the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Inventory mapping of forest-covered landslides using Geographic Object-Based Image Analysis (GEOBIA), Jena region, Germany
Abstract. Landslide inventories are crucial for the assessment of landslide susceptibility and hazard. An analysis of historical landslides can reveal periods of intensified landslide activity, but the features of these landslides may have diminished over time, particularly in the context of human impact. However, landslide features are often preserved well under forest cover and are thus valuable for compiling or updating landslide inventories. However, the mapping of these features remains challenging. Light detection and ranging (lidar) analysis and its derivatives are essential in landslide research, particularly in landslide identification and mapping. Unlike the expert-based analysis of lidar derivatives, the use of object-based approaches to map landslides from lidar data (semi)automatically requires further studies. This study adopts geographic-object-based image analysis based solely on lidar derivatives for the inventory mapping of forest-covered historical landslides within a middle-mountain region in Jena, Germany, and surrounding areas. A manually prepared expert-based inventory map was used for model training and validation. Lidar derivative data were processed using (a) a default moving-window size (3 × 3; model I) and (b) an optimal window size (model II). Multi-resolution segmentation and support vector machine classification with distinct rule sets were implemented for each model, followed by refinement and accuracy assessment against the inventory map for model performance evaluation. The proposed approach achieved a 70 % detection of existing landslides compared with the inventory. Model II outperforms model I in accuracy, as indicated by its superior performance in scarp area detection (15 % improvement) and significantly lower false positives (30 % reduction). However, although this method excellently identifies and maps forest-covered historical landslides, its applicability is currently limited to large and medium landslides (area > 0.5 ha). Overall, our findings suggest that landslides worldwide with clear geomorphological signatures in lidar data can be identified using this approach.
- Preprint
(1988 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2139', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Jun 2025
This study presents a semiautomatic method for landslide identification in Germany. I find the topic relevant and promising; however, improvements are necessary, particularly in the methodology section, which requires a more detailed description. Additional comments and suggestions are outlined below:
- The authors use the term “landslides” in the introduction. In English, this is a general term encompassing all types of mass movements (e.g., shallow landslides, debris flows, rockfalls, etc.). Did your analysis identify all these types? If not, I recommend using a more precise term to reflect the specific process addressed in the study.
- Study Area section: Please provide information on recorded damage and economic losses in the region, if available. What is the primary triggering factor for landslides in Thuringia? Is it related to tectonic activity, climatic conditions, or other factors?
- Line 98: The manuscript states that “the area has experienced periods of landslide activity.” Please specify which periods are being referred to.
- Data section: What criteria were used for visual landslide mapping? Which types of landslides were identified and mapped? This information is essential and should be included.
- GEOBIA-based landslide inventory mapping section: Please specify the versions of the GIS software used (e.g., eCognition, ArcGIS).
- Figure 1: I suggest incorporating the symbol for landslide features (currently shown in white) into the map legend itself rather than only in the figure caption. This will enhance immediate understanding, as the current legend indicates landslides in green, which is confusing.
- Line 126 – Step 1: What were the specific criteria applied for visual landslide mapping? This information is crucial. Please also state the total number of landslides identified and the total mapped area.
- Line 136: Indicate the software versions used for ArcGIS and R.
- Lines 145–150: What were the proportions of the samples used for landslide scarps, landslide bodies, and non-landslide areas? Please include this breakdown.
- STAGE II – Segmentation and Classification: Include the segmentation parameters such as shape and compactness.
Suggestion: A figure illustrating the mapped landslide scarps and bodies would enhance clarity. - Line 162: Please elaborate on the “refinement process.” What specific criteria were used to determine when the result was satisfactory?
- Lines 162–166: Provide the threshold values used in the ruleset applied during the classification (e.g. shape and compactness).
- Line 194: (Dias et al., 2023). Ensure proper in-text citation formatting and consistency.
- Figures: Improve the resolution and overall size for better readability and visual interpretation.
- Section 4.2 – GEOBIA-based landslide modeling results: Include the total area identified for landslide features by both Method I and Method II for comparison.
- The Results section needs to be more comprehensive. Please include more descriptive analysis and interpretation of the findings.
- There are two references listed for Dias et al. (2023), labeled “a” and “b” in the references. However, only Dias et al. (2023) is cited in the main text. Please ensure that the correct designation (a or b) is used consistently in both the text and the reference list.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2139-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ikram Zangana, 30 Jul 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-2139/egusphere-2025-2139-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2139', Mihai Niculita, 17 Jun 2025
This is an approach for translational landslides, and this should be specified in the title. Beside that we will show bellow that the approach is actually not able to predict correctly: we would expect an object for every landslide, in order to be able to validate, but this is not the case so the area based metrics was introduced.
GEOBIA has potential in landslide research but the presented approach does not progress beyond what was already done in the literature (van den Eckhaut for example); this is shown by the results of stage II. The stage III is nothing more than an approach for (over)fit the landslide data, so its usage outside the study area is questionable. The failure of the segmentation approach is shown by the failure to identify the bodies especially, since their roughness is pretty different than of the surrounding hillslopes as it can be seen in Figure 7. So the big problem remains the segmentation approach which seems to get entire hillsopes rather than the landslides. Also the inventory is questionable: for example in Fig. 7 b the very wide landslide actually is composed on several clear events that should be mapped and considered separatelly. Scarp areas in this context of translational landslides is very hard to be morphometrically segmented.
The discussions should also point the fact that the proposed approach identify and not necessarily map the landslides. So the method does say there in this object there is a landslide but does not map its borders. Also the validity of the landslide inventory in terms of events should be questioned here. Many landslides are rather compound then single events and this does affect the application of the method.
Lines 42-59 present a sparse review of GEOBIA applications in landslides, without clearly stating the state-of-the-art in this regard; since the approach is considered to be an advance, it should be framed better
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2139-CC1 -
AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Ikram Zangana, 30 Jul 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-2139/egusphere-2025-2139-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Ikram Zangana, 30 Jul 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2139', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Jul 2025
The manuscript presents a very interesting and potentially valuable contribution to the NHESS. The incorporation of GEOBIA into landslide mapping represents a notable advancement in this domain. However, several parts of the manuscript require further modifications and improvement before it can be considered for publication in the journal.
Authors should outline the specific landslide features that their method is able to identify. In the current case, it seems that we are discussing structured landslide failures such as translational slides.
The authors mention that the area of interest has witnessed several landslide events, but without any clarification of the type of movement or the temporal resolution of the events. Are there event-based failures or is there a temporal scale of their occurrence?
Regarding the manual mapping of landslides, authors should provide clear information on the procedure they followed to map the landslide features. This is crucial for the reader to understand the process of the accuracy assessment in the later stage.
The highlighted advantage of this work is the application of the GEOBIA. The process of identifying objects instead of pixels is crucial and it gives the power for semantic labeling and contextual information incorporation. In this case authors should talk and discuss further the parameters for the segmentation phase, such as scale, shape/color, and compactness. More information is needed on the ruleset development and an explanation of the chosen parameters.
The section on Refinement and accuracy assessment (AA) needs more clarification. I propose to improve it by incorporating more information on how and why the procedure is critical for assessing the performance of the method.
The Results section would benefit from a more detailed and thorough presentation. Please provide a deeper interpretation of the findings to enhance clarity and understanding for the reader. There are several figures that look blurred on the manuscript. Please take a look at them and provide better quality as outputs to enhance the quality of the work.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2139-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ikram Zangana, 30 Jul 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-2139/egusphere-2025-2139-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ikram Zangana, 30 Jul 2025
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
429 | 68 | 23 | 520 | 15 | 24 |
- HTML: 429
- PDF: 68
- XML: 23
- Total: 520
- BibTeX: 15
- EndNote: 24
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1