arXiv:2608.08321cs.LG2026-08

针对洪水与滑坡共发问题,提出区域差异感知的灾害风险地图构建方法。

Spatial Heterogeneity-Aware Multi-Hazard Susceptibility and Risk Mapping at Regional Scale

论文配图:Spatial Heterogeneity-Aware Multi-Hazard Susceptibility and Risk Mapping at Regional Scale
图 1 · 摘自论文原文
  • 按环境分区分层建模,区分跨区学习与区内约束两种训练策略
  • 跨区学习在尼泊尔洪水预测中AUC提升至0.886,精度显著优于区内约束
  • 结果可指导多灾种风险评估,适合区域防灾规划与应急决策者使用

洪水与滑坡常同时发生,但其与环境因子的关系具有空间异质性。本研究在印度喀拉拉邦和尼泊尔构建了考虑空间异质性的洪水-滑坡易发性与相对风险制图框架,采用15 km × 15 km网格结合区域特异性环境分区。比较了邻近门控跨区训练(S1)与生态门控分区约束训练(S2)。S1允许地理邻近模型跨分区分配,而S2限制模型仅在同分区开发与分配。基于随机森林的每类灾害模型使用策略特异性预测因子集,在空间预留测试样本上评估性能。易发性图与CRITIC加权暴露与脆弱性指数融合,生成九级双变量相对风险图。S1在两地两灾种上均取得更高平均准确率、精确率、召回率、F1分数、AUC-ROC与PR-AUC;尼泊尔洪水易发性中,AUC-ROC由S2的0.728升至S1的0.886,PR-AUC由0.512增至0.823。S2在尼泊尔两灾种上获得更低的布莱尔得分,且保留分区特异性预测因子选择、SHAP排序与响应模式差异,尤其在喀拉拉邦明显。两类策略均再现了洪水低地与滑坡高地格局,但在易发性与风险等级上存在差异。双变量风险图一致性分别为喀拉拉邦0.521、尼泊尔0.711,分配分歧大于数量分歧。易发性到风险的对应关系低于0.350,表明暴露与脆弱性改变了高风险位置。总体上,跨区学习增强区域区分能力,分区约束学习保持环境差异,二者宜整合使用。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Floods and landslides often co-occur, but their relationships with environmental controls vary spatially. This study develops a spatial heterogeneity-aware framework for flood-landslide susceptibility and relative-risk mapping in Kerala, India, and Nepal. It combines 15 km x 15 km grid cells with region-specific contextual zones and compares proximity-gated cross-zone training (S1) and ecology-gated zone-constrained training (S2). S1 permits geographically nearby models to be assigned across contextual boundaries, whereas S2 restricts model development and assignment to the same zone. Random Forest models for each hazard use strategy-specific predictor sets and are evaluated on spatially held-out test samples. Susceptibility surfaces are integrated with CRITIC-weighted exposure and vulnerability indices to produce hazard-specific and nine-class bivariate relative-risk maps. S1 achieved higher mean accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, AUC-ROC, and PR-AUC for both hazards and regions. The largest difference occurred for Nepal flood susceptibility, where AUC-ROC increased from 0.728 under S2 to 0.886 under S1 and PR-AUC from 0.512 to 0.823. S2 produced lower Brier scores for both Nepal hazards and retained zone-specific differences in predictor selection, SHAP rankings, and response patterns, particularly in Kerala. Both strategies reproduced flood-prone lowland and landslide-prone upland patterns but differed in susceptibility and risk classes. Bivariate risk-map agreement was 0.521 in Kerala and 0.711 in Nepal, with allocation disagreement exceeding quantity disagreement in all S1-S2 comparisons. Susceptibility-to-risk correspondence remained below 0.350, showing that exposure and vulnerability changed priority locations. Overall, cross-zone learning strengthens regional discrimination, while zone-constrained learning preserves environmental differences, supporting their integration.

灾害风险空间异质性多灾种易发性制图

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。