Explainable Susceptibility Modelling of Urban Ground Collapse Considering Dynamic Rainfall and Background Controls: A Case Study in Shenzhen, China
Source abstract
Abstract
Urban ground collapse (UGC) threatens dense coastal cities because failures can occur abruptly beneath roads and buried lifelines. We developed a dynamic and interpretable machine-learning framework for UGC susceptibility assessment in Shenzhen, China. We integrated 1687 events from 2017 to 2024 with 20 predictors covering terrain, rainfall, drainage infrastructure and urban disturbance. Event-date rainfall was assigned to collapse samples, and background controls received year-constrained pseudo-event dates after spatial exclusion. Three tree-ensemble models were evaluated under random 75/25 testing, leave-one-district-out spatial validation and temporal hold-out testing. The selected LightGBM 1:5 model achieved ROC-AUC = 0.934, AP = 0.790 and BA = 0.860 in random testing, with more conservative ROC-AUC values of 0.905 and 0.884 under spatial and temporal validation. High-rainfall mapping expanded high and very high susceptibility zones from 4.60% to 15.26% and increased event capture from 19.32% to 58.92%. Grouped SHAP indicated comparable pipeline and rainfall contributions (26.01% and 25.13%). The leading predictors were pipe burial depth, road density and 30-day rainfall. PDP and spatial SHAP diagnostics highlighted high model responses where deep pipes coincided with high antecedent rainfall or dense roads in mature urban cores. This framework supports the rainfall-conditioned, mechanism-informed susceptibility diagnosis for early warning and mitigation.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Affiliations
Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen 518055, China
Shenzhen Technology Institute of Urban Public Safety, Shenzhen 518024, China
Funding
Shenzhen Science and Technology Program
References (86)
Show source-provided references
1. Nicholls, R.J., Adger, W.N., Hutton, C.W., and Hanson, S.E. (2019). Delta challenges and trade-offs from the Holocene to the Anthropocene. Deltas in the Anthropocene, Palgrave Macmillan.10.1007/978-3-030-23517-8 ↗
2. Is rapid urbanization of low-elevation deltas undermining adaptation to climate change? A global review10.1177/09562478231192176 ↗
3. Growing compound-flood risk, driven by both climate change and land subsidence, challenges flood risk reduction in major delta cities10.1016/j.oneear.2025.101489 ↗
4. Coastal flooding will disproportionately impact people on river deltas10.1038/s41467-020-18531-4 ↗
5. Characterizing and monitoring a high-risk sinkhole in an urban area underlain by salt through non-invasive methods: Detailed mapping, high-precision leveling and GPR10.1016/j.enggeo.2020.105641 ↗
6. Mitigation of urban road collapses based on machine learning via integrating susceptibility assessment and geophysical detection validation10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104667 ↗
7. Causes, Risk Analysis, and Countermeasures of Urban Road Collapse in China from 2019 to 202010.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001765 ↗
8. Overview on failures of urban underground infrastructures in complex geological conditions due to heavy rainfall in China during 1994–201810.1016/j.scs.2021.103509 ↗
9. The causes and mechanisms of rain-induced highway and pavement collapse in Obolo-eke, Southeast Nigeria10.1007/s12517-015-1899-z ↗
10. Influence of Leakage from Buried Drainage Pipes on Shallow Soil Settlement and Urban Road Collapse10.1061/NHREFO.NHENG-2282 ↗
11. Experimental assessment of the relationship between rainfall intensity and sinkholes caused by damaged sewer pipes10.5194/nhess-20-3343-2020 ↗
12. Numerical simulation of urban road collapse induced by the damaged sewer pipe and repetitive heavy rainfalls10.1007/s12303-023-0013-x ↗
13. Shui, Y., Qiu, Y., Cheng, X., Wu, S., Liu, C., and Niu, B. (2024). Research on the Cause Analysis and Disposal Measures of Typical Cases of Ground Collapse in Karst Development Areas. Hydraulic and Civil Engineering Technology IX, Proceedings of the 9th International Technical Conference on Frontiers of HCET, Sanya, China, 25–27 September 2024, IOS Press.10.3233/ATDE241076 ↗
14. Study on urban ground collapse induced by defective pipelines based on physical model experiments and numerical simulation10.1038/s41598-025-90146-5 ↗
15. Failure evolution and mechanism of ground collapse due to exfiltration of shallowly buried water pipeline10.1016/j.engfailanal.2024.108390 ↗
16. Small-scale, large impact: Utilizing machine learning to assess susceptibility to urban geological disasters—A case study of urban road collapses in Hangzhou10.1007/s10064-024-03931-3 ↗
17. Zhang, Z., Qin, L., Ye, G., Wang, W., and Zhang, J. (2023). Physical modeling and intelligent prediction for instability of high backfill slope moisturized under the influence of rainfall disasters. Appl. Sci., 13.10.3390/app13074218 ↗
18. Abegaz, R., Xu, J., Wang, F., and Huang, J. (2024). Impact of flooding events on buried infrastructures: A review. Front. Built Environ., 10.10.3389/fbuil.2024.1357741 ↗
19. Model test assessment of the generation of underground cavities and ground cave-ins by damaged sewer pipes10.1016/j.sandf.2018.12.011 ↗
20. Influence of location of subsurface structures on development of underground cavities induced by internal erosion10.1016/j.sandf.2015.06.014 ↗
21. Luo, X., Wang, M., Liu, Z., Zeng, Z., Wang, D., Jie, L., and Liu, J. (2026). Multi-Source Remote Sensing-Driven Prediction and Spatiotemporal Analysis of Urban Road Collapse Susceptibility. Remote Sens., 18.10.3390/rs18060919 ↗
22. An investigation on the collapse response of subsea pipelines with interacting corrosion defects10.1016/j.engstruct.2024.118911 ↗
23. Dynamic landslide susceptibility analysis that combines rainfall period, accumulated rainfall, and geospatial information10.1038/s41598-022-21795-z ↗
24. Segoni, S., Tofani, V., Rosi, A., Catani, F., and Casagli, N. (2018). Combination of Rainfall Thresholds and Susceptibility Maps for Dynamic Landslide Hazard Assessment at Regional Scale. Front. Earth Sci., 6.10.3389/feart.2018.00085 ↗
25. Li, B., Liu, K., Wang, M., He, Q., Jiang, Z., Zhu, W., and Qiao, N. (2022). Global Dynamic Rainfall-Induced Landslide Susceptibility Mapping Using Machine Learning. Remote Sens., 14.10.3390/rs14225795 ↗
26. A review of statistically-based landslide susceptibility models10.1016/j.earscirev.2018.03.001 ↗
27. Machine learning methods for landslide susceptibility studies: A comparative overview of algorithm performance10.1016/j.earscirev.2020.103225 ↗
28. Risk assessment and spatial regulation on urban ground collapse based on geo-detector: A case study of Hangzhou urban area10.1007/s11069-023-06016-8 ↗
29. Challenges in data-driven geospatial modeling for environmental research and practice10.1038/s41467-024-55240-8 ↗
30. Machine learning-based global maps of ecological variables and the challenge of assessing them10.1038/s41467-022-29838-9 ↗
31. Explainable artificial intelligence in geoscience: A glimpse into the future of landslide susceptibility modeling10.1016/j.cageo.2023.105364 ↗
32. An explainable AI (XAI) model for landslide susceptibility modeling10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110324 ↗
33. Adapting machine learning for environmental spatial data—A review10.1016/j.ecoinf.2024.102634 ↗
34. Rodriguez-Antunano, I., Martinez-Sanchez, J., Cabaleiro, M., and Riveiro, B. (2023). Anticipating the collapse of urban infrastructure: A methodology based on Earth observation and MT-InSAR. Remote Sens., 15.10.3390/rs15153867 ↗
35. Spatial+: A new cross-validation method to evaluate geospatial machine learning models
36. Spatial validation reveals poor predictive performance of large-scale ecological mapping models10.1038/s41467-020-18321-y ↗
37. Spatially autocorrelated training and validation samples inflate performance assessment of convolutional neural networks10.1016/j.ophoto.2022.100018 ↗
38. A similarity-based approach to sampling absence data for landslide susceptibility mapping using data-driven methods10.1016/j.catena.2019.104188 ↗
39. Influence of sampling design on landslide susceptibility modeling in lithologically heterogeneous areas10.1038/s41598-022-06257-w ↗
40. Lundberg, S.M., and Lee, S.-I. (2017, January 4–9). A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Long Beach, CA, USA.
41. Peeking inside the black box: Visualizing statistical learning with plots of individual conditional expectation10.1080/10618600.2014.907095 ↗
42. Insights into geospatial heterogeneity of landslide susceptibility based on the SHAP-XGBoost model10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117357 ↗
43. Zhou, L., Zhang, X., Shen, H., Zhang, D., and Bao, H. (2024). GIS analysis of urban ground collapse susceptibility: A case study of eastern Hangzhou, China. Front. Earth Sci., 11.10.3389/feart.2023.1338877 ↗
44. Ke, X., Wang, N., Li, T., Liu, Z., Li, Z., Zuo, G., and Chen, Y. (2025). From prediction to regionalization: Enhancing flash flood susceptibility mapping using machine learning and GeoDetector. Geosci. Front., 17.10.1016/j.gsf.2025.102213 ↗
45. Investigation on the phenomena and influence factors of urban ground collapse in China10.1007/s11069-022-05304-z ↗
46. Bilgilioğlu, S.S., Gezgin, C., Iban, M.C., Bilgilioğlu, H., Gündüz, H.I., and Arslan, Ş. (2025). Explainable Sinkhole Susceptibility Mapping Using Machine-Learning-Based SHAP: Quantifying and Comparing the Effects of Contributing Factors in Konya, Türkiye. Appl. Sci., 15.10.3390/app15063139 ↗
47. Investigating the drivers of urban cover-collapse sinkholes in shanghai: Analyzing dominant factors and proposing mitigation strategies10.1007/s44218-024-00051-z ↗
48. Wood, N.J., Doctor, D.H., Alder, J., and Jones, J. (2023). Current and future sinkhole susceptibility in karst and pseudokarst areas of the conterminous United States. Front. Earth Sci., 11.10.3389/feart.2023.1207689 ↗
49. Sinkhole susceptibility mapping in Greene county, Missouri through machine learning algorithms10.1016/j.geoai.2025.100035 ↗
50. Multi-hazard susceptibility mapping in a karst context using a machine-learning method (MaxEnt)10.5194/nhess-26-2743-2026 ↗
51. Landslides, floods and sinkholes in a karst environment: The 1–6 September 2014 Gargano event, southern Italy10.5194/nhess-17-467-2017 ↗
52. Yu, P., Dong, J., Hao, H., Xie, Y., Zhang, H., Wang, J., Zhu, C., Guan, Y., and Yu, H. (2023). Risk Assessment and Prevention Planning for Collapse Geological Hazards Considering Extreme Rainfall—A Case Study of Laoshan District in Eastern China. Land, 12.10.3390/land12081558 ↗
53. Model experimental study on the mechanism of collapse induced by leakage of underground pipeline10.1038/s41598-024-68824-7 ↗
54. Hybrid MLP-CNN-based ground sink susceptibility prediction in urban area using underground pipe map10.1016/j.ress.2024.110031 ↗
55. Logistic regression model for sinkhole susceptibility due to damaged sewer pipes10.1007/s11069-018-3323-y ↗
56. Sinkhole formation mechanisms and geostatistical-based prediction analysis in a mantled karst terrain10.1016/j.catena.2018.02.010 ↗
57. The influence of pipe embedment material on sinkhole formation due to erosion around defective sewers10.1016/j.trgeo.2019.03.001 ↗
58. Zhang, Y., Gu, Y., Lian, N., Peng, L., Hao, Y., Wang, W., and Tian, R. (2025). Analysis of urban subway construction collapse disaster chain and research on chain breaking and disaster reduction. PLoS ONE, 20.10.1371/journal.pone.0318269 ↗
59. Susceptibility mapping and risk assessment of urban sinkholes based on grey system theory10.1016/j.tust.2024.105893 ↗
60. Advances on the Global Human Settlement Layer by joint assessment of Earth Observation and population survey data10.1080/17538947.2024.2390454 ↗
61. Mapping global urban boundaries from the global artificial impervious area (GAIA) data10.1088/1748-9326/ab9be3 ↗
62. Annual maps of global artificial impervious area (GAIA) between 1985 and 201810.1016/j.rse.2019.111510 ↗
63. Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: Implications for background and pseudo-absence data10.1890/07-2153.1 ↗
64. On estimating probability of presence from use–availability or presence–background data10.1890/12-1520.1 ↗
65. Selecting pseudo-absence data for presence-only distribution modeling: How far should you stray from what you know?10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.11.010 ↗
66. Predicting potential soil and groundwater contamination risks from gas stations using three machine learning models (XGBoost, LightGBM, and Random Forest)10.1016/j.psep.2025.107249 ↗
67. Critical role of climate factors for groundwater potential mapping in arid regions: Insights from random forest, XGBoost, and LightGBM algorithms10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129599 ↗
68. Random forests10.1023/A:1010933404324 ↗
69. Linking the random forests model and GIS to assess geo-hazards risk: A case study in Shifang County, China10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2972005 ↗
70. Chen, T., and Guestrin, C. (2016, January 13–17). Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Francisco, CA, USA.10.1145/2939672.2939785 ↗
71. Chen, J., Wu, F., and Hu, H. (2025). Geohazard Susceptibility Assessment in Karst Terrain: A Novel Coupling Model Integrating Information Value and XGBoost Machine Learning in Guizhou Province, China. Appl. Sci., 15.10.3390/app151810077 ↗
72. Ke, G., Meng, Q., Finley, T., Wang, T., Chen, W., Ma, W., Ye, Q., and Liu, T.-Y. (2017, January 4–9). Lightgbm: A highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree. Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Long Beach, CA, USA.
73. Calibration of probability predictions from machine-learning and statistical models10.1111/geb.13070 ↗
74. Cross-validation strategies for data with temporal, spatial, hierarchical, or phylogenetic structure10.1111/ecog.02881 ↗
75. Hyperparameter tuning and performance assessment of statistical and machine-learning algorithms using spatial data10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2019.06.002 ↗
76. Geospatial SHAP interpretability for urban road collapse susceptibility assessment: A case study in Hangzhou, China10.1080/19475705.2025.2491473 ↗
77. From Prediction to Decision: An Explainable AI Framework for Urban Ground Subsidence Risk Management10.1016/j.ijdrr.2026.106158 ↗
78. Extracting spatial effects from machine learning model using local interpretation method: An example of SHAP and XGBoost10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2022.101845 ↗
79. Mosca, E., Szigeti, F., Tragianni, S., Gallagher, D., and Groh, G. (2022, January 12–17). SHAP-based explanation methods: A review for NLP interpretability. Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea.
80. Interpretable machine learning enables mechanistic insights and predictive control for clean and sustainable copper electrorefining10.1016/j.jclepro.2026.147643 ↗
81. Predicting microplastic impacts on microalgae: A machine learning approach to understand dynamic interactions in aquatic ecosystems10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.147147 ↗
82. Research on geographical environment unit division based on the method of natural breaks (Jenks)10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-4-W3-47-2013 ↗
83. Rodríguez, C.A., Rodríguez-Pérez, Á.M., López, R., Hernández-Torres, J.A., and Caparrós-Mancera, J.J. (2023). A finite element method integrated with Terzaghi’s principle to estimate settlement of a building due to tunnel construction. Buildings, 13.10.3390/buildings13051343 ↗
84. Spatial cross-validation is not the right way to evaluate map accuracy10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2021.109692 ↗
85. Stock, A. (2025). Choosing blocks for spatial cross-validation: Lessons from a marine remote sensing case study. Front. Remote Sens., 6.10.3389/frsen.2025.1531097 ↗
86. Elseicy, A., Alonso-Díaz, A., Solla, M., Rasol, M., and Santos-Assunçao, S. (2022). Combined Use of GPR and Other NDTs for Road Pavement Assessment: An Overview. Remote Sens., 14.10.3390/rs14174336 ↗