sensors

Article
Building Vulnerability to Landslides: Broad-Scale Assessment in
Xinxing County, China
Fengting Shi 1 , Ling Li 2 , Xueling Wu 1 , Yueyue Wang 1 and Ruiqing Niu 1, *

1 School of Geophysics and Geomatics, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China;
[email protected] (F.S.); [email protected] (X.W.); [email protected] (Y.W.)
2 School of Future Technology, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-13377887265

Abstract: This study develops a model to assess building vulnerability across Xinxing County
by integrating quantitative derivation with machine learning techniques. Building vulnerability
is characterized as a function of landslide hazard risk and building resistance, wherein landslide
hazard risk is derived using CNN (1D) for nine hazard-causing factors (elevation, slope, slope shape,
geotechnical body type, geological structure, vegetation cover, watershed, and land-use type) and
landslide sites; building resistance is determined through quantitative derivation. After evaluating the
building susceptibility of all the structures, the susceptibility of each village is then calculated through
subvillage statistics, which are aimed at identifying the specific needs of each area. Simultaneously,
different landslide hazard classes are categorized, and an analysis of the correlation between building
resistance and susceptibility reveals that building susceptibility exhibits a positive correlation with
landslide hazard and a negative correlation with building resistance. Following a comprehensive
assessment of building susceptibility in Xinxing County, a sample encompassing different landslide
intensity areas and susceptibility classes of buildings was chosen for on-site validation, thus yielding
an accuracy rate of the results as high as 94.5%.

Keywords: landslide hazard; building resistance; CNN; quantitative risk modeling

Citation: Shi, F.; Li, L.; Wu, X.; Wang, 1. Introduction

Y.; Niu, R. Building Vulnerability to
Vulnerability is characterized as the degree of loss sustained by a given element or
Landslides: Broad-Scale Assessment
group of elements within an area affected by a disaster, and it is quantified on a scale from 0
in Xinxing County, China. Sensors
2024, 24, 4366. https://doi.org/
(no loss) to 1 (total loss) [1]. Existing studies categorize the methods for assessing building
10.3390/s24134366
vulnerability into two primary categories: One approach relies on the investigation and
analysis of data from historical disasters, thus providing empirical values or empirical
Academic Editor: Jiawei Xiang vulnerability curves for different types of buildings by considering their attributes and
Received: 11 May 2024 characteristics; these values typically range between 0 and 1 [2]. The other method considers
Revised: 29 June 2024 building vulnerability as the potential loss to a structure, which is determined by calculating
Accepted: 30 June 2024 the likelihood of exposure to a disaster and the building’s value.
Published: 5 July 2024 The early research on landslide susceptibility analysis was pioneered by scholars who
assessed the susceptibility of landslide hazards using topographic and geological maps. The
development of Remote Sensing (RS) and Geographic Information System (GIS) technolo-
gies has greatly contributed to the methodology for assessing landslide susceptibility and
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. risk. For instance, the spatial overlay analysis of landslide distribution maps, slope maps,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. and geological maps has been utilized to enhance the precision of landslide hazard assess-
This article is an open access article ments. The introduction of multifactorial integrated prediction methods and the application
distributed under the terms and
of GIS technology in data processing and management have further advanced landslide
conditions of the Creative Commons
hazard risk assessment methodologies. In recent years, various advanced modeling tech-
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
niques have been utilized to enhance the prediction and assessment of natural disasters.
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
For example, Xie et al. [3] proposed a Monte Carlo method to estimate the probability of
4.0/).

Sensors 2024, 24, 4366. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24134366 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors

Sensors 2024, 24, 4366 2 of 22

cyclone impacts using historical data, thus providing a probabilistic framework for urban
planning and disaster preparedness. Similarly, an integrated hydrological–geotechnical
model (iHydroSlide3D v1.0) has been developed to simulate flood–landslide cascading
events, thus demonstrating the importance of coupling hydrological and geotechnical
processes for accurate disaster prediction [4].
With advancements in computer technology and data processing capabilities, research
methods have shifted from qualitative to quantitative analyses and integrated evaluation
approaches. Buckle developed a multidimensional social life vulnerability assessment
framework [5]. Papathoma-Köhle proposed a quantitative formula for assessing building
vulnerability, which influenced by five factors: the building materials, the surrounding envi-
ronment, the orientation towards the slope, the presence of warning signs, and the number
of building floors [6]. Uzielli redefined vulnerability within quantitative risk estimation as
a function of landslide strength and the susceptibility of vulnerable elements (V = I ∗ S),
thus providing a detailed explanation [7]. Li’s quantitative model for structural and human
susceptibility considers both landslide strength and the resistance of exposed units, thus
defining susceptibility (V) as a function of hazard intensity (I) and the resistance to the
threat (R) [8]. Furthermore, Silva proposed a semiquantitative approach, thus defining
susceptibility as a function of building resistance (BR) and landslide magnitude (LM), with
the building resistance weighted by expert knowledge and a landslide magnitude set at
0.6 [9]. In a Portuguese municipality, Guillard-Gonçalves conducted a semiquantitative
physical susceptibility assessment of buildings by calculating a weighted average based
on the number of each structural building type within the BGRI [10]. Singh expanded on
this by defining susceptibility as a function of landslide intensity and building resistance
(PV = f ( I, R)) [11], thus noting a different approach from Li, where landslide intensity
(I) was based on landslide volume (v) and velocity (s). Glade and Crozier highlighted
the complexity of quantitatively expressing susceptibility, thus emphasizing the challenge
in understanding the relationship between landslide hazard characteristics and damage
traits [10]. In 2012, Papathoma-Köhle introduced the concept of a susceptibility curve
defined as a function ( f ( DL, I )) of the process intensity and degree of loss [12]. Kang and
Kim developed physical susceptibility curves for different building structures to assess
mudslide risk based on empirical data on mudslide intensity and building damage lev-
els [13]. Godfrey performed a physical susceptibility assessment for hydrometeorological
hazards using an expert methodology in areas with limited hazard data, thus utilizing
susceptibility indices and curves to generate area-specific susceptibility curves [14]. These
curves were then applied to assess the mudslide risk across various building structures.
Since machine learning not only reduces human error but also possesses the ability
to process big data, as well as enhance accuracy, efficiency, and adaptability, these ad-
vantages together contribute to the widespread use of machine learning in the field of
building susceptibility assessments. Dai effectively simulated slope instability using GIS
techniques and logistic multiple regression analysis [15,16]. Duman used an extensive
landslide database and logistic regression analysis to develop a model that characterizes
landslide susceptibility in map form, thus achieving an accuracy rate of 83.8% in classifying
landslide susceptibility zones [17]. Using GIS and the information value method, maps
were produced and classified through geostatistical analysis based on the calculated haz-
ard information values of different evaluating genes [18]. Mück applied remote sensing
techniques to assess building vulnerability to earthquakes and tsunamis, thus classifying
and mapping this vulnerability [19].Hadji utilized raster-based GIS and statistical process-
ing to delineate landslide hazards in the Souk Ahras province. Tabular data, maps, and
satellite images were compiled, processed, and integrated into a spatial database on a GIS
platform, with landslide hazard zones being assessed and mapped through the application
of probabilistic and logistic regression methods involving maps of landslide incidence
and permanence factors [20]. Geiß conducted a quantitative evaluation of the applica-
bility of multisensor remote sensing techniques for assessing the seismic susceptibility
of buildings [21]. Thennavan employed ArcGIS to examine building vulnerability and
Sensors 2024, 24, 4366 3 of 22

its spatial distribution in the mountainous areas of the Nilgiris district, Western Ghats,
India [22]. Techniques such as the Least Squares Support Vector Machine (LSSVM) and
Multiclass Alternating Decision Tree (MADT) were utilized to compare methods for the
spatial prediction of landslides [23]. Chen employed GIS-based models, including DS,
LR, and ANN, to map landslide susceptibility in the Shangzhou district of Shangluo city,
Shaanxi Province, China. The results indicate that the ANN model achieved higher training
and prediction accuracy compared to the other models [24]. Hong utilized Logistic Regres-
sion and Random Forest models to construct landslide susceptibility maps in the Wuyuan
area, China [25]. Su et al. employed Support Vector Machines (SVMs), Logistic Regression
(LR), and Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) to develop three distinct landslide models
and compare various nonlinear landslide susceptibility mapping techniques [26]. Liu
quantified the susceptibility of railway systems to rainfall-induced hazards using Random
Forests [27]. Arabameri employed four methodologies—EBF, FR, TOPSIS, and VIKOR—to
create flood hazard susceptibility maps (FHSMs), with the EBF model demonstrating a
superior prediction rate in the validation phase [28]. Chen evaluated the effectiveness of
landslide susceptibility mapping by comparing the traditional bivariate weight of evidence
(WoE) with a hybrid approach of multivariate logistic regression (WoE-LR) and machine
learning-based Random Forest (WoE-RF), thereby finding that the hybrid model surpassed
the others in performance [29]. Zhang employed a Bayesian network model to quantita-
tively assess earthquake-induced landslide susceptibility, thus considering key factors such
as sediment thickness, building damage, evacuation, and resistance [30].
In previous studies on building vulnerability, methods integrating quantitative for-
mula derivation and machine learning have been scarce; most have relied solely on either
quantitative formula derivation or pure machine learning for vulnerability assessment.
However, these approaches each have their limitations: quantitative formula derivation
may not fully utilize modern data analysis techniques, while pure machine learning meth-
ods can be overly dependent on large-scale, high-quality data and may lack the ability to
be interpreted by humans.
This study addresses these challenges by integrating quantitative formula derivation
with machine learning techniques to enhance the accuracy and efficiency of building
vulnerability assessments. This integration improves interpretability and reduces the
dependence on extensive high-quality data. Specifically, this research aims to develop an
effective, accurate, and interpretable model for assessing building vulnerability on a large
scale. This study utilizes advanced machine learning algorithms, such as Convolutional
Neural Networks (CNN), to quantitatively evaluate landslide hazard risks. It calculates
building resistance through quantitative derivation based on structural characteristics,
integrates these assessments to evaluate the vulnerability of all buildings in Xinxing County,
and validates the model through on-site verification to ensure accuracy and reliability. This
approach offers a comprehensive and adaptable framework for assessing vulnerability
across diverse scenarios and needs. Furthermore, the paper details the methodology for
the landslide hazard assessment, data acquisition, and processing methods, as well as the
calculation of building resistance, and it presents the results of the vulnerability assessments
and their validation. This comprehensive approach allows for a nuanced understanding of
building vulnerability in the context of landslide hazards and offers valuable insights for
disaster risk management.

2. Proposed Methodology for Quantitative Assessment of Building Vulnerability

Building on previous research in the quantitative assessment of building vulnerabil-
ity [8,11], this study proposes a formula for the large-scale vulnerability assessment (PV)
of buildings affected by landslides. Building vulnerability, denoted as PV, is defined in this
study as a function of the landslide hazard (I) and building resistance (R), as illustrated in
Equation (1).
Sensors 2024, 24, 4366 4 of 22

 2

 2 RI 2 I
R ≤ 0.5
2
PV = f ( I, R) = 2( R − I ) I (1)
 1− R2
0.5 < R ≤ 1.0
 I
1.0 R > 1.0
where we have the following:
I represents the landslide hazard, thus ranging from 0 to 1;
R represents the building resistance, thus ranging from 0 to 1.
The distinction from previous studies lies in that I, in the building susceptibility equa-
tions proposed by Li and Singh, represents the landslide intensity. For Li, I is influenced
by the dynamic intensity factor (Idyn) and the geometric intensity factor (Igem), while
for Singh, I is determined by the landslide volume (v) and the expected velocity of the
landslide (s). In this study, I is innovatively redefined as the landslide hazard, and a
Convolutional Neural Network is employed to quantify this hazard as a specific value
within the interval from 0 to 1.
The data were collected from various sources, including satellite imagery, geolog-
ical surveys, and historical landslide records. The collected data were then cleaned to
remove any inconsistencies and standardized to ensure uniformity. To address the is-
sue of class imbalance in the dataset, we applied the Synthetic Minority Oversampling
Technique (SMOTE).
We employed a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) to quantify the landslide
hazard (I). The CNN model was trained on preprocessed data to learn the complex relation-
ships between the input features (such as topography, geological structure, vegetation cover,
etc.) and landslide occurrences. The model architecture included multiple convolutional
layers with 3 × 3 filters, ReLU activation functions, and max pooling layers to extract and
process the spatial features. The output of the CNN model is a probability value between 0
and 1, thus representing the landslide hazard for each building.
Building resistance (R) was quantified using six key factors: structural composition,
number of floors, construction materials, building age, geographic location, and accessibil-
ity. Each factor was assigned a resistance coefficient based on empirical data and expert
judgment. The overall building resistance was calculated using the geometric mean of
these coefficients to ensure a balanced contribution from each factor.
The vulnerability of each building (PV) was assessed by integrating the landslide haz-
ard (I) and building resistance (R) using the proposed formula. This formula quantified the
vulnerability of over 230,000 buildings in Xinxing County, thus expressing each building’s
vulnerability as a specific value between 0 and 1. This detailed quantification allowed for
precise vulnerability mapping and targeted risk mitigation strategies (Figure 1).

2.1. Methods for Landslide Hazard Assessment

Landslide hazard assessment involves evaluating the potential for landslide occur-
rences by analyzing various contributing factors such as topography, geomorphology,
geological structure, vegetation cover, land-use type, and hydrometeorological conditions.
The advent of machine learning (ML) techniques has significantly enhanced the accu-
racy and comprehensiveness of these assessments by modeling the complex relationships
between causative factors and landslide events [31].
Several machine learning models have been effectively applied to landslide suscepti-
bility mapping (LSM), with each demonstrating varying degrees of success. Random Forest
(RF), Support Vector Machines (SVMs), and Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) are com-
monly used ML models for LSM. These models utilize extensive datasets, including satellite
imagery, remote sensing data, historical landslide records, and geographical information
systems (GISs), to predict landslide-prone areas with high accuracy [32]. For instance,
in a study along the Karakorum Highway in Northern Pakistan, researchers applied RF,
Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), K-Nearest Neighbors (k-NN), and Naive Bayes (NB)
models to generate a landslide inventory map. The study categorized landslide areas for
Sensors 2024, 24, 4366 5 of 22

validation and training, thus finding that the RF model achieved the highest accuracy and
demonstrating its effectiveness in integrating multiple causative factors and producing
reliable susceptibility maps [33].

Figure 1. Flowchart showing the methodology for assessing the physical vulnerability of buildings
exposed to landslides.

Deep learning (DL) models, such as Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), have
also been employed to enhance landslide susceptibility mapping. These models are partic-
ularly effective in handling large datasets and capturing complex patterns within the data.
The combination of DL models with traditional ML techniques has led to the development
of hybrid and ensemble models, which often outperform single ML models in terms of their
accuracy and reliability [31]. By utilizing advanced ML and DL techniques, researchers can
create high-resolution landslide susceptibility maps that provide essential information for
disaster management and mitigation efforts. These maps aid policymakers, engineers, and
the public in identifying high-risk areas and implementing measures to reduce the impact
of landslides on communities and infrastructure.
Through these examples, it is evident that machine learning models have significantly
improved the precision and reliability of landslide hazard assessments, thus making them
indispensable tools in modern geohazard management.

2.2. Convolutional Neural Networks

Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) are a type of artificial neural network de-
signed for processing structured grid data, such as images. They have proven highly
effective in analyzing visual data due to their ability to capture the spatial hierarchies of
features through layers of local connections and weight sharing. CNNs consist of multiple
layers, including convolutional layers, pooling layers, and fully connected layers. The
convolutional layers apply learnable filters to the input data, which helps in detecting
various features like edges and textures. These filters slide over the input image, thus
performing an elementwise multiplication and sum with the input data, followed by the
application of an activation function such as ReLU (Rectified Linear Unit). Pooling layers,
typically max pooling, reduce the spatial dimensions of the feature maps while retaining the
most significant information. This reduction helps in decreasing computational complexity
and controlling overfitting by progressively reducing the spatial size of the representation.
Sensors 2024, 24, 4366 6 of 22

After several convolutional and pooling layers, the network includes fully connected layers.
These layers flatten the feature maps and connect every neuron in one layer to every neuron
in the next layer, thus enabling the network to make the final classification decisions based
on the high-level features extracted by the preceding layers [34].
CNNs are particularly effective for tasks such as landslide susceptibility mapping
and building vulnerability assessments due to their ability to handle large datasets and
complex patterns. By integrating CNNs into the assessment framework, this study aims to
compute landslide hazard values and provide a broad-scale quantitative assessment of the
disaster intensity for each building across the entire county, thereby improving the overall
evaluation of building vulnerability. For instance, in the practice of LSM in Qingchuan
County, Sichuan Province, China, Yi evaluated and compared ANN, 1D-CNN, and RNN,
thus finding satisfactory performance in predicting susceptible areas [35]. Similarly, CNNs
were used to perform GIS-based landslide susceptibility assessment in the Gorzineh-khil
region of northeastern Iran, thus showing superior accuracy, precision, and recall compared
to other methods [36].
In the assessment of the landslide hazard risk in Xinxing County, CNNs were uti-
lized to analyze complex datasets, including topography, vegetation cover, and historical
landslide occurrences. These networks effectively identify patterns indicating geological
instability and provide accurate predictions of potentially hazardous areas.

2.3. Building Resistance

Amatruda and his coauthors considered the structural–morphological type, state of
maintenance, and strategic relevance as factors influencing building susceptibility in their
analysis [37]. Vamvatsikos focused on the characteristics affecting seismic performance
for the general building population, including building materials, seismic design, level
of detailing, building height, and infill panel configuration [38]. Agliata selected five
metrics—structure types, as well as the maintenance status, building orientation, number of
floors, and number of openings for direct vulnerability assessment, emphasizing operability,
applicability, and low variability [39]. Additionally, the Global Seismic Modelling Initiative
identifies key factors such as building height, age, design, and construction quality as
primary metrics for assessing building stability.
The six pivotal factors identified for calculating building resistance in Xinxing County,
based on the available data and house characteristics, include structural composition (a),
number of floors (b), construction materials (c), building age (d), geographic location (e),
and accessibility ( f ). Drawing on a quantitative formula initially proposed by Li and
widely utilized in the field of building vulnerability assessment by Papathoma-Köhle
and Li et al., the model was specifically extended to include the geographic location and
accessibility to better measure the resistance value of buildings in Xinxing County, as
delineated in Equation (2) [8,11]. When they proposed their formulas, Li and Singh et al.
conducted empirical data and case studies in their respective articles, thus demonstrating
the effectiveness and accuracy of the proposed formulas [8,11].
This formula, which has been extensively applied in building vulnerability assess-
ments, employs the geometric mean to calculate the RRR, thus balancing the influence of
each factor. The use of the geometric mean ensures that no single factor disproportionately
affects the overall resistance value, thus mitigating the impact of extreme values and provid-
ing a more stable and realistic assessment of building resistance. This approach aligns with
the methodologies in the literature that emphasize a multifactorial assessment of building
resistance, thus making it a robust tool for evaluating the inherent resistance of buildings
to various hazards. Furthermore, preliminary field surveys in this study revealed a strong
correlation between the calculated resistance values and observed building conditions
across various disaster scenarios, thereby affirming the reliability of this formula.
p
6
R= a∗b∗c∗d∗e∗ f (2)
Sensors 2024, 24, 4366 7 of 22

3. Case Studies
3.1. Study Area
Xinxing County, situated within the jurisdiction of Yunfu City in Guangdong Province,
spans a longitude of 111◦ 58′ to 112◦ 31′ East. The county features a diverse and complex
topography that rises from the northeast’s lower elevations to the southwest’s higher
altitudes, thus culminating at Tianlu Mountain, which is the highest point at 1250.7 m above
sea level. This terrain primarily consists of a mixture of small basins, river valleys, hills, and
plateaus, and it is predominantly characterized by hills and mountains. Numerous rivers
originate from the high mountains in the south and the hills on the east and west, thereby
converging into three major water systems, with most streams feeding into the Xijiang
River system of the Pearl River Basin. The hydrological conditions in Xinxing are complex,
which are characterized by significant seasonal variations in rainfall. This variability is
particularly pronounced during the typhoon season from August to September, which
often leads to hydrological disasters such as flooding and waterlogging. Moreover, the
area is susceptible to soil erosion, landslides, and other mass wasting events, especially in
the upstream areas during the rainy season. The region’s geology is further complicated
by folding and fracturing activities, which amplify the susceptibility to landslide hazards.
This geological complexity, combined with uneven rainfall distribution, heightens the risk
of avalanches, landslides, and mudslides. A depiction of Xinxing County’s geographical
location is presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Location map of the study area in Xinxing County and examples of photos of landslide
disaster sites (a–g).
Sensors 2024, 24, 4366 8 of 22

3.2. Data Acquisition

3.2.1. Landslide Sites and Contributing Factors
Remote sensing was primarily employed to acquire the latest remote sensing data
and to conduct remote sensing surveys, which were complemented by ground surveys to
investigate the geological conditions conducive to disasters. Additionally, on-site inspec-
tions and assessments of changes at landslide hazard locations were performed. Utilizing
the results from a detailed 1:50,000 landslide disaster survey and other relevant data, a
remote sensing survey was executed to examine the geological conditions predisposing to
disasters across an area of 1522.26 km². The landslide slope map derived from this survey
is displayed in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Landslide slope map.

In Xinxing County, the primary disaster-causing factors include the topography and
geomorphology (elevation, slope, and slope shape), rock and soil body types, geological
Sensors 2024, 24, 4366 9 of 22

structure, vegetation cover, watersheds, and land-use type, thus encompassing nine aspects
in total. The spatial distribution of these nine influences is characterised by the nine
sub-figures a–i in Figure 4. Leveraging the outcomes of previous surveys, the disaster
prevention geological conditions were further enhanced and deciphered through remote
sensing technology. Specifically, topography, geological structure, vegetation cover, land-
use type, and gully characteristics were extracted using remote sensing interpretation
methods. Additionally, other information related to disaster-prone geological conditions,
such as engineering geological rock groups, water areas, and meteorological data, were
derived from existing data analysis. These factors influencing the disaster-prone geological
conditions are illustrated in Figure 4. To ensure the accuracy of the landslide disaster
survey and to address the specific requirements of the landslide disaster risk census efforts
in Xinxing County, a 1:50,000 landslide disaster distribution map was utilized. A raster
unit size of 30 m × 30 m was selected as the evaluation unit to express the results of the
landslide disaster risk assessment.

Figure 4. Characteristics of the spatial distribution of the influencing factors. (a) Topographic Relief
Height, (b) Lithology, (c) Slope, (d) Curvature, (e) Land Use and Land Cover (LULC), (f) Distance
from Fault, (g) NVDI, (h) Distance to Roads, (i) Rainfall Contour.
Sensors 2024, 24, 4366 10 of 22

3.2.2. Structural Parameters

Data pertaining to buildings in Xinxing County were sourced from the “One House,
One Land” rural real estate cadastral survey database of Guangdong Province. This study
identified six structural parameters that influence building resistance, specifically the
building structure (a), number of floors (b), materials used (c), age of the building (d),
geographical location (e), and building accessibility ( f ). Resistance coefficients for these
structural parameters were subjectively assigned based on a qualitative assessment [8], as
detailed in Table 1. Additionally, these resistance coefficients were quantitatively computed
using Equation (2) to determine the overall building resistance.

Table 1. Resistance coefficients for structural parameters of buildings in Xinxing County.

Structural Parameter Category Resistance Factor

Structure Type (sty) Other Structures 0.25
Brick and Wood Structure 0.5
Mixed Structure 0.75
Reinforced Concrete Structure 1
Number of Floors (st) One Floor 0.25
Two Floors 0.5
Three Floors 0.75
More than Three Floors 1
Terrain Undulation 0∼14 m 1
14∼22 m 0.75
22∼30 m 0.5
Above 30 m 0.25
Building Accessibility >500 m 0.2
225–500 m 0.4
125–225 m 0.6
60–125 m 0.8
0–60 m 1
Rock Factor Layered Soft Metamorphic Rock Group 0.2
Layered Strong Karstified Carbonate Rock Group 0.4
Sand, Gravel, Clay, and Double Soil Layer 0.6
Layered Hard Clastic Rock Group 0.8
Blocky Hard-Intrusive Rock Group 1
Building Age >60 years 0.2
40–60 years 0.4
30–40 years 0.6
15–30 years 0.8
0–15 years 1

4. Research Results and Validation

4.1. Results
4.1.1. Landslide Hazard Distribution Map of Xinxing County
In this study, to accurately assess the landslide intensity at each building site, we
employed a 30 m × 30 m grid cell approach for landslide susceptibility evaluation, thus
dividing the entire county into over 2.42 million grid cells. The assessment utilized nine
factors: rainfall, geological structure, NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index),
land-use type, slope shape, relief, distance to roads, slope gradient, and engineering rock
group. To balance the dataset, we applied the SMOTE (Synthetic Minority Oversampling
Technique) method, thus ensuring that the data input into the CNN model was well-
distributed. The CNN model was then used for the landslide hazard evaluation. We
carefully selected the CNN parameters to optimize the modeling process. This included
adjusting the number of convolutional layers, filter sizes, and pooling operations to enhance
the feature extraction and model performance. The parameters were fine-tuned based on
Sensors 2024, 24, 4366 11 of 22

the dataset’s characteristics and the computational resources available. We utilized grid
search techniques to further optimize the model parameters. Grid search systematically
traverses predefined parameter combinations, thus evaluating the performance of each
combination to find the optimal settings. For instance, we might adjust the number of
convolutional layers, the number and size of filters per layer, the type of pooling layers
(such as max pooling or average pooling), and the learning rates. Parameter optimization is
an iterative process. After each round of optimization, we adjusted the settings based on the
model’s performance on the validation set. This process was repeated until we identified the
parameter combination that yielded the best performance. After optimizing the parameters,
the best parameter combination was selected for model evaluation, thus resulting in an
AUC value of 0.85, which indicates a good level of performance. This high AUC value
demonstrates the model’s ability to accurately distinguish between high- and low-risk areas.
For visualization, the landslide hazard risk at each sample site was quantified and calibrated
between 0 and 1. This risk was then visualized through a color gradient—from green
(indicating low risk) to red (indicating high risk). This method enhances the readability
of the information and the ability to spatially identify potential threats. A map depicting
the distribution of landslide hazards in Xinxing County was produced, thus showcasing
these results (refer to Figure 5). By employing this comprehensive and optimized approach,
the study provides a detailed and accurate landslide hazard distribution map, which is
crucial for quantitatively assessing building vulnerability. This quantitative assessment of
landslide risk based on grid cells lays the foundation for the vulnerability assessment of
buildings in Xinxing County.

Figure 5. Landslide hazard distribution map of Xinxing County.

The natural breakpoint method is effective for classifying landslide hazard values
by addressing the heterogeneity of environmental factors and sample imbalance, thus
enhancing model accuracy and reliability [40]. This method has been widely used in
landslide susceptibility studies in Guangdong Province. For instance, in Luhe County,
it was employed to categorize landslide susceptibility into five levels, thus determining
the spatial probability [41]. In the Beijiang River Basin, it successfully identified clustered
shallow landslides following extreme rainfall events [42].
Based on these precedents, this study categorized the landslide hazard values in
Xinxing County into four zones—low, medium, high, and extremely high—thus providing
Sensors 2024, 24, 4366 12 of 22

a robust framework for hazard assessment.The landslide hazard zoning classifications for
Xinxing County are shown in Table 2:
• Extremely High-Hazard Zone
This zone is predominantly located in the northern parts of Liuzu Town and Taip-
ing Town and the southern part of Xincheng Town. It covers an area of approximately
199.36 km2 , thus representing 13.21% of the county’s total area. A total of 65 landslides and
geological hazards have been recorded in this zone.
• High-Hazard Zonev
Situated primarily in the middle regions of Tiantang Town, Dongcheng Town, and
Nimcun Town, as well as the southern areas of Taiping Town and Liuzu Town, this zone
spans about 396.16 km2 . It constitutes 26.25% of the county’s total area, with 95 landslide
and geological hazards identified.
• Medium-Hazard Zone
This zone is located mainly in the north of Dongcheng Town, Lezhu Town, and Hetou
Town, thus encompassing approximately 444.44 km2 . This area accounts for about 29.44%
of the county’s total area, with 82 landslide geological hazards noted.
• Low-Hazard Zone
The low-hazard zone chiefly covers Ridong Town, the southern part of Hetou Town,
and the northern region of Tiantang Town. It has a total area of about 614.95 km2 , thus
making up approximately 25.02% of the county’s total area. Here, 24 landslide geological
hazards have been observed.

Table 2. Xinxing County landslide hazard zoning scale.

Landslide Hazard Classification

Hazard Class
Number Percentage Number of Rasters Area (m2 ) Percentage
Low-hazard area 24 9.02% 521,562 469.4058 31.10%
Middle-hazard area 82 30.82% 493,817 444.4353 29.44%
High-hazard area 95 35.71% 440,181 396.1629 26.25%
Very high-hazard area 65 24.43% 221,511 199.3599 13.21%
Total 266 1 1,677,071 1509.3639 1

4.1.2. Building Resistance and Building Vulnerability in Xinxing County

In the results section, this study provides a detailed analysis of the building suscepti-
bility, resistance, and structural properties of the buildings in Hwang Kyung Tin village,
which were labeled from a to f . As shown in Table 3. It is important to note that the factors
influencing building resistance and their quantitative relationships have been clearly delin-
eated in Equations (1) and (2). Therefore, no additional explanation of these equations is
necessary in this section.
Given the extensive number of buildings in Xinxing County, this study employed
village-level statistics to illustrate the vulnerability of the structures effectively. The cor-
responding results of the village-level building vulnerability assessment are depicted in
Figure 6. The building vulnerability index for each village was calculated by aggregating
the vulnerability indices of the individual buildings.
In the comprehensive analysis of building vulnerability within Xinxing district, this
study has employed the quantile method to categorize building vulnerability into four
distinct classes: low, medium, high, and very high. Additionally, the study provides de-
tailed information on the number of villages classified within the two highest vulnerability
categories—high and very high—including their respective percentage shares of the total.
Figures 7 and 8 further detail the top-20 villages in these categories, thus offering crucial
insights into areas of heightened vulnerability within the district.
Sensors 2024, 24, 4366 13 of 22

Table 3. List of structural attributes of buildings in Wong Hing Tin Village.

ID Area/m2 a b c d e f R PV
0 105 0.8 0.25 0.75 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.410715 0.835709489
1 90 0.8 0.25 0.75 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.410715 0.835709489
2 85 0.8 0.25 0.75 0.2 0.2 1 0.426277 0.91029835
3 87 0.8 0.25 0.75 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.391487 0.794509013
4 36 0.8 0.25 0.75 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.391487 0.857531181
5 94 0.8 0.25 0.75 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.391487 0.857531181
6 72 0.8 0.25 0.75 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.410715 0.96319616
7 77 0.8 0.25 0.75 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.410715 0.96319616
8 76 0.8 0.25 0.75 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.391487 1
9 72 0.8 0.25 0.75 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.391487 0.784566279
10 71 0.8 0.25 0.75 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.391487 0.784566279
11 33 0.8 0.25 0.75 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.410715 0.933814254
12 21 0.8 0.25 0.75 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.410715 0.882111931
13 98 0.8 0.25 0.75 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.410715 0.991538269
14 36 0.8 0.25 0.75 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.410715 0.768561856
15 51 0.8 0.25 0.75 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.410715 0.488585915
16 79 0.8 0.25 0.75 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.391487 0.857531181
17 35 0.8 0.25 0.75 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.391487 0.735061062

Figure 6. Distribution of building vulnerability values by village.

Conducting the vulnerability assessment at the village level enables a more precise
understanding of the specific needs and vulnerabilities of each area. Notably, the villages
of She Wai and Hei Tsuen, as illustrated in Figure 7, were found to contain a significant
number of buildings categorized under the “high” and “very high” vulnerability classes.
However, the overall risk profile for Hing Shing County remains manageable with the im-
plementation of appropriate prevention and mitigation strategies. Specifically, the Village
of Sherwood yielded the highest concentration of highly vulnerable buildings, totaling 2748,
Sensors 2024, 24, 4366 14 of 22

as depicted in Figure 7. This finding underscores the imperative for enhanced restoration
and reinforcement measures. Similarly, the Village of Black Village yielded 2256 buildings
rated as highly vulnerable. Although these figures indicate potential risks, a proactive
disaster risk management approach is advocated.The spatial distribution of potential risk
across the county has been further elucidated through an analysis of the percentage of
building vulnerability within each village. As shown in Figure 8, Huangjingtian Village ex-
hibited the highest percentage of high-risk buildings at 94.29%, which was closely followed
by Dalang Village at 93.81%. These proportions highlight elevated susceptibility and serve
as crucial indicators for strategic planning and resource allocation by the authorities.

Figure 7. Statistical chart of the number of buildings with very high vulnerability and high vulnerability.

Figure 8. Statistical chart of the percentage of very high vulnerability and high vulnerability buildings.

In this study, the building vulnerability (PV) and landslide hazard risk were classified
using the natural breakpoint method. Additionally, the correlation between the building
Sensors 2024, 24, 4366 15 of 22

structural characteristics (R) and the building vulnerability (PV) was explored to identify
buildings across different hazard intensity levels. The results of these correlation analyses
are thoroughly presented in Figure 9. The implementation of this methodology not only
equips Xinxing County with an effective tool for assessing and managing landslide hazard
risks but also offers valuable insights for other regions facing similar challenges.

Figure 9. Distributability of building vulnerability for different landslide hazards. (A) Low landslide
intensity, (B) Medium landslide intensity, (C) High landslide intensity, (D) Very high landslide intensity.

This study systematically quantified the number of buildings classified into four
designated vulnerability categories—low, medium, high, and very high—under varying
landslide hazard conditions. The detailed distribution of these classifications is depicted
in Figure 10.
(i) Low Landslide Intensity: The hexagonal box plot reveals a dense concentration of
buildings with high resistance factors (greater than 0.6), thus correlating with low
susceptibility. Supporting this, the bar chart in Figure 10 shows that 43,047 buildings,
or 18% of the total in the county, are situated in areas with low landslide hazard risk
and demonstrate low susceptibility (PV ≤ 0.5).
(ii) Medium Landslide Intensity: A shift to a higher vulnerability profile is evident in the
hexagonal box plot. Correspondingly, the bar chart indicates that 17,478 buildings,
Sensors 2024, 24, 4366 16 of 22

approximately 7% of the total, are located in areas of medium landslide hazard risk
and are categorized as moderately vulnerable. Additionally, 8399 buildings, or about
3.5%, fall into the high vulnerability category (0.5 < PV ≤ 0.9).
(iii) High Landslide Intensity: The hexagonal box plot illustrates a significant increase
in vulnerability (PV > 0.7), even among buildings with notable resistance factors.
This increase is substantiated by the bar chart in Figure 10, which highlights that
40,179 buildings, nearly 17% of the county’s total, are highly susceptible in areas of
high landslide hazard risk.
(iv) Very High Landslide Intensity: The hexagonal box plot displays uniformly high
susceptibility across all resistance factors. This observation aligns with the bar chart
data, thus indicating that 56,609 buildings, or 24% of the total number of buildings in
the county, face very high susceptibility (PV close to 1.0) in areas designated as Very
High Landslide Hazard Risk.

Figure 10. Statistical map of the distribution of the number of buildings at different landslide hazards.

The data from the assessment of 238,892 buildings, as illustrated in Figures 9 and 10,
highlight the urgent need for a comprehensive, multilayered approach to landslide risk
management in Xinxing County. While enhancing the resistance of individual buildings
can mitigate vulnerability, especially in areas with low to moderate landslide hazard risk,
the profound impacts observed in regions with high to very high landslide hazard risk
necessitate broader urban planning reforms. These reforms should include emergency
preparedness initiatives and efforts to build community resilience, which are essential to
effectively safeguard against landslide hazards.

4.2. Validation
During the on-site validation process, each building was meticulously examined
regarding its external structural condition, construction materials, state of maintenance,
and surrounding topography. Special attention was directed towards buildings predicted
to have high susceptibility (high PV), with a focus on identifying signs of landslide impact,
such as shifting foundations, wall cracks, and other structural damages.
Conversely, buildings predicted to have low susceptibility (low PV) were scrutinized
to confirm their good condition, thus aligning with their low-risk ratings. Specifically, the
effectiveness of implemented antislip measures and the overall state of maintenance were
Sensors 2024, 24, 4366 17 of 22

thoroughly evaluated. The criteria used for judging building susceptibility during these
site visits are illustrated in six example building site surveys provided below:
Building A: Categorized in a ‘medium’ landslide intensity area with a ‘high’ PV.
Remarkably, the building shows no significant damage, thus indicative of effective landslide
mitigation measures. This observation confirms its high vulnerability rating despite being
situated in a moderate-risk area.
Building B: Possessing a ‘medium’ PV and located in an area of ‘medium’ landslide
intensity, this building appears stable with no visible damage, aligning with its medium
vulnerability assessment.
Building C: Positioned in a high-risk landslide area with a very high PV. Significant
perimeter structural damage noted during the survey confirms the model’s assignment
and underscores the high-risk status of this building.
Building D: This building, with a ‘medium’ PV in a ‘medium’ landslide intensity zone,
is surrounded by terraced reinforced slopes and is well maintained, thus mirroring its
moderate vulnerability status consistent with its classification.
Structure E: Assigned a ‘very high’ landslide hazard risk with a corresponding very
high PV. Overwhelming structural damage observed and documented in photographs
confirms this categorization, thus highlighting the severe vulnerability of the building.
Building F: Classified in a ‘moderate’ landslide hazard risk area with a matching
moderate PV. Visible moderate protection measures and the building’s overall condition
corroborate this categorization, thus indicating alignment with the expected level of risk.
The findings from the field survey are comprehensively synthesized and presented
in Table 4, while Figure 11 visually illustrates the conditions of the buildings relative to
their assigned landslide intensity scenarios. The clear alignment between the observed
field conditions and the predicted susceptibility categories validates the reliability of the
model, thus confirming its effectiveness in accurately assessing landslide risk.

Table 4. Classification of observed building damage.

ID Intensity (I) PV Observed Damage Notes

High vulnerability
A Medium High No visible damage in a moderate risk zone
with effective mitigation
Moderate vulnerability
B Medium Medium Stable, no overt damage matching medium
landslide intensity
High vulnerability
C High Very High Significant peripheral damages with very high PV value,
confirming high risk
Moderate vulnerability
D Medium Medium Well-maintained, terraced slopes with signs of
effective stabilization
Severe vulnerability
E Very High Very High Overwhelming structural damage due to very high
landslide risk
Medium vulnerability
F Medium Medium Moderate protective measures visible corresponding to medium
landslide risk

Concurrently, survey forms were completed, and hand-drawn profiles of the selected
buildings were created to more effectively verify their vulnerability in the field. These
profiles are depicted in Table 5.
Sensors 2024, 24, 4366 18 of 22

Figure 11. Six different buildings with different physical vulnerability (PV) values under different
landslide intensities.(A) Medium landslide intensity, high vulnerability, (B) Medium landslide in-
tensity, medium vulnerability, (C) High landslide intensity, very high vulnerability, (D) Medium
landslide intensity, medium vulnerability, (E) Very high landslide intensity, very high vulnerability,
(F) Medium landslide intensity, medium vulnerability.

Table 5. Building damage validation form.

Map name Dajiang Town

Map number F49E010017
Unified number 445321200037
Field number GC2-011
Name Observation point of Goose Stone Village Ridong Town
Yunfu City, Guangdong Province, Xinxing County, Ridong Town, Goose Stone Low Village,
Geographic location
Goose Stone Elementary School
Longitude 112°10′ 8.27′′
X coordinate 2480802
Coordinates
Latitude 22°25′ 11.37′′
Y coordinate 19620360
Building number 023
Building structure type Brick structure
Building name Goose Rock Elementary School
The building point is in a low mountainous terrain with steeply sloping terrain at the
point. The stratum of the area is Jurassic Late Jurassic coarse-medium grained porphyritic
black mica granite, the weathering degree is strong weathering, and the overlaying layer is
residual slope accumulation layer, with sandy clay as the main component. The slope is a
Point Description rocky slope with a slope direction of 270°, a slope gradient of 80°, a foot elevation of 247 m,
a slope height of 5 m, a slope length of 5m, a slope width of 51 m, and a straight profile.
The cut slope is used for the construction of a house, which is 6 m wide and 11 m high, 1 m
away from the foot of the slope. The vegetation at the top of the slope is well developed,
and the vegetation on the slope surface is poorly developed, with a coverage of 50%.
Sensors 2024, 24, 4366 19 of 22

Table 5. Cont.

Remarks There is a small-scale collapse on the left side of the slope.

Plans and sections

Following a comprehensive building vulnerability assessment of Xinxing County, a

total of 236 buildings were selected for on-site validation to confirm the accuracy and
reliability of the assessment results. These buildings were chosen as representative samples
spanning various landslide intensity zones and vulnerability classes, thus ensuring the
comprehensiveness and representativeness of the assessment. Details of the sampling and
validation results are presented in Table 6.

Table 6. Sample verification form for construction vulnerability.

Verification
Sampling Low Medium High Very High
Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability
Low 60 58 2
Vulnerability
Medium 70 68 2
Vulnerability
High 50 45 5
Vulnerability
Very High 56 4 52
Vulnerability

5. Discussion
In refining the research methodology, this study builds upon the concepts of previous
researchers to assess building vulnerability. A key distinction from prior methodologies
is the enhancement of the definition of landslide intensity. Previously determined by the
speed and volume of landslides, it has been expanded to encompass the broader concept
of landslide disaster hazard. This enhancement includes a comprehensive evaluation of
disaster-causing factors such as topography and geomorphology (elevation, slope gradient,
and slope shape), rock and soil body types, geological formations, vegetation cover, wa-
tersheds, and land-use types. This holistic approach allows for a more accurate reflection
of the potential hazards of landslides, thus recognizing that the risk of occurrence is influ-
enced not only by physical but also by environmental factors. For instance, landslides of
identical volume and velocity may present vastly different hazards depending on varying
topographic features or geotechnical body types.
This paper presents a large-scale study of building susceptibility under the influence of
landslides, thus addressing a gap in the previous research, which has generally not focused
on large-scale susceptibility studies. Given the extensive number of buildings assessed,
the results are presented through subvillage statistics. This detailed level of assessment
Sensors 2024, 24, 4366 20 of 22

permits a nuanced understanding of the specific needs and vulnerabilities of each area. In
this study, the building vulnerability index for each village was calculated by aggregating
the vulnerability indices of the individual buildings. Additionally, multiple factors were
considered for weighting to refine the overall building vulnerability index of the villages.

6. Conclusions
This study presents a comprehensive assessment of building vulnerability to landslides
on a large scale by integrating quantitative and machine learning methods using Xinxing
County in Guangdong Province as a case study. Initially, we collected extensive data
on various factors influencing landslide occurrence, including topography, geological
structure, vegetation cover, and land use. Using statistical methods, we identified key
factors significantly impacting landslide risk. Subsequently, we employed a Convolutional
Neural Network (CNN) model to evaluate landslide hazard risks and combined this with
an assessment of building resistance based on structural and environmental parameters.
This approach allowed us to calculate a detailed vulnerability value (PV) for each building.
The model can accurately and reliably predict the building vulnerability class in most
cases, thus achieving an accuracy rate of 94.5% based on on-site validation. Specifically, the
landslide hazard assessment categorized the county into four hazard zones—low, medium,
high, and extremely high—thus covering areas of approximately 469.41 km², 444.44 km²,
396.16 km², and 199.36 km², respectively. The vulnerability assessment identified that 18%
of buildings are in low-risk zones, 7% in medium-risk zones, 17% in high-risk zones, and
24% in very high-risk zones. In terms of building vulnerability, the study found that 31.87%
of buildings exhibited low vulnerability, 18.00% exhibited medium vulnerability, 34.23%
exhibited high vulnerability, and 15.90% exhibited very high vulnerability.
By integrating machine learning with quantitative methods, this study provides a
robust tool for disaster risk management, thus enhancing the ability to predict and respond
to landslide hazards with greater accuracy. This approach supports the development of tar-
geted mitigation strategies and contributes to the broader field of geohazard management
with a scalable and adaptable assessment model.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, F.S.; Methodology, F.S.; Software, F.S.; Validation, F.S.;
Formal analysis, F.S.; Resources, R.N.; Data curation, Y.W.; Writing—original draft, F.S.; Writing—
review & editing, L.L. and X.W.; Supervision, X.W. and R.N.; Project administration, R.N.; Funding
acquisition, R.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (42071429).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The scripts and datasets used and/or analyzed during the current
study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Fell, R.; Ho, K.K.; Lacasse, S.; Leroi, E. A framework for landslide risk assessment and management. In Landslide Risk Management;
CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2005; pp. 13–36.
2. Fuchs, S.; Birkmann, J.; Glade, T. Vulnerability assessment in natural hazard and risk analysis: Current approaches and future
challenges. Nat. Hazards 2012, 64, 1969–1975. [CrossRef]
3. Xie, X.; Xie, B.; Cheng, J.; Chu, Q.; Dooling, T. A simple Monte Carlo method for estimating the chance of a cyclone impact. Nat.
Hazards 2021, 107, 2573–2582. [CrossRef]
4. Chen, G.; Zhang, K.; Wang, S.; Xia, Y.; Chao, L. iHydroSlide3D v1. 0: An advanced hydrological–geotechnical model for
hydrological simulation and three-dimensional landslide prediction. Geosci. Model Dev. 2023, 16, 2915–2937. [CrossRef]
5. Buckle, P.; Mars, G.; Smale, S. New approaches to assessing vulnerability and resilience. Aust. J. Emerg. Manag. 2000, 15, 8–14.
6. Papathoma-Köhle, M.; Neuhäuser, B.; Ratzinger, K.; Wenzel, H.; Dominey-Howes, D. Elements at risk as a framework for
assessing the vulnerability of communities to landslides. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2007, 7, 765–779. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2024, 24, 4366 21 of 22

7. Uzielli, M.; Nadim, F.; Lacasse, S.; Kaynia, A.M. A conceptual framework for quantitative estimation of physical vulnerability to
landslides. Eng. Geol. 2008, 102, 251–256. [CrossRef]
8. Li, Z.; Nadim, F.; Huang, H.; Uzielli, M.; Lacasse, S. Quantitative vulnerability estimation for scenario-based landslide hazards.
Landslides 2010, 7, 125–134. [CrossRef]
9. Silva, M.; Pereira, S. Assessment of physical vulnerability and potential losses of buildings due to shallow slides. Nat. Hazards
2014, 72, 1029–1050. [CrossRef]
10. Guillard-Gonçalves, C.; Zêzere, J.; Pereira, S.; Garcia, R.A. Assessment of physical vulnerability of buildings and analysis of
landslide risk at the municipal scale: Application to the Loures municipality, Portugal. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2016,
16, 311–331. [CrossRef]
11. Singh, A.; Kanungo, D.; Pal, S. A modified approach for semi-quantitative estimation of physical vulnerability of buildings
exposed to different landslide intensity scenarios. Georisk Assess. Manag. Risk Eng. Syst. Geohazards 2019, 13, 66–81. [CrossRef]
12. Papathoma-Koehle, M.; Keiler, M.; Totschnig, R.; Glade, T. Improvement of vulnerability curves using data from extreme events:
debris flow event in South Tyrol. Nat. Hazards 2012, 64, 2083–2105. [CrossRef]
13. Kang, H.s.; Kim, Y.t. The physical vulnerability of different types of building structure to debris flow events. Nat. Hazards 2016,
80, 1475–1493. [CrossRef]
14. Godfrey, A.; Ciurean, R.; Van Westen, C.; Kingma, N.; Glade, T. Assessing vulnerability of buildings to hydro-meteorological
hazards using an expert based approach—An application in Nehoiu Valley, Romania. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2015, 13, 229–241.
[CrossRef]
15. Dai, F.; Lee, C. Landslide characteristics and slope instability modeling using GIS, Lantau Island, Hong Kong. Geomorphology
2002, 42, 213–228. [CrossRef]
16. Dai, F.; Lee, C.; Li, J.; Xu, Z. Assessment of landslide susceptibility on the natural terrain of Lantau Island, Hong Kong. Environ.
Geol. 2001, 40, 381–391.
17. Duman, T.; Can, T.; Gokceoglu, C.; Nefeslioglu, H.; Sonmez, H. Application of logistic regression for landslide susceptibility
zoning of Cekmece Area, Istanbul, Turkey. Environ. Geol. 2006, 51, 241–256. [CrossRef]
18. Niu, q.; Liu, y.; Xie, y.; Cheng, w. Susceptibility assessment of secondary geological disaster based on GIS and Information value
methodology for Yushu earthquake region. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Information Science and
Engineering, Hangzhou, China, 4–6 December 2010; pp. 4098–4101.
19. Mück, M.; Taubenböck, H.; Post, J.; Wegscheider, S.; Strunz, G.; Sumaryono, S.; Ismail, F. Assessing building vulnerability to
earthquake and tsunami hazard using remotely sensed data. Nat. Hazards 2013, 68, 97–114. [CrossRef]
20. Hadji, R.; Boumazbeur, A.e.; Limani, Y.; Baghem, M.; El Madjid Chouabi, A.; Demdoum, A. Geologic, topographic and climatic
controls in landslide hazard assessment using GIS modeling: A case study of Souk Ahras region, NE Algeria. Quat. Int. 2013,
302, 224–237. [CrossRef]
21. Geiß, C.; Taubenböck, H.; Tyagunov, S.; Tisch, A.; Post, J.; Lakes, T. Assessment of seismic building vulnerability from space.
Earthq. Spectra 2014, 30, 1553–1583. [CrossRef]
22. Thennavan, E.; Ganapathy, G.P.; Chandra Sekaran, S.; Rajawat, A.S. Use of GIS in assessing building vulnerability for landslide
hazard in The Nilgiris, Western Ghats, India. Nat. Hazards 2016, 82, 1031–1050. [CrossRef]
23. Pham, B.T.; Tien Bui, D.; Dholakia, M.; Prakash, I.; Pham, H.V. A comparative study of least square support vector machines and
multiclass alternating decision trees for spatial prediction of rainfall-induced landslides in a tropical cyclones area. Geotech. Geol.
Eng. 2016, 34, 1807–1824. [CrossRef]
24. Chen, W.; Pourghasemi, H.R.; Zhao, Z. A GIS-based comparative study of Dempster-Shafer, logistic regression and artificial
neural network models for landslide susceptibility mapping. Geocarto Int. 2017, 32, 367–385. [CrossRef]
25. Hong, H.; Tsangaratos, P.; Ilia, I.; Chen, W.; Xu, C. Comparing the performance of a logistic regression and a random forest model
in landslide susceptibility assessments. The Case of Wuyaun Area, China. In Advancing Culture of Living with Landslides: Volume 2
Advances in Landslide Science; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 1043–1050.
26. Su, Q.; Zhang, J.; Zhao, S.; Wang, L.; Liu, J.; Guo, J. Comparative assessment of three nonlinear approaches for landslide
susceptibility mapping in a coal mine area. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2017, 6, 228. [CrossRef]
27. Liu, K.; Wang, M.; Cao, Y.; Zhu, W.; Yang, G. Susceptibility of existing and planned Chinese railway system subjected to
rainfall-induced multi-hazards. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2018, 117, 214–226. [CrossRef]
28. Arabameri, A.; Rezaei, K.; Cerdà, A.; Conoscenti, C.; Kalantari, Z. A comparison of statistical methods and multi-criteria decision
making to map flood hazard susceptibility in Northern Iran. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 660, 443–458. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. Chen, W.; Sun, Z.; Han, J. Landslide susceptibility modeling using integrated ensemble weights of evidence with logistic
regression and random forest models. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 171. [CrossRef]
30. Zhang, S.; Li, C.; Zhang, L.; Peng, M.; Zhan, L.; Xu, Q. Quantification of human vulnerability to earthquake-induced landslides
using Bayesian network. Eng. Geol. 2020, 265, 105436. [CrossRef]
31. Ado, M.; Amitab, K.; Maji, A.K.; Jasińska, E.; Gono, R.; Leonowicz, Z.; Jasiński, M. Landslide susceptibility mapping using
machine learning: A literature survey. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 3029. [CrossRef]
32. Liu, R.; Yang, X.; Xu, C.; Wei, L.; Zeng, X. Comparative study of convolutional neural network and conventional machine learning
methods for landslide susceptibility mapping. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 321. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2024, 24, 4366 22 of 22

33. Hussain, M.A.; Chen, Z.; Zheng, Y.; Shoaib, M.; Shah, S.U.; Ali, N.; Afzal, Z. Landslide susceptibility mapping using machine
learning algorithm validated by persistent scatterer In-SAR technique. Sensors 2022, 22, 3119. [CrossRef]
34. O’shea, K.; Nash, R. An introduction to convolutional neural networks. arXiv 2015, arXiv:1511.08458.
35. Yi, Y.; Zhang, W.; Xu, X.; Zhang, Z.; Wu, X. Evaluation of neural network models for landslide susceptibility assessment. Int. J.
Digit. Earth 2022, 15, 934–953. [CrossRef]
36. Nikoobakht, S.; Azarafza, M.; Akgün, H.; Derakhshani, R. Landslide susceptibility assessment by using convolutional neural
network. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 5992. [CrossRef]
37. Amatruda, G.; Bonnard, C.; Castelli, M.; Forlati, F.; Giacomelli, L.; Morelli, M.; Paro, L.; Piana, F.; Pirulli, M.; Polino, R.; et al. A
key approach: The IMIRILAND project method. In Identification and Mitigation of Large Landslide Risks in Europe; CRC Press: Boca
Raton, FL, USA, 2004; pp. 31–62.
38. Vamvatsikos, D.; Kouris, L.; Panagopoulos, G.; Kappos, A.; Nigro, E.; Rossetto, T.; Lloyd, T.; Stathopoulos, T. Structural
vulnerability assessment under natural hazards: A review. In COST ACTION C; Taylor & Francis Group: London, UK, 2010;
Volume 26, pp. 17–18.
39. Agliata, R.; Bortone, A.; Mollo, L. Indicator-based approach for the assessment of intrinsic physical vulnerability of the built
environment to hydro-meteorological hazards: Review of indicators and example of parameters selection for a sample area. Int. J.
Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021, 58, 102199. [CrossRef]
40. Zhuo, L.; Huang, Y.; Zheng, J.; Cao, J.; Guo, D. Landslide Susceptibility Mapping in Guangdong Province, China, Using Random
Forest Model and Considering Sample Type and Balance. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9024. [CrossRef]
41. Pardeshi, S.D.; Autade, S.E.; Pardeshi, S.S. Landslide hazard assessment: Recent trends and techniques. SpringerPlus 2013, 2, 1–11.
[CrossRef]
42. Sun, D.; Wen, H.; Xu, J.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, D.; Zhang, J. Improving geospatial agreement by hybrid optimization in logistic
regression-based landslide susceptibility modelling. Front. Earth Sci. 2021, 9, 713803. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.