 228 | 18.39% | 22.24% | 1.21 | ||
| Rate of deformation of the ascending rail | <-50mm/y | continuous | 1534 | 5 | 0.04% | 0.49% | 12.50 |
| (-50,-30]mm/y | 28609 | 4 | 0.73% | 0.39% | 0.54 | ||
| (-30,-10]mm/y | 489548 | 106 | 12.45% | 10.34% | 0.83 | ||
| (-10,-5]mm/y | 528806 | 110 | 13.45% | 10.73% | 0.80 | ||
| (-5,5]mm/y | 1851891 | 475 | 47.10% | 46.34% | 0.98 | ||
| (5,10]mm/y | 563188 | 204 | 14.32% | 19.90% | 1.39 | ||
| >10mm/y | 468238 | 126 | 11.91% | 12.29% | 1.03 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).