the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Decoupling Urban and Non-Urban Landslides for Susceptibility Mapping in Transitional Landscapes
Abstract. This study develops a framework for decoupling and investigating urban and non-urban landslide mechanisms, focusing on Constantine, Algeria, a city with complex topography and high landslide susceptibility. The region presents a heterogeneous landscape, where dense urban zones coexist with bare rural areas, influencing slope stability differently. A landslide inventory of 184 events was compiled and classified into urban and non-urban categories. Using geospatial data (topography, hydrology, landcover, lithology) and machine learning models (Random Forest, XGBoost, LightGBM, Multi-Layer Perceptron, and Logistic Regression), landslide susceptibility maps were generated for three datasets: urban, non-urban, and mixed. Model performance was assessed using cross-validation and evaluation metrics (ROC-AUC, F1-score, precision, recall), while SHAP analysis provided insights into factor importance. The results reveal distinct landslide drivers across environments. In urban areas, landslides are primarily influenced by aspect, slope, and proximity to streams, while distance to roads plays a lesser role, likely due to engineered slopes and drainage infrastructure. In non-urban areas, distance to roads is the most critical factor, highlighting the destabilising effects of road cuts in rural landscapes. Slope and proximity to streams remain key determinants, with lithology playing a more significant role in naturally driven failures. This study underscores the importance of context-specific landslide modelling and the potential biases of using mixed urban and non-urban inventories. The findings provide actionable insights for targeted mitigation, land-use planning, and infrastructure design. By distinguishing between urban and non-urban landslides, this research bridges critical gaps in understanding landslide dynamics across diverse landscapes.
- Preprint
(3073 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(317 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1623', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Aug 2025
Dear Editor,
This study focuses on the Algerian city of Constantine, where landslides frequently occur, and examines the mechanisms of landslides in urban and non-urban areas separately. It then applies various machine learning models to attempt to generate risk maps capable of predicting the risk of various types of landslides in both urban and non-urban areas.
In the process, a detailed study was conducted focusing on landslides around Constantine, yielding several useful findings. I believe this paper should be published with some additions and revisions.
However, compared to other literature, these findings are focused on an area of a few square kilometers including Constantine, and therefore cannot be considered to have a sufficiently high level of generality. I believe it would be necessary to add a statement to the title that this is a case study of the area around Constantine, or to add a paragraph explaining the extent to which the findings from this study can be guaranteed to be general.
Finally, I declare that I am not an expert in machine learning models and cannot judge whether the application of these methods is appropriate. I have verified the landslide investigation methods and landslide characteristics to the best of my ability. Please use our discretion and ask an expert in machine learning models to confirm if necessary.
I should have told you earlier. Sorry.
Best regards,
Yamakoshi
Comments
In general, the text in some figures is very small and difficult to read. Please make it large enough to print and read on A4 paper.
P4 Figure 1
Where is the Constantine study area in Figure1? Does this refer to the rectangular area of approximately 3km x 5km shown in Figure 1?
How is the extent of the landslide interpreted and shown in red in Figure 1? When a slope collapses, sometimes only the collapsed area is interpreted, and sometimes the area where the collapsed soil and sand have deposited is also interpreted in addition to the collapsed area. How is the area interpreted here? In my opinion, given the main purpose of this paper, the former is preferable.
P4 L100
Even if I read this section through, it is not clear when the landslide field survey was carried out, meaning that the reader cannot determine when the landslide shown in Figure 1 occurred.
If possible, add some explanations or speculations about the possible triggering factors of the landslides. Was there any significant rainstorm or earthquake recently?
P5 L127
I understand the way how you made landslide inventory in Urbanized area. However, I don’t know the method in which you made landslide inventory in non-urbanized area. Would you tell it to me and the readers? At first, I tried to find the method in Alharbi et al(2014), but I failed. The literature is just describing rural slope failures in Faifa in Saudi Arabia.
P6L144
Fig.4 b-f ---> Fig.2 b&f ? To me “b-f” seems to indicate from b to f, that is “b, c, d, e, f”.
P8 Table 1
Was the NDVI calculated based on the imagery on 28 March 2017? Or that on 2 February 2025? Why did you use two images? I think that readers may be wondering which came first: the dates the satellite images were taken or the dates the landslides occurred.
P10 L199
Slope < 5 degree ---> slope > 5 degree?
P10 L201
What this sentence shows strongly depends on the definition of the “urban landslide area”.
What is the urban landslide area?
P11 L225
At what angle does a slope have to be considered "steep" or “low”?
According to Figure 4, the difference in occurrence between urban and non-urban landslides appears to be the difference in landslide occurrence density on slopes of 10 degrees or steeper. So, do you call slopes of 10 degrees or more “steeper slopes”?
P11 L240
This sentence seems to be difficult to understand
P12 Figure 4
I think that the definition of the landslide density should be obviously shown using an equation if possible.
Rural landslide ---> Non-urban landslide ?
Rural? Non-urban? Are they different from each other?
P13 L261
In the latter sentences, you mentioned “…the urban dataset achieves the highest overall performance despite being the smallest dataset”.
To allow readers to find that the urban dataset is the smallest, you should show some evidence somehow. How about adding one table to show the number and the area of landslides for each subset, Urban, Non-urban, and Mixed? The maximum, minimum, and average size of landslides for each subset should be also shown. It might be helpful for readers to understand the landslide characteristics.
P13 L275
Finally, there appears to be no explanation of how to classify landslides into urban, non-urban, and mixed datasets.
P17 L 311
VIF (>30) ---> VIF (>40) ?
P19 L336
You should describe the definition of the landslide susceptibility index shown in Figure 8.
In this section, landslide susceptibility maps using the various models and the different datasets are only compared to each other. This is important, but I think there is one thing missing. That is these maps should be also compared to the real landslide inventory shown in Figure 1. Furthermore, not only landslide inventory but also the “stable areas” shown in Figure 6 should be compared to the landslide susceptibility maps. Some stable areas seem to be evaluated highly susceptible in some models.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1623-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1623', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 Sep 2025
The manuscript entitled “Decoupling Urban and Non-Urban Landslides for Susceptibility Mapping in Transitional Landscapes” presents an interesting and relevant study. The authors propose a framework to decouple and model urban versus non-urban landslides, addressing potential biases of mixed inventories. The study area, Constantine (Algeria), is geologically complex and highly susceptible to landslides, making it a valuable case study. The methodology combines multiple machine learning algorithms (RF, XGBoost, LightGBM, MLP, LR) with SHAP analysis, and the results provide useful insights for hazard mitigation and planning. The manuscript is generally well structured and figures are of good quality.
1. While the decoupling of urban and non-urban landslides is the main contribution, the introduction and discussion do not sufficiently contrast this approach with existing international studies. Please highlight more explicitly what gap in the literature is addressed and how this study advances current knowledge.
2. The construction of the landslide inventory is described, but the exact criteria for classifying events as “urban” or “non-urban” remain unclear. More detail is needed on how transitional or mixed zones were treated.
3. The finding that urban datasets outperform rural datasets is described as “unexpected.” This requires deeper explanation—possible reasons include smaller sample size, greater homogeneity of urban triggers, or biases in negative sample selection.
4. SHAP-based interpretations are sometimes vague (e.g., “being farther from streams may increase instability”). More context-specific engineering explanations should be provided.
5. Validation relies solely on cross-validation and internal metrics. If feasible, please add independent validation (e.g., comparison with external maps or independent inventory) or at least discuss this limitation.
6. Discussion should go beyond performance ranking to highlight the strengths, weaknesses, and applicability of each algorithm.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1623-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
377 | 32 | 10 | 419 | 24 | 8 | 17 |
- HTML: 377
- PDF: 32
- XML: 10
- Total: 419
- Supplement: 24
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 17
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1