Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 49–61

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Natural Hazards Research

journal homepage: www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/natural-hazards-research

Bibliometric analysis of landslide research based on the WOS database

Yuandong Huang a, b, c, Chong Xu a, b, *, Xujiao Zhang c, Lei Li a, b, c
a
National Institute of Natural Hazards, Ministry of Emergency Management of China, Beijing, 100085, China
b
Key Laboratory of Compound and Chained Natural Hazards Dynamics, Ministry of Emergency Management of China, Beijing, 100085, China
c
China University of Geosciences, Beijing, Beijing, 100083, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This work, based on the Web of Science (WOS) database, collected 20,888 research articles published from 1982
Landslides to November 2021 on the topic of landslide(s). We performed a bibliometric analysis for the year, author,
Bibliometric analysis institution, country/region, foundation program, journal, and keywords. The abstracts in these articles are also
Latent dirichlet allocation
analyzed in terms of the Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) model in machine learning. Results show that the
VOSviewer
overall annual publication number is steadily increasing from 8 in 1982 to 2432 in 2020. Pradhan, Biswajeet, and
Xu, Qiang are the authors with the most published papers, and Guzzetti, Fausto, and Dai, Fuchu are the authors
with the highest average citations per article. The Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Italian Consiglio
Nazionale Delle Ricerche are the institutions contributing the most articles. China and the United States
contribute the highest article number, and Malaysia and Norway have the highest average citations per article.
The journals Landslides and Engineering Geology host the most abundant landslide-related articles, while Geology
and Environmental Geology have the most average citations per article. The number of articles funded by the
Chinese National Natural Science Foundation far exceeds that of other funds. The keywords with high overall
frequency are “model”, “GIS”, “susceptibility”, “earthquake”, “remote sensing”, “slope stability”, “deformation”,
etc. The LDA model divides the articles into 19 topics, among which machine learning has the fastest growth rate.
The top three topics in terms of frequency are ''risk assessment'', ''shallow landslides'' and ''evolution process and
numerical simulation''. The keyword analysis is further clustered into four research areas, namely “Quaternary
geology and geomorphology”, “landslide engineering geology”, “landslide database and risk assessment”, and
“landslide monitoring and warning".

1. Introduction
Mitigating the damage caused by natural disasters is an eternal issue
in human development, and landslides are one of the most common and
hazardous types of natural disasters. They have complex and diverse
triggering factors, and wide spatial distribution, often taking heavy toll
on people's life and properties. For example, the 2008 Wenchuan Ms 7.9
earthquake triggered more than 20,000 landslides covering a total area of
about 1160 km2 (Xu et al. 2013c, 2014c), some of which blocked rivers to
form several dammed lakes (Gorum et al., 2010), which were as
dangerous as the earthquake itself. In order to reduce landslide hazard
and improve disaster prevention and control capabilities, the geoscience
community across the world has carried out comprehensive research in
the past 40 years and beyond, and have made continuous progress in both
theory and application, with abundant landslide research results. For
example, in landslide mechanism and simulation, numerical models have
been developed to simulate the dynamic process of landslides (An et al.,
2021; Wu et al., 2021), and shear strength experiments and stability
analysis of landslides have been conducted (Iqbal et al., 2018; Kumar
et al., 2021). In terms of landslide databases, landslide inventories for
major events were established by interpreting remote sensing images,
examples including the 2014 Ludian, China (Xu et al., 2014a; Wu et al.,
2020), 2017 Milin, China (Zhao et al., 2019; Huang et al., 2021), 2017
Jiuzhaigou, China (Xu et al., 2018; Tian et al., 2019b), 2015 Nepal
(Roback et al., 2018; Tsou et al., 2018), 2018 Iburi, Japan (Yamagishi
and Yamazaki, 2018; Shao et al., 2019) and 2016 New Zealand earth-
quakes (Massey et al. 2018, 2020). Various models were selected to
assess the susceptibility of landslide areas, among which typical methods
are the weight of evidence method (Mohammady et al. 2012; Xu et al.,
2013b), the information method (Singh and Kumar, 2018), the logistic
regression model (Xu et al., 2013a; Ma et al., 2019), the neural network
model (Pham et al., 2017; Tian et al., 2019a), Newmark model (Ma and

* Corresponding author. National Institute of Natural Hazards, Ministry of Emergency Management of China, Beijing, 100085, China.
E-mail address: xc11111111@126.com (C. Xu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nhres.2022.02.001
Received 3 December 2021; Received in revised form 12 February 2022; Accepted 20 February 2022
Available online 28 February 2022
2666-5921/© 2022 National Institute of Natural Hazards, Ministry of Emergency Management of China. Publishing services provided by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of
KeAi Communications Co. Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Y. Huang et al.
Xu, 2019a; Zang et al., 2020), etc. Due to some factors, however, such as
complex environmental changes, frequent human activities, and the
emergence of new science and technology and theories, landslide
research is still facing new challenges and development opportunities (Xu
et al., 2021).
Bibliometrics is the study of the literature system and all knowledge
carriers as the object. Using mathematics, statistics and other measure-
ment methods to study the distribution, structure, quantity, relation-
ships, laws.
Despite a large number of research articles on the theme of landslides
have been published, review articles on this geologic hazard remains
little, one type of which is based on the authors' analysis and summary of
the typical literature according to their high professional level. For
example, van Westen et al. (2008) reviewed landslide susceptibility
evaluation in terms of data sets and related techniques. Zhao and Lu
(2018) provided statistics on various remote sensing techniques applied
in landslide studies. Another type is the application of bibliometrics in
landslides research, older studies such as Gokceoglu and Sezer (2009)
analyzed 3468 publications in the web of science database with a bias
towards authors and citations of publications. Carri on-Mero et al. (2021)
conducted a bibliometric analysis using 641 documents from the SCO-
PUS database as research data, using VOSviewer software. The database
in the study of Wu et al. (2015) was 10,567 articles in the Science
Citation Index-Expanded and Social Sciences Citation Index databases,
and its study was biased towards direct data statistics, and relationship
plots were less frequent. The object of the bibliometric analysis is not
limited to the research literature, but also includes conference papers,
reviews, books, and other research results. Mikos (2018) conducted a
study of 52 books published by the International Consortium on Land-
slides, and its study is biased towards indicators such as views, down-
loads, and citations. Similar to this kind of research, a documentary
analysis of the published results of a specific journal or institution can be
very helpful in understanding the development and academic level of the
journal or institution. Mikos (2017) analyzes the research results pub-
lished by the journal Landslides and discusses the status and ranking of
the journal within the research field. Sassa et al. (2015) also selected the
research results published by the journal Landslides in the period
2009–2013 for analysis and comparison with other journals.
In summary, the current bibliometric analysis of landslide research
has certain shortcomings, such as incomplete data, incomplete analysis,
and even less research on hotspots and trends. Therefore, it is essential to
select a more complete database for a more comprehensive analysis. In
this work, we analyzed 20,888 research articles in the WOS database
through a combination of software analysis, machine learning and
manual optimization. The purpose of this study is to: (1) review and
summarize the existing research results in the field of landslides through
the above research analysis, (2) mine the research hotspots and knowl-
edge structures in the research field to provide references for future
research directions and trends, (3) try to combine machine learning with
bibliometric analysis, and (4) reveal the relevant cooperative relation-
ships and geographical distribution characteristics of researchers or
research institutions.
2. Data and methods
2.1. Data
The data used in this work are from the core collection of the WOS
database. The search conditions were set as follows: the topic is " land-
slide” or “landslides”, the time span is before November 7, 2021, and the
document type is set as “Article”, and 20,888 documents were retrieved.
Using the export function of the WOS, all records are exported to “txt”
format, which include title, keywords, abstract, author, year, foundation
programs, and source journal of each article. Using the statistical function
that comes with the WOS, the h-index of each measurement interval
range was counted and written to the database.
50
Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 49–61
Fig. 1. Trend of article number with years.
2.2. Methods
On the one hand, the text files were imported into the CiteSpace and
VOSviewer software, and statistics were performed using the software
functions. The analysis content included the annual publications number,
the WOS citation number to the articles, author and institutional part-
nerships, countries or regions, source journals, foundation programs, and
keywords. To highlight the change of keywords over time, time periods
were taken for segmented analysis and all statistics were converted into
tables. The average citation number was calculated in each table, cor-
responding to the H-index for that classification interval. The total pub-
lication number (TP), total citation number (TC), average citations per
article (AC) and H-factor were used as judgment indicators to compre-
hensively evaluate the degree of academic impact. For cooperation re-
lationships, the closest collaborative object (CCO) and the total
cooperation number (TCN) were selected as indices.
The existing bibliometric analysis, as mentioned in the introduction,
lacks a classification of studies. Statistics on keywords alone do not fully
capture the focus of the studies. Therefore, in this paper, Latent Dirichlet
allocation (LDA) model was used for the analysis. This is a topic modeling
approach for data mining, latent data discovery, and analysis of re-
lationships between documents (Jelodar et al., 2019). The method is
widely used for topic mining of documents, such as the study of large
volumes of news texts (Jacobi et al., 2016). LDA model analysis of rele-
vant articles within a domain will help to further classify the research
content and elaborate its knowledge structure and research trends
(DiMaggio et al., 2013).
So on the other hand, (1) firstly, the abstract part of each document
was extracted from the text file using regular expressions. (2) A “stop-
words” list was generated based on relevant articles and resources,
mainly for meaningless words that appear in some abstracts, such as
“conclusion”, “about”, “research”, “and”, etc. (3) Gensim library in Py-
thon was called to construct an LDA model, and the “stop-words” list and
abstract text were imported for analysis. (4) To determine the number of
topics with the highest coherence as the judgment criterion, each topic
was set to display the first 10 most relevant feature vocabularies, and the
results were derived. (5) To manually discriminate the results, we
continued to extract words of little significance into the “stop-words” list
and then made re-analysis, until the effect of the topics and feature terms
retained a satisfactory degree (The score of coherence tends to be stable,
and there are no words without substantial research significance in the
characteristic terms). (6) According to the previously completed time-
slotted keyword statistics table, the feature vocabulary of each topic in
the same time period was counted, and the changes of each topic in
different time periods were obtained.
Y. Huang et al. Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 49–61

Table 1 3. Results
Top 20 authors in terms of number of articles published.
Author TP TC H-index AC CCO TCN 3.1. Publication number trend
Pradhan, B 198 18,079 78 91.3 Bui, DT 283
Xu, Q 159 1766 34 11.1 Fan, XM 369 The earliest article recorded in the WOS core database was in 1982,
Casagli, N 143 6179 45 43.2 Galli, M 284 and the article number has been increasing since then. In particular, since
Guzzetti, F 119 13,724 56 115.3 Cardinali, M 191 2012, the rate of growth in the article number has suddenly increased
Lee, S 116 9268 51 79.9 Oh, HJ 184 and continued to the present. The reason why there are fewer articles in
Xu, C 115 3469 32 30.2 Xu, XW 254
Tang, HM 109 1856 27 17.0 Hu XL 178
2021 than 2020 is that the lower time limit for statistics is November
Bui, DT 107 8278 52 77.4 Pham, BT 242 2021, which is not the full year 2021. The overall continuous upward
Pourghasemi, HR 102 8183 51 80.2 Pradhan, B 204 trend indicates that research on landslides is constantly evolving and
Huang, RQ 99 3185 29 32.2 Xu, Q 184 deepening (Fig. 1). In addition, to precisely analyze the relationship
Chen, Wei 89 5359 44 60.2 Hong, HY 217
between the article publication number and time, the years 1982–2020
Pham, BT 88 4684 41 53.2 Bui, DT 217
Zhang, LM 88 2327 29 26.4 Chen, HX 119 were converted into numbers 1–39 as x and the annual article number
Malet, JP 86 4169 40 48.5 Maquaire, O 373 published as y, and a polynomial fit was performed. The fitting results are
Cui, P 86 2264 24 26.3 Chen, XQ 234
Zhou, JW 72 817 16 11.3 Yang, XG 103 y¼ (87.1  54.5) þ (36.8  11.7) x – (2.98  0.7) x2 þ (0.09  0.01) x3
Jaboyedoff, M 69 2617 25 37.9 Derron, MH 189
Wang, GH 68 3067 30 45.1 Sassa, K 142 The R2 of this fitted polynomial is 0.98, implying that the polynomial
Peng, JB 64 1401 19 21.9 Zhuang, JQ 149 fits well. The annual article number is closely related to the years. The
Sassa, K 63 2469 27 39.2 Fukuoka, H 100 expected article number in 2021 can reach a maximum of 4656 according
Note: TP, TC, AC, CCA, CCO and TCN in the table header signify the total articles to this polynomial.
published, total citation count, average citations per article, closest collaborating
object, and total number of cooperation, respectively.
3.2. Authors

It was found that both the software-based and the online statistics
function that comes with the WOS database face certain data errors. The
reason for this is that in the WOS database, authors' first names are

Fig. 2. Co-occurrence of author relationship network.

51
Y. Huang et al. Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 49–61

Table 2 Tien, Lee, Saro and Pourghasemi, Hamid Reza. In the top ten ranking of
Top 20 institutions in terms of number of articles published. these two indexes, Dai, Fuchu, Rossi, Mauro, Van westen, Cees J., and
Institution TP TC AC H- TCN NOR Catani, Filippo have 50–55 publications, while the rest of the researchers
index have more than 100 publications. This indicates that these three are more
Chinese Academy of 1204 21,870 18.16 63 1016 2971 outstanding and rigorous in article quality.
Sciences As for the number of co-authorships, Malet, Jean Philippe is the
Institute Of Mountain 462 5580 12.08 34 349 957 highest with 373, followed by Xu, Qiang and Casagli, Nicola with 369
Hazards Environment and 284, respectively. As for cooperation with the closest authors, Fan,
University Of Chinese 409 3396 8.30 27 362 1117
Academy Of Sciences
Xuanmei has the closest cooperation with Xu, Qiang with 72.6%, fol-
Consiglio Nazionale 792 32,765 41.37 85 674 2008 lowed by Rossi, Mauro and Guzzetti, Fausto with 70%. From the co-
Delle Ricerche occurrence network figure (Fig. 2), it can be seen that the same color
Istituto Di Ricerca Per La 386 19,990 51.79 68 291 687 represents clustering into one category, scholars with high academic
Protezione
impact usually have their own teams, of which the role in research cannot
Idrogeologica
Centre National De La 730 21,911 30.02 71 998 3006 be ignored.
Recherche
Scientifique 3.3. Institutions
Cnrs National Institute 289 9100 31.49 52 516 1221
For Earth Sciences
Astronomy Insu
Institutional analysis is more precise compared to author analysis
China University Of 632 8968 14.18987 46 513 1392 because there is no influence of renaming, but there is a hierarchy of the
Geosciences same institution. Therefore, when counting, the percentage of coopera-
Chengdu University Of 533 10,458 19.62101 51 392 1115 tion will no longer be considered, instead, the total number of institutions
Technology
cooperating will be counted. The article number recorded by the Chinese
United States 505 26,005 51.50 84 488 1479
Department Of The Academy of Sciences (CAS) is much higher than the others with 1204
Interior articles, followed by Consiglio Nazionale Delle Ricerche (CNR) and
United States Geological 495 25,849 52.22 84 481 1452 Centre National De La Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) with 792 and 730
Survey
articles recorded, respectively in Italy and France.
University Of 345 14,256 41.32 61 624 1739
California System
This is clearly related to the affiliation of institutions, e.g., CAS and
ETH Zurich 329 9040 27.48 50 417 1027 the Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment are affiliated with
Helmholtz Association 320 9175 28.68 47 665 1912 CAS, while USGS is affiliated with USDI. This has a significant influence
Kyoto University 292 9039 30.96 53 316 709 on the results, so the top-ranked institutions were combined and the
University Of Florence 286 12,215 42.71 60 261 650
highest indicators prevailed (Table 2). The institutions in italics in
Institut De Recherche 248 6836 27.56 46 511 1403
Pour Le Table 2 are the affiliates of the closest institutions above.
Developement Ird The institution with the highest total article number remains CAS
Chang An University 239 2931 12.26 29 218 620 (1204), followed by CNR (792) and CNRS (730), while the newly entered
National Taiwan 237 5917 24.97 41 326 1033 institutions in the top 10 after the merger are University Of California
University
Indian Institute Of 229 5162 22.54 35 181 504
System (345), ETH Zurich (329), Helmholtz Association (320) and Kyoto
Technology System University (292). The total citation number shows that CNR has the
Iit System highest citation number as 32,765, followed by USDI (26,005) and CNRS
Note: TP, TC, AC, CCA, TCN and NOR in the table header signify the total articles (20,911), while CAS has the highest article number but the citation
published, total citation count, average citations per article, total number of number as 21,870, lower than the other three institutions. The average
cooperation and number of researchers, respectively. citation number per article shows that USGS has the highest average
citation number per article, 52.2, followed by IRPI (51.79). The Uni-
usually abbreviated to their initials, keeping only the full last name, so versity of Florence has only 286 total publications, but has the third
authors with the same last name but different first names may be highest average citation number per article, 42.7.
abbreviated in the same manner. In addition, since the articles in the In addition, the number of authors signed within an institution is
database are from different journals, the format of the authors' names is available through the WOS database and can be approximated as the
not completely uniform and the same author may be recorded in different number of researchers to assess the size of the institution. It must be
ways. Therefore, in this study, the statistics were corrected by comparing acknowledged that the size of institutions is far from comparable to each
the same fields with the author's institution to minimize the error. other. The top-ranked institutions have a much higher number of re-
The final results are shown in Table 1, where a total of 49,591 authors searchers than the bottom-ranked institutions. Taking this data into ac-
are involved in the study of 20,888 selected articles. It is clear that count, it is concluded that the more productive institutions are the
Pradhan, Biswajeet from Malaysia is the author with the highest article Institute Of Mountain Hazards Environment, Istituto Di Ricerca Per La
number with 198, followed by Xu, Qiang of China and Casagli, Nicola of Protezione Idrogeologica and Chengdu University Of Technology. All
Italy with 159 and 143 articles, respectively. It is worth mentioning that three have published more than the average amount of literature for the
among the 10 authors with the highest article number, Guzzetti, Fausto same size with a relatively small size.
of Italy is the earliest to conduct research on landslides, with publications The highest H-index is 85 for CNR, followed by USGS (84) and CNRS
dating back to 1991. In contrast, Xu, Chong, Bui, Dieu Tien and Pour- (71). The analysis of cooperative relationships obtained the highest
ghasemi, Hamid Reza first appeared in the database in 2011, 2011 and number of cooperating institutions is CAS, which has cooperation with
2012, respectively, with a difference of almost 20 years. The total citation 1016 institutions, much higher than the following CNRS (998) and CNR
number of Pradhan, Biswajeet, Guzzetti, Fausto and Korean scholar Lee, (674). The numbers of institutional authors are above 2900 for both CAS
Saro are the most with 18,079, 13,724 and 9,258 citations, respectively. and CNRS, with a gap to third place CNR (2008).
In terms of the average citation number per article, Guzzetti, Fausto Fig. 3 shows that CAS, USGS, CNR, Chengdu University of Technol-
has the most with 115.3, while Dai, Fuchu and, Pradhan, Biswajeet have ogy, China University of Geosciences, and Kyoto University are the
94.6 and 91.3, respectively. Pradhan, Biswajeet, and Guzzetti, Fausto outstanding institutions of the represented groups in landslide research.
have high H-indexes of 78 and 56, respectively, followed by Bui, Dieu The overall academic impact of USGS is higher and researchers prefer to
cite the results of USGS; CAS has the highest number of publications, but

52
Y. Huang et al. Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 49–61

Fig. 3. Institutional relationship density.

Table 3
Top 20 countries or regions in terms of number of articles published.
Countries/Regions TP TC AC H-index CCO TCN

China 5288 79,679 15.07 100 USA 90

USA 3362 113,005 33.61 137 China 116
Italy 2870 89,999 31.36 119 USA 97
England 1380 43,234 31.33 94 USA 107
Japan 1214 31,136 25.65 82 China 83
France 1143 35,432 31.00 83 USA 98
Germany 1033 31,045 30.05 79 USA 100
India 1017 18,738 18.42 63 Vietnam 63
Canada 984 30,553 31.05 84 USA 79
Taiwan (China) 867 18,411 21.24 65 USA 67
Switzerland 811 25,950 32.00 79 Italy 83
Spain 807 24,768 30.69 75 Italy 81
Australia 606 15,441 25.48 59 China 84
Iran 595 20,699 34.79 80 Vietnam 71
South Korea 513 18,774 36.60 68 Australia 58
Turkey 506 16,716 33.04 65 USA 62
Netherlands 467 18,876 40.42 73 Italy 78
New Zealand 439 11,774 26.82 56 USA 64
Austria 433 11,162 25.78 52 Germany 81
Norway 400 17,258 43.15 69 Vietnam 75

Note: TP, TC, AC, CCA, CCO and TCN in the table header signify the total articles
published, total citation count, average citations per article, closest collaborating
Fig. 4. Chord diagram showing relationships between countries and regions.
object, and total number of cooperation, respectively.

(89,999) and China (79,679). Malaysia has the highest average citation
its citations are lower compared to the above institutions. Its H-index of
number per article with 58.7, followed by Norway (43.1) and the
63 indicates that it has sufficient capacity to publish high-quality articles
Netherlands (40.4). The high H-index countries and regions are back to
and its overall academic impact can be further enhanced. In addition, the
the USA (137), Italy (119) and China (100).
University of Florence has a big potential.
In terms of the number of collaborations, the largest is the USA, which
has collaborations with 116 countries or regions. Then come the United
3.4. Countries/regions
Kindom and Germany, with 107 and 100 countries or regions as partners,
respectively. Among the top 30 countries or regions in terms of the article
The statistical results of countries and regions are closely related to
number, the closest cooperation with the USA reaches 11, followed by
institutions, while enabling enable to reflect different information
Italy with 5, and China and Vietnam are both third, but the countries or
(Table 3). China is in first place with 5288 publications in total, followed
regions with China as the closest partners are all in the top 10 in terms of
by the United States and Italy. For total citations, it is the United States
article number. And another indicator shows that Vietnam, Scotland and
that has the highest citation number with 113,005, followed by Italy

53
Y. Huang et al. Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 49–61

Table 4 Table 5
Top 20 journals in terms of number of articles published. Top 10 funded projects in terms of number of articles published.
Journals TP TC IF H- AC Foundation programs TP TC AC H- C/R NOR
index index

Landslides 1393 34,391 6.578 79 24.68 National Natural 3299 43,556 13.20 76 China 5710
Engineering Geology 1091 45,093 6.755 99 41.33 Science Foundation
Geomorphology 1038 46,610 4.139 107 44.90 Of China
Natural Hazards 838 20,601 3.102 69 24.58 European Commission 686 22,235 32.4 71 Europe 2532
Natural Hazards And Earth System 609 18,550 4.345 65 30.45 National Science 540 13,811 25.58 56 USA 2378
Sciences Foundation
Environmental Earth Sciences 530 10,659 2.784 52 20.11 National Basic 458 12,302 26.86 54 China 1122
Bulletin Of Engineering Geology 482 6272 4.298 36 13.01 Research Program
And The Environment Of China
Remote Sensing 405 5836 4.848 38 14.40 Fundamental Research 432 4942 11.44 36 China 1242
Journal Of Mountain Science 330 3007 2.071 27 9.112 Funds For The
Earth Surface Processes And 282 10,315 4.607 4.133 36.57 Central Universities
Landforms Ministry Of Education 423 9211 21.76 46 Japan 1820
Arabian Journal Of Geosciences 259 3278 1.827 30 12.65 Culture Sports
Catena 245 10,480 5.198 53 42.77 Science And
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 226 8445 3.725 45 37.36 Technology Japan
Marine Geology 216 8023 3.548 49 37.14 National Key R D 397 2465 6.21 22 China 1194
Geophysical Research Letters 205 6544 4.72 46 31.92 Program Of China
Geomatics Natural Hazards Risk 202 3022 3.528 28 14.96 UK Research 396 13,142 33.19 59 England 1964
Water 202 1606 3.103 21 7.95 Innovation
Journal Of Geophysical Research 176 6091 4.041 47 34.60 Japan Society For The 361 6607 18.30 39 Japan 2696
Earth Surface Promotion Of
Quarterly Journal Of Engineering 147 1772 1.364 23 12.05 Science
Geology And Hydrogeology Ministry Of Science 343 5937 17.31 38 Taiwan 883
Bulletin Of Engineering Geology 482 6272 4.298 36 13.01 And Technology (China)
And The Environment Taiwan

Note: TP, TC, AC and IF in the table header signify the total articles published,
total citation count, average citations per article and impact factor, respectively.
Australia have the highest cooperation rates, with 44.35%, 35.68% and
30.69%, respectively. An example of how this figure is expressed is as
follows: 110 of the 258 publications from Vietnam include the countries
or regions with which it has the closest cooperation.
In addition, self-citation analysis was conducted. Results show that
China, Iran, and the Czech Republic have the highest self-citation of ar-
ticles with 41.7%, 24.4%, and 24.1%, respectively.
Fig. 4 illustrates the collaborative relationship between countries and
regions. It is clear that the USA, China, and Italy are the countries with
the highest proportions of articles, and the USA has the highest number
of collaborations approached. The comprehensive analysis suggests that
the United States, China, and Italy are relatively representative countries
or regions in the field of landslide research by the country or region as the
unit. The reason for the high average citations per article in Malaysia,
Norway, and the Netherlands is more biased toward the extremely
outstanding individual researchers, such as Pradhan, Biswajeet of
Malaysia. International collaborations are most frequent in the United
States, China, and Italy. In addition, although China has a high interna-
tional exchange, researchers are more likely to cite their own country's
research results.
Note: TP, TC, AC, C/R and NOR in the table header signify the total articles
published, total citation count, average citations per article, countries/regions
and number of researchers, respectively.
journal evaluation. In this study, the IF values of 2020 were selected and
introduced into the database, and the statistics show that the three
journals with high IF are Science of the Total Environment (7.963), Engi-
neering Geology (6.755) and Landslides (6.578). As for the H-index, Geo-
morphology is again ranked first with the highest IF value 107, in
addition to Natural Hazards, Catena and Environmental Earth Sciences also
have high H-indexes, indicating that these journals also have excellent
valuable articles that receive much attention of researchers.
Comprehensive analysis suggests that Geomorphology, Engineering
Geology and Landslides are relatively representative journals in the field of
landslide research. Science of the Total Environment, despite its highest IF
value, is part of the overall evaluation of journals and does not represent
the academic influence in the field of landslide research. Besides, Earth
and Planetary Science Letters, Geology, and Journal of Geophysical Research
(Solid Earth) are journals with the low total number of publications, but
with a high H-index and average citation number per article, which are
also one of the best choices for contributors.
3.6. Foundation programs

3.5. Journals
The analysis of journals can reflect the relative values of journals,
which is helpful for researchers to choose which one to submit their
manuscripts. The 20,888 articles selected for the study came from a total
of 1645 journals (Table 4). The journal with the highest total number of
publications is Landslides, with 1393 publications, followed by Engineer-
ing Geology (1091) and Geomorphology (1038), with 16.9% of the total
number of publications, respectively. In terms of citations, these three
journals are still in the top three, but in the order of Geomorphology
(46,610), Engineering Geology (45,093), and Landslides (34,391). The
statistics of the average citation number per article show that Geology,
Environmental Geology and Earth And Planetary Science Letters have the
highest average citation number per article with 63.2, 54 and 48.9,
respectively. The impact factor (IF) is an international common index for
The analysis of foundation programs can provide a reference for the
research investment of government departments (Table 5). From this
study, the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) is clearly
the most effective foundation program, ranking first with 3299 articles,
which is much higher than the second place, 686 articles funded by the
European Commission. However, the H-index of the NSFC-funded arti-
cles is close to that of the latter, at 76 and 71, respectively, indicating that
the two are close in terms of more cutting-edge, high-quality research.
The articles funded by the European Commission Joint Research Centre
have the highest overall academic value with an average of 48.15 cita-
tions. In addition, the articles funded by UK Research Innovation, Natural
Environment Research Council (England) and National Science Foun-
dation (USA) have high H-indexes of 59, 57 and 56, respectively, indi-
cating their status in cutting-edge and high-level fields. Besides the
abovementioned foundation programs, the articles funded by the Swiss

54
Y. Huang et al. Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 49–61

Fig. 5. Changes in amounts of funds to earth sciences and the number of projects in NFSC.

Table 6
Top 20 keywords in terms of frequency for time intervals.
1982–1999 2000–2005 2006–2010 2011–2015 2016–2020 2021

model/31 model/98 model/273 model/560 model/1260 model/270

earthquake/26 evolution/89 GIS/242 GIS/449 GIS/730 logistic regression/159
evolution/24 earthquake/84 earthquake/152 area/330 logistic regression/609 area/149
disturbance/16 GIS/80 Remote sensing/149 earthquake/273 area/581 prediction/142
deposit/16 debris flow/84 area/114 debris flow/245 earthquake/337 GIS/132
soil/16 deformation/41 failure/101 logistic regression/229 failure/484 earthquake/120
stratigraphy/14 sediment/39 deformation/92 susceptibility/224 deformation/474 failure/120
dynamics/13 soil/36 erosion/83 Remote sensing/203 debris flow/455 slope stability/181
debris flow/46 rainfall/33 soil/79 deformation/192 slope stability/455 rainfall/86
island/13 area/33 slope stability/75 slope stability/191 prediction/401 Remote sensing/85
avalanche/13 failure/33 logistic regression/72 failure/190 Remote sensing/367 debris flow/84
forest/12 deposit/27 sediment/173 erosion/188 susceptibility/331 susceptibility/79
growth/12 wave/27 debris flow/67 rainfall/164 frequency ratio/323 simulation/78
calibration/11 island/25 rainfall/66 prediction/150 rainfall/310 soil/76
mountain/10 dynamics/24 system/66 impact/142 soil/309 deformation/74
wave/10 basin/23 prediction/62 simulation/139 simulation/300 impact/70
eruption/10 morphology/23 morphology/62 shallow landslide/133 impact/299 frequency ratio/69
vegetation/10 slope stability/22 basin/60 risk/128 machine learning/296 landslide susceptibility/68
rainfall/9 erosion/22 dynamics/60 basin/127 shallow landslide/285 climate change/66

National Science Foundation have the 6th highest average number of
citations per article at 29.30.
All the indicators related to the research funded by NFSC far exceed
those of other institutions, and this study suggests that there is a link with
amounts of funds. As shown in Fig. 5, the amount of funds to earth sci-
ences from NFSC has generally been on the rise over the past 10 years,
and the number of projects has also been increasing. It is worth
mentioning that another widely used method in the analysis of the fund
project is the SCOPUS database by Elsevier and the SciVal platform
provided by it. This method allows to obtain results similar to those of the
present study.
3.7. Keywords
In the keyword analysis, synonyms were combined firstly, including
different forms of words. In addition, some words that appear frequently
but are less useful for the analysis of research trends were manually
excluded, such as “landslide”, “hazard”, and some place names.
The time span was divided into intervals 1982–1999, 2000–2005,
2005–2010, 2011–2015, and 2016–2021. The statistical results (Table 6)
show that the number of keywords is increasing, with 292 keywords
involved in articles from 1982 to 1999, while 746 keywords involved in
articles from 2016 to 2021. This is inseparable from the deepening of
landslide research, fusion of disciplines and the emergence of new the-
ories and approaches.
As shown in Table 6 and Fig. 6, “model” has been the most frequent
keyword because landslide studies involve many types of models,
including physical mechanical simulation models, numerical simulation
models and susceptibility/risk evaluation models. For example, both
Liang et al. (2019) and (Pastor et al., 2014) used an SPH model-based
approach to study the dynamic evolution process of landslides. Bregoli
et al. (2021) instead used a physical experimental setup to model land-
slides. Bui et al. (2020) compared the predictive performance of deep
learning neural network models with traditional machine learning
models in landslide sensitivity assessment. Xu et al. (2019) used a
Bayesian probabilistic approach with machine models to produce a
first-generation probabilistic map of landslide hazards for earthquakes in
China.” Evolution” is also a high-frequency keyword, mainly related to
the evolution of the landscape of the whole region at large scales and
landslide-related evolutionary processes on small scales, usually related
to the study of the mechanism of genesis. For instance, Yan et al. (2020)
analyzed the evolution process by reconstructing landslides through
numerical simulation. There are also studies on the evolution of vege-
tation in the region after landslides (Chen et al., 2020) and the

55
Y. Huang et al. Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 49–61

Fig. 6. Keyword co-occurrence relationship.

relationship between landslides and the evolution of geomorphic pro- popularity of the application of 3S technology in landslide research.
cesses (Korup et al., 2010). In addition, the high frequencies of “earth- The gradual development of machine learning is an important trend.
quake” and “rainfall” reflect that earthquakes and rainfall are the two Results show that in 2000–2010, there were already researchers who
major triggering factors for landslide occurrence, corresponding to used artificial neural networks for the analysis of landslides. And in
co-seismic landslides and rainfall landslides. Debris flow” is usually a part 2010–2015, logistic regression and artificial neural networks appeared
of a disaster chain, because sometimes landslides can change into debris 229 and 108 times, and the keywords “susceptibility” and “prediction”
flows and avalanches (Park et al., 2016; Hu et al., 2021). were highlighted in the same period. By 2015–2021, more kinds of
The studies containing the keywords “slope stability”, “deformation”, machine learning algorithms emerged, such as the support vector ma-
“dynamics” and “failure” focus on the stability, deformation and mech- chine (Kalantar et al., 2018), random forests (Trigila et al., 2015; Hong
anism of typical landslides from the perspective of engineering physics et al., 2017b), and decision trees (Thai Pham et al., 2018), reflecting the
and mechanics. For example, Chen et al. (2021) studied the mechanism beginning of widespread application of machine learning, which to some
of the Baige landslide at the Jinshajiang River and concluded that extent promoted assessment and prediction of landslide susceptibility.
gravitational deformation of deep-seated slopes is an important cause.
Kardani et al. (2021) proposed a hybrid superimposed ensemble
3.8. LDA model
approach to enhance the prediction of slope stability.
“Simulation” is mostly found in articles on landslide simulation and
Topic coherence was introduced as an evaluation criterion for the
analysis using relevant software and methods. For example, Feng et al.
quality of the model. Through continuous attempts to select the most
(2021) used the FLAC code in combination with PFC software to simulate
appropriate number of topics, the study established that the model has a
a typical co-seismic landslide. Yamada et al. (2016) performed SHALTOP
relatively high topic coherence when the number of topics is 19. In the
numerical simulations of landslides to analyze the dynamic friction.
model analysis, to better illuminate the relationship between individual
In addition, before 2010, the studies concerning Quaternary geology
terms, we eliminated the terms with little repetition and substance and
were abundantly evidenced by the high frequency of keywords such as
added them to the “stop-word” list. As for some terms that appeared in
“stratigraphy” and “deposit”. For example, Bichler et al. (2016) studied
multiple topics, they were divided into the most relevant topics as much
landslide deposits as stratigraphic markers. But the frequency of related
as possible according to their relevant values. And when they were closer
keywords decreased between 2011 and 2015, and the studies were more
to the relevant values of multiple topics, they were retained; as a result,
biased towards geomorphic evolution and external forcing aspects, with
10 terms were obtained for each topic. The LDA cannot explicitly derive
keywords including “evolution” and “erosion”. However, after 2016, the
the name of each topic, so the topic was named according to the overall
frequency of “climate change” started to increase, which is related to the
term content (Table 7).
tectonic-climate coupling proposed in recent years in the field of Qua-
According to the frequency of occurrence, the top ten topics are
ternary research (Lan et al., 2021).
“riskiness evaluation”, “shallow landslides”, “evolutionary processes and
“Geographic Information System (GIS)", as an important technology
numerical simulation”, “formation mechanism”, “machine learning”,
in current research of landslides, appears more frequently in keywords,
“earthquake”, “3S technology”, “Landslide Database”, “Erosion and
while which was relatively insignificant from 1982 to 1999, and then
Weathering”, and “Monitoring and Early Warning”. The topics are not
suddenly grew to one of the most frequently appearing keywords after
completely independent from each other, instead, each overlaps and
2000, along with the trend of ''remote sensing'', reflecting the rapid
emphasizes.

56
Y. Huang et al.
Table 7
LDA model topics and terms classification results.
Topics Terms
Risk assessment Model-Risk-Zonation-Frequency Ratio-Evaluation-
Susceptibility-Assessment-Map-Classification-
Probability
Shallow landslides Deposit-Clay-Surface-Shallow-Infiltration-Pressure-
Stability-Slope-Instability-Analysis
Evolution process and Model-Dynamics-Motion-Mass Movement-
numerical simulation Simulation-Physically Based-Numerical-Finite
Element-Discrete Element-Surge
Formation mechanism Evolution-Disturbance-Deformation-Failure-
Mechanism-Slide-Damage-Stablity-Formation-
Process
Machine learning Logistic Regression-Artificial Neural Network-Fuzzy
Logic-Algorithm-SVM-Machine Learning-Decision
Tree-Random Forest-Information-AUC
Earthquakes Earthquake-Wave-Crustal Structure-Fault-Intensity-
Magnitude-Seismicity-Coseismic-Trigger-Peak
Acceleration
3S technology GIS-GPS-Sar Interferometry-Radar-Data-Resolution-
InSAR-UAV-Satellite-Lidar
Landslide database Area-Pattern-Region-Statistical-Scale-Spatial-
Distribution-Inventory-Identification-Interpret
Erosion and weathering Erosion-Sediment-Water-Weather-Climate-
Temperature-Soil-Processes-Basin-Loess
Monitoring and early Early Warning-Monitor-System-Prediction-
warning Displacement-Time Series-Event-Models-Threshold-
Deformation
Rainfall Rainfall-Water-Precipitation-Runoff-Threshold-
Flood-Intensity-Infiltration-Pore Water-Saturation
Condition factors Impact-Dem-Curvature-Factors-Conditional-
Parameter-Slope-Index-Distance-Weight
Landforms and topography Mountain-Basin-River-Valley-Morphology-Terrain-
Topography-Catchment-Landscape-Evolution-
Topographic
Rock avalanches and debris Debris Flow-Avalanche-Collapse-Flood-Source-
flows Mountain-Rainfall-Gully-Dammed Lake-Rock
Engineering Geology Highway-Sedimentation-Liquefaction-Constraint-
Shear Strength-Stress-Subsidence-Conductivity-Limit
Equilibrium-High Density Resistance
Quaternary geology Quaternary -Stratigraphy-Age-Chronology-Uplift-
Tectonics-Holocene-Active Faults -Sediment-
Evolution Process
Submarine landslides Island-Turbidity Current-Submarine-Earthquake-
Model-Tsunami-Basin-Continental Margin-Gas
Hydrate-The South China Sea
Vegetated Forest Forest-Growth-Vegetation-Evolution-Restoration-
Soil-Ndvi- Coverage-Stability
Natural Disasters Eruption-Volcano-Hurricane-Succession-Tsunami-
Flood-Heavy Rainfall-Extreme Weather-Disaster
Chain-Flow
The trend reflected by the overall frequency shows that basically
every topic is growing over time, and growing increasingly fast. The most
rapid growth is in “machine learning”, with relatively few terms related
to the topic of “machine learning” before 2010, and a rapid increase in
frequency since 2011. A similar trend is seen in “3S” technologies,
although their rapid growth is more advanced. In addition, the keywords
for the topic of “formation mechanism” had a clear dominance in the
early period, but gradually showed a relatively weakening trend in the
middle period, and then returned to normal growth (Fig. 7).
4. Discussion
As the field of landslide research is rather broad with various research
directions, only individual themes are selected for discussion in this
paper.
4.1. Establishment of landslide databases and environmental factors
The keywords in landslide databases are not obvious in the statistics,
but the landslide database is a very important research direction in the
57
Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 49–61
LDA results. In fact, a landslide database is the basis of regional landslide
research. Early database establishment was mostly based on field sur-
veys, and the contents of the database are limited. Most of these data-
bases only contain coordinates, field photos and some morphometric
parameters of typical landslides. As analyzed earlier, the development of
3S technology is most closely associated with the landslide database.
Based on the GIS platform and satellite remote sensing, manual visual
interpretation of landslides is one of the main ways to establish data-
bases, and different platforms and images can be adopted for different
landslides in such an effort. For example, the interpretation of co-seismic
landslides is mostly based on pre- and post-earthquake remote sensing
images (Shao et al., 2019; He et al., 2021), while for ancient landslides,
platforms such as Google Earth are more appropriate (Shao et al., 2020;
Li et al., 2021). In addition, environmental factors, i.e., impact factors in
susceptibility assessment, tend to be extracted in a more precise and
comprehensive way in terms of categories. Besides geomorphic factors of
landslides, for co-seismic landslides, relevant parameters of the earth-
quake are considered, such as peak seismic acceleration, distance from
the epicenter, etc. (Xu et al., 2014b; Tian et al., 2017); for
rainfall-triggered shallow landslides, rainfall amount and surface lithol-
ogy are considered (Hong et al., 2017a; Shao et al., 2021); for the analysis
of the ancient landslide database, historical earthquakes, climate change,
and tectonic distribution should be taken into account (Huang et al.,
2020).
In addition, some studies have proposed automatic landslide identi-
fication methods based on deep learning, which can automatically
extract landslides from remotely sensed images after the training of the
model (Zhang et al., 2020). There is also related research to automati-
cally map landslide distribution under specific conditions (Qi et al.,
2020). Research in this direction currently remains in a development
stage because the model is highly demanding, and the images of different
satellites and the geomorphological features of different regions can lead
to errors in the results. With the rapid development of machine learning
in landslide research applications, deep learning as the frontier is ex-
pected to be more widely used as well.
4.2. Comparison with previous studies
As already mentioned in the introduction, some researchers have
applied a bibliometric to the study of landslides, which is still compa-
rable, despite the different sources of research data and analysis methods.
In terms of countries/regions, Carri on-Mero et al. (2021) identified China
and Italy as the countries that contributed the most. Wu et al. (2015)
mentioned that the regions with the highest distribution of authors are
North America, Western Europe and East Asia, while within these three
regions it is still the United States, Italy and China that are the most
dominant. This is consistent with the results obtained in this paper. In
terms of institutional analysis, similar to the former, CAS, CNR, and USGS
are the most mentioned institutions. In terms of authorship analysis, the
key authors in each cluster in the study by Carri on-Mero et al. (2021) are
present in this study, such as Guzzetti F., Sassa K., Xu Q, etc., the list of
the most prolific authors obtained in Wu et al. (2015) is more different
from the present study and the overall number of author publications
obtained from the statistics is smaller than the present study. The reasons
for this are more related to the year of publication and the choice of
database. The same discrepancy is also found in the study of Gokceoglu
and Sezer (2009), where the interval of the selected database was
1945–2008.
Also, in some studies, there are minor differences in the country/re-
gion statistics due to the selection of the database as a specific journal. In
Sassa et al. (2015) and Mikos (2017), Japan replaces the United States in
the top three countries in terms of the number of articles issued, and the
same variation exists for institutions. This is because both databases are
from journal Landslides.
For analysis in terms of journals, the relationship mapping in the
Carrion-Mero et al. (2021) shows that the journals located in the centre of
Y. Huang et al. Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 49–61

Fig. 7. Trend of frequency change by topics.

Fig. 8. Topic relationship network obtained from LDA model.

the clusters are Journal of Geophysical Research, Engineering Geology,
Geomorphology, Landslides, and Marine Geology, etc. In contrast to Wu
et al. (2015), Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
does not appear in our table. In addition, according to the bibliometric
analysis of Sassa et al. (2015) and Mikos (2017), Landslides, Environmental
Earth Science, Geomorphology, Engineering Geology, have a very strong
position in the field of landslides, which is consistent with our
conclusions.
4.3. LDA model combined with software
The source data of the two are different: the software is based on
keywords while the LDA model is based on abstracts, and also their in-
ternal algorithms are different. Both have been manually intervened to
obtain more satisfactory results, but the connection between the two has
not yet been revealed. Therefore, the keywords and terms were corre-
sponded to each other on the basis of what was already available, and
then the links between the literature included in each topic and the
literature were counted. The data was manually converted into the
format required by the software so that the topic data obtained from the
LDA model could be visualized using the VOSviewer (Fig. 8). This result
combines the results of the keywords and the LDA model with a more
condensed classification.
At present, the entire research on landslides can be divided into four

58
Y. Huang et al.
focused areas, each further extending multiple research directions, with
obvious interdisciplinary crossover and integration. For example, Qua-
ternary geology and geomorphology focus on geology and
geomorphology-related analysis of landslides viewed as changes of
landforms, such as the evolution of landforms, weathering and erosion,
lithology of landslide deposits, stratigraphy, and tectonic-climatic
coupling effects. More popular in the early studies and relatively slow
growth subsequently, they are now growing rapidly with the intensive
study of climate change. In engineering geology, the physical mechanics
of typical landslides is a focused issue, including stability analysis, dy-
namic mechanisms, and landslide simulation, which have been the main
research themes in various time periods. Among them, simulation-
related research has grown much after 2011, which has some connec-
tion with the development of related technologies and software. The field
of database and susceptibility evaluation, including the establishment of
landslide databases and the selection of susceptibility evaluation models,
as well as the subsequent mapping, is most closely related to 3S tech-
nologies, especially the GIS platform. At present, the establishment of
landslide databases is in the development stage, except for the visual
interpretation of satellite images, and the research of automatic com-
puter extraction. And risk assessment models in the early stage are
mainly traditional statistical models, such as hierarchical analysis. With
the development of machine learning, the combination of statistical
models and machine learning has become a new trend, represented by
logistic regression models and artificial neural networks. In the field of
emergency response and hazard control, landslides are monitored and
early warned based on the already relatively mature studies, while the
research of landslide-related hazard chains including submarine land-
slides is also in this field. Earlier research focused less on this area and
only began to develop rapidly as research in other areas became more
mature. Research in this aspect is directly related to human life and
properties and is an important trend of future development.
5. Conclusions
In this paper, a bibliometric analysis of 20,888 papers in the WOS
database with the topic of landslides was conducted with the aim to re-
view and summarize the studies on landslides and try to reveal focused
themes and trends in this field. The conclusions are as follows:
(1) The earliest publication in the selected articles was in 1982, and
the overall annual number of publications was growing and
increasing, from 8 in 1982–2432 in 2020.
(2) Pradhan, Biswajeet, and Xu, Qiang are the authors with the most
publications, and Guzzetti, Fausto, and Dai, Fuchu are the authors
with the highest average number of citations per article. For in-
stitutions, CAS and CNR are the top contributors. For countries/
regions, China and the United States contributed most
publications.
(3) landslides-related articles were most abundant in Landslides and
Engineering Geology journals, and landslides-related articles in
Geology and Environmental Geology journals had the highest
average number of citations per article.
(4) The articles funded by the NSFC far exceeded the number of other
funds.
(5) The frequency of keywords is related to the time segment, and the
keywords with high overall frequency are “model”, “GIS”, “sus-
ceptibility”, “earthquake”, “remote sensing”, “slope stability”, and
“deformation".
(6) The top three topics divided by the LDA model in frequency are
“risk” assessment, “shallow landslides” and “evolution process
and numerical simulation”. Machine learning exhibits the fastest
growth rate. All research can be divided into four directions:
Quaternary geology and geomorphology, landslide engineering
geology, landslide database and risk assessment, and landslide
monitoring and warning.
59
Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 49–61
This study suggests that bibliometric analysis can indeed play an
important role in reviewing and summarizing existing studies and
exploring highly-concerned research issues and trends. It also has,
however, certain shortcomings. The format of the basic information of
the literature is not uniform, especially the names of authors. And the
statistical methods of various analysis software are different, and the
results may be biased.
Declaration of competing interest
We declare that we do not have any commercial or associative in-
terest that represents a conflict of interest in connection with the work
submitted.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Institute of Natural Hazards,
Ministry of Emergency Management of China (ZDJ2021-14), the Lhasa
National Geophysical Observation and Research Station (NORSLS20-07),
and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41941016).
References
An, H.C., Ouyang, C.J., Zhou, S., 2021. Dynamic process analysis of the Baige landslide by
the combination of DEM and long-period seismic waves. Landslides 18 (5),
1625–1639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-020-01595-0.
Bichler, M.G., Reindl, M., Reitner, J.M., Drescher-Schneider, R., Wirsig, C., Christl, M.,
Hajdas, I., Ivy-Ochs, S., 2016. Landslide deposits as stratigraphical markers for a
sequence-based glacial stratigraphy: a case study of a Younger Dryas system in the
Eastern Alps. Boreas 45 (3), 537–551. https://doi.org/10.1111/bor.12173.
Bregoli, F., Medina, V., Bateman, A., 2021. The energy transfer from granular landslides
to water bodies explained by a data-driven, physics-based numerical model.
Landslides 18 (4), 1337–1348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-020-01568-3.
Bui, D.T., Tsangaratos, P., Nguyen, V.-T., Liem, N.V., Trinh, P.T., 2020. Comparing the
prediction performance of a Deep Learning Neural Network model with conventional
machine learning models in landslide susceptibility assessment. Catena 188, 104426.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2019.104426.
Carri
on-Mero, P., Montalvan-Burbano, N., Morante-Carballo, F., Quesada-Roman, A.,
Apolo-Masache, B., 2021. Worldwide research trends in landslide science. Int. J.
Environ. Res. Publ. Health 18 (18), 9445. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18189445.
Chen, M., Tang, C., Xiong, J., Shi, Q.Y., Li, N., Gong, L.F., Wang, X.D., Tie, Y., 2020. The
long-term evolution of landslide activity near the epicentral area of the 2008
Wenchuan earthquake in China. Geomorphology 367, 107317. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.geomorph.2020.107317.
Chen, Z., Zhou, H.F., Ye, F., Liu, B., Fu, W.X., 2021. The characteristics, induced factors,
and formation mechanism of the 2018 Baige landslide in Jinsha River, Southwest
China. Catena 203, 105337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2021.105337.
DiMaggio, P., Nag, M., Blei, D., 2013. Exploiting affinities between topic modeling and
the sociological perspective on culture: application to newspaper coverage of U.S.
government arts funding. Poetics 41 (6), 570–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.poetic.2013.08.004.
Feng, Z.Y., Lu, Y.R., Shen, Z.R., 2021. A numerical simulation of seismic signals of
coseismic landslides. Eng. Geol. 289, 106191. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enggeo.2021.106191.
Gokceoglu, C., Sezer, E., 2009. A statistical assessment on international landslide
literature (1945–2008). Landslides 6 (4), 345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-009-
0166-3.
Gorum, T., Fan, X.M., van Westen, C.J., Huang, R.Q., Xu, C., Tang, C., Wang, G.H., 2010.
Distribution pattern of earthquake-induced landslides triggered by the 12 May 2008
Wenchuan earthquake. Geomorphology 133 (3), 152–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.geomorph.2010.12.030.
He, X.L., Xu, C., Qi, W.W., Huang, Y.D., Cheng, J., Xu, X.W., Yao, Q., Lu, Y.K., Dai, B.Y.,
2021. Landslides triggered by the 2020 qiaojia Mw5.1 earthquake, yunnan, China:
distribution, influence factors and tectonic significance. J. Earth Sci. 32 (5),
1056–1068. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12583-021-1492-1.
Hong, H.Y., Chen, W., Xu, C., Youssef, A.M., Pradhan, B., Tien Bui, D., 2017a. Rainfall-
induced landslide susceptibility assessment at the Chongren area (China) using
frequency ratio, certainty factor, and index of entropy. Geocarto Int. 32 (2), 139–154.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2015.1130086.
Hong, H.Y., Tsangaratos, P., Ilia, I., Chen, W., Xu, C., 2017b. Comparing the Performance
of a Logistic Regression and a Random Forest Model in Landslide Susceptibility
Assessments. The Case of Wuyaun Area, China. Advancing Culture of Living with
Landslides. Springer International Publishing, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-319-53498-5_118.
Hu, Y.X., Li, H.B., Lu, G.D., Fan, G., Zhou, J.W., 2021. Influence of size gradation on
particle separation and the motion behaviors of debris avalanches. Landslides 18 (5),
1845–1858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-020-01596-z.
Huang, W.L., Yang, Q.H., Lu, Y., Su, S.R., Zhou, Z.H., 2020. Relationship between
distribution characteristics of prehistoric landslides and seismic activity along qinling
Y. Huang et al.
piedmont fault. J. Eng. Geol. 28 (6), 1259–1271. https://doi.org/10.13544/
j.cnki.jeg.2019-383 (in Chinese with English Abstract).
Huang, Y.D., Xu, C., Zhang, X.L., Xue, C.J., Wang, S.Y., 2021. An updated database and
spatial distribution of landslides triggered by the Milin, tibet Mw6.4 earthquake of 18
november 2017. J. Earth Sci. 32 (5), 1069–1078. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12583-
021-1433-z.
Iqbal, J., Dai, F.C., Hong, M., Tu, X.B., Xie, Q.Z., 2018. Failure mechanism and stability
analysis of an active landslide in the Xiangjiaba reservoir area, southwest China.
J. Earth Sci. 29 (3), 646–661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12583-017-0753-5.
Jacobi, C., van Atteveldt, W., Welbers, K., 2016. Quantitative analysis of large amounts of
journalistic texts using topic modelling. Digital J. 4 (1), 89–106. https://doi.org/
10.1080/21670811.2015.1093271.
Jelodar, H., Wang, Y., Yuan, C., Feng, X., Jiang, X., Li, Y., Zhao, L., 2019. Latent Dirichlet
allocation (LDA) and topic modeling: models, applications, a survey. Multimed. Tool.
Appl. 78 (11), 15169–15211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-018-6894-4.
Kalantar, B., Pradhan, B., Naghibi, S.A., Motevalli, A., Mansor, S., 2018. Assessment of the
effects of training data selection on the landslide susceptibility mapping: a
comparison between support vector machine (SVM), logistic regression (LR) and
artificial neural networks (ANN). Geomatics, Nat. Hazards Risk 9 (1), 49–69. https://
doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2017.1407368.
Kardani, N., Zhou, A., Nazem, M., Shen, S.-L., 2021. Improved prediction of slope stability
using a hybrid stacking ensemble method based on finite element analysis and field
data. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 13 (1), 188–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jrmge.2020.05.011.
Korup, O., Densmore, A.L., Schlunegger, F., 2010. The role of landslides in mountain
range evolution. Geomorphology 120 (1), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.geomorph.2009.09.017.
Kumar, M., Krishnaveni, V., MuthUKumar, S., 2021. Geotechnical investigation and
numerical analysis of slope failure: a case study of landslide vulnerability zone in
kolli hills, Tamil nadu. J. Geol. Soc. India 97 (5), 513–519. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12594-021-1717-z.
Lan, H.X., Zhu, Y.B., Li, L.P., Pan, B.T., Hu, Z.B., Peng, J.B., 2021. Research on multi
process interaction of Geology,Geomorphology and climate in the yellow river basin
and its gestation mechanisms on major disasters. Bull. Natl. Nat. Sci. Found. Chin. 35
(4), 510–519. https://doi.org/10.16262/j.cnki.1000-8217.2021.04.003.
Li, L., Xu, C., Zhang, Z.J., Huang, Y.D., 2021. Spatial distribution and its control factors of
landslides in longxi county, gansu province, China. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.
861 (5), 052013. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/861/5/052013.
Liang, H., He, S.M., Lei, X.Q., Bi, Y.Z., Liu, W., Ouyang, C.J., 2019. Dynamic process
simulation of construction solid waste (CSW) landfill landslide based on SPH
considering dilatancy effects. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 78 (2), 763–777. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10064-017-1129-x.
Ma, S.Y., Xu, C., 2019. Assessment of co-seismic landslide hazard using the Newmark
model and statistical analyses: a case study of the 2013 Lushan, China, Mw6.6
earthquake. Nat. Hazards 96 (1), 389–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-018-
3548-9.
Ma, S.Y., Xu, C., Tian, Y.Y., Xu, X.W., 2019. Application of logistic regression model for
hazard assessment of earthquake-triggered landslides: a case study of 2017
Jiuzhaigou (China) ms7.0 event. Seismol. Geol. 41 (1), 162–177. https://doi.org/
10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2019.01.011 (in Chinese with English Abstract).
Massey, C., Townsend, D., Rathje, E., Allstadt, K.E., Lukovic, B., Kaneko, Y., Bradley, B.,
Wartman, J., Jibson, R.W., Petley, D.N., Horspool, N., Hamling, I., Carey, J., Cox, S.,
Davidson, J., Dellow, S., Godt, J.W., Holden, C., Jones, K., Kaiser, A., Little, M.,
Lyndsell, B., McColl, S., Morgenstern, R., Rengers, F.K., Rhoades, D., Rosser, B.,
Strong, D., Singeisen, C., Villeneuve, M., 2018. Landslides triggered by the 14
november 2016 Mw 7.8 kaik oura earthquake, New Zealand. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.
108 (3B), 1630–1648. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120170305.
Massey, C.I., Townsend, D.T., Lukovic, B., Morgenstern, R., Jones, K., Rosser, B., de
Vilder, S., 2020. Landslides triggered by the MW7.8 14 November 2016 Kaik oura
earthquake: an update. Landslides 17 (10), 2401–2408. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10346-020-01439-x.
Mikos, M., 2017. Landslides: a top international journal in geological engineering and
engineering geology? Landslides 14 (5), 1827–1838. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10346-017-0869-9.
Mikos, M., 2018. The bibliometric impact of books published by the International
Consortium on Landslides. Landslides 15 (8), 1459–1482. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10346-018-1019-8.
Mohammady, M., Pourghasemi, H.R., Pradhan, B., 2012. Landslide susceptibility
mapping at Golestan Province, Iran: a comparison between frequency ratio,
Dempster–Shafer, and weights-of-evidence models. J. Asian Earth Sci. 61, 221–236.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2012.10.005.
Park, D.W., Lee, S.R., Vasu, N.N., Kang, S.H., Park, J.Y., 2016. Coupled model for
simulation of landslides and debris flows at local scale. Nat. Hazards 81 (3),
1653–1682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2150-2.
Pastor, M., Blanc, T., Haddad, B., Petrone, S., Sanchez Morles, M., Drempetic, V.,
Issler, D., Crosta, G.B., Cascini, L., Sorbino, G., Cuomo, S., 2014. Application of a SPH
depth-integrated model to landslide run-out analysis. Landslides 11 (5), 793–812.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-014-0484-y.
Pham, B.T., Tien Bui, D., Prakash, I., Dholakia, M.B., 2017. Hybrid integration of
Multilayer Perceptron Neural Networks and machine learning ensembles for
landslide susceptibility assessment at Himalayan area (India) using GIS. Catena 149,
52–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2016.09.007.
Qi, W.W., Wei, M.F., Yang, W.T., Xu, C., Ma, C., 2020. Automatic mapping of landslides
by the ResU-Net. Rem. Sens. 12 (15), 2487. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12152487.
Roback, K., Clark, M.K., West, A.J., Zekkos, D., Li, G., Gallen, S.F., Chamlagain, D.,
Godt, J.W., 2018. The size, distribution, and mobility of landslides caused by the
60
Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 49–61
2015 Mw7.8 Gorkha earthquake, Nepal. Geomorphology 301, 121–138. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.01.030.
Sassa, K., Tsuchiya, S., Fukuoka, H., Mikos, M., Doan, L., 2015. Landslides: review of
achievements in the second 5-year period (2009–2013). Landslides 12 (2), 213–223.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-015-0567-4.
Shao, X.Y., Ma, S.Y., Xu, C., Zhang, P.F., Wen, B.Y., Tian, Y.Y., Zhou, Q., Cui, Y.L., 2019.
Planet image-based inventorying and machine learning-based susceptibility mapping
for the landslides triggered by the 2018 Mw6.6 Tomakomai, Japan Earthquake. Rem.
Sens. 11 (8), 978. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11080978.
Shao, X.Y., Ma, S.Y., Xu, C., Shen, L.L., Lu, Y.K., 2020. Inventory, distribution and
geometric characteristics of landslides in baoshan city, yunnan province, China.
Sustainability 12 (6), 2433. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062433.
Shao, X.Y., Xu, C., Ma, S.Y., Xu, X.W., J, B.H.S., Zhou, Q., 2021. Calculation of landslide
occurrence probability in Taiwan(China) region under different ground motion
conditions. J. Mt. Sci. 18 (4), 1003–1012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-020-
6540-2.
Singh, K., Kumar, V., 2018. Hazard assessment of landslide disaster using information
value method and analytical hierarchy process in highly tectonic Chamba region in
bosom of Himalaya. J. Mt. Sci. 15 (4), 808–824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-
017-4634-2.
Thai Pham, B., Tien Bui, D., Prakash, I., 2018. Landslide susceptibility modelling using
different advanced decision trees methods. Civ. Eng. Environ. Syst. 35, 139–157.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2019.1568418, 01–04.
Tian, Y.Y., Xu, C., Chen, J., Hong, H.Y., 2017. Spatial distribution and susceptibility
analyses of pre-earthquake and coseismic landslides related to the Ms 6.5 earthquake
of 2014 in Ludian, Yunan, China. Geocarto Int. 32 (9), 978–989. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10106049.2016.1232316.
Tian, Y.Y., Xu, C., Hong, H.Y., Zhou, Q., Wang, D., 2019a. Mapping earthquake-triggered
landslide susceptibility by use of artificial neural network (ANN) models: an example
of the 2013 Minxian (China) Mw 5.9 event. Geomatics, Nat. Hazards Risk 10 (1),
1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2018.1487471.
Tian, Y.Y., Xu, C., Ma, S.Y., Xu, X.W., Wang, S.Y., Zhang, H., 2019b. Inventory and spatial
distribution of landslides triggered by the 8th august 2017 Mw6.5 Jiuzhaigou
earthquake, China. J. Earth Sci. 30 (1), 206–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12583-
018-0869-2.
Trigila, A., Iadanza, C., Esposito, C., Scarascia-Mugnozza, G., 2015. Comparison of logistic
regression and random forests techniques for shallow landslide susceptibility
assessment in giampilieri (NE sicily, Italy). Geomorphology 249, 119–136. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.06.001.
Tsou, C.Y., Chigira, M., Higaki, D., Sato, G., Yagi, H., Sato, H.P., Wakai, A., Dangol, V.,
Amatya, S.C., Yatagai, A., 2018. Topographic and geologic controls on landslides
induced by the 2015 Gorkha earthquake and its aftershocks: an example from the
Trishuli Valley, central Nepal. Landslides 15 (5), 953–965. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10346-017-0913-9.
van Westen, C.J., Castellanos, E., Kuriakose, S.L., 2008. Spatial data for landslide
susceptibility, hazard, and vulnerability assessment: an overview. Eng. Geol. 102 (3),
112–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2008.03.010.
Wu, X., Chen, X., Zhan, F.B., Hong, S., 2015. Global research trends in landslides during
1991–2014: a bibliometric analysis. Landslides 12 (6), 1215–1226. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10346-015-0624-z.
Wu, W.Y., Xu, C., Wang, X.Q., Tian, Y.Y., Deng, F., 2020. Landslides triggered by the 3
august 2014 ludian(China) mw 6.2 earthquake: an updated inventory and analysis of
their spatial distribution. J. Earth Sci. 31 (4), 853–866. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12583-020-1297-7.
Wu, K.L., Chen, N.S., Hu, G.S., Wang, T., Zhang, Y., Marcelo, S., 2021. New insights into
the failure mechanism and dynamic process of the Boli landslide, China. Bull. Eng.
Geol. Environ. 80 (3), 2131–2148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-020-02085-2.
Xu, C., Xu, X.W., Dai, F.C., Wu, Z.D., He, H.L., Shi, F., Wu, X.Y., Xu, S.N., 2013a.
Application of an incomplete landslide inventory, logistic regression model and its
validation for landslide susceptibility mapping related to the May 12, 2008
Wenchuan earthquake of China. Nat. Hazards 68 (2), 883–900. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11069-013-0661-7.
Xu, C., Xu, X.W., Yu, G.H., 2013b. The Yushu earthquake triggered landslide hazard
evaluation based on weight of evidence method. Seismol. Geol. 35 (1), 151–164.
https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2013.01.013 (in Chinese with English
Abstract).
Xu, C., Xu, X.W., Wu, X.Y., 2013c. Detailed catalog of landslides triggered by the 2008
Wenchuan earthquake and statistical analyses of their spatial distribution. J. Eng.
Geol. 21 (1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1004-9665.2013.01.004 (in
Chinese with English Abstract).
Xu, C., Xu, X.W., Shen, L.L., Dou, S., Wu, S.E., Tian, Y.Y., LI, X., 2014a. Inventory of
landslides triggered by the 2014 Ms6.5 Ludian earthquake and its implications on
several earthquake parameters. Seismol. Geol. 36 (4), 1186–1203. https://doi.org/
10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2014.04.020 (in Chinese with English Abstract).
Xu, C., Xu, X.W., Shyu, J.B.H., Zheng, W.J., Min, W., 2014b. Landslides triggered by the
22 July 2013 Minxian–Zhangxian, China, Mw 5.9 earthquake: inventory compiling
and spatial distribution analysis. J. Asian Earth Sci. 92, 125–142. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jseaes.2014.06.014.
Xu, C., Xu, X.W., Yao, X., Dai, F.C., 2014c. Three (nearly) complete inventories of
landslides triggered by the May 12, 2008 Wenchuan Mw 7.9 earthquake of China and
their spatial distribution statistical analysis. Landslides 11 (3), 441–461. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10346-013-0404-6.
Xu, C., Wang, S.Y., Xu, X.W., Zhang, H., Tian, Y.Y., Ma, S.Y., Fang, L.H., Lu, R.Q.,
Cheng, L.C., Tan, X.B., 2018. A panorama of landslides triggered by the 8 august
2017 Jiuzhaigou, sichuan Ms7.0 earthquake. Seismol. Geol. 40 (1), 232–260. https://
doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2018.01.017 (in Chinese with English Abstract).
Y. Huang et al.
Xu, C., Xu, X.W., Zhou, B.G., Shen, L.L., 2019. Probability of coseismic landslides: a new
generation of earthquake-triggered landslide hazard model. J. Eng. Geol. 27 (5),
1122–1130. https://doi.org/10.13544/j.cnki.jeg.2019084 (in Chinese with English
Abstract).
Xu, C., Xu, X.W., Huang, Y., 2021. Preface to the special issue on geo-disasters. J. Earth
Sci. 32 (5), 1053–1055. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12583-021-1546-4.
Yamada, M., Mangeney, A., Matsushi, Y., Moretti, L., 2016. Estimation of dynamic friction
of the Akatani landslide from seismic waveform inversion and numerical simulation.
Geophys. J. Int. 206 (3), 1479–1486. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggw216.
Yamagishi, H., Yamazaki, F., 2018. Landslides by the 2018 hokkaido iburi-tobu
earthquake on september 6. Landslides 15 (12), 2521–2524. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10346-018-1092-z.
Yan, Y., Cui, Y.Y., Guo, J., Hu, S., Wang, Z., Yin, S.Y., 2020. Landslide reconstruction
using seismic signal characteristics and numerical simulations: case study of the 2017
61
Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 49–61
“6.24” Xinmo landslide. Eng. Geol. 270, 105582. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enggeo.2020.105582.
Zang, M., Qi, S., Zou, Y., Sheng, Z., Zamora, B.S., 2020. An improved method of Newmark
analysis for mapping hazards of coseismic landslides. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 20
(3), 713–726. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-713-2020.
Zhang, P.F., Xu, C., Ma, S.Y., Shao, X.Y., Tian, Y.Y., Wen, B.Y., 2020. Automatic extraction
of seismic landslides in large areas with complex environments based on deep
learning: an example of the 2018 Iburi, Japan earthquake. Rem. Sens. 12 (23), 3992.
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12233992.
Zhao, C.Y., Lu, Z., 2018. Remote sensing of LandslidesA review. Rem. Sens. 10 (2), 279.
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10020279.
Zhao, B., Li, W.L., Wang, G.H., Lu, J.Y., 2019. Landslides triggered by the Ms6.9 Nyingchi
earthquake, China (18 November 2017): analysis of the spatial distribution and
occurrence factors. Landslides 16 (4), 765–776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-
019-01146-2.