# Definition of Rainfall Thresholds for Landslides Using Unbalanced Datasets: Two Case Studies in Shaanxi Province, China

^{1}

^{2}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Materials and Methods

#### 2.1. Study Area

#### 2.2. Datasets

#### 2.3. Methods

#### 2.3.1. Reconstruction of Rainfall Events

_{S}); (b) excluding the isolated rainfall measurements, specifying a time period (P

_{1}) and minimum cumulated rainfall value (E

_{R}); (c) identifying rainfall sub-events adopting another time period parameter (P

_{2}); (d) excluding the sub-events irrelevant to landslides, specifying a minimum cumulated event rainfall for isolated events (P

_{3}); (e) identifying rainfall events, by means of a third period parameter (P

_{4}); (f) for each failure, selecting rain gauges within a circular area of a set radius (R

_{b}), centered on the landslide location; (g) selecting the rainfall events associated with landslides to reconstruct multiple rainfall conditions (MRCs) for landslides, which can be a single rainfall sub-event or a set of two or more sub-events, and to define the associated cumulated rainfalls (${E}_{L}$) and durations (D

_{L}); (h) assigning a weight w to each subset of MRCs according to the following formula $w={d}^{-\mathit{2}}{{E}_{L}}^{\mathit{2}}{{D}_{L}}^{-\mathit{2}}$, where d is the distance between the landslide and the rain gauge; (i) selecting the representative rain gauge and reconstructing the maximum probability rainfall conditions (MPRCs), which is the subset of MRCs with the highest weight w. In this way, rainfall events (REs), MRCs, and MPRCs were reconstructed. Non-triggering events (NTEs) were reconstructed by excluding the rainfall events associated with landslides from the set of identified REs. Figure 4 shows, as an example, a graphical depiction of how the rainfall measures are indeed used to reconstruct REs, NTEs, MRCs, and MPRCs. The values of the input parameters adopted for this study are shown in Table 1. P

_{1}, P

_{2}, and P

_{4}are different for “warm” (Cw) and “cold” (Cc) periods. The start and the end of Cw and Cc, and the time interval ratio between Cw and Cc, were determined by adopting a monthly soil water balance (MSWB) model [40].

#### 2.3.2. Definition of Rainfall Thresholds

- Efficiency index (Equation (2));

- True positive rate (also referred to as hit rate, probability of detection rate, and sensitivity (Equation (3)));

- False positive rate (also referred to as probability of false detection (Equation (4)));

- Positive predictive value (also referred to as precision (Equation (5)));

## 3. Results

#### 3.1. Reconstraction of Rainfall Events

#### 3.2. Definition of Rainfall Thresholds

**γ**are equal to 2%.

#### 3.3. Performance Evaluation

_{20,LY}, although this results in a significant number of FP (92) when compared to the other thresholds. A better compromise is represented by N

_{15,LY}and P

_{5,LY,MPRC}, which allow achieving a high number of TP (70), both minimizing the number of FP (60 and 61, respectively). The overall good performance of N

_{15,LY}and P

_{5,LY,MPRC}is also confirmed considering the skill scores listed in Table 8. Indeed, both the thresholds show high values of the true positive rate (TPR) and low values of the false positive rate (FPR). Looking at the efficiency index (EI), a general increase is observed raising the percentile of the positive thresholds and reducing the percentile of the negative one. The positive predictive value (PPV) shows variations similar to the EI, with values higher than 0.5 for all the thresholds, apart from N

_{20,LY}.

_{20,XY}, with a TP of 17. It should be observed that the XY case shows sensitively higher values of FP than the LY case. In particular, there is an order of magnitude of difference between FP and TP for the XY case, and of course the difference is also related to the low number of landslides that occurred in XY. The worst performance of the thresholds due to the high number of FP is confirmed by the low values of the PPV (Table 9). Values of the TPR higher than 0.8 are observed for N

_{20,XY}and all the positive thresholds, apart from P

_{20,XY,MPRC}(0.71). The EI assumes relatively high values due to the significant influence of the TN.

_{15,LY}and the best positive threshold is P

_{5,LY,MPRC}. The two thresholds show the same distance δ from the perfect point (0.121 in both the cases). For XY, N

_{20,XY}is the best among the negative thresholds. P

_{15,XY,MPRC}is the best among the positive thresholds. N

_{20,XY}is characterized by a slightly shorter distance from the perfect point compared to P

_{15,XY,MPRC}(0.276 vs. 0.283).

## 4. Discussion

_{5,LY,MPRC}and N

_{15,LY}are similar. However, the relative uncertainties of the scaling and shape parameters (△α/α and △γ/γ) for P

_{5,LY,MPRC}are 19% and 12%, which are much greater than those for N

_{15,LY}, respectively equal to 4% and 2%. For the XY case, the best negative threshold (N

_{20,XY}) has a lower FPR and a higher EI than P

_{15,XY,MPRC}. The relative uncertainties of P

_{15,XY,MPRC}, almost 100% for the shape parameter, are much higher than those associated to N

_{20,XY}. Thus, N

_{20,XY}clearly shows an overall better performance for the XY case. When comparing the two case studies, the performance of the two sets of negative optimal thresholds is quite similar. Indeed, for both cases, despite the small differences, the best negative thresholds show lower numbers of FP and FN compared to the positive ones. This means that, in case they are employed in an operational warning model, the LEWS would benefit from a better compromise between false and missed alarms. In any case, the key difference between the two sets of thresholds is that the best negative thresholds exhibit significantly lower relative uncertainties of threshold parameters than the positive ones. The uncertainties depend on the number and the distribution of rainfall event points [24,42]. The relative uncertainties are also important for assessing if and how any given rainfall-threshold can be applied in an operational LEWS. Peruccacci et al. [24] stressed that an acceptable value of relative uncertainties is 10% and at least 175 even-distributed (D, E) points are required to limit the relative uncertainties below 10%. Although reconstructing multiple rainfall conditions for one single landslide to define rainfall thresholds can increase the sample number and decrease the relative uncertainties of defined thresholds, the problem of the non-uniform distribution of the sample points determined by the unbalanced dataset cannot be solved. For example, the relative uncertainties of shape parameter for thresholds defined based on 233 MRCs (>175) in the LY case are still greater than 10%. Therefore, for unbalanced datasets, negative thresholds can be considered better than positive ones. As suggested by Peres and Cancelliere [22], the overlooked methods based on rainfall-event that do not trigger landslides deserve wider application.

## 5. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Data Availability Statement

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Intrieri, E.; Gigli, G.; Mugnai, F.; Fanti, R.; Casagli, N. Design and Implementation of a Landslide Early Warning System. Eng. Geol.
**2012**, 147, 124–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Calvello, M. Early Warning Strategies to Cope with Landslide Risk. Riv. Ital. Geotec.
**2017**, 2, 63–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Piciullo, L.; Calvello, M.; Cepeda, J.M. Territorial Early Warning Systems for Rainfall-Induced Landslides. Earth-Sci. Rev.
**2018**, 179, 228–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Pecoraro, G.; Calvello, M.; Piciullo, L. Monitoring Strategies for Local Landslide Early Warning Systems. Landslides
**2019**, 16, 213–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Piciullo, L.; Gariano, S.L.; Melillo, M.; Brunetti, M.T.; Peruccacci, S.; Guzzetti, F.; Calvello, M. Definition and Performance of a Threshold-Based Regional Early Warning Model for Rainfall-Induced Landslides. Landslides
**2017**, 14, 995–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Guzzetti, F.; Gariano, S.L.; Peruccacci, S.; Brunetti, M.T.; Marchesini, I.; Rossi, M.; Melillo, M. Geographical Landslide Early Warning Systems. Earth-Sci. Rev.
**2020**, 200, 102973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Caine, N. The Rainfall Intensity-Duration Control of Shallow Landslides and Debris Flows. Geogr. Ann. Ser. A
**1980**, 62, 23–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Aleotti, P. A Warning System for Rainfall-Induced Shallow Failures. Eng. Geol.
**2004**, 73, 247–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Guzzetti, F.; Peruccacci, S.; Rossi, M.; Stark, C.P. Rainfall Thresholds for the Initiation of Landslides in Central and Southern Europe. Meteorol. Atmos. Phys.
**2007**, 98, 239–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Guzzetti, F.; Peruccacci, S.; Rossi, M.; Stark, C.P. The Rainfall Intensity-Duration Control of Shallow Landslides and Debris Flows: An Update. Landslides
**2008**, 5, 3–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Segoni, S.; Piciullo, L.; Gariano, S.L. A Review of the Recent Literature on Rainfall Thresholds for Landslide Occurrence. Landslides
**2018**, 15, 1483–1501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gariano, S.L.; Guzzetti, F. Landslides in a Changing Climate. Earth-Sci. Rev.
**2016**, 162, 227–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Zhang, S.; Jiang, Q.; Xu, X.; Tao, G.; Zhang, Z.; Gao, X.; He, C. Influence of Soil Mechanical and Hydraulic Parameters on the Definition of Rainfall Intensity and Duration Thresholds Based on Transient Rainfall Infiltration and Grid-Based Regional Slope-Stability Model (TRIGRS). Front. Earth Sci.
**2022**, 10, 971655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gariano, S.L.; Brunetti, M.T.; Iovine, G.; Melillo, M.; Peruccacci, S.; Terranova, O.; Vennari, C.; Guzzetti, F. Calibration and Validation of Rainfall Thresholds for Shallow Landslide Forecasting in Sicily, Southern Italy. Geomorphology
**2015**, 228, 653–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Nikolopoulos, E.I.; Borga, M.; Creutin, J.D.; Marra, F. Estimation of Debris Flow Triggering Rainfall: Influence of Rain Gauge Density and Interpolation Methods. Geomorphology
**2015**, 243, 40–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Rossi, M.; Luciani, S.; Valigi, D.; Kirschbaum, D.; Brunetti, M.T.; Peruccacci, S.; Guzzetti, F. Statistical Approaches for the Definition of Landslide Rainfall Thresholds and Their Uncertainty Using Rain Gauge and Satellite Data. Geomorphology
**2017**, 285, 16–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Peres, D.J.; Cancelliere, A.; Greco, R.; Bogaard, T.A. Influence of Uncertain Identification of Triggering Rainfall on the Assessment of Landslide Early Warning Thresholds. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.
**2018**, 18, 633–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Gariano, S.L.; Melillo, M.; Peruccacci, S.; Brunetti, M.T. How Much Does the Rainfall Temporal Resolution Affect Rainfall Thresholds for Landslide Triggering? Nat. Hazards
**2020**, 100, 655–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Xu, Q. Understanding the Landslide Monitoring and Early Warn-Ing: Consideration to Practical Issues. J. Eng. Geol.
**2020**, 28, 360–374. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Jiang, W.; Chen, G.; Meng, X.; Jin, J.; Zhao, Y.; Lin, L.; Li, Y. Probabilistic Rainfall Threshold of Landslides in Data-Scarce Mountainous Areas: A Case Study of the Bailong River Basin, China. Catena
**2022**, 213, 106190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Pan, H.-L.; Jiang, Y.-J.; Wang, J.; Ou, G.-Q. Rainfall Threshold Calculation for Debris Flow Early Warning in Areas with Scarcity of Data. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.
**2018**, 18, 1395–1409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Peres, D.J.; Cancelliere, A. Comparing Methods for Determining Landslide Early Warning Thresholds: Potential Use of Non-Triggering Rainfall for Locations with Scarce Landslide Data Availability. Landslides
**2021**, 18, 3135–3147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Brunetti, M.T.; Peruccacci, S.; Rossi, M.; Luciani, S.; Valigi, D.; Guzzetti, F. Rainfall Thresholds for the Possible Occurrence of Landslides in Italy. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.
**2010**, 47, 633–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Peruccacci, S.; Brunetti, M.T.; Luciani, S.; Vennari, C.; Guzzetti, F. Lithological and Seasonal Control on Rainfall Thresholds for the Possible Initiation of Landslides in Central Italy. Geomorphology
**2012**, 139, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Berti, M.; Martina, M.L.V.; Franceschini, S.; Pignone, S.; Simoni, A.; Pizziolo, M. Probabilistic Rainfall Thresholds for Landslide Occurrence Using a Bayesian Approach. J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf.
**2012**, 117, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Staley, D.M.; Kean, J.W.; Cannon, S.H.; Schmidt, K.M.; Laber, J.L. Objective Definition of Rainfall Intensity-Duration Thresholds for the Initiation of Post-Fire Debris Flows in Southern California. Landslides
**2013**, 10, 547–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Peres, D.J.; Cancelliere, A. Derivation and Evaluation of Landslide-Triggering Thresholds by a Monte Carlo Approach. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
**2014**, 18, 4913–4931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Postance, B.; Hillier, J.; Dijkstra, T.; Dixon, N. Comparing Threshold Definition Techniques for Rainfall-Induced Landslides: A National Assessment Using Radar Rainfall. Earth Surf. Process Landf.
**2018**, 43, 553–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Marino, P.; Peres, D.J.; Cancelliere, A.; Greco, R.; Bogaard, T.A. Soil Moisture Information Can Improve Shallow Landslide Forecasting Using the Hydrometeorological Threshold Approach. Landslides
**2020**, 17, 2041–2054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Piciullo, L.; Tiranti, D.; Pecoraro, G.; Cepeda, J.M.; Calvello, M. Standards for the Performance Assessment of Territorial Landslide Early Warning Systems. Landslides
**2020**, 17, 2533–2546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhang, K.; Wang, S.; Bao, H.; Zhao, X. Characteristics and Influencing Factors of Rainfall-Induced Landslide and Debris Flow Hazards in Shaanxi Province, China. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.
**2019**, 19, 93–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Mattauer, M.; Matte, P.; Malavieille, J.; Tapponnier, P.; Maluski, H.; Qin, X.Z.; Lun, L.Y.; Qin, T.Y. Tectonics of the Qinling Belt: Build-up and Evolution of Eastern Asia. Nature
**1985**, 317, 496–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Xue, F.; Lerch, M.F.; Kröner, A.; Reischmann, T. Tectonic Evolution of the East Qinling Mountains, China, in the Palaeozoic: A Review and New Tectonic Model. Tectonophysics
**1996**, 253, 271–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Li, W.; Liu, C.; Hong, Y.; Zhang, X.; Wan, Z.; Saharia, M.; Sun, W.; Yao, D.; Chen, W.; Chen, S.; et al. A Public Cloud-Based China’s Landslide Inventory Database (CsLID): Development, Zone, and Spatiotemporal Analysis for Significant Historical Events, 1949–2011. J. Mt. Sci.
**2016**, 13, 1275–1285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Qiu, H.; Cui, Y.; Hu, S.; Yang, D.; Pei, Y.; Yang, W. Temporal and Spatial Distributions of Landslides in the Qinba Mountains, Shaanxi Province, China. Geomat. Nat. Hazards Risk
**2019**, 10, 599–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Liu, J. Analysis of “2018.7” flooding in Lueyang station, Jialing River. Shaanxi Water Resour.
**2019**, 02, 74–76. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Rescuers Rush to Help Rainstorm-Hit County. Available online: http://www.ecns.cn/hd/2018-07-16/detail-ifyvzyvz7264489.shtml (accessed on 16 July 2018).
- Melillo, M.; Brunetti, M.T.; Peruccacci, S.; Gariano, S.L.; Guzzetti, F. An Algorithm for the Objective Reconstruction of Rainfall Events Responsible for Landslides. Landslides
**2015**, 12, 311–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Melillo, M.; Brunetti, M.T.; Peruccacci, S.; Gariano, S.L.; Roccati, A.; Guzzetti, F. A Tool for the Automatic Calculation of Rainfall Thresholds for Landslide Occurrence. Environ. Model. Softw.
**2018**, 105, 230–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Thornthwaite, C.W. An Approach toward a Rational Classification of Climate. Geogr. Rev.
**1948**, 38, 55–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Fawcett, T. An Introduction to ROC Analysis. Pattern Recognit. Lett.
**2006**, 27, 861–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Vennari, C.; Gariano, S.L.; Antronico, L.; Brunetti, M.T.; Iovine, G.; Peruccacci, S.; Terranova, O.; Guzzetti, F. Rainfall Thresholds for Shallow Landslide Occurrence in Calabria, Southern Italy. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.
**2014**, 14, 317–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]

**Figure 1.**(

**a**) Location of Shaanxi province; (

**b**) location of Lueyang (LY) and Xunyang (XY) counties; (

**c**,

**d**) distribution of weather station, rain gauges, and landslides in LY and XY counties, respectively (image sources: SRTM V3 data).

**Figure 2.**(

**a**,

**b**) Comparison between monthly rainfall and number of landslides for LY and XY counties, respectively; (

**c**,

**d**) Date distribution of landslides for LY and XY counties. The total number of landslides occurred in July of 2018 in LY is 164: 1 on 10th, 75 on 11th, 88 on 14th.

**Figure 4.**Example of the reconstruction of REs, NTEs, MRCs, and MPRCs. (

**a**) Hourly rainfall measurements of Heihaba rain gauge from 6th to 16th July 2018; bars with different colors are the identified rainfall sub-events. (

**b**) Selection of the rainfall event associated with landslides (RE 2), (

**c**) reconstruction of MRCs and MPRC for the first landslide; red bars are the computed event rainfall of MRCs, and (

**d**) reconstruction of MRCs and MPRC for the second landslide.

**Figure 9.**ROC curves for defined rainfall thresholds: (

**a**) LY county; (

**b**) XY county. Each point represents a threshold at a different non-exceedance/exceedance probability.

Parameter Name | Parameter Value | Unit | |
---|---|---|---|

Warm Periods (C_{W}) | Cold Periods (C_{C}) | ||

G_{s} | 0.1 | 0.1 | mm |

E_{R} | 0.2 | 0.2 | mm |

R_{b} | 15 | 15 | km |

P_{1} | 3 | 6 | h |

P_{2} | 6 | 12 | h |

P_{3} | 1 | 1 | mm |

P_{4} | 48 | 96 | h |

**Table 2.**Contingency matrix defined for comparing the actual and predicted events based on a defined threshold E = f(D).

Actual Events | |||
---|---|---|---|

Landslides | No Landslides | ||

Predicted events | Landslides: E ≥ f(D) | TP | FP |

No landslides: E < f(D) | FN | TN |

**Table 3.**Statistic of reconstructed rainfall events in the calibration set for Lueyang (LY) and Xunyang (XY) counties.

Events | Number | Duration (h) | Cumulated Rainfall (mm) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Min | Max | Min | Max | ||

LY | |||||

RE | 2467 | 1 | 1075 | 1.1 | 690 |

RE associated with landslides | 29 | 2 | 383 | 14.5 | 690 |

MRC total/not considering repetitions | 465/233 | 2 | 230 | 5.1 | 306.8 |

MPRC total/not considering repetitions | 171/74 | 2 | 120 | 5.3 | 277.9 |

Non-triggering RE | 2438 | 1 | 1075 | 1.1 | 381.9 |

XY | |||||

RE | 3229 | 1 | 669 | 1.1 | 298 |

RE associated with landslides | 19 | 13 | 669 | 21 | 298 |

MRC | 45 | 3 | 337 | 7.9 | 163.9 |

MPRC | 21 | 3 | 187 | 13.3 | 163.9 |

Non-triggering RE | 3210 | 1 | 526 | 1.1 | 280 |

Label | Threshold Equation | △α/α (%) | △γ/γ (%) |
---|---|---|---|

N_{5,LY} | E = (10.44 ± 0.45) × D^{(0.57 ± 0.01)} | 4% | 2% |

N_{10,LY} | E = (7.43 ± 0.31) × D^{(0.57 ± 0.01)} | 4% | 2% |

N_{15,LY} | E = (5.91 ± 0.24) × D^{(0.57 ± 0.01)} | 4% | 2% |

N_{20,LY} | E = (4.92 ± 0.20) × D^{(0.57 ± 0.01)} | 4% | 2% |

N_{50,LY} | E = (2.24 ± 0.09) × D^{(0.57 ± 0.01)} | 4% | 2% |

N_{5,XY} | E = (10.78 ± 0.40) × D^{(0.57 ± 0.01)} | 4% | 2% |

N_{10,XY} | E = (7.91 ± 0.29) × D^{(0.57 ± 0.01)} | 4% | 2% |

N_{15,XY} | E = (6.42 ± 0.22) × D^{(0.57 ± 0.01)} | 3% | 2% |

N_{20,XY} | E = (5.43 ± 0.19) × D^{(0.57 ± 0.01)} | 3% | 2% |

N_{50,XY} | E = (2.65 ± 0.08) × D^{(0.57 ± 0.01)} | 3% | 2% |

Label | Threshold Equation | △α/α (%) | △γ/γ (%) |
---|---|---|---|

P_{20,LY,MRC} | E = (14.59 ± 1.93) × D^{(0.38 ± 0.03)} | 13% | 8% |

P_{15,LY,MRC} | E = (13.61 ± 1.84) × D^{(0.38 ± 0.03)} | 14% | 8% |

P_{10,LY,MRC} | E = (12.48 ± 1.74) × D^{(0.38 ± 0.03)} | 14% | 8% |

P_{5,LY,MRC} | E = (10.97 ± 1.59) × D^{(0.38 ± 0.03)} | 14% | 8% |

P_{50,LY,MRC} | E = (19.68 ± 2.35) × D^{(0.38 ± 0.03)} | 12% | 8% |

P_{20,XY,MRC} | E = (10.98 ± 5.60) × D^{(0.34 ± 0.10)} | 51% | 28% |

P_{15,XY,MRC} | E = (10.12 ± 5.19) × D^{(0.34 ± 0.10)} | 51% | 28% |

P_{10,XY,MRC} | E = (8.98 ± 4.53) × D^{(0.34 ± 0.10)} | 50% | 28% |

P_{5,XY,MRC} | E = (7.61 ± 3.81) × D^{(0.34 ± 0.10)} | 50% | 28% |

P_{50,XY,MRC} | E = (16.13 ± 8.41) × D^{(0.34 ± 0.10)} | 52% | 28% |

P_{20,LY,MPRC} | E = (11.80 ± 2.14) × D^{(0.47 ± 0.05)} | 18% | 12% |

P_{15,LY,MPRC} | E = (10.73 ± 1.99) × D^{(0.47 ± 0.05)} | 19% | 12% |

P_{10,LY,MPRC} | E = (9.51 ± 1.82) × D^{(0.47 ± 0.05)} | 19% | 12% |

P_{5,LY,MPRC} | E = (7.96 ± 1.58) × D^{(0.47 ± 0.05)} | 20% | 12% |

P_{50,LY,MPRC} | E = (17.84 ± 2.92) × D^{(0.47 ± 0.05)} | 16% | 12% |

P_{20,XY,MPRC} | E = (24.43 ± 19.85) × D^{(0.18 ± 0.17)} | 81% | 96% |

P_{15,XY,MPRC} | E = (22.04 ± 17.58) × D^{(0.18 ± 0.17)} | 80% | 96% |

P_{10,XY,MPRC} | E = (19.36 ± 14.91) × D^{(0.18 ± 0.17)} | 77% | 96% |

P_{5,XY,MPRC} | E = (15.99 ± 11.92) × D^{(0.18 ± 0.17)} | 75% | 96% |

P_{50,XY,MPRC} | E = (38.10 ± 33.51) × D^{(0.18 ± 0.17)} | 88% | 96% |

**Table 6.**Number of elements of the contingency matrix calculated for the rainfall thresholds defined in LY.

Label | TP | FN | FP | TN |
---|---|---|---|---|

N_{5,LY} | 54 | 20 | 16 | 543 |

N_{10,LY} | 65 | 9 | 37 | 522 |

N_{15,LY} | 70 | 4 | 60 | 499 |

N_{20,LY} | 71 | 3 | 92 | 467 |

P_{20,LY,MRC} | 62 | 12 | 41 | 518 |

P_{15,LY,MRC} | 65 | 9 | 44 | 515 |

P_{10,LY,MRC} | 67 | 7 | 54 | 505 |

P_{5,LY,MRC} | 68 | 6 | 64 | 495 |

P_{20,LY,MPRC} | 62 | 12 | 29 | 530 |

P_{15,LY,MPRC} | 63 | 11 | 34 | 525 |

P_{10,LY,MPRC} | 66 | 8 | 48 | 511 |

P_{5,LY,MPRC} | 70 | 4 | 61 | 498 |

**Table 7.**Number of elements of the contingency matrix calculated for the rainfall thresholds defined in XY.

Label | TP | FN | FP | TN |
---|---|---|---|---|

N_{5,XY} | 4 | 17 | 33 | 885 |

N_{10,XY} | 7 | 14 | 103 | 815 |

N_{15,XY} | 14 | 7 | 146 | 772 |

N_{20,XY} | 17 | 4 | 184 | 734 |

P_{20,XY,MRC} | 17 | 4 | 210 | 708 |

P_{15,XY,MRC} | 17 | 4 | 223 | 695 |

P_{10,XY,MRC} | 18 | 3 | 258 | 660 |

P_{5,XY,MRC} | 19 | 2 | 279 | 639 |

P_{20,XY,MPRC} | 15 | 6 | 171 | 747 |

P_{15,XY,MPRC} | 17 | 4 | 190 | 728 |

P_{10,XY,MPRC} | 17 | 4 | 214 | 704 |

P_{5,XY,MPRC} | 18 | 3 | 255 | 663 |

**Table 8.**Skill scores for the defined rainfall thresholds in LY (the best values of the scores, for each type of threshold, are underlined).

Label | EI | TPR | FPR | PPV | δ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

N_{5,LY} | 0.94 | 0.73 | 0.03 | 0.77 | 0.271 |

N_{10,LY} | 0.93 | 0.88 | 0.07 | 0.64 | 0.134 |

N_{15,LY} | 0.90 | 0.95 | 0.11 | 0.54 | 0.121 |

N_{20,LY} | 0.85 | 0.96 | 0.16 | 0.44 | 0.165 |

P_{20,LY,MRC} | 0.92 | 0.84 | 0.07 | 0.60 | 0.175 |

P_{15,LY,MRC} | 0.92 | 0.88 | 0.08 | 0.60 | 0.411 |

P_{10,LY,MRC} | 0.90 | 0.91 | 0.10 | 0.55 | 0.135 |

P_{5,LY,MRC} | 0.89 | 0.92 | 0.11 | 0.52 | 0.136 |

P_{20,LY,MPRC} | 0.94 | 0.84 | 0.05 | 0.68 | 0.168 |

P_{15,LY,MPRC} | 0.93 | 0.85 | 0.06 | 0.65 | 0.162 |

P_{10,LY,MPRC} | 0.91 | 0.89 | 0.09 | 0.58 | 0.142 |

P_{5,LY,MPRC} | 0.90 | 0.95 | 0.11 | 0.53 | 0.121 |

**Table 9.**Skill scores for the defined rainfall thresholds in XY (the best values of the scores, for each type of threshold, are underlined).

Label | EI | TPR | FPR | PPV | δ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

N_{5,XY} | 0.95 | 0.19 | 0.04 | 0.11 | 0.811 |

N_{10,XY} | 0.88 | 0.33 | 0.11 | 0.06 | 0.679 |

N_{15,XY} | 0.84 | 0.71 | 0.16 | 0.09 | 0.331 |

N_{20,XY} | 0.80 | 0.81 | 0.20 | 0.08 | 0.276 |

P_{20,XY,MRC} | 0.77 | 0.81 | 0.23 | 0.07 | 0.298 |

P_{15,XY,MRC} | 0.76 | 0.81 | 0.24 | 0.07 | 0.306 |

P_{10,XY,MRC} | 0.72 | 0.86 | 0.28 | 0.07 | 0.313 |

P_{5,XY,MRC} | 0.70 | 0.90 | 0.30 | 0.06 | 0.316 |

P_{20,XY,MPRC} | 0.81 | 0.71 | 0.19 | 0.08 | 0.347 |

P_{15,XY,MPRC} | 0.79 | 0.81 | 0.21 | 0.08 | 0.283 |

P_{10,XY,MPRC} | 0.77 | 0.81 | 0.23 | 0.07 | 0.298 |

P_{5,XY,MPRC} | 0.73 | 0.86 | 0.28 | 0.07 | 0.313 |

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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Zhang, S.; Pecoraro, G.; Jiang, Q.; Calvello, M.
Definition of Rainfall Thresholds for Landslides Using Unbalanced Datasets: Two Case Studies in Shaanxi Province, China. *Water* **2023**, *15*, 1058.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w15061058

**AMA Style**

Zhang S, Pecoraro G, Jiang Q, Calvello M.
Definition of Rainfall Thresholds for Landslides Using Unbalanced Datasets: Two Case Studies in Shaanxi Province, China. *Water*. 2023; 15(6):1058.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w15061058

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Zhang, Sen, Gaetano Pecoraro, Qigang Jiang, and Michele Calvello.
2023. "Definition of Rainfall Thresholds for Landslides Using Unbalanced Datasets: Two Case Studies in Shaanxi Province, China" *Water* 15, no. 6: 1058.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w15061058