Spatial Analysis of Environmental Hazards

Spatial Analysis of Environmental Hazards

Risk Modeling of Land Subsidence Using the Random Forest Algorithm (Case Study: Eshtehard Plain)

Authors
rana norouzi
Sayyd Morovat Eftekhari
Ali Ahmadabadi
10.66224/jsaeh.12.4.6
Abstract
Objective: Over the past two decades, land subsidence has emerged as a significant geomorphological hazard and one of the most critical environmental crises in Iran, causing irreversible damage to many plains each year. Among its primary current causes is the excessive and unregulated extraction of groundwater. The Eshtehard Plain, recognized as one of the industrial and agricultural hubs of Alborz province, is no exception. Due to severe groundwater depletion, it has been officially declared a critical zone by the Ministry of Energy. The objective of this study is to model the risk of land subsidence in this plain using the Random Forest algorithm and to analyze the contributing factors influencing its occurrence

Methods: In this study, twelve independent spatial layers were utilized, including: digital elevation model (DEM), distance to rivers, distance to qanats, distance to wells, distance to faults, groundwater depth, drainage density, soil type, lithology, land use, topographic wetness index (TWI), and solar radiation. The dependent layer consisted of subsidence zones. The Random Forest model was implemented in the R software environment. Two key importance measures—Mean Decrease Accuracy and Mean Decrease Gini—were employed to rank, assess the significance of, and assign weights to the contributing factors of land subsidence. Finally, model performance was evaluated using three complementary metrics: Accuracy, Kappa, and AUCResults: The results demonstrated that the Random Forest model achieved high accuracy in classifying land subsidence risk. Model evaluation showed strong performance with an overall accuracy of 0.963, a Kappa coefficient of 0.611, and an AUC value of 0.955, indicating that the model is highly effective for spatial risk zoning of land subsidence. The most influential variables in subsidence occurrence were identified as groundwater depth, distance to wells, geology, and land use. Furthermore, more than 65% of the study area was categorized as high-risk and very high-risk, reflecting the critical condition of the Eshtehard Plain. Notably, the share of urban land use has shown a steady increase from 2011 to 2023, with a significant spike in 2023, where increased population concentration has placed additional pressure on groundwater resources, leading to an intensification of subsidence in affected areas

Conclusions: The Random Forest algorithm successfully modeled the spatial distribution of land subsidence risk with high accuracy. This method can serve as an effective tool for informed decision-making in groundwater resource management, sustainable development planning, and hazard mitigation in similar regions.


Keywords
Eshtehard plain
Random Forest
Land subsidence
modeling
1. Al-Halbouni D, Holohan EP, Saberi L, Alrshdan H, Sawarieh A, Closson D, Walter TR, Dahm T. 2017. Sinkholes, subsidence and subrosion on the eastern shore of the Dead Sea as revealed by a close-range photogrammetric survey. Geomorphology, 285: 305-324.
2. Alidoost, F., & Arefi, H. (2024). Vertical Accuracy Assessment and Improvement of Five High Resolution Open Source Digital Elevation Models Using ICESat 2 Data and Random Forest: Case Study on Chongqing, China. Remote Sensing, 16(11), 1903. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16111903
3. Arpaci A, Malowerschnig B, Sass O, Vacik H. 2014. Using multi variate data mining techniques for estimating fire susceptibility of Tyrolean forests. Applied Geography, 53: 258-270
4. Chen W, Xie X, Wang J, Pradhan B, Hong H, Bui DT, Duan Z, Ma J. 2017. A comparative study of logistic model tree, random forest, and classification and regression tree models for spatial prediction of landslide susceptibility. Catena, 151: 147-160
5. De Waele J, Gutiérrez F, Parise M, Plan L. 2011. Geomorphology and natural hazards in karst areas: a review. Geomorphology, 134(1-2): 1-8.
6. Deverel SJ, Rojstaczer S. 1996. Subsidence of agricultural lands in the Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta, California: Role of aqueous and gaseous carbon fluxes. Water Resources Research, 32(8): 2359-2367.
7. Dong, X., Zhang, Q., & Yan, J. (2025). Evaluating Machine Learning Based Approaches in Land Subsidence Susceptibility Mapping. Land, 13(3), 322.
https://doi.org/10.3390/land13030322
8. Galloway, D. L., & Burbey, T. J. (2011). Review: Regional land subsidence accompanying groundwater extraction. Hydrogeology Journal, 19(8), 1459–1486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-011-0775-5
9. Gutiérrez F, Parise M, De Waele J, Jourde H. 2014. A review on natural and human-induced geohazards and impacts in karst. Earth-Science Reviews, 138: 61-88.
10. Herrera-García, G., et al. (2021). The global risk of land subsidence. Nature Sustainability, 4(7), 671–679. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00690-1
11. Ku, C.-Y., & Liu, C.-Y. (2023). Land subsidence modeling using an artificial neural network with GIS in Yunlin County, Taiwan. Scientific Reports, 13, 4207. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-31390-5.
12. Li, Z., Zhou, H. and Xu, Y. 2013. Research on prediction model of support vector machine-based 2012.Application of an adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system to ground subsidence hazard mapping. Computers & Geosciences, 48: 228–238.
13. Liaw A, Wiener M. 2002. Classification and regression by randomForest. R news, 2(3): 18-22. mapping. Computers & Geosciences, 48: 228–238.
14. Naghibi, S. A., Ahmadi, K., & Kalantar, B. (2024). Land subsidence risk assessment using GIS fuzzy logic spatial modeling in Varamin aquifer, Iran. Environmental Earth Sciences, 83(2), Article 115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-023-11532-4
15. Oh H-J, Lee S. 2010. Assessment of ground subsidence using GIS and the weights-of-evidence model. Engineering Geology, 115(1-2): 36-48.
16. Ohenhen, L. O., Zhai, G., Lucy, J., Lee, J.-C., Zehsaz, S., & Shirzaei, M. (2025). Land subsidence risk to infrastructure in US metropolises. Nature Cities. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44284-025-00240-y
17. Pal M. 2005. Random forest classifier for remote sensing classification. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 26(1): 217-222.
18. Pourtaghi ZS, Pourghasemi HR, Aretano R, Semeraro T. 2016. Investigation of general indicators influencing on forest fire and its susceptibility modeling using different data mining techniques. Ecological Indicators, 64: 72-84.
19. Pradhan B, Abokharima MH, Jebur MN, Tehrany MS. 2014. Land subsidence susceptibility mapping at Kinta Valley (Malaysia) using the evidential belief function model in GIS. Natural Hazards, 73(2): 1019-1042.
20. Pradhan B. 2013. A comparative study on the predictive ability of the decision tree, support vector machine and neuro-fuzzy models in landslide susceptibility mapping using GIS. Computers & Geosciences, 51: 350-365
21. prediction model of support vector machine-based 2012.Application of an adaptive neuro fuzzy
22. Rahmati O, Pourghasemi HR, Melesse AM. 2016. Application of GIS-based data driven random forest and maximum entropy models for groundwater potential mapping: a case study at Mehran Region, Iran. Catena, 137: 360-372.
23. Rajabi, A. M., Edalat, A., Abolghasemi, Y., & Khodaparast, M. (2024). Ground subsidence modeling using Sentinel-1A SAR data and artificial neural network in Aliabad Plain, Iran. Journal of Mountain Science, 21(3), 589–603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-023-8470-2
24. Sharma P, Jones CE, Dudas J, Bawden GW, Deverel S. 2016. Monitoring of subsidence with UAVSAR on Sherman Island in California's Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. Remote Sensing of Environment, 181: 218-236.
25. Trigila A, Iadanza C, Esposito C, ScarasciaMugnozza G. 2015. Comparison of Logistic Regression and Random Forests techniques for shallow landslide susceptibility assessment in Giampilieri (NE Sicily, Italy). Geomorphology, 249: 119-136.
26. Zhan, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhang, J., Xu, J., Chen, H., Liu, G., & Wan, Z. (2025). Ground subsidence risk assessment using AHP and entropy weight method in Shanghai Municipality. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 7339. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-91109-6