Applied Rheology 2022; 32: 22–33
Research Article
Yu Liu*, Anying Yuan, Zhigang Bai, and Jingzhong Zhu
GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping
using frequency ratio and index of entropy
models for She County of Anhui Province, China
https://doi.org/10.1515/arh-2022-0122
received October 09, 2021; accepted April 11, 2022
Abstract: Landslides caused countless economic and casualty
losses in China, especially in mountainous and hilly areas.
Landslide susceptibility mapping is an important approach
and tool for landslide disaster prevention and control. This
study presents a landslide susceptibility assessment using fre-
quency ratio (FR) and index of entropy (IOE) models
within a geographical information system for She County
in the mountainous region of South Anhui, China. First,
the landslide locations were ascertained in the study area
using historical landslide records, aerial photographs, and
multiple field surveys. In all, 502 landslides were identified
and randomly divided into two groups as training (70%)
and validation (30%) datasets. Additionally, the landslide-
influencing factors, including slope angle, slope aspect,
curvature, landform, lithology, distance to faults, distance
to roads, distance to rivers, rainfall, and normalized dif-
ference vegetation index, were selected and their relative
importance and weights were determined by FR and IOE
models. The results show that the very high and high sus-
ceptibility classes cover nearly 50% of the study area.
Finally, the comprehensive performance of the two models
was validated and compared using receiver operating
characteristic curves. The results demonstrated that the
IOE model with the area under the curve (AUC) of 0.802,
which is slightly better in prediction than the FR model
(AUC = 0.786). The interpretation of the susceptibility map
indicated that landform, slope degree, and distance to

* Corresponding author: Yu Liu, State Key Laboratory of Mining
Response and Disaster Prevention and Control in Deep Coal Mines,
Anhui University of Science and Technology, Huainan, Anhui,
232001, China, e-mail: yliu@aust.edu.cn
Anying Yuan: State Key Laboratory of Mining Response and Disaster
Prevention and Control in Deep Coal Mines, Anhui University of
Science and Technology, Huainan, Anhui, 232001, China
Zhigang Bai, Jingzhong Zhu: School of Earth and Environment,
Anhui University of Science and Technology, Huainan, Anhui,
232001, China
Open Access. © 2022 Yu Liu et al., published by De Gruyter.
License.
rivers plays a major role in landslide occurrence and dis-
tribution. The research results can be used for preliminary
land use planning and hazard mitigation purposes.
Keywords: landslide susceptibility, mountainous areas
1 Introduction
Landslide disasters frequently occur in mountainous areas,
causing secondary geological hazards, enormous casual-
ties, and losses of eco-environmental and infrastructure
[1]. Landslide disasters cause thousands of casualties and
several hundred billion dollars in direct economic losses
worldwide [2]. In China, 6,000 landslide accidents occur
annually, resulting in an estimated 5–8 billion CNY in direct
economic losses and hundreds of deaths, and most of the
landslides accidents occur in mountainous and hilly areas
[3]. She County is located in the mountainous region of
South Anhui, China, where hilly and mountainous areas
account for 95%, which is the most serious landslide dis-
aster area in Anhui Province and even China. Until now, the
landslides have caused 68 casualties, 1,098 houses have
been destroyed, and 1018.4 million CNY of direct economic
loss [4,5]. Therefore, it is necessary to scientifically assess
the regional landslide susceptibility and help local govern-
ment work out effective landslide prevention and control
plans to reduce negative effects.
Currently, there exists a preliminary but reasonable
and applicable procedure for landslide susceptibility map-
ping based on the geographical information system (GIS).
The main core of landslide sensitivity assessment is to
determine the influencing factors of regional landslides
and appropriate models to produce the landslide suscept-
ibility maps [6]. Landslide is the external manifestation
of the comprehensive action of primary geological condi-
tions and external environmental factors. Generally, the
factors considered in the regional landslide susceptibility
analysis mainly include lithology, elevation, slope angle,
slope aspect, human activities, water system, vegetation,
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
 GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping using FR and IOE models
rainfall, topographical structure, and geological structure.
Due to the differences in regional conditions and scholars’
views, there is still no unified factors catalogue [4]. Lithology,
slope angle, water system, and human activities are consid-
ered basic factors by most scholars [7]. Zou et al. considered
that 8–12 factors are sufficient to meet the requirements of
landslide susceptibility evaluation, not the more the better
[8]. The evaluation models widely used in landslide sensi-
tivity mapping can be divided into qualitative and quantita-
tive. As the most prevailing tools in landslide susceptibility
modeling, quantitative approaches can be divided into
three groups: heuristic, deterministic, and statistical
methods [9,10]. The statistical methods are the most widely
used, including statistical index (SI), weight of evidence
(WOE), certainty factor (CF), index of entropy (IOE), analy-
tical hierarchy process (AHP), logistic regression (LR), and
frequency ratio (FR) [11–16]. As the main technical sources
of data-driven modeling, machine-learning methods are
popularly applied to predict regional landslide suscept-
ibility [7,17,18]. Some researchers have developed hybrid
models, combining statistical and machine-learning approaches,
to obtain more accurate results and overcome the short-
comings of individual methods [19,20]. Each method has
its inherent advantages and limitations; the prior step is to
comprehensively understand the application of statistical
methods [12]. It is beneficial for an in-depth understanding
of the application and combination with each method. In
some of the literature, FR and IOE are most frequently used
to evaluate landslide susceptibility [21–24]. However, there
Figure 1: Location of the study area and landslide inventory map.
 23
have been few studies comparing these methods, espe-
cially in the mountainous and hilly areas of China.
The main purpose of this study is to form a landslide
susceptibility map of She County in Anhui Province,
China, which is a landslide-prone area. For this purpose,
10 landslide-related factors are considered and overlaid by
using FR and IOE models based on the GIS. Additionally,
the predictive performance of these models has been eval-
uated and compared using receiver operating characteristic
(ROC) curves. The results of this study have implications for
landslide prevention and mitigation in the study area and
other similar terrains.
2 Study area
She County is situated at longitudes 118°15′00ʺ to 118°53′
50ʺE and latitudes 29°30′25ʺ to 30°07′00ʺN in the moun-
tainous region of South Anhui, China (Figure 1). The
county encompasses approximately 2,122 km2, and hilly
and mountainous areas account for about 95% of the
study area.
Topographically, the altitudes gradually decrease from
the southeast to the northwest, in which the maximum and
minimum are 1,787 and 100 m according to a DEM++
with a grid of 30 m. Geologically, the tectonic structure
within the study area is complex, with abundant folds
and faults formed by multi-stage tectonic movements,
24  Yu Liu et al.
mainly including Indo-china Movement, Yanshanian
Movement, and Wannan Orogeny. The exposed strata
include Sinian of Proterozoic, Cambrian of Paleozoic,
Ordovician, Jurassic and Cretaceous of Mesozoic, and
Quaternary loose soil and deposition. With regard to cli-
mate, the study area belongs to the subtropical monsoon
climate zone, which provides abundant rainfall in spring
and summer. It is reported that the annual average precipi-
tation is 1582.7 mm, and the annual average temperature is
16.3°C. Xin’an, Lian, Fengle, Fengyuan, Changyuan, Jieyuan
Rivers, and their tributaries form a network drainage system.
In 2020, the population of this county was approximately
362.9 thousand. The coupling effect of special geological and
climatic conditions and the influence of human engineering
activities make this area prone to landslides. The coupling
effects of special geology, climate, and human engineering
activities make this area prone to landslides.
3 Data used
The spatial characteristics of landslides in the study area
were ascertained using 1:50,000 scale aerial photograph
interpretation, historical landslide records, and extensive
field surveys and observations. Resultantly, a total of 502
landslides (source areas) were detected in the study area,
including 463 slides and 39 falls. In terms of size, the
smallest landslide volume is about 1,880 m3, and the lar-
gest is larger than 9 × 106 m3, and large-scale (106–107 m3),
medium-scale (105–106 m3), and small-scale (≤105 m3)
landslides (Figure 2) accounted for about 1, 8, and 91%
of the total, respectively. The detected landslides were
randomly divided into two groups: 351 cases (70%) were
randomly selected for modeling and the remaining 151
(30%) cases were used for validation [25].
The landslide is caused by the combined action of the
internal elementary geological conditions and external
environmental factors of the slope [26,27]. The former refers
to the factors that control the occurrence and development
Figure 2: Landslide photos: (a) small-scale landslide; (b) medium-scale landslide; and (c) medium-scale landslide (part).
of landslides, mainly including stratigraphic lithology, topo-
graphy, and geological structure. The latter refers to the
factors that trigger the occurrence of landslides, such as
the hydrogeological environment and human engineering
activities. According to relevant research [28–30], the
availability of data sources, and the characteristics of local
geological environments, 10 influencing factors including
slope angle, slope aspect, curvature, landform, lithology,
distance to faults, distance to roads, distance to rivers,
rainfall, and normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI),
are considered for landslide susceptibility analysis. The digital
elevation model (DEM), which depicts the accurate represen-
tation of the land surface, is suitable for medium-scale
mapping [11]. Geomorphological-related thematic data
layers, including slope angle, slope aspect, and curvature,
are extracted from the 30 m × 30 m DEM covering our
study area. Other parameters are mainly collected from
available resources, such as geological map, environment
geology map, road map, and drainage map. All of the
landslide-influencing factors are reclassified and expressed
as corresponding thematic maps (Figure 3) with an identical
resolution of 30 m × 30 m.
Slope angle is an indispensable parameter in land-
slide susceptibility evaluation, and its important influ-
ence on landslide occurrence has been widely discussed
[31]. Generally, the slope angle is firmly connected with
the stress distribution, groundwater, loose deposits, and
human engineering activities, thus affecting the failure
modes and dynamic characteristics of a landslide [32,33].
In this study, the slope angle was reclassified into five
categories: 0–10°, 10–18°, 18–26°, 26–35°, and 35–73°.
The slope aspect determines the rainfall direction,
solar radiation intensity, and the morphologic structure
of the area, which impacts the physical environment and
vegetation around the slope [34]. For the landslide sus-
ceptibility assessment, the slope aspect is classified into
nine categories: Flat, North, North-East, East, South-East,
South, South-West, West, and North-West.
Plane curvature is defined as the curvature of contour
formed by the intersection of horizontal plane and
 GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping using FR and IOE models  25

Figure 3: Landslide influencing factor maps: (a) slope angle; (b) slope aspect; (c) curvature; (d) landform; (e) distance to faults; (f) lithology;
(g) distance to roads; (h) distance to rivers; (i) rainfall, and (j) NDVI.
26  Yu Liu et al.

surface [35]. It affects the convergence and divergence of
water flowing through the surface. Curvature is employed
and arranged into three categories: <(–1), –1 to 1, and >1
in the study.
The dependence of landslides on landform has been
demonstrated by relevant studies, and mechanisms behind
the effects of various landform types, such as hilly and
mountain areas, on landslide activity have been discussed
as well [36]. Landforms in She County include hills and
mountains. Mountainous and hilly areas account for 95%
of the county area, and plains account for 5% [5]. More
specifically, the landforms are divided into eight cate-
gories: 1 (plain), 2 (shallow hill plain), 3 (middle hill), 4
(high hill), 5 (low undulating low mountain), 6 (high
undulating low mountain), 7 (low undulating mountain),
and 8 (high undulating mountain).
Faults usually break rock mass structure and reduce
rock strength. In complicated structure areas, landslides
often occur along the faults and decrease sharply with
the distance to the faults [37]. The distance from faults,
formed by multi-stage tectonic movements, is calculated
at 400-m intervals using the geological map at a scale of
50,000. Euclidean metric and visual inspection were
implemented to analyze the correlation between faults
and landslides.
Lithology, which can reflect rock physical and mechan-
ical properties including strength, weathering resistance,
etc., is generally considered to be the decisive interfering
factor for landslide stability [32,38]. In the study area, a total
of six categories (Table 1) are identified according to the
geological ages and lithofacies using the bedrock geological
map with a 1:50,000 scale.
Generally, landslides tend to spread along road cuts
due to the changed slope conditions and artificial free
surfaces during road construction [39]. Many investigations
and research results show that the probability of landslides
decreases with the distance to roads [15,29,40]. In this
study, a total of four road buffer zones have been generated:
<400 m, 400–1,200 m, 1,200–2,000 m, and >2,000 m.
River erosion is one of the important factors scouring
the slope toe and reducing slope stability [41]. The char-
acteristics and mechanism of landslides triggered by river
erosion have been revealed through investigations and
experiments [42,43]. Typically, it can be concluded that
the probability of landslide occurrence decreases with
increasing distance to rivers. In the present study, five
buffer zones are generated with an interval of 400 m,
including <400 m, 400–800 m, 800–1,200 m, 1,200–2,000 m,
and >2,000 m.
Rainfall can accelerate the rate of slope erosion and is
always considered one of the most crucial negative factors in
the stability of the landslide, especially in mountainous and
hilly areas [14]. In this study, data from 18 meteorological
stations provided by the Anhui Provincial Meteorological
Bureau (http://www.weather.org.cn) are used to produce
the mean annual rainfall map. Thus, the rainfall is reclassi-
fied into four classes: <1,530 mm/year, 1,530–1,580 mm/year,
1,580–1,650 mm/year, and >1,650 mm/year.
Vegetation fixes the soil through roots and improves
the shear capacity of soil, which can effectively prevent
the occurrence of landslides [44]. NDVI is always regarded
as a critical index reflecting vegetation characteristics in
landslide susceptibility mapping [45]. In the current study,
the NDVI map of She County is obtained from the opera-
tional land image (OLI) of Landsat 8. The value is calcu-
lated by the following formula:
(IR − R)
NDVI = , (1)
(IR + R)
where IR is the infrared band of the electromagnetic spec-
trum, and R is the red band of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Ultimately, the NDVI value is reclassified into five
categories including <0.2, 0.2–0.3, 0.3–0.35, 0.35–0.4,
and >0.4.

Table 1: Lithology classification

Categories Stratum and lithology

1 Mesoproterozoic. Gray purple and gray-green medium-thick lithic sandstone – laminated fine sandstone and siliceous
slate composition
2 Lower sinian. Composition of brown – yellow dolomite, gray – black streaked argillaceous slate, calcareous slate,
dolomitic, and carbonaceous siliceous slate
3 Middle sinian. Carbonated siliceous slate and striated siliceous slate in the gray-black middle layer
4 Cambrian. Gray black, black thin carbonaceous siliceous rocks intercalated with carbonaceous shale
5 Ordovician. Gray-green, light gray calcareous shale and nodular calcareous shale
6 Jurassic period. Gray – white quartz conglomerate with conglomerate lens, gray – white fine sandstone, lithic sandstone,
sandy mudstone, carbonaceous mudstone
 GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping using FR and IOE models  27

4 Landslide susceptibility mapping 4.2 Application of ratio index of entropy

model
4.1 Application of frequency ratio model
Another model used for evaluating landslide suscept-
The movement of rock-soil mass and controlling factors ibility is the index of the entropy model based on the
of landslide occurrence is assumed to be similar to those bivariate analysis principle. The entropy indicates the
observed in the past. Based on this assumption, future extent of instability, disorder, imbalance, and uncertainty
landslides occurring in an unspecified time span can be of a system [48]. The model can calculate the weight of
predicted [12]. The frequency ratio (FR) is defined as the various factors referring to the extent that each landslide
ratio between the percentage of landslides and the per- conditioning factor influences the occurrence of landslides
centage of pixels within a category. The FR is the ratio of in the natural environment [49]. The weight value for each
the area where landslides have occurred to the total area variable obtained separately is expressed as the entropy
and is also the ratio of the probability of the landslide index [10]. The equations used to calculate the weight
occurrence to nonoccurrence for a given attribute [46]. In value for each variable as a whole are as follows:
the present study, the FR for each factor’s type or range is b
Pij = , (4)
calculated based on its relationship with landslides. The a
larger the value, the stronger the correlation between the Pij
given factor and the landslide [47]. The landslide sus- (Pij ) = Sj
, (5)
∑ j = 1Pij
ceptibility index (LSI) has been acquired by summing
the ratios of each factor as the given equation: Sj
Hj = − ∑ (Pij ) log2(Pij ) , j = 1,…, n , (6)
LSI = ∑FR, (2) j=1

where FR is the ratio of each factor’s type or class and can Hj max = log2Sj, Sj is the number of classes, (7)
be expressed by the following equation:
Hj max − Hj
NLSpix
Ij = , I = (0, 1) , j = 1,…, n , (8)
Hj max
∑1n NLSpix
FR = , (3)
NC pix Wj = IjPijW , (9)
∑1m NC pix
where a and b are the percentages of domain and land-
where NLSpix is the number of pixels of landslides, and
slide, respectively, (Pij) represents the probability den-
NCpix is the number of pixels of a class.
sity, Hj and Hjmax are entropy values, Ij represents the
Based on the FR model, each class of the factors used
information coefficient, and Wj is the resultant weight
in this study is characterized by a certain landslide occur-
value for the factor as a whole. The LSM is finally pre-
rence density (Table 2).
pared by the following equation:
As a result of the FR model, an LSI map (Figure 4) has
n
been constructed by ArcGIS 10.0 software, in which the z
YIOE = ∑ × C × Wj, (10)
LSI values vary from 2.88 to 8.01. Obviously, larger LSI m
i=1 i
values indicate a higher susceptibility for land sliding.
where YIOE is the sum of all classes, i is the number of
For the visual interpretation of LSI maps, considering
specific parameter mappings, z is the number of classes
data distribution histogram, the quantile and natural
with the largest number of classes in a parameter map-
break methods are applied to classify the data in this
ping, mi is the number of classes in a specific parameter
study. The comparison results show that the quantile
map, C represents the value of the class after reclassifica-
data classification method is able to produce better clas-
tion, and Wj represents the weight of the parameter. The
sification results. After which the LSI map is classified
summation results reflect the different sensitivities of
into four sensitivity classes (low, moderate, high, and
landslide susceptibility.
very high) using the quantile classifier. The corresponding
The weight Wj of each conditioning factor in land-
area proportions for low, moderate, high, and very high
slides is calculated and presented in Table 2. The results
susceptibility classes are 25.67, 25.33, 22.60, and 25.50%,
show that each class of the selected factors has a certain
respectively.
28  Yu Liu et al.

Table 2: Spatial relationship between conditioning factor and landslide by FR and IOE models

Conditioning factor Class % Total of area (a) % Total of landslide area (b) FR (b/a) (Pij) Hj Hjmax Ij Wj

Slope angle (°) 0–10 8.55 6.77 0.79 0.21 1.98 2.32 0.15 0.55
10–18 24.79 25.50 1.03 0.28
18–26 44.26 50.80 1.15 0.31
26–35 22.15 16.93 0.76 0.20
35–73 0.25 0 0 0.00
Slope aspect F 0.31 0 0 0.00 2.99 3.17 0.06 0.46
N 10.97 10.96 1.00 0.12
NE 11.17 8.96 0.80 0.10
E 12.48 10.76 0.86 0.11
SE 13.47 11.75 0.87 0.11
S 12.38 14.74 1.19 0.15
SW 12.81 14.74 1.15 0.14
W 13.20 12.95 0.98 0.12
NW 13.20 15.14 1.15 0.14
Curvature Concave 43.99 43.03 0.98 0.34 1.58 1.59 0.00 0.01
Flat 9.34 7.97 0.85 0.30
Convex 46.67 49.00 1.05 0.36
Landform 1 2.28 0.20 0.09 0.02 2.45 3.00 0.18 1.07
2 2.39 0 0 0.00
3 4.25 5.78 1.36 0.23
4 7.85 1.00 0.13 0.02
5 15.23 15.34 1.01 0.17
6 23.75 32.27 1.36 0.23
7 28.01 35.86 1.28 0.22
8 16.25 9.56 0.59 0.10
Distance to faults (m) <400 10.41 21.51 2.07 0.32 2.21 2.32 0.05 0.32
400–800 10.26 15.34 1.50 0.23
800–1,200 10.01 9.56 0.96 0.15
1,200–2,000 18.62 24.90 1.34 0.21
>2,000 50.71 28.69 0.57 0.09
Lithology 1 54.47 70.32 1.29 0.25 2.53 2.59 0.02 0.11
2 25.40 14.94 0.59 0.12
3 1.05 1.00 0.95 0.19
4 3.65 3.39 0.93 0.18
5 5.44 3.78 0.70 0.14
6 9.98 6.57 0.66 0.13
Distance of roads (m) <400 18.63 30.88 1.66 0.39 1.93 2.00 0.04 0.15
400–1,200 27.62 25.30 0.92 0.22
1,200–2,000 20.79 17.13 0.82 0.20
>2,000 32.96 26.69 0.81 0.19
Distance of Rivers (m) <400 22.69 39.84 1.76 0.34 2.10 2.32 0.09 0.49
400–800 19.67 18.53 0.94 0.18
800–1,200 17.24 11.35 0.66 0.13
1,200–2,000 14.41 22.71 1.58 0.30
>2,000 25.99 7.57 0.29 0.06
Rainfall (mm/year) <1,530 50.69 65.74 1.30 0.39 1.93 2.00 0.03 0.12
1,530–1,580 29.41 21.12 0.72 0.22
1,580–1,650 7.86 4.98 0.63 0.19
>1,650 12.03 8.17 0.68 0.20
NDVI <0.2 2.89 6.37 2.20 0.34 2.20 2.32 0.05 0.35
0.2–0.3 9.78 14.14 1.45 0.23
0.3–0.35 24.41 29.68 1.22 0.19
0.35–0.4 35.52 33.47 0.94 0.15
>0.4 27.40 16.33 0.60 0.09
 GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping using FR and IOE models  29

Figure 4: Landslide susceptibility map derived by the FR model. Figure 5: Landslide susceptibility map derived by the IOE model.

landslide occurrence density, and the landform, slope 20.59. Obviously, the larger LSI value indicates a higher
angle, distance of rivers, and NDVI are the most impor- susceptibility to land sliding. After which the LSI map is
tant factors that influence landslide distribution. Before classified into four sensitivity classes (low, moderate,
LSM development, LSI is calculated by using the fol- high, and very high) by using the quantile classifier.
lowing equation: The corresponding area proportions for low, moderate,
high, and very high susceptibility classes are 4.18, 22.71,
⎛ (Slope angle × 0.55) + (Slope aspect ⎞ 41.63, and 31.47%, respectively.
⎜ × 0.46) + (Curvature × 0.01) ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜ + (Landform × 1.07) + (Distance to faults ⎟
YIOE = ⎜ × 0.32) + (Lithology × 0.11) ⎟. (11)
⎜ ⎟ 5 Validation of the landslide
+ (Distance to roads × 0.15)
⎜ ⎟
⎜ + (Distance to rivers × 0.49) ⎟
susceptibility maps
⎜ ⎟
⎝ + ( Rainfall × 0.12) + (NDVI × 0.35) . ⎠ Without validation, any try or effort to ascertain the land-
As a result of the IOE model, an LSI map (Figure 5) is slide sensitivity in an area is meaningless [12]. In this
constructed, in which the LSI value varies from 4.14 to study, the raster distributions (RD) histogram (Figure 6)

Figure 6: Raster distributions of landslides within different classes. (a) FR, and (b) IOE.
30  Yu Liu et al.
Figure 7: Success and prediction rate curves for the LSMs produced in this study. (a) Success; (b) prediction.
and the ROC curve (Figure 7) have been drawn to validate
and compare the performance of the two models.
In Figure 6, the blue and green bars represent the
proportions of the landslide-prone areas in the total
area and known landslide points in each classed area,
respectively. Generally, a higher green bar in the higher
class with a lower blue bar in the corresponding class
indicates more accuracy and better fitting of the model
is validated, which can provide a scientific basis for the
prediction and management of landslide hazards [2].
Here, the proportions of landslide points in the high class
are divided by the corresponding proportions of area for
two models, the results are 1.49 (FR) and 1.52 (IOE),
respectively. It indicates that both models can be used
for assessing landslide susceptibility, while the IOE model
is more accurate and better fitting in our study area.
The ROC curve is also adopted to check the quality of
deterministic and probabilistic detection and forecast
systems. In this study, 351 landslide locations (70%) are
randomly selected from the observed dataset as the training
data, and the remaining 151 landslide locations (30%) are
used for validation. Then, the success rate curves were
plotted by Python using training data (Figure 7(a)). In
Figure 7(a), the x-axis is 1-specificity indicating the prob-
ability of predicted disaster points, and the y-axis is suscept-
ibility, which represents the probability of disaster points
correctly predicted in the total area. The AUC is used to
qualitatively analyze the prediction accuracy of the land-
slide susceptibility map. When the AUC value close to 1.0
indicates fitting better, the value below 0.5 indicates fitting
randomly [50]. The analysis results of the success rate curve
indicated that the IOE model has a higher AUC value
(0.816), whereas the FR model has 0.808. Because the
success rate method used the data in the previous mod-
eling, its results are less meaning for the prediction cap-
ability evaluation of the models. Therefore, the prediction
rate is adopted to measure the prediction performance.
The AUC plot assessment results of prediction rate curves
(Figure 7(b)) found that the AUC values for FR and IOE
models are 0.786 and 0.802, respectively. It can be con-
cluded that both the success rate and the prediction rate
curve show a similar result, and the models used in this
study exhibited reasonably good accuracy in landslide
susceptibility prediction. The IOE model is more suitable
for landslide susceptibility mapping in the study area.
In this paper, FR and IOE models were used to develop
the landslide vulnerability map of Shexian County. It can
provide a comprehensive and inexpensive assessment of
the study area and its ability to support individual or com-
prehensive uses, such as road construction and logging.
Managers and foresters can then make decisions and
develop prescriptions that will produce highly predictable
results to produce sustainable products, maintain site
quality, and significantly reduce the risk of any adverse
effects.
6 Conclusion
In this study, two widely accepted models – frequency
ratio (FR) and index of entropy (IOE) – are used to pro-
duce landslide susceptibility mappings for She County in
the mountainous region of South Anhui, China. A total of
502 landslide locations has been identified and randomly
divided into two groups as training (70%) and validation
(30%) datasets. To perform sensitivity mapping, 10 land-
slide-influencing factors, including slope angle, slope
aspect, curvature, landform, lithology, distance to faults,
distance to roads, distance to rivers, rainfall, and normal-
ized difference vegetation index (NDVI), are selected.
Four susceptibility classes – low, moderate, high, and
very high – are derived with the quantile data classifica-
tion method in the susceptibility maps produced by FR
 GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping using FR and IOE models
and IOE models. The success rate and prediction rate
methods are adopted to validate and compare the perfor-
mance of the two models. The results indicate that the
IOE model has a success rate of 0.816 and a predictive
accuracy of 0.802, which is higher than that of the FR
model, with AUC values of 0.808 and 0.786, respectively.
The validation process also indicates that the models uti-
lized in this study exhibit reasonably good accuracy in
predicting landslide susceptibility. The interpretation of
the susceptibility map indicates that landform, slope
degree, and distance to rivers play a major role in land-
slide occurrence and distribution. The research results
are worthy of preliminary land use planning and hazard
mitigation in the next future.
Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful for the sup-
port of the Natural Science Foundation of Anhui Province
(Nos. 2008085QD191 and 1908085ME144), the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 52104073),
the Independent Research Fund of the State Key Laboratory
of Mining Response and Disaster Prevention and Control
in Deep Coal Mines (Anhui University of Science and
Technology) (No. SKLMRDPC19ZZ06), and the University-
level Key Projects of Anhui University of Science and
Technology (No. QN2019110). Wei Chen, Yanli Wu, and
Liyong Cai are thanked for their assistance in data collec-
tion and analysis.
Funding information: The Natural Science Foundation of
Anhui Province (Nos. 2008085QD191 and 1908085ME144),
the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.
52104073), the Independent Research Fund of the State
Key Laboratory of Mining Response and Disaster Prevention
and Control in Deep Coal Mines (Anhui University of Science
and Technology) (No. SKLMRDPC19ZZ06), and the University-
level Key Projects of Anhui University of Science and
Technology (No. QN2019110).
Author contributions: Yu Liu – investigation and writing-
original draft; Anying Yuan – writing-review and editing;
Zhigang Bai – methodology; Jingzhong Zhu – data curation.
Conflict of interest: Authors state no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval: The conducted research is not related to
either human or animal use.
Data availability statement: All data generated or ana-
lysed during this study are included in this published
article.
 31
Reference
[1] Chen W, Chen X, Peng JB, Panahi M, Lee S. Landslide sus-
ceptibility modeling based on ANFIS with teaching-learning-
based optimization and Satin bowerbird optimizer. Geosci
Front. 2021;12(1):93–107.
[2] Sharma S, Mahajan AK. A comparative assessment of infor-
mation value, frequency ratio and analytical hierarchy process
models for landslide susceptibility mapping of a Himalayan
watershed, India. Bull Eng Geol Env. 2018;78(4):2431–48.
[3] Zhou S, Zhang Y, Tan X, Abbas SM. A comparative study of the
bivariate, multivariate and machine-learning-based statistical
models for landslide susceptibility mapping in a seismic-
prone region in China. Arab J Geosci. 2021;14:440.
[4] Froude MJ, Petley DN. Global fatal landslide occurrence from
2004 to 2016. Nat Hazard Earth Sys. 2018;18(8):2161–81.
[5] Wang ZT, Liu QM, Liu Y. Mapping landslide susceptibility using
machine learning algorithms and GIS: A Case Study in Shexian
County, Anhui Province, China. Symmetry. 2020;12:1954.
[6] Pourghasemi HR, Rahmati O. Prediction of the landslide sus-
ceptibility: which algorithm, which precision? Catena.
2018;162:177–92.
[7] Pourghasemi HR, Teimoori YZ, Panagos P, Pradhan B. Analysis
and evaluation of landslide susceptibility: a review on articles
published during 2005–2016 (periods of 2005–2012 and
2013–2016). Arab J Geosci. 2018;11:193.
[8] Zou Z, Xiong C, Tang H, Criss RE, Su A, Liu X. Prediction of
landslide runout based on influencing factor analysis. Env
Earth Sci. 2017;76:723.
[9] Pradhan B, Seeni MI, Kalantar B. Performance evaluation and
sensitivity analysis of expert-based, statistical, machine
learning, and hybrid models for producing landslide suscept-
ibility maps. Springer Int Publ. 2017;193–232.
[10] Chen W, Fan L, Li C, Pham BT. Spatial prediction of landslides
using hybrid integration of artificial intelligence algorithms
with frequency ratio and index of entropy in Nanzheng County,
China. Appl Sci. 2019;10(1):29.
[11] Reichenbach P, Rossi M, Malamud BD, Mihir M, Guzzetti F.
A review of statistically-based landslide susceptibility models.
Earth-Sci Rev. 2018;180:60–91.
[12] Jaafari A, Najafi A, Pourghasemi HR, Rezaeian J, Sattarian A.
GIS-based frequency ratio and index of entropy models for
landslide susceptibility assessment in the Caspian forest,
northern Iran. Int J Env Sci Technol. 2014;11:909–26.
[13] Soyoung P, Jinsoo K. A comparative assessment of the efficacy
of frequency ratio, statistical index, weight of evidence, cer-
tainty factor, and index of entropy in landslide susceptibility
mapping. Korean J Remote Sens. 2020;36(1):67–81.
[14] Wubalem A, Meten M. Landslide susceptibility mapping using
information value and logistic regression models in Goncha
Siso Eneses area, northwestern Ethiopia. SN Appl Sci.
2020;2:807.
[15] Nsengiyumva JB, Luo G, Amanambu AC, Mind’je R, Habiyaremye G,
Karamage F, et al. Comparing probabilistic and statistical methods
in landslide susceptibility modeling in Rwanda/Centre-Eastern
Africa. Sci Total Env. 2019;659(1):1457–72.
[16] Aghdam IN, Varzandeh MHM, Pradhan B. Landslide suscept-
ibility mapping using an ensemble statistical index (Wi) and
32  Yu Liu et al.
adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) model at
Alborz Mountains (Iran). Env Earth Sci. 2016;75(7):553.
[17] Pham BT, Shirzadi A, Shahabi H, Omidvar E, Singh SK,
Sahana M, et al. Landslide susceptibility assessment by novel
hybrid machine learning algorithms. Sustainability.
2019;11(16):4386.
[18] Arabameri A, Pal SC, Rezaie F, Chakrabortty R, Saha A,
Blaschke T, et al. Decision tree based ensemble machine
learning approaches for landslide susceptibility mapping.
Geocarto Int. 2021;3:1–28.
[19] Arabameri A, Pradhan B, Rezaei K, Sohrabi M, Kalantari Z. GIS-
based landslide susceptibility mapping using numerical risk
factor bivariate model and its ensemble with linear multi-
variate regression and boosted regression tree algorithms.
J Mt Sci. 2019;16(3):595–618.
[20] Steger S, Brenning A, Bell R, Glade T. The influence of sys-
tematically incomplete shallow landslide inventories on sta-
tistical susceptibility models and suggestions for improve-
ments. Landslides. 2017;14(5):1767–81.
[21] Umar Z, Pradhan B, Ahmad A, Jebur MN, Tehrany MS.
Earthquake induced landslide susceptibility mapping using an
integrated ensemble frequency ratio and logistic regression
models in West Sumatera Province, Indonesia. Catena.
2014;118:124–35.
[22] Kursah MB, Wang Y, Bayoh HD, Tarawally M. A comparative
study on the predictive ability of archived and SBAS-InSAR
inventories for landslide susceptibility using frequency ratio
model in Western Area, Sierra Leone. Env Earth Sci.
2021;80:387.
[23] Arca D, Citiroglu HK, Tasoglu IK. A comparison of GIS-based
landslide susceptibility assessment of the Satuk village
(Yenice, NW Turkey) by frequency ratio and multi-criteria
decision methods. Env Earth Sci. 2019;78:81.
[24] Zhang TY, Zhang L, Zhao H, Zhao X. GIS-based landslide sus-
ceptibility mapping using hybrid integration approaches of
fractal dimension with index of entropy and support vector
machine. J Mt Sci. 2019;16(6):72–90.
[25] Youssef AM, Pourghasemi HR. Landslide susceptibility map-
ping using machine learning algorithms and comparison of
their performance at Abha Basin, Asir Region, Saudi Arabia.
Geosci Front. 2021;12:639–55.
[26] He K, Ma G, Hu X, Liu B. Failure mechanism and stability
analysis of a reactivated landslide occurrence in Yanyuan City,
China. Landslides. 2021;18:1097–114.
[27] Nadim F, Kjekstad O, Peduzzi P, Herold C, Jaedicke C. Global
landslide and avalanche hotspots. Landslides.
2006;3(2):159–73.
[28] Abuzied SM, Alrefaee HA. Spatial prediction of landslide-sus-
ceptible zones in El-Qaá area, Egypt, using an integrated
approach based on GIS statistical analysis. Bull Eng Geol Env.
2019;78(4):2169–95.
[29] Arabameri A, Pradhan B, Rezaei K, Lee CW. Assessment of
landslide susceptibility using statistical- and artificial intelli-
gence-based FR–RF integrated model and multiresolution
DEMs. Rem Sens. 2019;11(9):999.
[30] Van Westen CJ, Castellanos E, Kuriakose SL. Spatial data for
landslide susceptibility, hazard, and vulnerability assess-
ment: An overview. Eng Geol. 2008;102(3–4):112–31.
[31] He Q, Shahabi H, Shirzadi A, Li S, Chen W, Wang N, et al.
Landslide spatial modelling using novel bivariate statistical
based Naïve Bayes, RBF Classifier, and RBF Network machine
learning algorithms. Sci Total Env. 2019;663:1–15.
[32] Dao DV, Jaafari A, Bayat M, Mafi-Gholami D, Qi C, Moayedi H,
et al. A spatially explicit deep learning neural network model
for the prediction of landslide susceptibility. Catena.
2020;188:104451.
[33] Zhao Z, Liu ZY, Xu C. Slope unit-based landslide susceptibility
mapping using certainty factor, support vector machine,
random forest, cf-svm and cf-rf models. Front Earth Sci.
2021;9:589630.
[34] Xiao L, Zhang Y, Peng G. Landslide susceptibility assessment
using integrated deep learning algorithm along the China-
Nepal highway. Sensors. 2018;18(12):4436.
[35] Sun X, Chen J, Han X, Bao Y, Zhou X, Peng W. Landslide sus-
ceptibility mapping along the upper Jinsha River, south-wes-
tern China: a comparison of hydrological and curvature
watershed methods for slope unit classification. Bull Eng Geol
Env. 2020;79:4657–70.
[36] Mind’je R, Li L, Nsengiyumva JB, Mupenzi C, Nyesheja EM,
Kayumba PM, et al. Landslide susceptibility and influencing
factors analysis in Rwanda. Env Dev Sustain.
2019;22:7985–8012.
[37] Erener A, Mutlu A, Sebnem, Düzgün H. A comparative study
for landslide susceptibility mapping using GIS-based multi-
criteria decision analysis (MCDA), logistic regression (LR)
and association rule mining (ARM). Eng Geol. 2016;203:45–55.
[38] Nhu VH, Mohammadi A, Shahabi H, Ahmad BB, Al-Ansari N,
Shirzadi A, et al. Landslide detection and susceptibility mod-
eling on cameron highlands (Malaysia): a comparison between
random forest, logistic regression and logistic model tree
algorithms. Forests. 2020;11(8):830.
[39] Acharya TD, Lee DH. Landslide susceptibility mapping using
relative frequency and predictor rate along Araniko highway.
KSCE J Civ Eng. 2019;23(2):763–76.
[40] Paryani S, Neshat A, Javadi S, Pradhan B. Comparative per-
formance of new hybrid ANFIS models in landslide suscept-
ibility mapping. Nat Hazards. 2020;103:1961–88.
[41] Juliev M, Mergili M, Mondal I, Nurtaev B, Pulatov A, Hübl J.
Comparative analysis of statistical methods for landslide
susceptibility mapping in the Bostanlik District, Uzbekistan.
Sci Total Env. 2019;653:801–14.
[42] Raja NB, Çiçek I, Türkolu N, Aydin O, Kawasaki A. Landslide
susceptibility mapping of the Sera River Basin using logistic
regression model. Nat Hazards. 2017;85(3):1323–46.
[43] Weidner L, DePrekel K, Oommen T, Vitton S. Investigating
large landslides along a river valley using combined physical,
statistical, and hydrologic modeling. Eng Geol.
2019;259:105169.
[44] Zhang S, Li Z, Hou X, Yi Y. Impacts on watershed-scale runoff
and sediment yield resulting from synergetic changes in cli-
mate and vegetation. Catena. 2019;179:129–38.
[45] Gigovic L, Drobnjak S, Pamuar D. The application of the hybrid
gis spatial multi-criteria decision analysis best-worst metho-
dology for landslide susceptibility mapping. Int J Geo-Inf.
2019;8(2):1–25.
[46] Liu H, Li X, Meng T, Liu Y. Susceptibility mapping of damming
landslide based on slope unit using frequency ratio model.
Arab J Geosci. 2020;13:790.
[47] Shahabi H, Khezri S, Ahmad BB, Hashim M. Landslide sus-
ceptibility mapping at central Zab basin, Iran: A comparison
 GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping using FR and IOE models  33

between analytical hierarchy process, frequency ratio and
logistic regression models. Catena. 2014;115:55–70.
[48] Wang QQ, Li WP, Wu YL, Pei YB, Xie P. Application of statistical index
and index of entropy methods to landslide susceptibility assess-
ment in gongliu (Xinjiang, China). Env Earth Sci. 2016;75:599.
[49] Singh P, Sharma A, Sur U, Rai PK. Comparative landslide
susceptibility assessment using statistical information
value and index of entropy model in Bhanupali-Beri
region, Himachal Pradesh, India. Env Dev Sustain.
2021;23:5233–50.
[50] Xiao T, Segoni S, Chen L, Yin K, Casagli N. A step beyond
landslide susceptibility maps: A simple method to investigate
and explain the different outcomes obtained by different
approaches. Landslides. 2020;17(3):627–40.