The Impact of Quality of Digital Elevation Models on the Result of Landslide Susceptibility Modeling Using the Method of Weights of Evidence

Abstract

The paper discusses the impact that the quality of the digital elevation model (DEM) has on the final result of landslide susceptibility modeling (LSM). The landslide map was developed on the basis of the analysis of archival geological maps and the Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) digital elevation model. In addition, complementary field studies were conducted. In total, 92 landslides were inventoried and their degree of activity was assessed. An inventory of the landslides was prepared using a 1-m-LiDAR DEM and field research. Two digital photogrammetric elevation models with an elevation pixel resolution of 20 m were used for landslide susceptibility modeling. The first digital elevation model was obtained from a LiDAR point cloud (DEM–airborne laser scanning (ALS)), while the second model was developed based on archival digital stereo-pair aerial images (DEM–Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS)). Both models were subjected to filtration using a Gaussian low-pass filter to reduce errors in their elevation relief. Then, using ArcGIS software, a differential model was generated to illustrate the differences in morphology between the models. The maximum differences in topographic elevations between the DEM–ALS and DEM–LPIS models were calculated. The Weights-of-Evidence model is a geostatistical method used for the landslide susceptibility modeling. Six passive factors were employed in the process of susceptibility generation: elevation, slope gradient, exposure, topographic roughness index (TRI), distance from tectonic lines, and distance from streams. As a result, two landslide susceptibility maps (LSM) were obtained. The accuracy of the landslide susceptibility models was assessed based on the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve index. The area under curve (AUC) values obtained from the ROC curve indicate that the accuracy of classification for the LSM–DEM–ALS model was 78%, and for the LSM–LPIS–DEM model was 73%.