Comparative assessment of machine learning models for landslide susceptibility mapping: a focus on validation and accuracy

Mohamed M. Abdelkader () and Árpád Csámer ()
Additional contact information
Mohamed M. Abdelkader: University of Debrecen
Árpád Csámer: University of Debrecen

Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, 2025, vol. 121, issue 9, No 12, 10299-10321

Abstract: Abstract Accurate landslide susceptibility mapping (LSM) is critical to risk management, especially in areas with significant development. Although the receiver operating characteristic–area under the curve (ROC–AUC) performance metrics are commonly used to measure model effectiveness, showed that these are not enough to check the reliability of the generated maps. In this study, the effectiveness of three machine learning models—logistic regression (LR), random forest (RF), and support vector machine (SVM)—were evaluated and compared in predicting landslide risk in a hilly region east of Cairo, Egypt. A comprehensive dataset was gathered to achieve that, including 183 landslide and 183 non-landslide locations, which were detected through fieldwork and high-resolution satellite imagery. Fourteen conditioning factors from different categories; topographical, geological, hydrological, anthropological, and trigger-related variables, were used as independent factors during the generation of the different LSM. All three models achieved high ROC–AUC values, with RF scoring 0.95, SVM 0.90, and LR 0.88, indicating strong performance. However, further assessment with additional performance metrics like accuracy (ACC), recall, precision, F1 score, and check rationality of the maps revealed key differences. Among the models, only the RF model appeared as the most reliable, with superior across all performance metrics, and fewer misclassifications in critical areas. In contrast, SVM and LR exhibited higher misclassification rates for both landslide-prone and safe locations. These findings show that high ROC–AUC values do not always equate to practical reliability.

Keywords: Machine learning; Random forest; Landslide; SHAP value; ROC–AUC; Cairo (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11069-025-07197-0 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:121:y:2025:i:9:d:10.1007_s11069-025-07197-0

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11069

DOI: 10.1007/s11069-025-07197-0

Access Statistics for this article

Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards is currently edited by Thomas Glade, Tad S. Murty and Vladimír Schenk

More articles in Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards from Springer, International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().