Comparison of different open‐source Digital Elevation Models for landslide susceptibility mapping
Dingyang Lu,Guoan Tang,Ge Yan,Fengyize Yu,Xiaofen Lin
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.5777
IF: 3.9563
2024-02-10
Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
Abstract:Two machine learning methods, K‐Nearest Neighbours (KNN) and Random Forest (RF), were employed to compare the disparities among commonly used open‐source digital elevation models (DEMs) in landslide susceptibility mapping. The study revealed significant differences among the DEMs, with the Copernicus DEM 30 m (referred to as COP) emerging as the most recommended option due to its superior rendering performance and stability. In this study, the application of open‐source digital elevation model (DEM) is explored for regional landslide susceptibility mapping (LSM), and the potential impact of different DEM choices on the mapping accuracy is also examined. With the advancements in remote sensing technology, an increasing number of global open‐source DEMs have been available, with improvement in the accuracy. However, the latest released data are rarely evaluated in LSM research. In this paper, DEM‐based factors, including elevation, aspect, slope, plan curvature and profile curvature, were generated from seven open‐source DEMs, including Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection (ASTER) V2, ASTERV3, ALOS World 3D‐30 m (AW3D30), Copernicus DEM 30 m (COP) Forest and Buildings removed Copernicus DEM (FABDEM), NASADEM, and Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM). DEM‐based factors were coupled with the distance to road, distance to river, land use, lithology, rain and normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI). The significant difference between DEMs is determined by comparing the area proportion. Slope, plane curvature and profile curvature are found to have a maximum difference of 15%–20%. Then, K‐Nearest Neighbours (KNN) and Random Forest (RF) were used to predict landslide susceptibility with two sampling methods, namely, 70% for training and 30% for testing (S1); 67% for training and 33% for testing (S2). For KNN with S1, the prediction rate is range from 0.8299 to 0.8701, with a difference of 0.0402. The difference of prediction rate is decreased to 0.0207 for S2 and 0.0258 for RF. COP has the highest prediction rate of 0.8701, 0.9254 and 0.9461 for KNN with S1 and RF with S1 and S2, respectively. ASTERV2 is the worst with prediction rate of 0.8897 and 0.8996 for KNN with S2 and RF with S1, respectively. The research result provides valuable insights for the selection of open‐source DEMs in future LSM.
geosciences, multidisciplinary,geography, physical