IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i10p6319-d821308.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Forecasting of Streamflow and Comparison of Artificial Intelligence Methods: A Case Study for Meram Stream in Konya, Turkey

Author

Listed:
  • Mustafa Najat Asaad

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Graduate School of Science, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya 42080, Turkey)

  • Şule Eryürük

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, K.T.O. Karatay University, Konya 42020, Turkey)

  • Kağan Eryürük

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya 42080, Turkey)

Abstract

The planning and management of water resources are affected by streamflow. The analysis of the sustainability of water resources has used well-grounded methods such as artificial neural networks, used for streamflow forecasting by researchers in recent years. The main aim of this study is to evaluate the performance of various methods for long-term forecasting from the data of the mean monthly streamflows between 1981 and 2017 from the Kucukmuhsine station on the Meram Stream in the Turkish province of Konya. For that reason, the multilayer perceptron (MLP), long short-term memory (LSTM), and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) artificial intelligence techniques were employed in this study for the long-term forecasting of streamflow for 12 months, 24 months, and 36 months. The mean absolute error (MAE), root mean square error (RMSE), and coefficient of determination (R 2 ) were used to evaluate the performance of the models developed to make predictions using the data from 1981 to 2017, and the Mann-Whitney test was applied to examine the differences between the actual data from 2018 to 2020 and each model’s forecasted results for those three years. The LSTM model showed superiority based on the values of R 2 (calculated as 0.730) and RMSE (lowest value of 0.510), whereas the MLP yielded better prediction accuracy as reflected by the value of MAE (lowest value of 0.519). The ANFIS model did not have the best prediction ability for any of the criteria. In accordance with the Mann-Whitney test results, LSTM and MLP indicated no significant difference between the actual data from 2018 to 2020 and the forecasted values; whereas, there was a significant difference for the ANFIS model at a confidence level of 95%. The results showed that the LSTM model had a better prediction performance, surpassing the MLP and ANFIS models, when comparing mean monthly streamflow forecasts.

Suggested Citation

  • Mustafa Najat Asaad & Şule Eryürük & Kağan Eryürük, 2022. "Forecasting of Streamflow and Comparison of Artificial Intelligence Methods: A Case Study for Meram Stream in Konya, Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-19, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:10:p:6319-:d:821308
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/10/6319/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/10/6319/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Youngmin Seo & Sungwon Kim & Ozgur Kisi & Vijay P. Singh & Kamban Parasuraman, 2016. "River Stage Forecasting Using Wavelet Packet Decomposition and Machine Learning Models," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 30(11), pages 4011-4035, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bulent Haznedar & Huseyin Cagan Kilinc & Furkan Ozkan & Adem Yurtsever, 2023. "Streamflow forecasting using a hybrid LSTM-PSO approach: the case of Seyhan Basin," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 117(1), pages 681-701, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eseosa Halima Ighile & Hiroaki Shirakawa & Hiroki Tanikawa, 2022. "Application of GIS and Machine Learning to Predict Flood Areas in Nigeria," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-33, April.
    2. Jin-Cheng Fu & Hsiao-Yun Huang & Jiun-Huei Jang & Pei-Hsun Huang, 2019. "River Stage Forecasting Using Multiple Additive Regression Trees," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 33(13), pages 4491-4507, October.
    3. José-Luis Molina & Santiago Zazo & Ana-María Martín-Casado & María-Carmen Patino-Alonso, 2020. "Rivers’ Temporal Sustainability through the Evaluation of Predictive Runoff Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-21, February.
    4. Adnan Bashir & Muhammad Ahmed Shehzad & Ijaz Hussain & Muhammad Ishaq Asif Rehmani & Sajjad Haider Bhatti, 2019. "Reservoir Inflow Prediction by Ensembling Wavelet and Bootstrap Techniques to Multiple Linear Regression Model," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 33(15), pages 5121-5136, December.
    5. Wen-chuan Wang & Yu-jin Du & Kwok-wing Chau & Dong-mei Xu & Chang-jun Liu & Qiang Ma, 2021. "An Ensemble Hybrid Forecasting Model for Annual Runoff Based on Sample Entropy, Secondary Decomposition, and Long Short-Term Memory Neural Network," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 35(14), pages 4695-4726, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:10:p:6319-:d:821308. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.