Fig 1.
Geographic overview and locations of landslides.
(a) Jiuzhaigou study area; (b) Ludian validation area; (c) Luding validation area. Source: The boundaries, roads, and rivers used in the map are derived from http://www.naturalearthdata.com/. The map was originally produced by the authors.
Table 1.
Description and sources of datasets.
Fig 2.
Statistical analysis of factors affecting landslides.
Fig 3.
Research technology roadmap.
Fig 4.
Rock formations in the study area.
Table 2.
Values of physical parameters of engineered rock formations.
Fig 5.
Stabilization of key parameters with increasing sample size for Softer Rock Group.
a Effective cohesion (∁), b Effective friction angle (φ).
Fig 6.
Map showing distribution of static factor of safety and critical acceleration.
(a) Static factor of safety ; (b) Critical acceleration
. Source:
and
were modeled; slopes and regional boundaries were sourced from http://www.naturalearthdata.com/.The map was originally produced by the authors.
Fig 7.
Distribution of Newmark displacement values in Jiuzhaigou valley.
(a) Dn1; (b) Dn2. Source: Dn was modeled; boundaries from http://www.naturalearthdata.com/. The map was originally produced by the authors.
Fig 8.
Newmark-based landslide hazard classification.
(a) Dn1; (b) Dn2. Source: Hazard zones modeled; boundaries from http://www.naturalearthdata.com/. The map was originally produced by the authors.
Table 3.
Statistical results of the Newmark displacement equation Dn1 hazard zoning.
Table 4.
Statistical results of the Newmark displacement equation Dn2 hazard zoning.
Fig 9.
Impact factor pearson correlation coefficient.
Fig 10.
a DEM, b Distance to road, c Distance to parallel fault, d Slope, e Distance to river, f PGA, g Slope direction, h Distance to epicentral, i Curvature. Source: Slope, curvature, slope surface derived from DEM; Roads, rivers from http://www.naturalearthdata.com/; PGA, epicentral distance, faults from USGS. The map was originally produced by the authors.
Fig 11.
Distribution of landslide sites and non-landslide sites.
Fig 12.
AUC curves for different models.
Table 5.
Comparison of model MSE, RMSE, Precision, Recall, F1 metrics.
Fig 13.
Importance ranking of feature parameters.
Fig 14.
Landslide hazard zone forecast distribution map.
(a) N_XGBoost; (b) N_RF; (c) Dn_XGBoost; (d) Dn_RF; (e) XGBoost; (f) RF. Source: Hazard zones modeled; regional boundaries from http://www.naturalearthdata.com/. The map was originally produced by the authors.
Fig 15.
Comparison of Newmark landslide model and hybrid model results.
Table 6.
Comparison of results of similar studies.
Fig 16.
(a) Luding; (b) Ludian landslide hazard zones. Source: Hazard zones modeled; regional boundaries from http://www.naturalearthdata.com/. The map was originally produced by the authors.