# Landslide Susceptibility Mapping Using the Slope Unit for Southeastern Helong City, Jilin Province, China: A Comparison of ANN and SVM

^{1}

^{2}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

^{2}, respectively. The very high and high susceptibility areas included 79.52% of the total landslides, demonstrating that the landslide susceptibility map produced in this paper is reasonable. Consequently, this study can serve as a guide for landslide prevention and for future land planning in the southeast of Helong city.

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Study Area

^{2}(Figure 1a–c). More than 90% of the total area of the study area consists of mountainous areas. In the study area, the maximum elevation is 1450 m, and the minimum elevation is 350 m. The southern part of the study area is the Chinese and Korean quasi-platform, and the northern part is the Jihei fold system in the Tianshan-Xingan geosyncline fold area, which are bounded by the deep and large fault of Gudong River. The study area belongs to the temperate monsoon sub-humid climate zone. Based on rainfall data collected from 1960 to 2012, the maximum daily rainfall of the study area is 164.8 mm. The perennial average temperature is 5.6 °C. The vegetation coverage in the study area is relatively high. The seismic intensity of the study area has a degree of VI on the modified Mercalli index. At present, no earthquake-induced landslides have been detected in the study area. According to the field investigation, the landslides in the study area are mainly distributed along the Tumen River. According to a geological map (downloaded using the 91 Weitu software, with a scale of 1:500,000) (Figure 1d), it can be seen that the mainly exposed strata in the study area are Quaternary (Q), Neogene (N), Cretaceous (K), Jurassic (J), Middle Proterozoic (Pt), and New Archean (Ar). The lithological information of the study area is listed in Table 1. There are several reverse faults in the study area, which affect the regional stability. The Tumen river and its tributaries flow through the study area, which has a significant impact on landslide risk.

## 3. Methodology

#### 3.1. The Mapping Unit

#### 3.2. Landslide Inventory

#### 3.3. Influencing Factors

#### 3.3.1. Relationship between Geological Environment and Landslides

#### Relationship between Topographic Features and Landslides

#### Relationship between Lithological Features and Landslides

#### Relationship between Geologic Features and Landslides

#### Relationship between Rainfall Features and Landslides

#### Relationship between Other Features and Landslides

#### 3.3.2. Selection of Influencing Factors

#### 3.3.3. Extraction of Influencing Factors

#### Geologic Factor

#### Topographic Factors

#### Environment Factors

#### 3.4. Landslide Susceptibility Modeling

#### 3.4.1. Artificial Neural Network (ANN)

#### 3.4.2. Support Vector Machine (SVM)

_{i}(i = 1, 2,…,n) that fall into two different classes y

_{i}= ±1. The goal of SVM is to find a hyperplane in n-dimensional data space which can separate the two classes of data based on the maximum interval. The hyperplane can be expressed mathematically as follows:

_{i}is the Lagrange multiplier.

_{i}, which can be expressed as follows:

_{i}, y

_{i}) is introduced to explain the non-linear decision boundary problem in SVM.

#### 3.5. Data for Landslide Susceptibility Modeling

#### 3.6. Validation Method

#### 3.6.1. Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (ROC)

#### 3.6.2. Statistical Analysis Method

## 4. Results

#### 4.1. Division Result of the Slope Units

^{5}m

^{2}and the minimum area was 0.11 × 10

^{5}m

^{2}.

#### 4.2. Model Fitting Results

#### 4.3. Landslide Susceptibility Mapping Results

^{2}, respectively. For landslide occurrence, the number of landslides in the five susceptibility classes were 43, 18, 10, 6, and 6, respectively. For the SVM model, the areas of the five susceptibility classes were 127.43, 151.60, 198.77, 491.19, and 506.91 km

^{2}, respectively. For landslide occurrence, the number of landslides in the five susceptibility classes were 52, 14, 8, 4, and 5, respectively.

## 5. Discussion

#### 5.1. Slope Unit Classification Results

^{5}m

^{2}, accounting for 44.2% for the total number of slope units. If the slope unit is too flat, or there is an elongated unit, the uniformity inside the unit will be destroyed to a great extent. The shape index can be used to evaluate the shape of the slope unit. The shape index of the slope units can be calculated using the following equation:

#### 5.2. Comparison between ANN and SVM Model

#### 5.3. Comparison with Other Models

#### 5.4. Landslide Suceptibility Map analysis

^{2}, accounting for 18.90% of the total study area. Regarding the landslide occurrence, the very high and high susceptibility areas had 66 landslides, accounting for 79.52% of the total landslides. For the ANN model, the very high and high susceptibility areas had a combined area of 444.19 km

^{2}, accounting for 30.01% of the total study area. Regarding the landslide occurrence, the very high and high susceptibility areas had 61 landslides, accounting for 70.49% of the total landslides. This shows that the landslide susceptibility map produced by the SVM model in this paper is more reasonable than that of the ANN model.

## 6. Conclusions

^{2}, respectively. For landslide occurrence, the number of landslides in the five susceptibility classes were 52, 14, 8, 4, and 5, respectively; therefore, the very high and high susceptibility areas included 79.52% of the total landslides. This indicates that the landslide susceptibility map produced in this paper is reasonable.

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## Appendix A

No. | Lithology | Slope Angle | Slope Aspect | Slope Height | Slope Shape | Microrelief | Landslide Scale | Failure Mode |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

1 | Granodiorite | 60 | 198 | 6 | Convex | Steep Slope | Small | Pull-Type |

2 | Granodiorite | 79 | 162 | 17 | Convex | Steep Coast | Middle | Pull-Type |

3 | Granodiorite | 63 | 162 | 24 | Convex | Steep Coast | Small | Toppling |

4 | Monzonitic Granite | 65 | 50 | 20 | Concave | Steep Coast | Middle | Pull-Type |

5 | Monzonitic Granite | 71 | 45 | 11 | Convex | Steep Coast | Small | Pull-Type |

6 | Granodiorite | 52 | 215 | 24 | Convex | Steep Slope | Small | Sliding |

7 | Granodiorite | 57 | 110 | 15 | Concave | Steep Slope | Middle | Pull-Type |

8 | Monzonitic Granite | 69 | 148 | 17 | Convex | Steep Coast | Small | Pull-Type |

9 | Monzonitic Granite | 62 | 221 | 17 | Convex | Steep Coast | Small | Sliding |

10 | Dioritic Porphyrite | 52 | 275 | 12 | Convex | Steep Slope | Small | Pull-Type |

11 | Basalt | 81 | 178 | 50 | Convex | Steep Coast | Middle | Toppling |

12 | Basalt | 86 | 202 | 42 | Convex | Steep Coast | Middle | Pull-Type |

13 | Basalt | 75 | 105 | 17 | Convex | Steep Coast | Small | Sliding |

14 | Basalt | 58 | 128 | 23 | Concave | Steep Slope | Middle | Pull-Type |

15 | Basalt | 87 | 178 | 32 | Convex | Steep Coast | Middle | Pull-Type |

16 | Basalt | 82 | 130 | 20 | Concave | Steep Coast | Middle | Pull-Type |

17 | Basalt | 68 | 178 | 18 | Convex | Steep Coast | Small | Sliding |

18 | Basalt | 40 | 270 | 25 | Straight | Steep Slope | Small | Pull-Type |

19 | Basalt | 84 | 253 | 12 | Convex | Steep Coast | Small | Pull-Type |

20 | Basalt | 86 | 280 | 25 | Convex | Steep Coast | Middle | Pull-Type |

21 | Basalt | 84 | 183 | 20 | Convex | Steep Coast | Middle | Pull-Type |

22 | Basalt | 81 | 210 | 12 | Concave | Steep Coast | Small | Pull-Type |

23 | Granodiorite | 71 | 193 | 23 | Convex | Steep Coast | Small | Pull-Type |

24 | Granodiorite | 37 | 195 | 49 | Convex | Steep Slope | Small | Pull-Type |

25 | Granodiorite | 40 | 196 | 43 | Convex | Steep Slope | Small | Toppling |

26 | Granodiorite | 38 | 154 | 25 | Concave | Steep Slope | Small | Pull-Type |

27 | Granodiorite | 42 | 268 | 9 | Straight | Steep Slope | Middle | Pull-Type |

28 | Granodiorite | 55 | 254 | 8 | Concave | Steep Slope | Small | Pull-Type |

29 | Monzonitic Granite | 43 | 190 | 12 | Straight | Steep Slope | Small | Pull-Type |

30 | Granite | 41 | 230 | 11 | Convex | Steep Slope | Middle | Pull-Type |

31 | Monzonitic Granite | 62 | 130 | 10 | Convex | Steep Coast | Small | Pull-Type |

32 | Basalt | 87 | 250 | 12 | Concave | Steep Coast | Small | Pull-Type |

33 | Diorite | 71 | 155 | 10 | Convex | Steep Coast | Small | Pull-Type |

34 | Granodiorite | 42 | 136 | 8 | Convex | Steep Slope | Small | Pull-Type |

35 | Granodiorite | 55 | 152 | 5 | Convex | Steep Slope | Small | Pull-Type |

36 | Basalt | 50 | 135 | 14 | Straight | Steep Slope | Small | Pull-type |

37 | Granodiorite | 71 | 90 | 9 | Convex | Steep Coast | Small | Toppling |

38 | Monzonitic Granite | 35 | 186 | 15 | Convex | Steep Slope | Small | Pull-Type |

39 | Monzonitic Granite | 36 | 135 | 30 | Straight | Steep Slope | Small | Pull-Type |

40 | Diorite | 37 | 174 | 50 | Straight | Steep Slope | Small | Toppling |

41 | Granodiorite | 48 | 148 | 16 | Convex | Steep Slope | Small | Pull-Type |

42 | Granodiorite | 85 | 128 | 12 | Convex | Steep Coast | Small | Toppling |

43 | Granodiorite | 77 | 224 | 15 | Convex | Steep Coast | Small | Toppling |

44 | Granodiorite | 67 | 188 | 77 | Convex | Steep Coast | Middle | Sliding |

45 | Monzonitic Granite | 57 | 204 | 61 | Concave | Steep Slope | Middle | Staggered Breaking |

46 | Monzonitic Granite | 81 | 228 | 25 | Convex | Steep Coast | Middle | Toppling |

47 | Monzonitic Granite | 72 | 250 | 52 | Convex | Steep Coast | Middle | Toppling |

48 | Monzonitic Granite | 72 | 185 | 31 | Concave | Steep Coast | Middle | Toppling |

49 | Monzonitic Granite | 76 | 190 | 142 | Convex | Steep Coast | Middle | Toppling |

50 | Monzonitic Granite | 74 | 120 | 13 | Convex | Steep Coast | Small | Toppling |

51 | Monzonitic Granite | 69 | 204 | 108 | Convex | Steep Coast | Large | Pull-Splitting |

52 | Diorite | 78 | 172 | 160 | Convex | Steep Coast | Large | Toppling |

53 | Diorite | 62 | 134 | 224 | Convex | Steep Coast | Large | Toppling |

54 | Granodiorite | 68 | 24 | 23 | Convex | Steep Coast | Middle | Toppling |

55 | Granodiorite | 65 | 150 | 136 | Concave | Steep Coast | Large | Sliding |

56 | Granodiorite | 76 | 162 | 228 | Convex | Steep Coast | Large | Pull-Splitting |

57 | Monzonitic Granite | 70 | 155 | 151 | Concave | Steep Coast | Large | Staggered Breaking |

58 | Monzonitic Granite | 51 | 155 | 32 | Convex | Steep Slope | Small | Toppling |

59 | Granodiorite | 70 | 72 | 32 | Straight | Steep Coast | Small | Pull-Splitting |

60 | Basalt | 72 | 125 | 46 | Convex | Steep Coast | Middle | Toppling |

61 | Basalt | 58 | 200 | 45 | Convex | Steep Slope | Middle | Toppling |

62 | Basalt | 83 | 218 | 28 | Convex | Steep Coast | Small | Toppling |

63 | Basalt | 60 | 152 | 89 | Concave | Steep Slope | Middle | Sliding |

64 | Basalt | 52 | 105 | 7 | Convex | Steep Slope | Small | Pull-Splitting |

65 | Granodiorite | 60 | 130 | 23 | Convex | Steep Slope | Small | Pull-Splitting |

66 | Andesite | 38 | 220 | 65 | Convex | Steep Slope | Middle | Pull-Splitting |

67 | Andesite | 50 | 245 | 55 | Concave | Steep Slope | Middle | Pull-Splitting |

68 | Andesite | 70 | 135 | 15 | Straight | Steep Coast | Small | Sliding |

69 | Monzonitic Granite | 44 | 215 | 12 | Concave | Steep Slope | Small | Toppling |

70 | Granodiorite | 70 | 190 | 24 | Straight | Steep Coast | Small | Toppling |

71 | Granite | 53 | 170 | 14 | Convex | Steep Coast | Small | Pull-Splitting |

72 | Quartzite | 73 | 130 | 40 | Convex | Steep Coast | Small | Pull-Splitting |

73 | Quartzite | 72 | 184 | 42 | Concave | Steep Coast | Small | Staggered Breaking |

74 | Quartzite | 52 | 154 | 50 | Convex | Steep Slope | Small | Staggered Breaking |

75 | Quartzite | 70 | 192 | 45 | Convex | Steep Coast | Middle | Staggered Breaking |

76 | Monzonitic Granite | 58 | 195 | 55 | Convex | Steep Slope | Middle | Staggered Breaking |

77 | Granodiorite | 80 | 56 | 8 | Straight | Steep Coast | Small | Pull-Splitting |

78 | Monzonitic Granite | 71 | 170 | 75 | Convex | Steep Coast | Small | Toppling |

79 | Monzonitic Granite | 75 | 138 | 40 | Convex | Steep Coast | Small | Toppling |

80 | Monzonitic Granite | 51 | 85 | 15 | Straight | Steep Slope | Small | Toppling |

81 | Granodiorite | 68 | 175 | 7 | Straight | Steep Coast | Small | Toppling |

82 | Basalt | 62 | 184 | 7 | Convex | Steep Coast | Small | Toppling |

83 | Granodiorite | 40 | 160 | 19 | Convex | Steep Slope | Small | Pull-Splitting |

**a**) Small; Landslide volume <1 × 10

^{4}m

^{3}; (

**b**) Middle: 100 × 10

^{4}m

^{3}< Landslide volume <10

^{4}m

^{3}.

## References

- Cao, C.; Wang, Q.; Chen, J.; Ruan, Y.; Zheng, L.; Song, S.; Niu, C. Landslide susceptibility mapping in vertical distribution law of precipitation area: Case of the xulong hydropower station reservoir, southwestern China. Water
**2016**, 8, 270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Sun, X.; Chen, J.; Bao, Y.; Han, X.; Zhan, J.; Peng, W. Landslide susceptibility mapping using logistic regression analysis along the jinsha river and its tributaries close to derong and deqin county, southwestern China. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf.
**2018**, 7, 438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Zhan, J.; Chen, J.; Zhang, W.; Han, X.; Sun, X.; Bao, Y. Mass movements along a rapidly uplifting river valley: An example from the upper Jinsha River, southeast margin of the Tibetan Plateau. Environ. Earth Sci.
**2018**, 77, 634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wang, F.; Xu, P.; Wang, C.; Wang, N.; Jiang, N. Application of a GIS-Based slope Unit Method for landslide susceptibility mapping along the Longzi River, Southeastern Tibetan Plateau, China. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf.
**2017**, 6, 172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Hearn, G.J.; Hart, A.B. Landslide susceptibility mapping: A practitioner’s view. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ.
**2019**, 78, 5811–5826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Reichenbach, P.; Rossi, M.; Malamud, B.D.; Mihir, M.; Guzzetti, F. A review of statistically-based landslide susceptibility models. Earth-Sci. Rev.
**2018**, 180, 60–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Guzzetti, F.; Mondini, A.C.; Cardinali, M.; Fiorucci, F.; Santangelo, M.; Chang, K.T. Landslide inventory maps: New tools for an old problem. Earth-Sci. Rev.
**2012**, 112, 42–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Yang, X.J.; Chen, L.D. Geoinformation. Using multi-temporal remote sensor imagery to detect earthquake-triggered landslides. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf.
**2010**, 12, 487–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mulas, M.; Corsini, A.; Cuozzo, G.; Callegari, M.; Thiebes, B.; Mair, V. Quantitative Monitoring of Surface Movements on Active Landslides by Multi-Temporal, High-Resolution X-Band SAR Amplitude Information: Preliminary Results; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016; pp. 1511–1516. [Google Scholar]
- Schlogel, R.; Marchesini, I.; Alvioli, M.; Reichenbach, P.; Rossi, M.; Malet, J.P. Optimizing landslide susceptibility zonation: Effects of DEM spatial resolution and slope unit delineation on logistic regression models. Geomorphology
**2018**, 301, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Rotigliano, E.; Cappadonia, C.; Conoscenti, C.; Costanzo, D.; Agnesi, V. Slope units-based flow susceptibility model: Using validation tests to select controlling factors. Nat. Hazards
**2012**, 61, 143–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Alvioli, M.; Marchesini, I.; Reichenbach, P.; Rossi, M.; Ardizzone, F.; Fiorucci, F.; Guzzetti, F. Automatic delineation of geomorphological slope units with r.slopeunits v1.0 and their optimization for landslide susceptibility modeling. Geosci. Model Dev.
**2016**, 9, 3975–3991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Pourghasemi, H.R.; Rossi, M. Landslide susceptibility modeling in a landslide prone area in Mazandarn Province, north of Iran: A comparison between GLM, GAM, MARS, and M-AHP methods. Theor. Appl. Climatol.
**2017**, 130, 609–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lagomarsino, D.; Tofani, V.; Segoni, S.; Catani, F.; Casagli, N. A Tool for Classification and Regression Using Random Forest Methodology: Applications to Landslide Susceptibility Mapping and Soil Thickness Modeling. Environ. Model. Assess.
**2017**, 22, 201–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Dou, J.; Bui, D.T.; Yunus, A.P.; Jia, K.; Song, X.; Revhaug, I.; Xia, H.; Zhu, Z. Optimization of Causative Factors for Landslide Susceptibility Evaluation Using Remote Sensing and GIS Data in Parts of Niigata, Japan. PLoS ONE
**2015**, 10, e0133262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Frattini, P.; Crosta, G.; Carrara, A. Techniques for evaluating the performance of landslide susceptibility models. Eng. Geol.
**2010**, 111, 62–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chen, W.; Li, W.; Chai, H.; Hou, E.; Li, X.; Ding, X. GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping using analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and certainty factor (CF) models for the Baozhong region of Baoji City, China. Environ. Earth Sci.
**2016**, 75, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cao, C.; Xu, P.; Wang, Y.; Chen, J.; Zheng, L.; Niu, C. Flash Flood Hazard Susceptibility Mapping Using Frequency Ratio and Statistical Index Methods in Coalmine Subsidence Areas. Sustainability
**2016**, 8, 948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Xiao, T.; Segoni, S.; Chen, L.; Yin, K.; Casagli, N. A step beyond landslide susceptibility maps: A simple method to investigate and explain the different outcomes obtained by different approaches. Landslides
**2020**, 17, 627–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Bai, S.-B.; Wang, J.; Lue, G.-N.; Zhou, P.-G.; Hou, S.-S.; Xu, S.-N. GIS-based logistic regression for landslide susceptibility mapping of the Zhongxian segment in the Three Gorges area, China. Geomorphology
**2010**, 115, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sun, X.; Chen, J.; Han, X.; Bao, Y.; Zhan, J.; Peng, W. Application of a GIS-based slope unit method for landslide susceptibility mapping along the rapidly uplifting section of the upper Jinsha River, South-Western China. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ.
**2019**. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Segoni, S.; Pappafico, G.; Luti, T.; Catani, F. Landslide susceptibility assessment in complex geological settings: Sensitivity to geological information and insights on its parameterization. Landslides
**2020**. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Ren, D.; Zhou, D.; Liu, D.; Dong, F.; Ma, S.; Huang, H. Formation mechanism of the Upper Triassic Yanchang Formation tight sandstone reservoir in Ordos Basin-Take Chang 6 reservoir in Jiyuan oil field as an example. J. Pet. Sci. Eng.
**2019**, 178, 497–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ayalew, L.; Yamagishi, H. The application of GIS-based logistic regression for landslide susceptibility mapping in the Kakuda-Yahiko Mountains, Central Japan. Geomorphology
**2005**, 65, 15–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lee, S.; Min, K. Statistical analysis of landslide susceptibility at Yongin, Korea. Environ. Geol.
**2001**, 40, 1095–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Conforti, M.; Pascale, S.; Robustelli, G.; Sdao, F. Evaluation of prediction capability of the artificial neural networks for mapping landslide susceptibility in the Turbolo River catchment (northern Calabria, Italy). Catena
**2014**, 113, 236–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Oh, H.-J.; Pradhan, B. Application of a neuro-fuzzy model to landslide-susceptibility mapping for shallow landslides in a tropical hilly area. Comput. Geosci.
**2011**, 37, 1264–1276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Park, S.; Choi, C.; Kim, B.; Kim, J. Landslide susceptibility mapping using frequency ratio, analytic hierarchy process, logistic regression, and artificial neural network methods at the Inje area, Korea. Environ. Earth Sci.
**2013**, 68, 1443–1464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hong, H.; Pradhan, B.; Xu, C.; Tien Bui, D. Spatial prediction of landslide hazard at the Yihuang area (China) using two-class kernel logistic regression, alternating decision tree and support vector machines. Catena
**2015**, 133, 266–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Binh Thai, P.; Dieu Tien, B.; Dholakia, M.B.; Prakash, I.; Ha Viet, P.; Mehmood, K.; Hung Quoc, L. A novel ensemble classifier of rotation forest and Naive Bayer for landslide susceptibility assessment at the Luc Yen district, Yen Bai Province (Viet Nam) using GIS. Geomat. Nat. Hazards Risk
**2017**, 8, 649–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Chen, W.; Xie, X.; Wang, J.; Pradhan, B.; Hong, H.; Bui, D.T.; Duan, Z.; Ma, J. A comparative study of logistic model tree, random forest, and classification and regression tree models for spatial prediction of landslide susceptibility. Catena
**2017**, 151, 147–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Dieu Tien, B.; Tran Anh, T.; Klempe, H.; Pradhan, B.; Revhaug, I. 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
**2016**, 13, 361–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kumar, D.; Thakur, M.; Dubey, C.S.; Shukla, D.P. Landslide Susceptibility Mapping & Prediction using Support Vector Machine for Mandakini River Basin, Garhwal Himalaya, India. Geomorphology
**2017**, 295, 115–125. [Google Scholar] - Chen, W.; Pourghasemi, H.R.; Kornejady, A.; Zhang, N. Landslide spatial modeling: Introducing new ensembles of ANN, MaxEnt, and SVM machine learning techniques. Geoderma
**2017**, 305, 314–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yesilnacar, E.; Topal, T. Landslide susceptibility mapping: A comparison of logistic regression and neural networks methods in a medium scale study, Hendek region (Turkey). Eng. Geol.
**2005**, 79, 251–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Binh Thai, P.; Dieu Tien, B.; Prakash, I.; Dholakia, M.B. Hybrid integration of Multilayer Perceptron Neural Networks and machine learning ensembles for landslide susceptibility assessment at Himalayan area (India) using GIS. Catena
**2017**, 149, 52–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Su, Q.; Zhang, J.; Zhao, S.; Wang, L.; Liu, J.; Guo, J. Comparative Assessment of Three Nonlinear Approaches for Landslide Susceptibility Mapping in a Coal Mine Area. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf.
**2017**, 6, 228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Aditian, A.; Kubota, T.; Shinohara, Y. Comparison of GIS-based landslide susceptibility models using frequency ratio, logistic regression, and artificial neural network in a tertiary region of Ambon, Indonesia. Geomorphology
**2018**, 318, 101–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Jiang, P.; Zeng, Z.; Chen, J.; Huang, T. Generalized Regression Neural Networks with K-Fold Cross-Validation for Displacement of Landslide Forecasting. In Advances in Neural Networks—Isnn 2014; Zeng, Z., Li, Y., King, I., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; Volume 8866, pp. 533–541. [Google Scholar]
- Jiang, T.; Lei, P.; Qin, Q. An Application of SVM-Based Classification in Landslide Stability. Intell. Autom. Soft Comput.
**2016**, 22, 267–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Li, X.Z.; Kong, J.M.J.N.H.; Sciences, E.S. Application of GA-SVM method with parameter optimization for landslide development prediction. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.
**2014**, 14, 5295–5322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Pradhan, B.; Sameen, M.I. Manifestation of SVM-Based Rectified Linear Unit (ReLU) Kernel Function in Landslide Modelling; Springer: Singapore, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- San, B.T. 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.
**2014**, 26, 399–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ballabio, C.; Sterlacchini, S. Support Vector Machines for Landslide Susceptibility Mapping: The Staffora River Basin Case Study, Italy. Math. Geosci.
**2012**, 44, 47–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chen, W.; Pourghasemi, H.R.; Panahi, M.; Kornejady, A.; Wang, J.; Xie, X.; Cao, S. Spatial prediction of landslide susceptibility using an adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system combined with frequency ratio, generalized additive model, and support vector machine techniques. Geomorphology
**2017**, 297, 69–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhang, X.; Wang, Q.; Huo, Z.; Yu, T.; Wang, G.; Liu, T.; Wang, W. Prediction of Frost-Heaving Behavior of Saline Soil in Western Jilin Province, China, by Neural Network Methods. Math. Probl. Eng.
**2017**. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Hong, H.; Pradhan, B.; Jebur, M.N.; Bui, D.T.; Xu, C.; Akgun, A. Spatial prediction of landslide hazard at the Luxi area (China) using support vector machines. Environ. Earth Sci.
**2016**, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Huang, F.; Yin, K.; Huang, J.; Gui, L.; Wang, P. Landslide susceptibility mapping based on self-organizing-map network and extreme learning machine. Eng. Geol.
**2017**, 223, 11–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 1.**Geographical position and landslide inventory of the study area. (

**a**,

**b**): geographical position of the study area; (

**c**) landslide inventory of the study area; (

**d**) geological map of the study area; (

**e**,

**f**) typical landslides of the study area.

**Figure 5.**Influencing factor maps of the study area: (

**a**) lithology (downloaded using 91 Weitu software), (

**b**) elevation, (

**c**) slope angle, and (

**d**) slope aspect.

**Figure 6.**Influencing factors maps of the study area: (

**a**) topographic relief, (

**b**) curvature, (

**c**) land-use, and (

**d**) rainfall.

**Figure 7.**Influencing factors maps of the study area: (

**a**) distance to river and (

**b**) distance to fault.

**Figure 10.**Area under the curve (AUC) values of model evaluation parameters when the hidden neurons of ANN model varied.

**Figure 12.**Statistics of morphological characteristics of slope units. (

**a**) Slope unit area distribution diagram; (

**b**) slope unit shape index distribution diagram.

System | Code | Lithology |
---|---|---|

Quaternary | Q | Alluvial–Diluvial, Gravel, Sub-Sandy Soil, Sub-Clay, and Basalt |

Neogene | N | Sandstone, Conglomerate, and Siltstone with Basalt |

Cretaceous | K | Sandstone, Conglomerate, Siltstone with Limestone, and Oil Limestone |

Jurassic | J | Andesite and Tuff |

Middle Proterozoic | Pt | Marble |

New Archean | Ar | Black Cloud Amphibolic Granulite and Granulite |

Stage | Method | Statistical Index | K = 1 | K = 2 | K = 3 | K = 4 | K = 5 | Mean | Standard Deviation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Training | ANN | AUC | 88.20 | 91.10 | 90.30 | 84.70 | 88.70 | 88.60 | 2.48 |

AC | 86.57 | 89.39 | 85.07 | 73.48 | 81.82 | 83.27 | 6.11 | ||

SE | 91.53 | 90.63 | 83.10 | 72.46 | 82.81 | 84.11 | 7.68 | ||

SP | 82.67 | 88.24 | 87.30 | 74.60 | 80.88 | 82.74 | 5.49 | ||

PP | 80.60 | 87.88 | 88.06 | 75.76 | 80.30 | 82.52 | 5.33 | ||

NP | 92.54 | 90.91 | 82.09 | 71.21 | 83.33 | 84.02 | 8.49 | ||

SVM | AUC | 92.70 | 93.40 | 92.30 | 93.20 | 94.50 | 93.22 | 0.83 | |

AC | 87.31 | 89.39 | 86.57 | 88.64 | 90.91 | 88.56 | 1.71 | ||

SE | 89.06 | 91.94 | 87.69 | 90.48 | 93.55 | 90.54 | 2.31 | ||

SP | 85.71 | 87.14 | 85.51 | 86.96 | 88.57 | 86.78 | 1.24 | ||

PP | 85.07 | 86.36 | 85.07 | 86.36 | 87.88 | 86.15 | 1.16 | ||

NP | 89.55 | 92.42 | 88.06 | 90.91 | 93.94 | 90.98 | 2.31 | ||

Testing | ANN | AUC | 83.20 | 87.00 | 82.10 | 88.20 | 82.10 | 84.52 | 2.88 |

AC | 71.88 | 70.59 | 68.75 | 71.43 | 73.53 | 71.23 | 1.75 | ||

SE | 73.33 | 81.82 | 65.00 | 66.67 | 72.22 | 71.81 | 6.62 | ||

SP | 70.59 | 65.22 | 75.00 | 78.57 | 75.00 | 72.88 | 5.13 | ||

PP | 68.75 | 52.94 | 81.25 | 82.35 | 76.47 | 72.35 | 12.10 | ||

NP | 75.00 | 88.24 | 56.25 | 64.71 | 70.59 | 70.96 | 11.94 | ||

SVM | AUC | 88.70 | 89.60 | 91.20 | 91.30 | 87.90 | 89.74 | 1.50 | |

AC | 81.25 | 88.24 | 84.38 | 85.29 | 82.35 | 84.30 | 2.72 | ||

SE | 81.25 | 93.33 | 82.35 | 83.33 | 82.35 | 84.52 | 4.98 | ||

SP | 81.25 | 84.21 | 86.67 | 87.50 | 82.35 | 84.40 | 2.69 | ||

PP | 81.25 | 82.35 | 87.50 | 88.24 | 82.35 | 84.34 | 3.26 | ||

NP | 81.25 | 94.12 | 81.25 | 82.35 | 82.35 | 84.26 | 5.54 |

Model | Susceptibility | Landslide Occurred | Total Study Area | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Count | Ratio | Area (km^{2}) | Ratio | ||

ANN | Very Low | 6 | 7.23% | 297.95 | 20.19% |

Low | 6 | 7.23% | 310.44 | 21.03% | |

Moderate | 10 | 12.05% | 423.33 | 28.68% | |

High | 18 | 21.69% | 297.95 | 20.19% | |

Very High | 43 | 51.81% | 146.24 | 9.91% | |

SVM | Very Low | 5 | 6.02% | 506.91 | 34.35% |

Low | 4 | 4.82% | 491.19 | 33.28% | |

Moderate | 8 | 9.64% | 198.77 | 13.47% | |

High | 14 | 16.87% | 151.60 | 10.27% | |

Very High | 52 | 62.65% | 127.43 | 8.63% |

Mapping Units | Method | Prediction Accuracy (Mean) | |
---|---|---|---|

Slope Units | ANN | Training | 89.72% |

Validating | 88.08% | ||

Slope Units | SVM | Training | 90.72% |

Validating | 88.96% | ||

Grid Units | ICM | - | 83.42% |

Grid Units | AHP | - | 70.93% |

Slope Units | ICM | - | 87.11% |

Slope Units | AHP | - | 80.54% |

© 2020 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/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Yu, C.; Chen, J.
Landslide Susceptibility Mapping Using the Slope Unit for Southeastern Helong City, Jilin Province, China: A Comparison of ANN and SVM. *Symmetry* **2020**, *12*, 1047.
https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12061047

**AMA Style**

Yu C, Chen J.
Landslide Susceptibility Mapping Using the Slope Unit for Southeastern Helong City, Jilin Province, China: A Comparison of ANN and SVM. *Symmetry*. 2020; 12(6):1047.
https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12061047

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Yu, Chenglong, and Jianping Chen.
2020. "Landslide Susceptibility Mapping Using the Slope Unit for Southeastern Helong City, Jilin Province, China: A Comparison of ANN and SVM" *Symmetry* 12, no. 6: 1047.
https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12061047