Slope-Relief Threshold Landslide Susceptibility Models for the United States and Puerto Rico
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Landslide susceptibility maps are essential tools in infrastructure planning, hazard mitigation, and risk reduction. Susceptibility maps trained in one area have been found to be unreliable when applied to different areas (Woodard et al., 2023). This limitation leads to the need for a national map that is higher resolution and rigorous, but simple enough to be applied to diverse terrains and landslide types. The susceptibility maps presented here cover the conterminous United States (CONUS), Alaska (AK), Hawaii (HI), and Puerto Rico (PR) with a resolution of 90-m. Other United States (U.S.) territories were not considered due to insufficient landslide and digital elevation data. We also provide information on the proportion of susceptible terrain as well as the density (landslides per square kilometer) of documented landslides within susceptible terrain for each U.S. county. To generate the susceptibility maps we used 1/3 arc-second digital elevation models (DEMs) (U.S. Geological Survey, 2019) to calculate slope and 100-m relief, 613,724 unique landslides from our national landslide inventory compilation (Belair et al., 2022) to train the models and compute U.S. county aggregated susceptibility information, and high-performance computing resources to train the models (Falgout and Gordon, 2023). We present two slope-relief threshold models: (1) a linear regression model weighted by landslide density of each ecoregion (Wiken et al., 2011), and (2) a quantile nonlinear regression model fitted to the 10th quantile of the data. We (1) removed extraneous landslide data, (2) averaged 50 model runs, and then (3) down-sampled the maps from 10-m to 90-m resolution to account for uncertainty in the DEM and landslide position. The nonlinear model (n10) performs better under most topographic conditions and optimally balances our priorities of capturing observed landslides (98.9%) while minimizing area covered by susceptible terrain (44.6%). The weighted linear model (lw) captures slightly fewer landslides (98.8%) and has slightly less susceptible terrain (43.1%). The values of both maps represent the number of susceptible 10-m cells within each 90-m cell after down-sampling and can range from 0 to 81. While landslides are possible within any cells containing susceptible terrain, those with the highest concentration (or cell value) capture the majority of landslides, thus representing higher susceptibility areas. The susceptibility maps were then used to determine the total area of landslide susceptible terrain (square kilometers) for each U.S. county. The national landslide inventory compilation was used to determine the number of documented landslides within susceptible terrain for each county. This information was then used to calculate the proportion of susceptible terrain and the density of documented landslides within susceptible terrain for each county in the United States. This information is provided in tabular format, with columns corresponding to the information discussed above, and each row corresponding to a U.S. county. Further information about this analysis can be found in an interpretive publication (Mirus et al., 2024). This data release includes: (1) weighted linear susceptibility maps (lw_susc.zip), (2) quantile nonlinear susceptibility maps (n10_susc.zip), (3) landslide data used to develop the models (landslides.csv), (4) county aggregated susceptibility information (county_analysis.csv), (5) readme and analysis files, and (6) metadata. References Cited Belair, G. M., Jones, E. S., Slaughter, S. L., and Mirus, B. B., 2022, Landslide Inventories across the United States version 2: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/P9FZUX6N Falgout, J. T., and Gordon, J., 2023, USGS Advanced Research Computing, USGS Yeti Supercomputer: U.S. Geological Survey, https://doi.org/10.5066/F7D798MJ Mirus, B. B., Belair, G. M., Wood, N. J., Jones, J. M., and Martinez, S. M., 2024, Parsimonious high-resolution landslide susceptibility modeling at continental scales, AGU Advances, https://doi.org/10.1029/2024AV001214 U.S. Geological Survey, 2019, 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) USGS 1/3 arc-second DEM [Data set], Retrieved from https://www.usgs.gov/3d-elevation-program/about-3dep-products-services Wiken, E., Nava, F. J., and Griffith, G., 2011, North American Terrestrial Ecoregions - Level III [Data set], Montreal, Canada: Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/level-iii-and-iv-ecoregions-continental-united-states Woodard, J. B., Mirus, B. B., Crawford, M. M., Or, D., Leshchinsky, B. A., Allstadt, K. E., and Wood, N. J., 2023, Mapping Landslide Susceptibility Over Large Regions With Limited Data, Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 128(5), e2022JF006810, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JF006810
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it