journal article·2021-10-19Open access

Earthquake Damage Assessment in Three Spatial Scale Using Naive Bayes, SVM, and Deep Learning Algorithms

Sajjad Ahadzadeh, Mohammad Reza Malek

Applied Sciences· Volume 11· Issue 20

Abstract

Earthquakes lead to enormous harm to life and assets. The ability to quickly assess damage across a vast area is crucial for effective disaster response. In recent years, social networks have demonstrated a lot of capability for improving situational awareness and identifying impacted areas. In this regard, this study proposed an approach that applied social media data for the earthquake damage assessment at the county, city, and 10 × 10 km grids scale using Naive Bayes, support vector machine (SVM), and deep learning classification algorithms. In this study, classification was evaluated using accuracy, precision, recall, and F-score metrics. Then, for understanding the message propagation behavior in the study area, temporal analysis based on classified messages was performed. In addition, variability of spatial topic concentration in three classification algorithms after the earthquake was examined using location quotation (LQ). A damage map based on the results of the classification of the three algorithms into three scales was created. For validation, confusion matrix metrics, Spearman’s rho, Pearson correlation, and Kendall’s tau were used. In this study, binary classification and multi-class classification have been done. Binary classification was used to classify messages into two classes of damage and non-damage so that their results could finally be used to estimate the earthquake damage. Multi-class classification was used to categorize messages to increase post-crisis situational awareness. In the binary classification, the SVM algorithm performed better in all the indices, gaining 71.22% accuracy, 81.22 F-measure, 79.08% accuracy, 85.62% precision, and 0.634 Kappa. In the multi-class classification, the SVM algorithm performed better in all the indices, gaining 90.25% accuracy, 88.58% F-measure, 84.34% accuracy, 93.26% precision, and 0.825 Kappa. Based on the results of the temporal analysis, most of the damage-related messages were reported on the day of the earthquake and decreased in the following days. Most of the messages related to infrastructure damages and injured, dead, and missing people were reported on the day of the earthquake. In addition, results of LQ indicated Napa as a center of the earthquake as the concentration of damage-related messages in all algorithms were based there. This indicates that our approach has been able to identify the damage well and has considered the earthquake center one of the most affected counties. The findings of the damage estimation showed that going away from the epicenter lowered the amount of damage. Based on the result of the validation of the estimated damage map with official data, the SVM performed better for damage estimation, followed by deep learning. In addition, at the county scale, algorithms showed better performance with Spearman’s rho of 0.8205, Pearson correlation of 0.5217, and Kendall’s tau of 0.6666.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Public Relations and Crisis Communication · Seismology and Earthquake Studies · Data-Driven Disease Surveillance

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

Affiliations

GIS Decpartment, Faculty of Geodesy & Geomatics Engineering, K.N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran 19967-15433, Iran

References (44)

Show source-provided references
1. Rapid estimation of an earthquake impact area using a spatial logistic growth model based on social media data
2. Musaev, A., and Pu, C. (2017, January 19–22). Landslide information service based on composition of physical and social sensors. Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 33rd International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), San Diego, CA, USA.10.1109/ICDE.2017.242 ↗
3. Burks, L., Miller, M., and Zadeh, R. (2014, January 21–25). Rapid estimate of ground shaking intensity by combining simple earthquake characteristics with Tweets. Proceedings of the Tenth US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering, Anchorage, USA.
4. Cheng, C., Zhang, T., Su, K., Gao, P., and Shen, S. (2019). Assessing the Intensity of the Population Affected by a Complex Natural Disaster Using Social Media Data. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf., 8.10.3390/ijgi8080358 ↗
5. Combining machine-learning topic models and spatiotemporal analysis of social media data for disaster footprint and damage assessment10.1080/15230406.2017.1356242 ↗
6. Localizing and quantifying infrastructure damage using class activation mapping approaches10.1007/s13278-019-0588-4 ↗
7. Peters, R., and de Albuquerque, J.P. (2015, January 24–27). Investigating images as indicators for relevant social media messages in disaster management. Proceedings of the ISCRAM 2015 Conference, Kristiansand, Norway.
8. Topics and topical phases in German social media communication during a disaster10.1017/S1351324918000025 ↗
9. Disaster management 2.0: A real-time disaster damage assessment model based on mobile social media data—A case study of Weibo (Chinese Twitter)10.1016/j.ssci.2019.02.029 ↗
10. Descriptive and visual summaries of disaster events using artificial intelligence techniques: Case studies of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria
11. Simulation of natural disasters and managing rescue operations via geospatial crowdsourcing services in tensor space10.1007/s12517-020-05402-x ↗
12. Extracting disaster information based on Sina Weibo in China: A case study of the 2019 Typhoon Lekima10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102304 ↗
13. Relationship between the spatial distribution of SMS messages reporting needs and building damage in 2010 Haiti disaster10.5194/nhess-12-255-2012 ↗
14. Liang, Y., Caverlee, J., and Mander, J. (2013, January 13–17). Text vs. images: On the viability of social media to assess earthquake damage. Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on world wide web, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.10.1145/2487788.2488102 ↗
15. Nowcasting of earthquake consequences using big social data10.1109/MIC.2017.4180834 ↗
16. Nguyen, D.T., Ofli, F., Imran, M., and Mitra, P. (2017, January 31). Damage assessment from social media imagery data during disasters. Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining 2017, Sydney, Australia.10.1145/3110025.3110109 ↗
17. On the need of opening up crowdsourced emergency management systems10.1007/s00146-017-0709-4 ↗
18. CrisMap: A big data crisis mapping system based on damage detection and geoparsing10.1007/s10796-018-9833-z ↗
19. Mining Twitter data for improved understanding of disaster resilience
20. Mouzannar, H., Rizk, Y., and Awad, M. (2018, January 20–23). Damage Identification in Social Media Posts using Multimodal Deep Learning. Proceedings of the 15th ISCRAM Conference, Rochester, NY, USA.
21. Kropivnitskaya, Y., Tiampo, K.F., Qin, J., and Bauer, M.A. (2018). Real-time earthquake intensity estimation using streaming data analysis of social and physical sensors. Earthquakes and Multi-Hazards Around the Pacific Rim, Birkhäuser.10.1007/978-3-319-71565-0_10 ↗
22. Fernandez-Marquez, J.L., Francalanci, C., Mohanty, S., Mondardini, R., Pernici, B., and Scalia, G. (2019). E 2 mC: Improving Rapid Mapping with Social Network Information. Organizing for the Digital World, Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-90503-7_6 ↗
23. Nowcasting earthquake damages with Twitter10.1140/epjds/s13688-019-0181-0 ↗
24. Ahadzadeh, S., and Malek, M.R. (2021). Earthquake Damage Assessment Based on User Generated Data in Social Networks. Sustainability, 13.10.3390/su13094814 ↗
25. Sakaki, T., Okazaki, M., and Matsuo, Y. (2010, January 26–30). Earthquake shakes Twitter users: Real-time event detection by social sensors. Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web, Raleigh North Carolina USA.10.1145/1772690.1772777 ↗
26. Twitter earthquake detection: Earthquake monitoring in a social world
27. Huang, Q., Cervone, G., Jing, D., and Chang, C. (2015, January 3). DisasterMapper: A CyberGIS framework for disaster management using social media data. Proceedings of the 4th International ACM SIGSPATIAL Workshop on Analytics for Big Geospatial Data, Seattle, WA, USA.10.1145/2835185.2835189 ↗
28. Space, time, and situational awareness in natural hazards: A case study of Hurricane Sandy with social media data10.1080/15230406.2018.1483740 ↗
29. Using social media to enhance emergency situation awareness10.1109/MIS.2012.6 ↗
30. Kireyev, K., Palen, L., and Anderson, K. (2009). Applications of topics models to analysis of disaster-related Twitter data. NIPS Workshop on Applications for Topic Models: Text and Beyond, NIPS.
31. Khare, P., Burel, G., Maynard, D., and Alani, H. (2018). Cross-Lingual Classification of Crisis Data. International Semantic Web Conference, Springer.10.1007/978-3-030-00671-6_36 ↗
32. Neppalli, V.K., Caragea, C., and Caragea, D. (2018, January 20–23). Deep Neural Networks versus Naive Bayes Classifiers for Identifying Informative Tweets during Disasters. Proceedings of the 15th ISCRAM Conference, Rochester, NY, USA.
33. Mining crisis information: A strategic approach for detection of people at risk through social media analysis10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.12.002 ↗
34. Burel, G., and Alani, H. (2018, January 20–23). Crisis Event Extraction Service (CREES)-Automatic Detection and Classification of Crisis-related Content on Social Media. Proceedings of the 15th ISCRAM Conference, Rochester, NY, USA.
35. Qu, Y., Huang, C., Zhang, P., and Zhang, J. (2011, January 19–23). Microblogging after a major disaster in China: A case study of the 2010 Yushu earthquake. Proceedings of the ACM 2011 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Hangzhou, China.10.1145/1958824.1958830 ↗
36. Imran, M., Elbassuoni, S., Castillo, C., Diaz, F., and Meier, P. (2013, January 20–23). Extracting information nuggets from disaster-related messages in social media. Proceedings of the 10th International ISCRAM Conference, Baden-Baden, Germany.
37. USGS (US Geological Survey) (2019, November 20). M6.0 South Napa, California Earthquake–August 24, 2014, Available online: https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/earthquake-hazards/science/m60-south-napa-california-earthquake-august-24-2014?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects.
38. Annualized earthquake loss estimates for California and their sensitivity to site amplification10.1785/0220160099 ↗
39. Parilla-Ferrer, B.E., Fernandez, P.L., and Ballena, J.T. (2014, January 16–17). Automatic classification of disaster-related Tweets. Proceedings of the International Conference on Innovative Engineering Technologies (ICIET), Barcelona, Spain.
40. Disaster response aided by tweet classification with a domain adaptation approach10.1111/1468-5973.12194 ↗
41. Joachims, T.A. (2005, January 11–14). support vector method for multivariate performance measures. Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Machine Learning, Lausanne, Switzerland.10.1145/1102351.1102399 ↗
42. Cresci, S., Cimino, A., Dell’Orletta, F., and Tesconi, M. (2015, January 1–3). Crisis mapping during natural disasters via text analysis of social media messages. Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering, Miami, FL, USA.10.1007/978-3-319-26187-4_21 ↗
43. Comparison of classification accuracy using Cohen’s Weighted Kappa10.1016/j.eswa.2006.10.022 ↗
44. Bica, M., Palen, L., and Bopp, C. (2017, January 3–7). Visual representations of disaster. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, Jersey City, NJ, USA.10.1145/2998181.2998212 ↗