See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297753346

Assessment and comparison of combined

bivariate and AHP models with logistic
regression for landslide susceptibility...

Article in Arabian Journal of Geosciences · March 2016

DOI: 10.1007/s12517-015-2258-9

CITATIONS READS

0 149

7 authors, including:

Hamid Reza Pourghasemi Seyed Amir Naghibi

Shiraz University Tarbiat Modares University
58 PUBLICATIONS 1,343 CITATIONS 13 PUBLICATIONS 41 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Seyed Abdolhossein Arami Biswajeet Pradhan

PhD Candidate, GUASNR Universiti Putra Malaysia
15 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS 405 PUBLICATIONS 8,075 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Fluvial Geomorphology in an international border between Iran and Afghanistan Countries

(Case study: Hirmand River) View project
Identification of rocks and their quartz content in Gua Musang gold field using Advanced
Space-borne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) imagery
All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,
View project
Available from: Biswajeet Pradhan
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 14 November 2016
Arab J Geosci (2016) 9: 201
DOI 10.1007/s12517-015-2258-9

ORIGINAL PAPER

Assessment and comparison of combined bivariate

and AHP models with logistic regression for landslide
susceptibility mapping in the Chaharmahal-e-Bakhtiari
Province, Iran
Ebrahim Karimi Sangchini 1 & Seyed Naim Emami 2 & Naser Tahmasebipour 3 &
Hamid Reza Pourghasemi 4 & Seyed Amir Naghibi 5 & Seyed Abdolhossein Arami 6 &
Biswajeet Pradhan 7

Received: 3 August 2015 / Accepted: 18 November 2015 / Published online: 10 March 2016
# Saudi Society for Geosciences 2016

Abstract Landslide is one of the most important natural haz- precipitation which affect occurrence of the landslides in the
ards that make numerous financial damages and life losses study area. Subsequently, landslide susceptibility maps were
each year in the worldwide. Identifying the susceptible areas produced using weighted (AHP) bivariate and logistic regres-
and prioritizing them in order to provide an efficient suscep- sion models. Finally, receiver operating characteristics (ROC)
tibility management is very vital. In current study, a compar- curve was used in order to evaluate the prediction capability of
ative analysis was made between combined bivariate and the mentioned models for landslide susceptibility mapping.
AHP models (bivariate-AHP) with a logistic regression. At According to the results, the combined bivariate and AHP
first, landslide inventory map of the study area was prepared models provided slightly higher prediction accuracy than lo-
using extensive field surveys and aerial photographs interpre- gistic regression model. The combined bivariate and AHP, and
tation. In the next step, nine landslide causative factors were logistic regression models had the area under the curve (AUC-
selected including altitude, slope percentage, slope aspect, li- ROC) values of 0.914, and 0.865, respectively. The resultant
thology, distance from faults, streams and roads, land use, and landslide susceptibility maps can be useful in appropriate wa-
tershed management practices and for sustainable develop-
ment in the regions with similar conditions.
* Hamid Reza Pourghasemi
hamidreza.pourghasemi@yahoo.com;
hr.pourghasemi@shirazu.ac.ir Keywords Landslide susceptibility . Combined bivariate and
AHP models . Logistic regression . GIS . Iran
1
Department of Watershed Management Engineering, Gorgan
University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources,
Gorgan, Iran Introduction
2
Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Shahrekord, Iran
3
Landslide is one of the most important natural hazards that
Department of Watershed Management Engineering, College of
Agriculture, Lorestan University, Khorramabad, Iran
cause numerous financial damages and life losses each year in
4
the worldwide (Kelarestaghi and Ahmadi 2009). Landslides
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Engineering,
College of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
are amongst the most damaging natural hazards in the moun-
5
tainous areas. The study of landslides has drawn worldwide
Department of Watershed Management Engineering, College of
Natural Resources, Tarbiat Modares University, Noor, Mazandaran,
attention mainly due to increasing awareness of the socio-
Iran economic impacts of landslides, as well as, the increasing
6
Combating Desertification, Gorgan University of Agricultural
pressure of urbanization on the mountain environment
Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran (Aleotti and Chowdhury 1999). Landslide phenomenon annu-
7
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University
ally occurs in many parts of the world including Iran. Losses
Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor Darul Ehsan, that resulted from mass movements in Iran until the end of
Malaysia September 2007 have been estimated at 12.7 billion Iranian
201 Page 2 of 15
Rials were using the 4900 landslide database (Pourghasemi et
al. 2013a). Burying of Abikar village of Charmahal-e-
Bakhtiari Province in spring 1997 is one of the clear examples
of landslide damages in the Iran. Therefore, landslide suscep-
tibility mapping can be considered as one of the preliminary
steps in mitigating these damages (Regmi et al. 2014a).
Landslide susceptibility assessment also is an important pro-
cess for prediction and management of natural disasters. It is
also a necessary step for integrated watershed management,
hazard mitigation, natural, and urban planning in government
policies worldwide (Lekkas 2000; Carrara et al. 2003; Dahal
et al. 2008; Bathrellos et al. 2009). Identification and classifi-
cation of prone areas to landslide and its susceptibility map-
ping is a significant step in the evaluation of environmental
hazards and plays a prominent role in the watershed manage-
ment (Sakar et al. 1995). Using landslide susceptibility zona-
tion, one can detect susceptible and high potential landslide
susceptible areas. There are three main approaches in land-
slide susceptibility assessment such as qualitative, semi-quan-
titative, and quantitative (Lee and Jones 2004). Quantitative
methods are based on mathematical logic, the correlation be-
tween factors and landslide occurrence that include bivariate
regression analysis (Guzzetti 2002; Nandi and Shakoor 2009,
Yalcin et al. 2011; Yilmaz et al. 2012, Bijukchhen et al. 2013a;
Bijukchhen et al. 2013b, Kayastha et al. 2013a, b; Jaafari et al.
2014; Regmi et al. 2014b; Youssef 2015; Youssef et al. 2015a,
b), logistic regression (Ayalew and Yamagishi 2005; Duman
et al. 2006; Pradhan and Youssef 2010; Akgun 2012; Park et
al. 2013; Pourghasemi et al. 2013b; Youssef 2015; Dou et al.
2015a, b), certainty factor model (Dou et al. 2014; Dou et al.
2015a), genetic algorithm (Dou et al. 2015c), fuzzy logic
(Gupta et al. 2008; Tangestani 2009; Pradhan 2011;
Pourghasemi et al. 2012), and artificial neural network model
(Ermini et al. 2005; Melchiorre et al. 2008; Caniani et al.
2008; Pradhan et al. 2010; Zare et al. 2013; Polykretis et al.
2014; Dou et al. 2015b). Qualitative methods are based on
expert opinions (Fall et al. 2006; Rahman and Saha 2008).
Qualitative methods use weighting and rating approaches are
known as semi-quantitative methods (Yalcin 2008). Examples
of these methods are the analytic hierarchy process (AHP;
Barredo et al. 2000; Yalcin 2008; Komac 2006; Rahman and
Saha 2008; Ercanoglu et al. 2008; Akgun and Turk 2010;
Yalcin et al. 2011; Hasekiogullari and Ercanoglu 2012;
Pourghasemi et al. 2012), weighted linear combination
(Ayalew et al. 2004; Gorsevski et al. 2006; Kouli et al.
2010; Nafooti and Chabok Boldaje 2011; Pourghasemi et
al. 2014), and data mining techniques (Youssef et al.
2015c). The multivariate logistic regression approach has
been used by various researchers in the literature
(Yesilnacar and Topal 2005; Nandi and Shakoor 2009;
Yilmaz 2010; Oh and Lee 2010; Felicisimo et al. 2013).
In current study, a combined AHP and bivariate models
was used for the landslide susceptibility assessment and the
Arab J Geosci (2016) 9: 201
results were compared with a logistic regression. According to
the literature, in the previous studies, these two models had
been used separately. The outcome of this method could be
regarded quasi-quantitative. The proposed methodologies use
both the expert choices and ground truth at the same time.
Materials and methods
Study area
Doab Samsami Watershed is located between 32° 5′ 12″ and
32° 15′ 21″ latitudes and 50° 10′ 1″ to 50° 26′ 16″ longitudes,
covering an area of 276.3 km2 in the Chaharmahal-e-Bakhtiari
Province, Iran (Fig. 1). This watershed is one of the major sub
basins of the Karoon River. Elevation in the study area ranges
from 1,775 to 3,825 m above sea level. Based on the Iranian
meteorological organization report, the average annual rainfall
in the study area is 970 mm. This watershed is located in the
middle of Zagros Mountains. Subsequent erosion has re-
moved softer rocks, such as mudstone (rock formed by con-
solidated mud) and siltstone (a slightly coarser-grained mud-
stone), leaving behind harder rocks exposed, such as lime-
stone (calcium-rich rock consisting of the remains of marine
organisms) and dolomite (rocks similar to limestone contain-
ing calcium and magnesium). This differential erosion formed
the linear ridges of the Zagros Mountains. Sixty-six percent of
this region is covered by rangelands and the rest of the area is
covered by orchard, forest, agricultural, and rocky lands.
Landslide inventory map
In current study, a landslide inventory map was prepared using
field surveys, local information, and aerial photographs inter-
pretation (Fig. 1a, b, c; Dou et al. 2015d). The aerial photo
belongs to the year 2002. Landslide inventory map showed
that there are 37 landslides in the study area. According to
landslide classification proposed by Varnes (1978), modes of
failure in the study area were determined. Most of the land-
slides are shallow rotational with a few translational.
Meanwhile, in this study, only rotational landslides are con-
sidered and translational slides were eliminated because its
occurrence is rare. Affected total area by landslide is 635 ha
(2.23 % of the watershed area).
Landslide causative factors
The main factors considered in current study and those influ-
ential in the occurrence of a landslide based on literature re-
view are described as below. Nine landslide causative factors
were considered in this investigation. These factors are alti-
tude, slope percentage, slope aspect, lithology, distance from
faults, streams and roads, land use, and precipitation amount
Arab J Geosci (2016) 9: 201 Page 3 of 15 201

Fig. 1 Location map of the study

area and two photos of landslides
identified in the study area
201 Page 4 of 15 Arab J Geosci (2016) 9: 201

(Fig. 2). Vector-type spatial data-base of the mentioned caus- the ArcGIS 9.3 (ESRI 2008). The resolutions or pixel size of
ative factors was extracted by transforming these factors using the causative factors was 30 × 30 m.

416000 424000 432000 440000 416000 424000 432000 440000

3568000

3568000
3568000

3568000
(a) (b)

3560000

3560000
3560000

3560000
Elevation (m)

3552000

3552000
Slope aspect
3552000

3552000
1775-1900
2900-3100
1900-2100
South East 3100-3300
2100-2300
Southeast 3300-3500
Northeast
2300-2500
3500-3700
Southwest Northwest 2500-2700

3544000

3544000
012 4 6 8 012 4 6 8
3544000

3544000
3700-3825
West North Kilometers 2700-2900 Kilometers
416000 424000 432000 440000 416000 424000 432000 440000

416000 424000 432000 440000 448000 416000 424000 432000 440000

3568000

3568000
3568000

3568000

(c) (d)
3560000

3560000
3560000

3560000

Lithology
K QR
3552000

3552000
K7 Qal
3552000

3552000

Slope degree K8 Qt2

0-2.86 14.05-19.29 Pd Qt1
2.87-9.08 19.3-24.23 E
012 4 6 8 EO 012 4 6 8
3544000

3544000
9.09-14.04 >24.23 Kilometers OM2 Kilometers
416000 424000 432000 440000 448000 416000 424000 432000 440000

416000 424000 432000 440000 416000 424000 432000 440000

3568000

3568000
3568000

3568000

(e) (f)
3560000

3560000
3560000

3560000

3552000

3552000
3552000

3552000

distance from stream (m)

distance from fault(m) 0-50 150-200
0-500 1300-2300 200-300
50-100
500-1300 2300-3500 100-150 300-450
012 4 6 8 012 4 6 8
3544000

3544000
3544000

3544000

>3500 Kilometers >450 Kilometers

416000 424000 432000 440000 416000 424000 432000 440000

Fig. 2 Landslide conditioning factors: a aspect, b elevation, c slope degree, d lithology, e distance from fault, f distance from stream, g distance from
road, h land use, and i precipitation
Arab J Geosci (2016) 9: 201 Page 5 of 15 201

3568000 416000 424000 432000 440000 416000 424000 432000 440000

3568000

3568000

3568000
(g) (h)
3560000

3560000

3560000

3560000
3552000

3552000

3552000

3552000
distance from road (m) Land use
0-75 225-300 Rocky land Irriged agricalture

75-150 300-500 Poor range Rainfed agricalture

012 4 6 8 012 4 6 8
3544000

3544000

3544000

3544000
150-225 >500 Kilometers Medium range
Kilometers
416000 424000 432000 440000 416000 424000 432000 440000

416000 424000 432000 440000 448000

3568000

3568000
(i)
3560000

3560000
3552000

3552000
Precipitation (mm)
850-1000 1400-1600
1000-1200 >1820 012 4 6 8
1200-1400 Kilometers
416000 424000 432000 440000 448000

Fig. 2 (continued)

Topographical factors formations have different compositions and structures

For the digital elevation model (DEM) creation, 20 m in-
terval contours and survey base points showing the eleva-
tion values were extracted from the 1:50,000-scale topo-
graphic maps. Implementing this DEM, altitude, slope per-
centage, and slope aspect were prepared. Altitude was clas-
sified into 11 classes with 200 m intervals. Slope percent-
age was grouped in 6 classes of 0–5, 6–15, 16–25, 26–35,
36–45, and >45. Slope aspect was classified into eight
classes of N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, and NW. Substantial
attention was paid to the slope conditions because slope
configuration and steepness plays an important role in
landslide occurrence (Fig. 2a–c).
Lithology
The underlying geology is one of the most significant
factors for landslides modeling. Different geology
which contribute to the strength of the material. In current
study, using geology map in 1:100,000 scale, the litholo-
gy map was prepared and classified into 11 groups based
on lithological units (type; Table 1 and Fig. 2d). Geology
formations in this watershed including fossiliferous marly
limestones with intercalations of marls and sandy
limstones (OM2), white nummulitic limestones, marly
limstones, and dolomitic limestones (EO), mainly
orbitalina limstones, locally evaporitic in the lower part
(K), shale and marls interbedded with marly limstones
containing ammonites and Inceramuses (K8), marly fossil-
iferous limestones and thin sandly argillaceous limestones
(K7), recent terraces and recent alloviumes (Qal), old ter-
races deposits (Qt and QR), carbonate-dominated sedi-
mentary package with shale-marl intervals (Pd), and red
conglomerates (mainly chert pebbles), sandstones (locally
with volcanic intercalations), and silostone with evaporitic
inercalations (E).
201 Page 6 of 15 Arab J Geosci (2016) 9: 201

Table 1 Calculation of the final

susceptibility value of each Data layers Total area % of total Area of % of area Area density
identified land unit (ha) area (A) Landslide (ha) landslide (B) value

Aspect
N 1,719.99 6.23 30.38 4.79 −5.32
NE 7,715.25 27.93 262.21 41.30 11.01
E 2,518.976 9.12 125.04 19.70 26.66
SE 2,455.739 8.89 49.94 7.87 −2.64
S 4,798.129 17.37 85.43 13.46 −5.17
SW 4,676.126 16.93 59.57 9.38 −10.24
W 1,370.671 4.96 0.00 0.00 −22.98
NW 2,372.664 8.59 22.29 3.51 −13.58
Elevation (m)
1,775–1,900 4,61.9037 1.67 57.97 9.13 102.53
1,900–2,100 2,932.099 10.61 289.84 45.65 75.87
2,100–2,300 5,057.21 18.30 172.11 27.11 11.05
2,300–2,500 4,882.323 17.67 25.45 4.01 −17.77
2,500–2,700 4,593.758 16.63 53.76 8.47 −11.28
2,700–2,900 3,952.74 14.31 35.73 5.63 −13.94
2,900–3,100 2,929.929 10.61 0.00 0.00 −22.98
3,100–3,300 860.752 3.12 0.00 0.00 −22.98
3,300–3,500 1,532.477 5.55 0.00 0.00 −22.98
3,500–3,700 382.009 1.38 0.00 0.00 −22.98
3,700–3,825 43.83642 0.16 0.00 0.00 −22.98
Slope (degree)
0–5 201.0076 0.73 21.17 3.33 82.34
6–15 2,119.803 7.67 59.33 9.35 5.01
16–25 4,522.01 16.37 244.67 38.54 31.13
26–35 2,157.286 7.81 112.02 17.65 28.95
36–45 492.5005 1.78 7.39 1.16 −7.97
> 45 18,136.12 65.65 190.28 29.97 −12.49
Geology units
OM2 449.9949 1.63 3.30 0.52 −15.63
E 190.4042 0.69 0.18 0.03 −22.04
EO 11,334.27 41.03 27.59 4.35 −20.54
QR 1,297.833 4.70 179.93 28.34 115.66
K 5,018.204 18.16 10.84 1.71 −20.82
Qal 201.7005 0.73 46.45 7.32 207.33
Pd 898.8312 3.25 114.50 18.03 104.41
Qt1 542.9987 1.97 85.34 13.44 134.18
Qt2 399.7744 1.45 14.76 2.33 13.95
K8 2,948.512 10.67 150.77 23.75 28.16
K7 3,555.478 12.87 1.21 0.19 −22.64
Distance from fault (m)
0–500 2,463.077 8.92 94.81 14.93 15.51
500–1,300 3,740.476 13.54 192.53 30.33 28.49
1,300–2,300 4,152.376 15.03 141.37 22.27 11.07
2,300–3,500 6,133.214 22.20 114.22 17.99 −4.35
>3,500 1,1139.89 40.32 91.94 14.48 −14.72
Distance from stream (m)
0–50 2,092.495 7.57 51.84 8.17 1.80
50–100 2,011.261 7.28 52.52 8.27 3.14
Arab J Geosci (2016) 9: 201 Page 7 of 15 201

Table 1 (continued)
Data layers Total area % of total Area of % of area Area density
(ha) area (A) Landslide (ha) landslide (B) value

100–150 1,942.973 7.03 51.18 8.06 3.36

150–200 1,882.406 6.81 47.21 7.44 2.10
200–300 3,563.991 12.90 84.96 13.38 0.86
300–450 4,803.816 17.39 106.37 16.76 −0.83
> 450 11,331.47 41.02 240.77 37.92 −1.73
Distance from road (m)
0–75 1,583.822 5.73 140.51 22.13 65.74
75–150 1,372.74 4.97 125.47 19.76 68.42
150–225 1,234.877 4.47 109.28 17.21 65.52
225–300 1,134.911 4.11 92.53 14.57 58.55
300–500 2,622.979 9.49 121.87 19.20 23.49
> 500 1,9679.09 71.23 45.20 7.12 −20.68
Land use
Rocky land 5,512.351 19.95 0.59 0.09 −22.87
Rain-fed agriculture 1,645.76 5.96 10.04 1.58 −16.88
Irrigated agriculture 2,214.199 8.01 155.03 24.42 47.04
Poor range 12,072.93 43.70 391.81 61.72 9.48
Medium range 6,183.487 22.38 77.39 12.19 −10.46
Precipitation (mm)
780–900 10,589.69 38.33 539.27 84.94 27.95
900–1,000 7,996.283 28.94 69.14 10.89 −14.33
1,000–1,100 6,078.483 22.00 26.45 4.17 −18.63
1,100–1,200 2,292.567 8.30 0.00 0.00 −22.98
1,200–1,260 671.9949 2.43 0.00 0.00 −22.98

Distance from faults, streams, and road Precipitation

Distance from streams was created by using a topographical
map, whereas, distance from faults map was calculated using a
geological map of the study area. On the other hand, distance
from roads map was prepared using a road map of the study
area. Distance from faults was classified into 5 classes of 0–
500, 500–1,300, 1,300–2,300, 2,300–3,500, and >3,500. In
the case of distance from streams, there are 7 classes with
50 m intervals. For distance from roads, there are 6 classes
of 0–75, 75–150, 150–225, 225–300, 300–500, and >500
(Fig. 2e–g).
There is no doubt that rainfall is the most important
triggering factor in landslide occurrences. This factor
was mapped and classified into 5 classes of 850–1,000,
1,000–1,200, 1,200–1,400, 1,400–1,600, and >1,600 in
the study area (Fig. 2i).
Landslide susceptibility mapping with bivariate statistical
model weighted with AHP (combined AHP-bivariate
models)

The analytic hierarchical process is based on the simplification

Land use
The land use map was created using Landsat images
by Iranian forest, range land, and watershed manage-
ment organization (http://www.frw.org.ir/pageid/34/
language/ en-US/Default.aspx). Five classes of rocky
land, poor range, medium range, irrigated agriculture,
and rain fed agriculture were detected in the study area
(Fig. 2h).
of complex problems into simple ranks and orders, being the
center, the main objective of the task of interest. In the follow-
ing step, stand the criteria. The sub-criteria and the alternative
options are placed inferior to the superior levels of division.
Being divided into different hierarchies, the elements of each
level are compared in a pair-wise manner and based on the
importance of each element compared to other, scoring is
made (Pourghasemi et al. 2012). This approach could be
briefed in four steps as follow:
201 Page 8 of 15
Creation of hierarchical tree
Selection of the criteria and the influence factors determining
the objective of the decision maker.
Pair-wise comparison
Pair-wise comparison being carried out by informed expert
groups and Expert Choice software package. In this step, re-
garding the influential elements, comparison matrices were
created and the elements were compared pair-wised.
Generally, the AHP method regards all comparison to be
pair-wise. The experts state all the comparisons verbally.
These kinds of comparison were converted into quantitative
values ranged between zero and nine according to Saaty
(1997; Tables 2 and 3).
Standardization and prioritization
The standardization and weighted average concepts were used
in order to establish the level of importance of each element,
which is, given the values obtained from the relative criteria,
all the alternative options were compared and standardized
using the concept of normal weighted average. In this manner,
the priority of each option was extracted.
Determination of weight or the level of influence for each
element
Various methods have been devised for this type of problems
such as the minimum of squares, the logarithmic minimum of
squares, the special vector, and the approximation methods
including the sum of rows and columns, the geometric mean
method.
The bivariate method is on the basis of the areal cover of
each level of elements proportioned to the areal cover of land-
slides occurred in each level. In calculating the ratio of each
level, the landslide density of the level of interest was
deducted from the total land-slide density in the whole area.
Table 2 Scale of relative importance suggested by Saaty (1997)
Intensity of importance Definition
1 Equal importance
3 Weak importance of one over another
5 Essential or strong importance
7 Demonstrated importance
9 Absolute importance
2, 4, 6, and 8 Intermediate values between the two
adjacent judgments
Arab J Geosci (2016) 9: 201
Thus, supposing the landslide density of a level is greater than
the total value obtained for the whole area, the rate established
for this level would be positive and this would cause some
degrees of instability. On the contrary, if the landslide density
of a level is below the total value obtained for the whole area,
this would result in a stable condition with a negative rate.
The area and landslide percentages on each category of
map of causative factors were calculated and then the rate of
each category was calculated using the surface density equa-
tion (Feiznia et al. 2004; Kelarestaghi and Ahmadi 2009). The
rate of each class was obtained using Eq. (1) as follows:



A C
Ra ¼ 1000  −1000  ð1Þ
B D
where A is the landslide area per unit, B represents the area of
each unit, C is the total landslide area in each watershed, D
represents the total area of watershed, and Ra is surface area
rate (Table 1).
The weight of nine factors was calculated by AHP model
and using Expert Choice-11 software. Finally, landslide sus-
ceptibility map was produced by multiplying the weight of
each factor to rate (Table 1). Then, landslide susceptibility
map was classified into four classes based on the natural break
scheme (Fig 3).
Y ¼ ð0:053Þ*Aspect þ ð0:098Þ*Precipitation
þ ð0:193Þ*Slope þ ð0:029Þ*Elevation
þ ð0:243Þ*Geologyþð0:064Þ*Fault
þ ð0:162Þ*Land Use þ ð0:035Þ*Stram
þ ð0:121Þ*Road ð2Þ
Landslide susceptibility mapping using logistic regression
model
At first, the landslide density in each class of the nine landslide
causative factors was calculated for landslide susceptibility
Explanation
Two activities contribute equally to objective
Experience and judgment slightly favor one activity over another
Experience and judgment strongly favor one activity over another
An activity is strongly favored and its dominance demonstrated in practice
The evidence favoring one activity over another is the highest possible order
of affirmation
When compromise is needed
Arab J Geosci (2016) 9: 201 Page 9 of 15 201

Table 3 AHP paired comparisons and determining final weight factors of landslide

Factors Aspect Elevation Slope Lithology Distance Distance Distance from road Land use Precipitation
degree from faults from stream

Aspect 1 2 0.25 0.2 0.33 2 0.33 0.33 0.5

Elevation 0.5 1 0.16 0.14 0.33 1 0.25 0.2 0.25
Slope degree 4 6 1 0.5 3 5 2 1 3
Lithology 5 7 2 1 4 5 2 1 3
Distance from faults 1 3 0.33 0.25 1 2 0.5 0.5 0.5
Distance from stream 0.5 1 0.2 0.2 0.5 1 0.33 0.25 0.33
Distance from road 3 4 0.5 0.5 2 3 1 1 1
Land use 3 5 1 1 2 4 1 1 2
Precipitation 2 4 0.33 0.33 2 3 1 0.5 1
Final weight 0.053 0.029 0.193 0.243 0.064 0.035 0.121 0.162 0.098

Consistency ratio = 0.02

mapping using logistic statistical regression. For this purpose,
homogeneous unit’s map was prepared by integrating maps of
the mentioned factors. After matching the map of homoge-
neous units up with landslide distribution map, the units of
the landslide were determined and to all homogeneous land-
slide units, the code (1) and to all homogeneous with no land-
slide units, the code (0) were given. The absence or presence
of landslide in homogeneous units, as dependent variable and
landslide density percent in each class of nine landslide caus-
ative factors in units, as independent variable were entered in
the R statistical package (R Development Core Team 2006).
Logistic regression equation is as follows (Ayalew and
Yamagishi 2005):


p cate the proportion of variance explained by the model, but this
Y ¼ Logit ðpÞ ¼ ln ¼ C 0 þ C 1 X 1 þ C 2 X 2 þ ⋅⋅⋅ þ C n X n ð3Þ
1−p
where p is the probability of independent variable(Y), p/(1 − p)
is the so-called odds or the likelihood ratio, C0 is the intercept,
and C1, C2,….Cn represent coefficients (which measure the size
and the contribution of independent factors (X1, X2, … and Xn)
in a dependent variable). Using the density of factors as
independent variables and the presence or absence of landslides
as the dependent variable, an attempt to determine the best
equation that is meaningful at 0.01 % error level was made as
follows:
0 1
−1:838 þ ð0:00059Þ*Aspect þ ð0:00344Þ*Precipitation
B C
B þ ð0:00178Þ*Elevation C
B C
Y ¼B C Pourghasemi et al. 2012; Jaafari et al. 2015; Naghibi et al.
B þð0:00318Þ*Geology−ð0:000077Þ*Fault C
@ A
þð0:00167Þ*Land Use−ð0:000163Þ*Stream−ð0:000415Þ*Road
ð4Þ
Using the mentioned model, the landslide susceptibility
map was produced and then classified in low, medium, high,
and very high classes.
Pseudo-R2 index
The Pseudo-R2 index was used in order to evaluate the effi-
ciency of logistic regression model. This index, based on the
likelihood ratio principle, tests the goodness of fitting and is
calculated using following equation:


logðliklihood Þ
Pseudo R ¼ 1−
2
ð5Þ
logðl 0 Þ
where likelihood is the likelihood function amount in a case that
the model is fully fitted, L0 is the likelihood function amount in
a case that all coefficients except for the intercept are zero.
Unlike R2 in ordinary regression, Pseudo-R2 does not indi-
indicates the dependency rate of the empirical and output data
of the regression model; thus, its value is generally much lower
than R2. The Pseudo-R2 equivalent to one indicates perfect fit
and the Pseudo-R2 equivalent to zero means that there is no
significant relationship between independent and dependent
variables. In spatial studies, Pseudo-R2 more than 0.2 can be
considered as a relatively good fit (Clark & Hosking 1986).
Evaluation of landslide susceptibility models
Finally, the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve
(Pontius and Schneider 2001; Mohammady et al. 2012;
2015; Naghibi and Pourghasemi 2015) was employed to de-
termine the accuracy of landslide susceptibility and ground-
water potential maps produced in this research. The ROC
curve is a diagram in which the pixels ratio that is correctly
predicted the occurrence or nonoccurrence of landslides (true
positive) is plotted against the supplement amount that is the
pixels ratio that is wrongly predicted.
201 Page 10 of 15 Arab J Geosci (2016) 9: 201

Fig. 3 Landslide susceptibility

maps produced by a logistic
regression model and b combined
bivariate and AHP models

Results and discussion The performance of the models

The results are represented and then discussed by three parts: In current study, accuracy of logistic regression model was
(1) the performance of the models, (2) the landslide suscepti- evaluated using Pseudo-R2 index. The Pseudo-R2 amount
bility maps, and (3) the importance of causative factors. was calculated to be equal to 0.5217, which depicts that
Arab J Geosci (2016) 9: 201
model’s fitting is relatively good. According to the results,
two implemented models had high and relatively close
performance. However, weighted (AHP) bivariate
(AUC = 0.914) had better performance than logistic multi-
variate regression (AUC = 0.865; Fig. 4).
The main advantage of logistic regression over simple
multiple regressions is that LR allows the use of binary
dependent variable types in landslide susceptibility map-
ping. Although logistic regression is a commonly applied
quantitative susceptibility mapping method, it has a major
limitation of yielding average parameters for the study area
(Fotheringham et al. 2001; Erner et al. 2010), which may
differ locally in different parts of the study area. According to
the results of Esmali Ouri and Amirian (2009), AHP model
had better performance than logistic regression in Iran. Also,
Pourghasemi et al. (2013a, b) mentioned that logistic re-
gression model had reasonably good performance in land-
slide susceptibility mapping. In another papers of Akgun
(2012) and Pradhan (2010), LR model had good perfor-
mance in landslide susceptibility mapping. Devkota et al.
(2013) evaluated the performance of LR model in land-
slide mapping. Their results showed that LR had ROC
value of 83.57 % which shows its good performance.
Also, Lee and Sambath (2006) investigated the perfor-
mance of LR model in landslide susceptibility mapping
and their results showed high-prediction accuracy for LR
model. In another study, Mathew et al. (2008) investigated
the performance of LR in landslide susceptibility mapping
in India. Their results showed good performance of LR
model. Also, Nandi and Shakoor (2009) evaluated the
performance of LR in landslide susceptibility mapping
in the Cuyahoga River watershed, northeastern Ohio,
USA. Their results showed good performance of the LR
model.
Yalcin (2008) reported AHP method gave a more real-
istic landslide susceptibility map than the bivariate statis-
tical models (Wi and Wf). On the other hand, area density
method, one of the bivariate approaches, is based on the
Fig. 4 ROC curves for logistic
regression (LR) and combined
bivariate and AHP models
True Positive %
Page 11 of 15 201
observed relationship between distribution of landslides
and each landslide causative factor to determine correla-
tion between landslide locations and the factors (Cevik
and Topal 2003; Yalcin 2008; Kelarestaghi and Ahmadi
2009). AHP is a multi-objective, multi-criteria decision-
making approach which enables the user to arrive at a
scale of preference drawn from a set of alternatives.
AHP-gained wide application in site selection, suitability
analysis, regional planning, and landslide susceptibility
analysis (Yalcin 2008). So, in current study, these two
models were combined and a semi-quantitative model
was developed. This model had high capability in land-
slide susceptibility mapping and better results than logis-
tic regression model.
The landslide susceptibility maps
Landslide susceptibility maps produced by logistic mul-
tivariate regression and weighted (AHP) bivariate
models are represented in Fig. 3a, b. The mentioned
susceptibility maps were classified into low, moderate,
high, and very high classes based on natural break
scheme. The moderate land slide susceptibility map class
derived using the logistic regression model covers
25.06 % of the total area; 24.98, 24.98, and 24.98 %
of the total area are related to low, high, and very high
SPM zones, respectively (Fig. 3a and Table 4). In the
case of weighted (AHP) bivariate model, low, moderate,
high, and very high landslide susceptibility map classes
cover 25.28, 24.35, 25.62, and 24.75 % of the total area,
respectively.
The importance of landslide causative factors
Determining importance of different landslide causative
factors is a necessary step in landslide susceptibility map-
ping. In several studies, logistic regression model has been
used in order to determine the importance of causative
100
90
80
70
60
50 Combined Bivariate and
AHP model
40
Logistic regrression model
30
20
10
0
0 68 91 91 91 91 91 92 97 99 100
False Positive %
201 Page 12 of 15
Table 4 The distribution of area in different landslide susceptibility
classes
Bivariate statistical model weighted Logistic regression model
with AHP
Susceptibility Area (ha) % Area Susceptibility Area (ha) % Area
class class
Low 6,983.17 25.28 Low 6,900.07 24.98
Medium 6,727.62 24.35 Medium 6,922.40 25.06
High 7,078.07 25.62 High 6,902.15 24.98
Very high 6,838.33 24.75 Very high 6,902.58 24.98
Total 27,627.19 100 Total 27,627.19 100
factors on landslide occurrence (Yesilnacar and Topal
2005; Ayalew and Yamagishi 2005; Lee and Pradhan
2007; Nandi and Shakoor 2009). According to the re-
sults, the causative factors such as slope aspect, precipi-
tation, elevation, geology, and land use affect the multi-
variate logistic regression model function positively
(Eq. 4). The highest positive β coefficient is allocated
to the precipitation which is 0.003. On the other hand,
distance from faults, distance from stream, and distance
from roads had negative effect on landslide occurrence
with β coefficients of −0.000077, −0.000163, and
−0.000415, respectively, which is consistent with the re-
sults of Devkota et al. (2013). Also, it can be seen that
distance from roads had the highest negative affect on
logistic regression. BVariance inflation factor^ (VIF) and
the BTolerance^ (TOL) are two important indices for
multi-collinearity diagnosis (O’Brien 2007). The toler-
ance and variance inflation factors were computed for
this study, and variables with VIF > 5 and TOL < 0.1
should be excluded from the LR analysis, but there was
not any multi-collinearity problem in used landslide
causative factors in this study. The weight of nine factors
was calculated by AHP using Expert Choice-11 software
(Table 2). According to the results of weighted (AHP)
bivariate model, slope percentage, land use, and distance
from road had highest weights in landslide susceptibility
mapping with values of 0.243, 0.193, 0.162, and 0.121,
respectively. On the other hand, elevation and distance
from stream had the lowest weights with values of 0.029
and 0.035, respectively (Table. 2)
In another research, Youssef et al. (2015a) used different
probabilistic and bivariate statistical models including fre-
quency ratio, weight of evidence, index of entropy, and
Dempster–Shafer models in landslide susceptibility mapping.
According to the results, slope length, altitude, distance from
roads, and slope angle had the highest weights based on pro-
duced landslide susceptibility maps by index of entropy
model.
Arab J Geosci (2016) 9: 201
Conclusion
The Doab Samsami watershed’s conditions such as geology,
roughness, geomorphology, and tectonic conditions as well as
human pressure factors such as land use and rural roads’
changes have created a proper background for the landslide
that its occurrence is about 37 cases with approximate extent
of 635 ha in watershed basin. Converting the rangeland to
rain-fed farming and road construction is performed sharply
in Doab Samsami watershed during recent years and led to
presenting high role of human factors on landslide occur-
rences. Therefore, in current study weighted (AHP), bivariate
and logistic regression models were used for landslide suscep-
tibility mapping in the Doab Samsami watershed,
Chaharmahal-e-Bakhtiari Province, Iran. A landslide invento-
ry map and nine landslide causative factors were prepared for
this investigation. Then, landslide susceptibility maps were
produced using two mentioned models and then evaluated
using area under curve of ROC. According to the results,
two implemented models had high and relatively close perfor-
mance. However, weighted (AHP) bivariate (AUC = 0.914)
had better performance than logistic multivariate regression
(AUC = 0.865). Considering the better results of weighted
(AHP) bivariate in landslide susceptibility mapping in the
study area, it is important to consider the very high susceptible
class of landslide susceptibility produced by this model which
covered 24.75 % of the study area. This shows high suscepti-
bility to landslide for watershed basin that should be consid-
ered in susceptibility management, landslide losses, and land
use planning. Finally, the methodology produced in current
study can be applied in other areas with similar climatic, geo-
logical, and topographical conditions in order to facilitate land
use planning and hazard management.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank two anonymous
reviewers for their helpful comments on the primary version of the
manuscript.
References
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 9:93–106
Akgun A, Turk N (2010) Landslide susceptibility mapping for Ayvalik
(Western Turkey) and its vicinity by multi-criteria decision analysis.
Environ Earth Sci 61:595–611
Aleotti P, Chowdhury R (1999) Landslide hazard assessment: summary
review and new perspectives. Bull Eng Geol Environ 58:21–44
Ayalew L, Yamagishi H (2005) The application of GIS-based logistic
regression for landslide susceptibility mapping in the Kakuda-
Yahiko Mountains, Central Japan. Geomorphology 65:15–31
Ayalew L, Yamagishi H, Ugawa N (2004) Landslide susceptibility map-
ping using GIS-based weighted linear combination, the case in
Tsugawa area of Agano River, Niigata Prefecture, Japan.
Landslides 1:73–81
Arab J Geosci (2016) 9: 201
Barredo JI, Benavides A, Hervas J, van Westen CJ (2000) Comparing
heuristic landslide hazard assessment techniques using GIS in the
Tirajana basin, Gran Canaria Island, Spain. Int J Appl Earth Observ
& Geoinform 2(1):9–23
Bathrellos GD, Kalivas DP, Skilodimou HD (2009) GIS-based landslide
susceptibility mapping models applied to natural and urban planning
in Trikala, Central Greece. Estud Geol 65(1):49–65
Bijukchhen SM, Kayastha P, Dhital MR (2013a) A comparative evalua-
tion of heuristic and bivariate statistical modelling for landslide sus-
ceptibility mappings in Ghurmi–Dhad Khola, east Nepal. Arab J
Geosci 6(8):2727–2743
Bijukchhen SM, Kayastha P, Dhital MR (2013b) A comparative evalua-
tion of heuristic and bivariate statistical modelling for landslide sus-
ceptibility mappings in Ghurmi-Dhad Khola, east Nepal. Arab J
Geosci 6(8):2727–2743
Caniani D, Pascale S, Sdao F, Sole A (2008) Neural networks and land-
slide susceptibility: a case study of the urban area of Potenza. Nat
Hazards 45:55–72
Carrara A, Giovanni C, Frattini P (2003) Geomorphological and histori-
cal data in assessing landslide hazard. Earth Surf Proc & Landforms
28:1125–1142
Cevik E, Topal T (2003) GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping for a
problematic segment of the natural gas pipeline, Hendek (Turkey).
Environ Geol 44:949–962
Clark WAV, Hosking PL (1986) Statistical methods for geographers,
Mathematics., p 518
Dahal RK, Hasegawa S, Nonomura S, Yamanaka M, Masuda T, Nishino
K (2008) GIS-based weights-of-evidence modelling of rainfall-
induced landslides in small catchments for landslide susceptibility
mapping. Environ Geol 54:311–324
Devkota KC, Regmi AD, Pourghasemi HR, Yoshida K, Pradhan B, Ryu
IC, Althuwaynee OF (2013) Landslide susceptibility mapping using
certainty factor, index of entropy and logistic regression models in
GIS and their comparison at Mugling–Narayanghat road section in
Nepal Himalaya. Nat Hazards 65:135–165
Dou J, Oguchi T, Hayakawa YS, Uchiyama S, Saito H, Paudel U (2014)
GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping using a certainty factor
model and its validation in the Chuetsu Area, Central Japan.
Landslide Science for a Safer Geo-environment 2:419–424
Dou J, Dieu Bui T, Yunus AP, Jia K, Song X, Revhaug I, Xia H,
Zhu Z (2015a) Optimization of causative factors for landslide
susceptibility evaluation using remote sensing and GIS data in
parts of Niigata, Japan. PLoS ONE 10(7): e0133262. doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0133262
Dou J, Yamagishi H, Pourghasemi HR, Yunus AP, Song X, Xu Y, Zhu Z
(2015b) An integrated artificial neural network model for the land-
slide susceptibility assessment of Osado Island, Japan. Nat Hazards
78:1749–1776
Dou J, Chang KT, Chen S, Yunus AP, Liu JK, Xia H, Zhu Z (2015c)
Automatic case-based reasoning approach for landslide detection:
integration of object-oriented image analysis and a genetic algo-
rithm. Remote Sens 7: 4318–4342
Dou J, Paudel U, Oguchi T, Uchiyama S, and Hayakawa YS (2015d)
Shallow and deep-seated landslide differentiation using support vec-
tor machines: a case study of the Chuetsu area, Japan. Terr Atmos
Ocean 26(2): 227–239
Duman TY, Can T, Gokceoglu C, Nefeslioglu HA, Sonmez H (2006)
Application of logistic regression for landslide susceptibility zoning
of Cekmece Area, Istanbul, Turkey. Environ Geol 51:241–256
Ercanoglu M, Kasmer O, Temiz N (2008) Adaptation and comparison of
expert opinion to analytical hierarchy process for landslide suscep-
tibility mapping. Bull Eng Geol Environ 67:565–578
Ermini L, Catani F, Casagli N (2005) Artificial neural networks applied to
landslide susceptibility assessment. Geomorphology 66:327–343
Erner A, Sebnem H, Duzgun B (2010) Improvement of statistical land-
slide susceptibility mapping by using spetial and global regression
Page 13 of 15 201
method in the case of More and Romsdal (Norway). Landslides 7:
55–68
Esmali Ouri A, Amirian S (2009) Landslide hazard zonation using MR
and AHP methods and GIS techniques in Langan watershed,
Ardabil, Iran. International Conference on ACRS 2009, Beijing,
China
ESRI (2008) ArcGIS 9.3. ESRI Inc, Redlands, California
Fall M, Azam R, Noubactep CA (2006) Multi-method approach to study
the stability of natural slopes and landslide susceptibility mapping.
Eng Geol 82(4):241–263
Feiznia S, Kelarestaghi A, Ahmadi H, Safaei M (2004) An investigation
of effective factors on landslide occurrence and landslide hazard
zonation (case study Shirin Rood Drainage Basin–Tajan Dam).
Iranian J Nat Resour (in Persian) 57(1):3–20
Felicisimo A, Cuartero A, Remondo J, Quiros E (2013) Mapping land-
slide susceptibility with logistic regression, multiple adaptive regres-
sion splines, classification and regression trees, and maximum en-
tropy methods: a comparative study. Landslides 10(2):175–189
Fotheringham AS, Charlton ME, Brunsdon C (2001) Spatial variations in
school performance: a local analysis using geographically weighted
regression. Geogr Environ Model 5:43–66
Gorsevski PV, Jankowski P, Paul PE (2006) Heuristic approach for map-
ping landslide hazard integrating fuzzy logic with analytic hierarchy
process. Control Cybern 35(1):1–26
Gupta RP, Kanungo DP, Arora MK, Sarkar S (2008) Approaches for
comparative evaluation of raster GIS-based landslide susceptibility
zonation maps. Int J Appl Earth Observ & Geoinform 10:330–341
Guzzetti F (2002) Landslide hazard assessment and risk evaluation: over-
view, limits and prospective, Proceedings 3rd MITCH Workshop
Floods, Droughts and Landslides Who Plans, Who Pays., pp 24–26
Hasekiogullari GD, Ercanoglu MA (2012) New approach to use AHP in
landslide susceptibility mapping: a case study at Yenice (Karabuk,
NW Turkey). Nat Hazards 63(2):1157–1179
Jaafari A, Najafi A, Pourghasemi HR, Rezaeian J, Sattarian A (2014)
GIS-based frequency ratio and index of entropy models for landslide
susceptibility assessment in the Caspian forest, north- ern Iran. Int J
Environ Sci Technol 11(4):909–926
Jaafari A, Najafi A, Rezaeian J, Sattarian A, Ghajar I (2015) Planning
road networks in landslide-prone areas: A case study from the north-
ern forests of Iran. Land Use Policy 47:198–208
Kayastha P, Dhital MR, De Smedt F (2013a) Evaluation of the consisten-
cy of landslide susceptibility mapping: a case study from the Kankai
watershed in east Nepal. Landslides 10(6):785–799
Kayastha P, Dhital MR, De Smedt F (2013b) Evaluation and comparison
of GIS based landslide susceptibility mapping procedures in
Kulekhani watershed, Nepal. J Geol Society of India 81:219–231
Kelarestaghi A, Ahmadi H (2009) Landslide susceptibility analysis
with a bivariate approach and GIS in Northern Iran. Arab J
Geosci 2:95–101
Komac MA (2006) Landslide susceptibility model using the analytical
hierarchy process method and multivariate statistics in per Alpine
Slovenia. Geomorphology 74(1–4):17–28
Kouli M, Loupasakis C, Soupios P, Vallianatos F (2010) Landslide hazard
zonation in high risk areas of Rethymno Prefecture, Crete Island,
Greece. Nat Hazards 2:599–621
Lee EM, Jones DKC (2004) Landslide risk assessment. Thomas Telford,
London
Lee S, Pradhan B (2007) Landslide hazard mapping at Selangor,
Malaysia using frequency ratio and logistic regression models.
Landslides 4:33–41
Lee S, Sambath T (2006) Landslide susceptibility mapping in the Damrei
Romel area, Cambodia using frequency ratio and logistic regression
models. Environ Geol 50(6):847–855, http://doi.org/10.1007/
s00254-006-0256-7
Lekkas E (2000) Natural and technological disasters destructions. Access
Pre-press: Athens (in Greek), pp 278
201 Page 14 of 15
Mathew J, Jha VK, Rawat GS (2008) Landslide susceptibility zonation
mapping and its validation in part of Garhwal Lesser Himalaya,
India, using binary logistic regression analysis and receiver operat-
ing characteristic curve method. Landslides 6(1):17–26, http://doi.
org/10.1007/s10346-008-0138-z
Melchiorre C, Matteucci M, Azzoni A, Zanchi A (2008) Artificial neural
networks and cluster analysis in landslide susceptibility zonation.
Geomorphology 94:379–400
Mohammady M, Pourghasemi HR, Pradhan B (2012) Landslide suscep-
tibility mapping at Golestan Province Iran: a comparison between
frequency ratio, Dempster-Shafer, and weights-of-evidence models.
J Asian Earth Sci 61:221–236
Nafooti MH, Chabok Boldaje M (2011) Spatial prioritizing of pastures
using spatial multi criteria evaluation (case study: Yoosef Abad wa-
tershed—Iran). 2nd International Conference on Environmental
Engineering and Applications IPCBEE, IACSIT Press, Singapore
Naghibi SA, Pourghasemi HR (2015) A comparative assessment between
three machine learning models and their performance comparison
by bivariate and multivariate statistical methods in groundwater po-
tential mapping. Water Resour Manage. DOI: 10.1007/s11269-015-
1114-8
Naghibi SA, Pourghasemi HR, Pourtaghi ZS, Rezaei A (2015)
Groundwater qanat potential mapping using frequency ratio and
Shannon’s entropy models in the Moghan watershed, Iran. Earth
Sci Informatics 8(1):171–186
Nandi A, Shakoor AA (2009) GIS-based landslide susceptibility evalua-
tion using bivariate and multivariate statistical analyses. Eng Geol
110:11–20
O’Brien RM (2007) A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance
inflation factors. Qual Quant 41(5):673–690
Oh HJ, Lee S (2010) Cross-validation of logistic regression model for
landslide susceptibility mapping at Geneoung areas, Korea. Disaster
Adv 3(2):44–55
Park S, Choi C, Kim B, Kim J (2013) Landslide susceptibility mapping
using frequency ratio, analytic hierarchy process, logistic regression,
and artificial neural network methods at the Inje area, Korea.
Environ Earth Sci 68(5):1443–1464
Polykretis C, Ferentinou M, Chalkias C (2014) Comparative study of
landslide susceptibility mapping using landslide susceptibility index
and artificial neural networks in the Krios River and Krathis River
catchments (northern Peloponnesus, Greece). Bull Eng Geol
Environ 74(1):27–45
Pontius RJ, Schneider LC (2001) Land-cover change model validation by
an ROC method for the Ipswich watershed, Massachusetts, USA.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environ 85:239–248
Pourghasemi HR, Pradhan B, Gokceoglu C (2012) Application of fuzzy
logic and analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to landslide suscepti-
bility mapping at Haraz watershed, Iran. Nat Hazards 63:965–996
Pourghasemi HR, Pradhan B, Gokceoglu C, Mohammadi M, Moradi HR
(2013a) Application of weights-of-evidence and certainty factor
models and their comparison in landslide susceptibility mapping at
Haraz watershed, Iran. Arab J Geosci 6(7):2351–2365
Pourghasemi HR, Moradi HR, Fatemi Aghda SM (2013b) Landslide
susceptibility mapping by binary logistic regression, analytical hier-
archy process, and statistical index models and assessment of their
performances. Natural Hazards 69(1):749–779
Pourghasemi HR, Moradi HR, Fatemi Aghda SM, Gokceoglu C, Pradhan
B (2014) GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping with probabi-
listic likelihood ratio and spatial multi-criteria evaluation models
(North of Tehran, Iran). Arab J Geosci 7(5):1857–1878
Pradhan B (2010) Landslide Susceptibility mapping of a catchment area
using frequency ratio, fuzzy logic and multivariate logistic regres-
sion approaches, J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens 38:301–320
Pradhan B (2011) Use of GIS-based fuzzy logic relations and its cross
application to produce landslide susceptibility maps in three test
areas in Malaysia. Environ Earth Sci 63(2):329–349
Arab J Geosci (2016) 9: 201
Pradhan B, Youssef AM (2010) Manifestation of remote sensing data and
GIS on landslide hazard analysis using spatial-based statistical
models. Arab J Geosci 3(3):319–326
Pradhan B, Youssef AM, Varathrajoo R (2010) Approaches for delineat-
ing landslide hazard areas using different training sites in an ad-
vanced artificial neural network model. GeoSpatial Information
Sci 13(2):93–102
R Development Core Team (2006) R: A Language and Environment for
Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing,
Vienna
Rahman MDR, Saha SK (2008) Remote sensing, spatial multi criteria
evaluation (SMCE) and analytical hierarchy process (AHP) in opti-
mal cropping pattern planning for a flood prone area. J Spatial Sci
53:2161–2177
Regmi AD, Chandra Devkota K, Yoshida K, Pradhan B, Pourghasemi
HR, Kumamoto T, Akgun A (2014a) Application of frequency ratio,
statistical index, and weights-of-evidence models and their compar-
ison in landslide susceptibility mapping in Central Nepal Himalaya.
Arab J Geosci 7(2):725–742
Regmi AD, Yoshida K, Pradhan B, Pourghasemi HR, Khumamoto T,
Akgun A (2014b) Application of frequency ratio, statistical index
and weights-of-evidence models, and their comparison in landslide
susceptibility mapping in Central Nepal Himalaya. Arab J Geosci
7(2):725–742
Saaty TL (1997) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures.
J Math Psychol 15:234–281
Sakar S, Kanungo DP, Mehrotar GS (1995) Landslide zonation: a case
study Garhwal Hymalia, India. Mountain Res & Develop 15(4):
301–330
Tangestani MH (2009) A comparative study of Demster-Shafer and fuzzy
models for landslide susceptibility mapping using a GIS: an experi-
ence from Zagros Mountains, SW Iran. J Asian Earth Sci 35:66–73
Varnes DJ (1978) Slope movement types and processes. In: Schuster RL,
Krizek RJ (eds) Landslides analysis and control, vol 176, Special
Report. Trasportation Research Board, National Academy of
Sciences, New York, pp 12–33
Yalcin A (2008) GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping using ana-
lytical hierarchy process and bivariate statistics in Ardesen (Turkey):
comparisons of results and confirmations. Catena 72:1–12
Yalcin A, Reis S, Aydinoglu AC, Yomralioglu TA (2011) 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
Yesilnacar E, Topal T (2005) Landslide susceptibility mapping: a com-
parison of logistic regression and neural networks methods in a
medium scale study, Hendek region (Turkey). Eng Geol 79:251–266
Yilmaz I (2010) Comparison of landslide susceptibility mapping meth-
odologies for Koyulhisar, Turkey: conditional probability logistic
regression, artificial neural networks, and support vector machine.
Environ Earth Sci 61:821–836
Yilmaz C, Topal T, Suzen ML (2012) GIS-based landslide susceptibility
mapping using bivariate statistical analysis in Devrek (Zonguldak-
Turkey). Environ Earth Sci 65:2161–2178
Youssef AM (2015) Landslide Susceptibility Delineation in the Ar- Rayth
Area, Jizan, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, by using analytical hierarchy
process, frequency ratio, and logistic regression models. Environ
Earth Sci doi:10.1007/s12665-014-4008-9
Youssef AM, Pourghasemi HR, El-Haddad BA, Dhahry BK
(2015a) Landslide susceptibility maps using different proba-
bilistic and bivariate statistical models and comparison of
their performance at Wadi Itwad Basin, Asir Region, Saudi
Arabia. Bull Eng Geol Environ DOI:10.1007/s10064-015-
0734-9
Youssef AM, Pradhan B, Pourghasemi HR, Abdullah S (2015b)
Landslide susceptibility assessment at Wadi Jawrah Basin, Jizan
Arab J Geosci (2016) 9: 201
region, Saudi Arabia using two bivariate models in GIS. Geosci J
DOI:10.1007/s12303-014-0065-z
Youssef AM, Pourghasemi HR, Pourtaghi Z, Al-Katheeri MM (2015c)
Landslide susceptibility mapping using random forest, boosted re-
gression tree, classification and regression tree, and general linear
models and comparison of their performance at Wadi Tayyah Basin,
Page 15 of 15 201
Asir region, Saudi Arabia. Landslides, DOI 10.1007/s10346-015-
0614-1
Zare M, Pourghasemi HR, Vafakhah M, Pradhan B (2013) Landslide
susceptibility mapping at Vaz watershed (Iran) using an artificial
neural network model: a comparison between multi-layer perceptron
(MLP) and radial basic function (RBF) algorithms. Arab J Geosci
6(8):2873–2888