The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Landslide susceptibility estimation by random forests technique: sensitivity and scaling issues
Open accessAbstract
Abstract. Despite the large number of recent advances and developments in landslide susceptibility mapping (LSM) there is still a lack of studies focusing on specific aspects of LSM model sensitivity. For example, the influence of factors such as the survey scale of the landslide conditioning variables (LCVs), the resolution of the mapping unit (MUR) and the optimal number and ranking of LCVs have never been investigated analytically, especially on large data sets. In this paper we attempt this experimentation concentrating on the impact of model tuning choice on the final result, rather than on the comparison of methodologies. To this end, we adopt a simple implementation of the random forest (RF), a machine learning technique, to produce an ensemble of landslide susceptibility maps for a set of different model settings, input data types and scales. Random forest is a combination of Bayesian trees that relates a set of predictors to the actual landslide occurrence. Being it a nonparametric model, it is possible to incorporate a range of numerical or categorical data layers and there is no need to select unimodal training data as for example in linear discriminant analysis. Many widely acknowledged landslide predisposing factors are taken into account as mainly related to the lithology, the land use, the geomorphology, the structural and anthropogenic constraints. In addition, for each factor we also include in the predictors set a measure of the standard deviation (for numerical variables) or the variety (for categorical ones) over the map unit. As in other systems, the use of RF enables one to estimate the relative importance of the single input parameters and to select the optimal configuration of the classification model. The model is initially applied using the complete set of input variables, then an iterative process is implemented and progressively smaller subsets of the parameter space are considered. The impact of scale and accuracy of input variables, as well as the effect of the random component of the RF model on the susceptibility results, are also examined. The model is tested in the Arno River basin (central Italy). We find that the dimension of parameter space, the mapping unit (scale) and the training process strongly influence the classification accuracy and the prediction process. This, in turn, implies that a careful sensitivity analysis making use of traditional and new tools should always be performed before producing final susceptibility maps at all levels and scales.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Breiman, L. (2001) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324 · Cited by 133,538
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-3338 · Cited by 35,305
Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000) · doi:10.1002/0471722146 · Cited by 20,302
BEVEN, K. J., & KIRKBY, M. J. (1979) · Hydrological Sciences Bulletin · doi:10.1080/02626667909491834 · Cited by 6,670
Strobl, C., Malley, J., & Tutz, G. (2009) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0016973 · Cited by 2,583
Cited by
Chen, W., Peng, J., Hong, H., Shahabi, H., Pradhan, B., Liu, J., Zhu, A.-X., Pei, X., & Duan, Z. (2018) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.124 · Cited by 478
Metadata
- Authors
- Catani, F., Lagomarsino, D., Segoni, S., & Tofani, V.
- Venue
- Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
- Publisher
- Copernicus GmbH
- Published
- 2013-11-13
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 2815-2831
- ISSN
- 1561-8633 (ISSN-L)
- 1684-9981
- OpenAlex
- W2117350110
- Cited by
- 695
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 49.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Landslide susceptibility estimation by random forests technique: sensitivity and scaling issues. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5194/nhess-13-2815-2013
- The paper
- Catani, F., Lagomarsino, D., Segoni, S., & Tofani, V. (2013). Landslide susceptibility estimation by random forests technique: sensitivity and scaling issues. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-13-2815-2013
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.