Machine learning study demonstrates tree structural features effectively predict fall risk across urban inventories, indicating their utility for municipal inspection prioritization.
Urban trees provide critical ecosystem services yet pose significant public safety risks when structurally compromised. Existing risk assessment frameworks rely primarily on on-site arborist inspection, which is resource-intensive and difficult to scale across large municipal inventories. This study develops a quantitative fall-risk classification framework using 5,000 New York City Forestry Tree Points with recorded professional risk ratings, structural attributes, species, borough assignment, spatial blocks, and date-aligned NASA POWER meteorological variables. A proportional borough × principal-species/Other × DBH-class sampling design preserved the eligible population structure while supporting transparent model evaluation. Five-fold spatial-block validation compared Logistic Regression, Random Forest, XGBoost, LightGBM, and Stacking models for distinguishing high-risk trees from low and moderate risk trees. The Random Forest model provided the strongest structural-only ROC-AUC (0.809; 95% bootstrap CI: 0.773–0.842) and PR-AUC of 0.122. Coarse meteorological variables yielded only a small and uncertain incremental change in Random Forest discrimination (Delta ROC-AUC = 0.006; 95% CI: −0.011 to 0.025), emphasising the need for finer storm, wind-canyon, and root-zone measurements. Sensitivity analyses showed modest performance change after excluding Manhattan (ROC-AUC = 0.801), a larger decrease when species was excluded (ROC-AUC = 0.783), and minimal change when borough was excluded (ROC-AUC = 0.804). The framework is best interpreted as a decision-support tool for inspection prioritisation rather than a replacement for field arborist assessment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: