journal article·2019-03-25Open access

Land Subsidence Susceptibility Mapping Using Bayesian, Functional, and Meta-Ensemble Machine Learning Models

Hyun-Joo Oh, Mutiara Syifa, Chang-Wook Lee, Saro Lee

Applied Sciences· Volume 9· Issue 6

Abstract

To effectively prevent land subsidence over abandoned coal mines, it is necessary to quantitatively identify vulnerable areas. In this study, we evaluated the performance of predictive Bayesian, functional, and meta-ensemble machine learning models in generating land subsidence susceptibility (LSS) maps. All models were trained using half of a land subsidence inventory, and validated using the other half of the dataset. The model performance was evaluated by comparing the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of the resulting LSS map for each model. Among all models tested, the logit boost, which is a meta-ensemble machine leaning model, generated LSS maps with the highest accuracy (91.44%), i.e., higher than that of the other Bayesian and functional machine learning models, including the Bayes net (86.42%), naïve Bayes (85.39%), logistic (88.92%), and multilayer perceptron models (86.76%). The LSS maps produced in this study can be used to mitigate subsidence risk for people and important facilities within the study area, and as a foundation for further studies in other regions.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Landslides and related hazards · Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and Techniques · Geophysical Methods and Applications

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Geo-Environmental Hazard Research Center, Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM), 124, Gwahak-ro Yuseong-gu, Deajeon 34132, Korea

Division of Science Education, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon Campus, 1 Gangwondaehakgil, Chuncheon-si, Gangwon-do 24341, Korea

Geoscience Platform Research Division, Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM), 124, Gwahak-ro Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 34132, Korea

Department of Geophysical Exploration, Korea University of Science and Technology, 217 Gajeong-ro Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 34113, Korea

Funding

National Research Foundation of Korea · Basic Research Project of the Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM), funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT, and Future Planning of Korea

References (67)

Show source-provided references
1. A New Gis-Based Data Mining Technique Using an Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (Anfis) and K-Fold Cross-Validation Approach for Land Subsidence Susceptibility Mapping10.1007/s11069-018-3449-y ↗
2. Application of decision tree model for the ground subsidence hazard mapping near abandoned underground coal mines10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.04.010 ↗
3. Integration of ground subsidence hazard maps of abandoned coal mines in Samcheok, Korea10.1016/j.coal.2010.11.009 ↗
4. Land Subsidence Susceptibility Mapping at Kinta Valley (Malaysia) Using the Evidential Belief Function Model in Gis10.1007/s11069-014-1128-1 ↗
5. Spatial prediction of ground subsidence susceptibility using an artificial neural network10.1007/s00267-011-9766-5 ↗
6. Sensitivity analysis for the GIS-based mapping of the ground subsidence hazard near abandoned underground coal mines10.1007/s12665-010-0855-1 ↗
7. Modeling and zoning of land subsidence in the southwest of Tehran using artificial neural networks
8. Prediction of subsidence risk by FMEA using artificial neural network and fuzzy inference system10.1016/j.ijmst.2015.05.021 ↗
9. Tien Bui, D., Shahabi, H., Shirzadi, A., Chapi, K., Pradhan, B., Chen, W., Khosravi, K., Panahi, M., Bin Ahmad, B., and Saro, L. (2018). Land Subsidence Susceptibility Mapping in South Korea Using Machine Learning Algorithms. Sensors, 18.10.3390/s18082464 ↗
10. Land subsidence phenomena investigated by spatiotemporal analysis of groundwater resources, remote sensing techniques, and random forest method: The case of Western Thessaly, Greece10.1007/s10661-018-6992-9 ↗
11. Application of a fuzzy operator to susceptibility estimations of coal mine subsidence in Taebaek City, Korea10.1007/s12665-009-0093-6 ↗
12. Hybrid integration of Multilayer Perceptron Neural Networks and machine learning ensembles for landslide susceptibility assessment at Himalayan area (India) using GIS10.1016/j.catena.2016.09.007 ↗
13. Environmental data mining and modeling based on machine learning algorithms and geostatistics10.1016/j.envsoft.2003.03.004 ↗
14. Rockfall hazard mapping along a mountainous road in Switzerland using a GIS-based parameter rating approach10.5194/nhess-3-435-2003 ↗
15. Flood susceptibility analysis through remote sensing, GIS and frequency ratio model10.1007/s13201-018-0710-1 ↗
16. Landslide hazard mapping at Selangor, Malaysia using frequency ratio and logistic regression models10.1007/s10346-006-0047-y ↗
17. Kadavi, P.R., Lee, C.-W., and Lee, S. (2018). Application of Ensemble-Based Machine Learning Models to Landslide Susceptibility Mapping. Remote Sens., 10.10.3390/rs10081252 ↗
18. Pham, B.T., Prakash, I., Khosravi, K., Chapi, K., Trinh, P.T., Ngo, T.Q., Hosseini, S.V., and Bui, D.T. (2018). A comparison of Support Vector Machines and Bayesian algorithms for landslide susceptibility modelling. Geocarto Int., 1–23.10.1080/10106049.2018.1489422 ↗
19. Urban flood risk mapping using the GARP and QUEST models: A comparative study of machine learning techniques10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.12.002 ↗
20. Truong, X.L., Mitamura, M., Kono, Y., Raghavan, V., Yonezawa, G., Truong, X.Q., Do, T.H., Tien Bui, D., and Lee, S. (2018). Enhancing Prediction Performance of Landslide Susceptibility Model Using Hybrid Machine Learning Approach of Bagging Ensemble and Logistic Model Tree. Appl. Sci., 8.10.3390/app8071046 ↗
21. Application of an adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system to ground subsidence hazard mapping10.1016/j.cageo.2012.01.005 ↗
22. Bang, G.M., Choi, S.S., Oh, S.H., Sin, J.S., Jeon, M.G., Woo, S.U., Heo, J.E., Cheon, M.N., Jo, N.S., and Kim, B.C. (1999). A Detailed Survey of Monitoring in Whajeon Region, Coal Industry Promotion Board.
23. Kim, J.N. (2011). A Case Study on Stability Analysis of Ground Subsidence in Abandoned Mine Area—Focused on the Vicinity of the Chunjeon Station, Seoul National University of Science and Technology.
24. Canbulat, I., Zhang, C., Black, K., Johnston, J., and McDonald, S. (2017, January 5–7). Assessment of Sinkhole Risk in Shallow Coal Mining. Proceedings of the 10th Triennial Conference of Mine Subsidence: Adaptive Innovation for Managing Challenges, Pokolbin, Australia.
25. Sinkhole subsidence due to mining10.1007/BF00880712 ↗
26. Board, C.I.P. (1996). Ground Stability Investigation for Hwajeon (Korean Edn), Coal Industry Promotion Board.
27. An Investigation of Sinkhole Subsidence and its Preventive Measures in Underground Coal Mining10.1016/j.proeps.2015.06.009 ↗
28. Lee, F.T., and Abel, J.F. (1983). Subsidence from Underground Mining; Environmental Analysis and Planning Considerations.10.3133/cir876 ↗
29. The Geological Society of Korea (1962). Geologic Altas of Taebaegsan Region: Homyeong Geological Sheet, The Geological Society of Korea.
30. Seo, H.K., Kim, D.S., Park, S.H., Park, J.S., Bae, D.J., Yu, Y.S., Lee, D.Y., Im, S.B., Jang, Y.H., and Jo, M.J. (1979). Geologic Atlas of the Samcheog Coalfield, Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources.
31. National Geographic Information Institute (1996). Digital Land Characteristics Map with 1:5000 Scale: No. of index: 37816018, 37816019, 37816028, 37816029.
32. National Geographic Information Institute (1996). Digital Topographical Map with 1:5000 Scale: No. of index: 37816018, 37816019, 37816028, 37816029.
33. Tripathi, N., and Singh, R.S. (2019, January 25). Underground Coal Mine Subsidence Impacts Forest Ecosystem. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275207695.
34. Öge, İ.F., and Çırak, M. (2017). Relating rock mass properties with Lugeon value using multiple regression and nonlinear tools in an underground mine site. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ.10.1007/s10064-017-1179-0 ↗
35. Guidelines for Developing and Updating Bayesian Belief Networks Applied to Ecological Modeling and Conservation10.1139/x06-135 ↗
36. Susceptibility assessment of earthquake-induced landslides using Bayesian network: A case study in Beichuan, China10.1016/j.cageo.2011.09.011 ↗
37. A comparative study of different machine learning methods for landslide susceptibility assessment: A case study of Uttarakhand area (India)10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.07.005 ↗
38. Tien Bui, D., Pradhan, B., Lofman, O., and Revhaug, I. (2012). Landslide susceptibility assessment in vietnam using support vector machines, decision tree, and nave bayes models. Math. Probl. Eng., 2012.10.1155/2012/974638 ↗
39. A comparative study for landslide susceptibility mapping using GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), logistic regression (LR) and association rule mining (ARM)10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.09.007 ↗
40. A comparative study of frequency ratio, weights of evidence and logistic regression methods for landslide susceptibility mapping: Sultan Mountains, SW Turkey10.1016/j.jseaes.2012.12.014 ↗
41. Mertler, C.A., and Reinhart, R.V. (2016). Advanced and Multivariate Statistical Methods: Practical Application and Interpretation: Sixth Edition, Routledge.10.4324/9781315266978 ↗
42. Hosmer, D.W., Lemeshow, S., and Sturdivant, R.X. (2013). Applied Logistic Regression, John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9781118548387 ↗
43. Haykin, S.S. (2009). Neural Networks and Learning Machines/Simon Haykin, Prentice Hall.
44. Landslide susceptibility assesssment in the Uttarakhand area (India) using GIS: A comparison study of prediction capability of naïve bayes, multilayer perceptron neural networks, and functional trees methods10.1007/s00704-015-1702-9 ↗
45. A novel hybrid evidential belief function-based fuzzy logic model in spatial prediction of rainfall-induced shallow landslides in the Lang Son city area (Vietnam)10.1080/19475705.2013.843206 ↗
46. Artificial neural networks (the multilayer perceptron)—A review of applications in the atmospheric sciences10.1016/S1352-2310(97)00447-0 ↗
47. Additive Logistic Regression: A Statistical View of Boosting (With Discussion and a Rejoinder by the Authors)10.1214/aos/1016218223 ↗
48. LogitBoost classifier for discriminating thermophilic and mesophilic proteins10.1016/j.jbiotec.2006.07.020 ↗
49. Stratified Normalization LogitBoost for Two-Class Unbalanced Data Classification10.1080/03610918.2011.589332 ↗
50. An ensemble classification-based approach applied to retinal blood vessel segmentation10.1109/TBME.2012.2205687 ↗
51. Using LogitBoost classifier to predict protein structural classes10.1016/j.jtbi.2005.05.034 ↗
52. Lutz, R.W. (2006, January 16–21). Logitboost with trees applied to the wcci 2006 performance prediction challenge datasets. Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Network, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
53. A Comparative Study of Least Square Support Vector Machines and Multiclass Alternating Decision Trees for Spatial Prediction of Rainfall-Induced Landslides in a Tropical Cyclones Area10.1007/s10706-016-9990-0 ↗
54. Evaluation of prediction capability of the artificial neural networks for mapping landslide susceptibility in the Turbolo River catchment (Northern Calabria, Italy)10.1016/j.catena.2013.08.006 ↗
55. Sinkhole susceptibility mapping using logistic regression in Karapınar (Konya, Turkey)10.1007/s10064-015-0778-x ↗
56. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: A fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine10.1093/clinchem/39.4.561 ↗
57. Spatial prediction of landslide susceptibility using a decision tree approach: A case study of the Pyeongchang area, Korea10.1080/01431161.2014.943326 ↗
58. Landslide Prediction from Machine Learning10.1111/gto.12034 ↗
59. Wesseloo, J. (2017). Automated, Real-Time Geohazard Assessment in Deep Underground Mines. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Deep and High Stress Mining, Australian Centre for Geomechanics.
60. Tayfur, G., Singh, V.P., Moramarco, T., and Barbetta, S. (2018). Flood Hydrograph Prediction Using Machine Learning Methods. Water, 10.10.3390/w10080968 ↗
61. Karpatne, A., Ebert-Uphoff, I., Ravela, S., Babaie, H.A., and Kumar, V. (2018). Machine Learning for the Geosciences: Challenges and Opportunities. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng.10.1109/TKDE.2018.2861006 ↗
62. Probabilistic Landslide Ensemble Prediction Systems: Lessons to Be Learned from Hydrology10.5194/nhess-18-2183-2018 ↗
63. Ensemble Machine-Learning-Based Geospatial Approach for Flood Risk Assessment Using Multi-Sensor Remote-Sensing Data and Gis10.1080/19475705.2017.1294113 ↗
64. Chen, W., Sun, Z., and Han, J. (2019). Landslide Susceptibility Modeling Using Integrated Ensemble Weights of Evidence with Logistic Regression and Random Forest Models. Appl. Sci., 9.10.3390/app9010171 ↗
65. Bouckaert, R.R. (2008). Bayesian Network Classifiers in Weka for Version 3-5-7, The University of Waikato.
66. Mezaal, M., Pradhan, B., Shafri, H., Md Yusoff, Z., and Al-Zuhairi, M. (2017). Optimized Neural Architecture for Automatic Landslide Detection from High-Resolution Airborne Laser Scanning Data. Appl. Sci., 7.10.3390/app7070730 ↗
67. Mira Geoscience (2007). Geohazmap Workflow Earth Modelling Solutions for Mining. Montreal: Mira Geoscience, Mira Geoscience.