4.7 Article

A Comparison of an Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy and Frequency Ratio Model to Landslide-Susceptibility Mapping along Forest Road Networks

期刊

FORESTS
卷 12, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/f12081087

关键词

ANFIS; frequency ratio; Hyrcanian forest; landslide

类别

资金

  1. Iran National Science Foundation [96002191]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study utilized an integration of ANFIS and frequency ratio models to predict landslide susceptibility along forest road networks in the Hyrcanian Forest, northern Iran. By mapping landslide locations and selecting conditioning factors, the researchers developed models and evaluated their accuracy for natural hazard management applications.
In this research, we used the integration of frequency ratio and adaptive neuro-fuzzy modeling (ANFIS) to predict landslide susceptibility along forest road networks in the Hyrcanian Forest, northern Iran. We began our study by first mapping landslide locations during an extensive field survey. In addition, we then selected landslide-conditioning factors, such as slope, aspect, altitude, rainfall, geology, soil, road age, and slip position from the available Geographic Information System (GIS) data. Following this, we developed Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) models with two different membership functions (MFs) in order to generate landslide susceptibility maps. We applied a frequency ratio model to the landslide susceptibility mapping and compared the results with the probabilistic ANFIS model. Finally, we calculated map accuracy by evaluating receiver-operating characteristics (ROC). The validation results yielded 70.7% accuracy using the triangular MF model, 67.8% accuracy using the Gaussian MF model, and 68.8% accuracy using the frequency ratio model. Our results indicated that the ANFIS is an effective tool for regional landslide susceptibility assessment, and the maps produced in the study area can be used for natural hazard management in the landslide-prone area of the Hyrcanian region.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据