Landslide susceptibility assessment is vital for landslide risk management and urban planning, and the scientific community is continuously proposing new approaches to map landslide susceptibility, especially by hybridizing state-of-the-art models and by proposing new ones. A common practice in landslide susceptibility studies is to compare (two or more) different models in terms of AUC (area under ROC curve) to assess which one has the best predictive performance. The objective of this paper is to show that the classical scheme of comparison between susceptibility models can be expanded and enriched with substantial geomorphological insights by focusing the comparison on the mapped susceptibility values and investigating the geomorphological reasons of the differences encountered. To this aim, we used four susceptibility maps of the Wanzhou County (China) obtained with four different classification methods (namely, random forest, index of entropy, frequency ratio, and certainty factor). A quantitative comparison of the susceptibility values was carried out on a pixel-by-pixel basis, to reveal systematic spatial patterns in the differences among susceptibility maps; then, those patterns were put in relation with all the explanatory variables used in the susceptibility assessments. The lithological and morphological features of the study area that are typically associated to underestimations and overestimations of susceptibility were identified. The results shed a new light on the susceptibility models, identifying systematic errors that could be probably associated either to shortcomings of the models or to distinctive morphological features of the test site, such as nearly flat low altitude areas near the main rivers, and some lithological units.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.