Modification of seed cell sampling strategy for landslide susceptibility mapping: an application from the Eastern part of the Gallipoli Peninsula (Canakkale, Turkey)

Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment

Volumn 75, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 575-590

  Dagdelenler, Gulseren ^a   Nefeslioglu, Hakan A ^a   Gokceoglu, Candan ^a  

^a HACETTEPE UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Gallipoli Peninsula; Landslide; Sampling strategy; Seed cell; Susceptibility

Indexed keywords

CELLS; CYTOLOGY; MAGNETIC SUSCEPTIBILITY; MAPPING; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

AREA UNDER THE ROC CURVE; DIFFERENT RESOLUTIONS; GALLIPOLI PENINSULA; LANDSLIDE SUSCEPTIBILITY; LANDSLIDE SUSCEPTIBILITY MAPPING; SAMPLING STRATEGIES; SEED CELLS; SPATIAL PERFORMANCE;

LANDSLIDES;

LANDSLIDE; MAPPING; SAMPLING; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SPATIAL RESOLUTION;

CANAKKALE [TURKEY]; GALLIPOLI PENINSULA; TURKEY;

EID: 84930897803     PISSN: 14359529     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10064-015-0759-0     Document Type: Article

References (50)

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 İzmir. Turkey. Landslides 9(1):93–106
2. Akgun A, Sezer EA, Nefeslioglu HA, Gokceoglu C, Pradhan B (2012) An easy-to-use MATLAB program (MamLand) for the assessment of landslide susceptibility using a Mamdani fuzzy algorithm. Computer Geosci 38(1):23–34
3. Althuwaynee OF, Pradhan B, Park HJ, Lee JH (2014) A novel ensemble bivariate statistical evidential belief function with knowledge-based analytical hierarchy process and multivariate statistical logistic regression for landslide susceptibility mapping. Catena 114:21–36
4. Atkinson PM, Massari R (2011) Autologistic modelling of susceptibility to landsliding in the Central Apennines. Italy. Geomorphol 130(1–2):55–64
5. Bai SB, Wang J, Lu GN, Zhou PG, Hou SS, Xu SN (2010) GIS-based logistic regression for landslide susceptibility mapping of the Zhongxian segment in the three Gorges area, China. Geomorphology 115:23–31
6. Begueria S (2006) Validation and evaluation of predictive models in hazard assessment and risk management. Nat Hazards 37:315–329
7. Bui DT, Lofman O, Revhaug I, Dick O (2011) Landslide susceptibility analysis in the Hoa Binh province of Vietnam using statistical index and logistic regression. Nat Hazards 59(3):1413–1444
8. Carrara A, Crosta G, Frattini P (2008) Comparing models of debris–flow susceptibility in the alpine environment. Geomorphology 94(3–4):353–378
9. Chauhan S, Sharma M, Arora MK, Gupta NK (2010) Landslide susceptibility zonation through ratings derived from artificial neural network. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 12(5):340–350
10. Choi J, Oh H-J, Lee H-J, Lee C, Lee S (2012) Combining landslide susceptibility maps obtained from frequency ratio, logistic regression, and artificial neural network models using ASTER images and GIS. Eng Geol 124:12–23
11. Clerici A, Perego S, Tellini C, Vescovi P (2006) A GIS-based automated procedure for landslide susceptibility mapping by the conditional analysis method: the Baganza valley case study (Italian Northern Apennines). Environ Geol 50:941–961
12. CNN (2014) Cable News Network. http://edition.cnn.com
13. CORINE (2006) Coordinate of Information on the Environment. http://aris.ormansu.gov.tr/crn
14. Corominas J, Van Westen C, Frattini P, Cascini L, Malet JP, Fotopoulou S, Catani F, Van DenEeckhaut M, Mavrouli O, Agliardi F, Pitilakis K, Winter MG, Pastor M, Ferlisi S, Tofani V, Herva´s J, Smith JT (2014) Recommendations for the quantitative analysis of landslide risk. Bull Eng Geol Environ 73:209–263
15. Cruden DM, Varnes DJ (1996) Investigation and mitigation. In: Turner KA, Schuster RL (eds) Landslides: investigation and mitigation. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Special Report 247, pp 36–75
16. Dagdelenler G (2013) Assessment of sampling and validation strategies in production of landslide susceptibility maps (Eastern Part of Gallipoli Peninsula). Hacettepe University, Institute of Science, Ankara, Turkey, p 186 (unpublished report)
17. Duman T, Nefeslioglu HA, Can T, Ates S, Durmaz S, Olgun S, Hamzacebi S, Kecer M (2006) Turkiye Heyelan Envanteri Haritasi, 1/500,000 olcekli Istanbul Paftasi. Maden Tetkik ve Arama Genel Mudurlugu (MTA) Ozel Yayinlar Serisi-6, Ankara, 25 s. (In Turkish)
18. Ercanoglu M, Temiz FA (2011) Application of logistic regression and fuzzy operators to landslide susceptibility assessment in Azdavay (Kastamonu, Turkey). Environ Earth Sci 64:949–964
19. Fawcett T (2006) An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recogn Lett 27:861–874
20. Fell R, Corominas J, Bonnard C, Cascini L, Leroi E, Savage WZ (2008) Guidelines for landslide susceptibility, hazard and risk zoning for land use planning. Eng Geol 102:85–98
21. Gorum T, Gonencgil B, Gokceoglu C, Nefeslioglu HA (2008) Implementation of reconstructed geomorphologic units in landslide susceptibility mapping: the Melen Gorge (NW Turkey). Nat Hazards 46:323–351
22. Lee S, Talib JA (2005) Probabilistic landslide susceptibility and factor effect analysis. Environ Geol 47:982–990
23. MGM (2007) Meteoroloji Genel Mudurlugu (Turkish State Meteorological Service). http://www.mgm.gov.tr
24. Moore ID, Burch GJ (1986) Sediment transport capacity of sheet and rill flow: application of unit stream power theory. Water Resour Res 22:1350–1360
25. Moore ID, Wilson JP (1992) Length-slope factors for the revised universal soil loss equation: simplified method of estimation. J Soil Water Conserv 47(5):423–428
26. Moore ID, Grayson RB, Ladson AR (1991) Digital terrain modelling: a review of hydrological, geomorphological, and biological applications. Hydrol Process 5(1):3–30
27. MTA (2008) Sayısallastırılmıs 1/25000 Olcekli Jeoloji Haritası, H-16 Gelibolu paftası
28. Nandi A, Shakoor A (2010) A GIS-based landslide susceptibility evaluation using bivariate and multivariate statistical analyses. Eng Geol 110(1–2):11–20
29. Nefeslioglu HA, Gokceoglu C, Sonmez H (2008) An assessment on the use of logistic regression and artificial neural networks with different sampling strategies for the preparation of landslide susceptibility maps. Eng Geol 97(3–4):171–191
30. Nefeslioglu HA, Gokceoglu C, Sonmez H, Gorum T (2011) Medium-scale hazard mapping for shallow landslide initiation: the Buyukkoy catchment area (Cayeli, Rize, Turkey). Landslides 8(4):459–483
31. Nefeslioglu HA, San BT, Gokceoglu C, Duman TY (2012) An assessment on the use of Terra ASTER L3A data in landslide susceptibility mapping. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 14(1):40–60
32. Oh HJ, Pradhan B (2011) Application of a neuro-fuzzy model to landslide susceptibility mapping for shallow landslides in a tropical hilly area. Computer Geosci 37(9):1264–1276
33. Onal M (1986) Gelibolu Yarımadası orta bolumunun sedimanter fasiyesleri ve tektonik evrimi. KB Anadolu, Turkiye: Jeoloji Muh. 29:37–46
34. Ozdemir A, Altural T (2013) A comparative study of frequency ratio, weights of evidence and logistic regression methods for landslide susceptibility mapping: sultan Mountains, SW Turkey. J Asian Earth Sci 64:180–197
35. Pradhan B (2010) Landslide susceptibility mapping of a catchment area using frequency ratio, fuzzy logic and multivariate logistic regression approaches. J Indian Soc of Remote Sens 38(2):301–320
36. Pradhan B (2013) A comparative study on the predictive ability of the decision tree, support vector machine and neuro-fuzzy models in landslide susceptibility mapping using GIS. Comput Geosci 51:350–365
37. Pradhan B, Lee S (2010a) Regional landslide susceptibility analysis using back-propagation neural network model at Cameron Highland. Malays. Landslides 7(1):13–30
38. Pradhan B, Lee S (2010b) Landslide susceptibility assessment and factor effect analysis: backpropagation artificial neural networks and their comparison with frequency ratio and bivariate logistic regression modeling. Environ Modell Softw 25:747–759
39. Ramani SE, Pitchaimani K, Gnanamanickam VR (2011) GIS based landslide susceptibility mapping of Tevankarai Ar sub-watershed, Kodaikkanal, India using binary logistic regression analysis. J Mt Sci 8(4):505–551
40. San BT (2014) An evaluation of SVM using polygon-based random sampling in landslide susceptibility mapping: the Candir catchment area (Western Antalya, Turkey). Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 26:399–412
41. Saroglu F, Emre O, Boray A (1987) Turkiye’nin diri fayları ve depremselligi. MTA, Rapor No: 8174
42. Shahabi H, Khezri S, Ahmada BB, Hashim M (2014) Landslide susceptibility mapping at central Zab basin, Iran: a comparison between analytical hierarchy process, frequency ratio and logistic regression models. Catena 115:55–70
43. Suzen ML, Doyuran V (2004) Data driven bivariate landslide susceptibility assessment using geographical information systems: a method and application to Asarsuyu catchment, Turkey. Eng Geol 71:303–321
44. TUAA (2013) Turkiye Ulusal Afet Arsiv (National Disaster Data Bank of Turkey). http://www.tuaa.afad.gov.tr
45. Wang L-J, Sawada K, Moriguchi S (2013) Landslide susceptibility analysis with logistic regression model based on FCM sampling strategy. Comput Geosci 57:81–92
46. Wilson JP, Gallant JC (2000) Terrain analysis principles and applications. Wiley, Toronto
47. Xu C, Dai F, Xu X, Lee YH (2012) GIS-based support vector machine modeling of earthquake-triggered landslide susceptibility in the Jianjiang River watershed, China. Geomorphol 145–146:70–80
48. Yalcin A, Reis S, Aydinoglu AC, Yomralioglu T (2011) A GIS-based comparative study of frequency ratio, analytical hierarchy process, bivariate statistics and logistics regression methods for landslide susceptibility mapping in Trabzon, NE Turkey. Catena 85:274–287
49. 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(6):1125–1138
50. 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