SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison study on landslide prediction through FAHP and Dempster–Shafer methods and their evaluation by P–A plots

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Environmental Earth Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One of the important issues in identifying susceptible landslide locations is to select effective factors in the landslide of studied areas. The complexity of this issue is due to the fact that each of the factors is a part of the desired criteria, and the selection among them is a multi-criteria decision-making problem, requiring a structured and systematic approach. In the study area, the presence of large outcrops, as well as relatively thick soils formed on the formations, has caused a significant level of the province to potentially have the conditions for the movement of the tides. In addition, the situation is exacerbated by inappropriate use of natural resources, and construction of numerous rural and forest roads. In this paper, multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) such as the fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (FAHP) and Dempster–Shafer (DeS) method was used to detect susceptible landslide locations, and output maps were verified applying the prediction–area (P–A) method for landslide purposes. The study has utilized P–A plot to evaluate and compare the obtained results of FAHP and DeS methods. The results indicated that the normalized density value achieved from P–A plots was significantly higher for the FAHP than the corresponding value for the DeS. In other words, FAHP, compared to DeS, resulted in the successful detection of landslide occurrences and more accurate classification of the study area.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Althuwaynee OF, Pradhan B, Lee S (2012) Application of an evidential belief function model in landslide susceptibility map**. Comput Geosci 44:120–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayas Z, Ozdemir RG (2006) A fuzzy AHP approach to evaluating matching tool alternatives. J Intell Manuf 17:179–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beynon MJ (2002) An investigation of the role of scale values in the DS/AHP method of multi-criteria decision making. J Multi Criteria Decis Anal 11(6):327–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beynon M, Curry B, Morgan P (2000) The Dempster–Shafer theory of evidence: an alternative approach to multi criteria decision modelling. Omega 28(1):37–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley JJ (1985) Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst 17:233–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang DY (1996) Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur J Oper Res 95:649–655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang YH, Cheng CH, Wang TC (2003) Performance evaluation of international airports in the region of east Asia. Proc East Asia Soci Transp Stud 4:213–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen W, Wang J, **e X, Hong H, Van Trung N, Bui DT, Li X (2016) Spatial prediction of landslide susceptibility using integrated frequency ratio with entropy and support vector machines by different kernel functions. Environ Earth Sci 75(20):1344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chou TY, Liang GS (2001) Application of a fuzzy multi-criteria decision making model for ship** company performance evaluation. Marit Policy Manag 28(4):375–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dempster AP (1967) Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multi valued map**. Ann Math Stat 28:325–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deng H (1999) Multi criteria analysis with fuzzy pair-wise comparison. Int J Approx Reason 21:215–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enea M, Salemi G (2001) Fuzzy approach to the environmental impact evaluation. Ecol Model 135:131–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertugrul I, Karakasoglu N (2009) Performance evaluation of Turkish cement firms with fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS methods. Expert Syst Appl 36:702–715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Firomsa M, Abay A (2018) Landslide assessment and susceptibility zonation in Ebantu district of Oromia region, western Ethiopia. Bull Eng Geol Environ 78:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Fonooni B (1989) Investigating the causes of water level decline in the city of Gorgan. Irrigation Department, Kannur

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho W, Xu X, Dey PK (2010) Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 202(1):16–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee AHI, Chen WC, Chang CJ (2008) A fuzzy AHP and BCS approach for evaluating performance of IT department in the manufacturing industry in Taiwan. Expert Syst Appl 34:96–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee S, Lee MJ, Lee S (2018) Spatial prediction of urban landslide susceptibility based on topographic factors using boosted trees. Environ Earth Sci 77(18):656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mezaal MR, Pradhan B, Shafri HZM, Yusoff ZM (2017) Automatic landslide detection using Dempster–Shafer theory from LiDAR-derived data and orthophotos. Geomat Nat Hazards Risk 8(2):1935–1954

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohammady M, Pourghasemi HR, Pradhan B (2012) Landslide susceptibility map** at Golestan Province, Iran: a comparison between frequency ratio, Dempster–Shafer, and weights-of-evidence models. J Asian Earth Sci 61:221–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park NW (2011) Application of Dempster–Shafer theory of evidence to GIS-based landslide susceptibility analysis. Environ Earth Sci 62(2):367–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pohekar SD, Ramachandran M (2004) Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning—a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 8(4):365–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shafer G (1976) A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton University Press, Priceton

    Google Scholar 

  • Shirani K, Pasandi M, Arabameri A (2018) Landslide susceptibility assessment by Dempster–Shafer and Index of Entropy models, Sarkhoun basin Southwestern Iran. Nat Hazards 93(3):1379–1418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun HY, Wu X, Wang DF, Liang X, Shang YQ (2018) Analysis of deformation mechanism of landslide in complex geological conditions. Bull Eng Geol Environ 78:1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang H (2015) A novel fuzzy soft set approach in decision making based on grey relational analysis and Dempster–Shafer theory of evidence. Appl Soft Comput 31:317–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang Y, Beynon MJ (2005) Application and development of a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process within a capital Investment study. J Econ Manag 1(2):207–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Triantaphyllou E, Lin CT (1996) Development and evaluation of five fuzzy multi-attribute decision-making methods. Int J Approx Reason 14:281–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varnes DJ (1958) Landslide types and processes. Landslides Eng Pract 24:20–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Varnes DJ (1978) Slope movement types and processes. Spec Rep 176:11–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Yousefi M, Carranza EJM (2015) Prediction-area (P–A) plot and C–A fractal analysis to classify and evaluate evidential maps for mineral prospectivity modeling. Comput Geosci 79:69–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yousefi M, Nykänen V (2015) Data-driven logistic-based weighting of geochemical and geological evidence layers in mineral prospectivity map**. J Geochem Explor 164:94–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Youssef AM, Pourghasemi HR, El-Haddad BA, Dhahry BK (2016) Landslide susceptibility maps using different probabilistic and bivariate statistical models and comparison of their performance at Wadi Itwad Basin, Asir Region, Saudi Arabia. Bull Eng Geol Env 75(1):63–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao GW, Jiang YJ, Qiao JP, Yang ZJ, Ding PP (2018) Numerical and experimental study on the formation mode of a landslide dam and its influence on dam breaching. Bull Eng Geol Environ 78:1–15

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran

    Maryam Mokhtari

  2. Department of Mining Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran

    Zohre Hoseinzade

  3. Soil Conservation and Watershed Management Research Department, Isfahan Agricultural and Natural Resources, Research and Education Center, AREEO, Isfahan, Iran

    Kourosh Shirani

Authors
  1. Maryam Mokhtari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zohre Hoseinzade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kourosh Shirani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kourosh Shirani.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mokhtari, M., Hoseinzade, Z. & Shirani, K. A comparison study on landslide prediction through FAHP and Dempster–Shafer methods and their evaluation by P–A plots. Environ Earth Sci 79, 76 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-019-8804-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-019-8804-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation