Son, J; Jeong, J; Jeong, J; Kumi, L and Mun, H (2026) Data-driven approach to analyzing factors influencing construction accident severity using shap analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 152(3): 04025282, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Despite advances in construction safety research, existing studies face critical limitations, including severe data imbalance in accident severity classification and lack of interpretable machine-learning models for factor contribution analysis. This study addresses these gaps by combining extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) with Shapley additive explanation (SHAP) analysis to quantitatively evaluate key factors influencing construction accident severity based on workday loss. Advanced oversampling techniques resolved class imbalance among severity levels (fatal, very serious, serious, and minor), while hyperparameter tuning optimized model performance. The analysis identified the top five factors influencing accident severity: original cause material (55.76), accident month (46.38), project scale (40.17), PET range (29.04), and age (21.53). The XGBoost-SHAP framework successfully demonstrated superior performance in accident prediction while providing interpretable factor contributions, validating workday loss as an effective severity quantification method. The findings enable risk assessment in large-scale projects and extreme environmental conditions, offering a scientific basis for developing targeted accident prevention strategies and optimizing safety resource allocations.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction accident severity; construction safety; hyperparameter tuning; machine learning; shapley additive explanation |
| Index terms: | construction accident, environmental conditions, machine learning, construction safety, accident prevention, face, strategy, risk assessment, resource allocation, quantification |
| Subjects: | financial risk, environmental science, psychology, management, environmental health, measurement and scaling, occupational health and safety management, resource management, artificial intelligence |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Health and Safety, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Site Management, Organizational Design, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here