# Application of a Hybrid Model in Landslide Susceptibility Evaluation of the Western Tibet Plateau
## 3 Results
### Landslide Susceptibility Mapping by the IVM Model
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Factors** & **Class** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Class Pixel** \\ **Counts** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Class Pixel** \\ **Counts \%** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Landslide** \\ **Pixel** \\ **Counts \%** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Landslide Pixel** \\ **Counts \%** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **W\({}_{i}^{*}\)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **W\({}_{i}^{*}\)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **W\({}^{*}\)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **W\({}^{-}\)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **W\({}_{i}^{*}\)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **W\({}^{-}\)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **IVM** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Distance & 0-300 & 75,224 & 7.62 & 5010 & 9.43 & 0.227 & \(-0.021\) & 0.206 & 0.248 & 0.308 \\  & 300-600 & 60,303 & 6.11 & 4832 & 9.10 & 0.427 & \(-0.034\) & 0.393 & 0.461 & 0.575 \\  & 600-900 & 54,734 & 5.54 & 5715 & 10.76 & 0.718 & \(-0.060\) & 0.658 & 0.778 & 0.957 \\  & 900-1200 & 47,437 & 4.80 & 6196 & 11.67 & 0.972 & \(-0.079\) & 0.893 & 1.051 & 1.280 \\  & 1200-1500 & 38,515 & 3.90 & 4871 & 9.17 & 0.935 & \(-0.060\) & 0.875 & 0.994 & 1.234 \\  & 1500-1800 & 35,040 & 3.55 & 4053 & 7.63 & 0.833 & \(-0.046\) & 0.788 & 0.879 & 1.105 \\  & 1800-2100 & 33,165 & 3.36 & 3413 & 6.43 & 0.702 & \(-0.034\) & 0.668 & 0.736 & 0.936 \\  & \(\geq\)2100 & 642,874 & 65.11 & 19,012 & 35.80 & \(-0.623\) & 0.659 & 0.035 & \(-1.282\) & \(-0.863\) \\ \hline Distance & 0-300 & 200,667 & 20.33 & 5901 & 11.11 & \(-0.629\) & 0.116 & \(-0.513\) & \(-0.745\) & \(-0.871\) \\  & 300-600 & 141,756 & 14.36 & 6769 & 12.75 & \(-0.125\) & 0.020 & \(-0.106\) & \(-0.145\) & \(-0.172\) \\  & 600-900 & 125,416 & 12.70 & 8599 & 16.19 & 0.258 & \(-0.043\) & 0.215 & 0.302 & 0.350 \\  & 900-1200 & 114,948 & 11.64 & 8283 & 15.60 & 0.312 & \(-0.048\) & 0.264 & 0.360 & 0.422 \\  & 1200-1500 & 102,535 & 10.39 & 6996 & 13.17 & 0.253 & \(-0.033\) & 0.220 & 0.287 & 0.343 \\  & 1500-1800 & 84,136 & 8.52 & 5642 & 10.63 & 0.235 & \(-0.025\) & 0.210 & 0.259 & 0.318 \\  & 1800-2100 & 66,091 & 6.69 & 3535 & 6.66 & \(-0.006\) & 0.000 & \(-0.005\) & \(-0.006\) & \(-0.008\) \\  & \(\geq\)2100 & 151,738 & 15.37 & 7377 & 13.89 & \(-0.106\) & 0.018 & \(-0.088\) & \(-0.125\) & \(-0.146\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: _Cont._  
Figure 4: Weight of factors for the IVM model. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Model** & **Very Low** & **Low** & **Moderate** & **High** & **Very High** \\ \hline IVM & 0.39\% & 3.03\% & 7.87\% & 34.22\% & 54.49\% \\ W\({}^{+}\) & 0.23\% & 2.11\% & 7.59\% & 26.20\% & 63.86\% \\ W\({}^{-}\) & 0.55\% & 3.93\% & 10.36\% & 33.40\% & 51.76\% \\ IVM-LR & 0.42\% & 1.91\% & 7.38\% & 29.84\% & 60.47\% \\ W\({}^{+}\)-LR & 0.12\% & 2.31\% & 9.38\% & 25.95\% & 62.25\% \\ W\({}^{-}\)-LR & 0.10\% & 4.54\% & 14.50\% & 33.03\% & 47.56\% \\ IVM-MLP & 0.16\% & 3.57\% & 9.26\% & 34.30\% & 52.71\% \\ W\({}^{+}\)-MLP & 0.11\% & 2.65\% & 8.41\% & 25.19\% & 63.63\% \\ W\({}^{-}\)-MLP & 0.17\% & 4.28\% & 12.68\% & 33.41\% & 49.46\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: The proportion of landslides in different susceptibility classes of the 9 models.