the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Prediction of landslide induced debris’ severity using machine learning algorithms: a case of South Korea
Abstract. Rainfall-induced landslides frequently occur in the mountainous region of the Korean peninsula. The resulting landslide-induced debris causes extreme property damage, huge financial losses, and human deaths. To mitigate their effect different landslide susceptibility mapping is frequently used. However, these methods do identify regions with potential landslides but they do not quantify their severity. In this paper, multi-category ordered machine models, namely, proportional odd logistic regression (POLR), random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM), and extreme gradient boosting (EGB) methods, are proposed to fill the specified gap. Moreover, the exploratory data analysis on the landslide-induced debris dataset has been conducted to examine patterns and relationships between landslide-induced debris severity(size), causal factors(rainfall), and influencing factors. Findings revealed that cumulative three days’ rainfall and slope length were most responsible for the severity of landslide-originated debris severity and slopes between 20° to 40° were identified as the most vulnerable region. Furthermore, the predictive accuracy statistics were compared to assess the suitable model for debris severity for the Korean case. The RF and EGB ranked higher with an overall accuracy of 90.07 % and 86.09 % and kappa of 0.72 and 0.61 on the validation set, respectively. The findings of this research may be useful in the identification of high-risk zones for extreme rainfall-induced debris to elaborate mitigation and resilience policies, post-disaster rehabilitation planning, and land use management.
- Preprint
(1703 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2023-73', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Jun 2023
The paper is interesting for two main reasons. Firstly the work represents a step towards the prediction of the intensity of landslide events, and second because analize the pattern among the landslide induced debris and causal ana influencing factors.
I would suggest to improve the definition of the landslide types, and to clarify the differ4ences among the geomorpholoigcal processes of table 1.
Please see the annexd pdf for few specific comments.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sang-Guk Yum, 01 Sep 2023
My co-authors and I would like to express our gratitude to the reviewers for their constructive feedback and suggestions for strengthening our research. The changes we have made to the attached file in response to such feedback and suggestions have been highlighted in blue to facilitate their identification. I would also like to offer my apologies for the length of time it took us to prepare this response. We also record our deep appreciation for the efficient handling of the manuscript.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sang-Guk Yum, 01 Sep 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2023-73', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Jul 2023
Comments:
Landslide volume prediction is the key to Landslide risk analysis and prediction. The topic of this paper is very interesting. However, the paper is poor prepared. The structure of the paper is weakly logical and I can not follow the paper clearly. My decision of this manuscript is rejection. Please find my comments as following.
- The logic of the paper's structure is unclear. I suggest the authors to organize the paper according to Introduction – study area – Data colleagues and Methods - Results - Discussion - Conclusion.
- The introduction section should rewrite. For example, the author describes the damage caused by the landslide in several places. Line 56 -58: The author talks very abruptly about landslide volumes.
- The subject of the paper is very unclear. What is the difference between Rainfall-induced debris and Landslide-induced debris? In my opinion, they are different. The author needs to give a clear definition of the research subject of the paper.
- Magnitude of landslide-induced debris and debris severity are two totally different probabilities, and the authors confuse them in the introduction. There is a big difference between Landslide and Landslide-induced debris. The author has confused them in the manuscript as well.
- The authors present a lot of research about landslide susceptibility and hazard mapping in the study area, but this is not necessary. There are some studies about landslide volume prediction, but the author do not presents a review of the topic. This is why the paper's innovation drive is unclear.
- Problem formulation: The authors give a flowchart for the proposed method, but the goal of the prediction is not clearly stated in this section. This subsection should rewrite.
- Table 1: The failure mechanism of each landslide/rackfall type is different. It is not reasonable to conduct the volume prediction for these different types without distinction.
- Why these four machine learning methods were chosen. These methods have become very common. Please simplify the principle of the methods. Model inputs and parameters need to be given.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-73-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Sang-Guk Yum, 01 Sep 2023
My co-authors and I would like to express our gratitude to the reviewers for their constructive feedback and suggestions for strengthening our research. The changes we have made to the attached file in response to such feedback and suggestions have been highlighted in blue to facilitate their identification. I would also like to offer my apologies for the length of time it took us to prepare this response. We also record our deep appreciation for the efficient handling of the manuscript.
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2023-73', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Jun 2023
The paper is interesting for two main reasons. Firstly the work represents a step towards the prediction of the intensity of landslide events, and second because analize the pattern among the landslide induced debris and causal ana influencing factors.
I would suggest to improve the definition of the landslide types, and to clarify the differ4ences among the geomorpholoigcal processes of table 1.
Please see the annexd pdf for few specific comments.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sang-Guk Yum, 01 Sep 2023
My co-authors and I would like to express our gratitude to the reviewers for their constructive feedback and suggestions for strengthening our research. The changes we have made to the attached file in response to such feedback and suggestions have been highlighted in blue to facilitate their identification. I would also like to offer my apologies for the length of time it took us to prepare this response. We also record our deep appreciation for the efficient handling of the manuscript.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sang-Guk Yum, 01 Sep 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2023-73', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Jul 2023
Comments:
Landslide volume prediction is the key to Landslide risk analysis and prediction. The topic of this paper is very interesting. However, the paper is poor prepared. The structure of the paper is weakly logical and I can not follow the paper clearly. My decision of this manuscript is rejection. Please find my comments as following.
- The logic of the paper's structure is unclear. I suggest the authors to organize the paper according to Introduction – study area – Data colleagues and Methods - Results - Discussion - Conclusion.
- The introduction section should rewrite. For example, the author describes the damage caused by the landslide in several places. Line 56 -58: The author talks very abruptly about landslide volumes.
- The subject of the paper is very unclear. What is the difference between Rainfall-induced debris and Landslide-induced debris? In my opinion, they are different. The author needs to give a clear definition of the research subject of the paper.
- Magnitude of landslide-induced debris and debris severity are two totally different probabilities, and the authors confuse them in the introduction. There is a big difference between Landslide and Landslide-induced debris. The author has confused them in the manuscript as well.
- The authors present a lot of research about landslide susceptibility and hazard mapping in the study area, but this is not necessary. There are some studies about landslide volume prediction, but the author do not presents a review of the topic. This is why the paper's innovation drive is unclear.
- Problem formulation: The authors give a flowchart for the proposed method, but the goal of the prediction is not clearly stated in this section. This subsection should rewrite.
- Table 1: The failure mechanism of each landslide/rackfall type is different. It is not reasonable to conduct the volume prediction for these different types without distinction.
- Why these four machine learning methods were chosen. These methods have become very common. Please simplify the principle of the methods. Model inputs and parameters need to be given.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-73-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Sang-Guk Yum, 01 Sep 2023
My co-authors and I would like to express our gratitude to the reviewers for their constructive feedback and suggestions for strengthening our research. The changes we have made to the attached file in response to such feedback and suggestions have been highlighted in blue to facilitate their identification. I would also like to offer my apologies for the length of time it took us to prepare this response. We also record our deep appreciation for the efficient handling of the manuscript.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
564 | 156 | 57 | 777 | 49 | 53 |
- HTML: 564
- PDF: 156
- XML: 57
- Total: 777
- BibTeX: 49
- EndNote: 53
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1