Prediction of groundwater drought based on hydro-meteorological insights via machine learning approaches
Özet
This study aims to predict groundwater drought-based meteorological drought index using machine learning instead of traditional approaches. Groundwater drought (GWD) was predicted using machine learning methodologies such as Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Random Forest (RF), Least Squares Boosting Tree (LSBT), Generalized Linear Regression (GLR) and k-Nearest Neighbours (KNN). In addition, monthly, seasonal, and annual drought indices such as the Standardised Precipitation-Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI), China Z Index (CZI), Standardised Precipitation Index (SPI), Z-Score Index (ZSI), Decile Index (DI), Percent of Normal Index (PNI) and Rainfall Anomaly Index (RAI) were used to analyse the drought of groundwater. These traditional drought indices were modified for the assessment of groundwater drought. Moreover, groundwater drought was predicted based on the hydro-meteorological parameters (temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, rainfall, groundwater level). The applied models’ performances were evaluated via Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), R-squared (R2), Mean Bias Error (MBE), Bias Factor, and Variance Account Factor (VAF). Linear SVM is generally the best model for predicting GWD, while GLR is the second-best performing model. The KNN algorithm obtained the weakest performances. Although all types of drought and wet categories were observed, normal drought occurred more than in the other drought and wet categories. This study can contribute to the assessment of groundwater drought in regions where there is no groundwater station. © 2024
Anahtar Kelimeler
Tam Kayıt
| Alan | Değer | Dil |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Kartal, Veysi | |
| dc.contributor.author | Katipoğlu, Okan Mert | |
| dc.contributor.author | Karakoyun, Erkan | |
| dc.contributor.author | Simsek, Oguz | |
| dc.contributor.author | Yavuz, Veysel Süleyman | |
| dc.contributor.author | Ariman, Sema | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2026-10-18T20:26:31.603684702Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2026-10-18T20:26:31.603684702Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2024 | |
| dc.description.abstract | This study aims to predict groundwater drought-based meteorological drought index using machine learning instead of traditional approaches. Groundwater drought (GWD) was predicted using machine learning methodologies such as Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Random Forest (RF), Least Squares Boosting Tree (LSBT), Generalized Linear Regression (GLR) and k-Nearest Neighbours (KNN). In addition, monthly, seasonal, and annual drought indices such as the Standardised Precipitation-Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI), China Z Index (CZI), Standardised Precipitation Index (SPI), Z-Score Index (ZSI), Decile Index (DI), Percent of Normal Index (PNI) and Rainfall Anomaly Index (RAI) were used to analyse the drought of groundwater. These traditional drought indices were modified for the assessment of groundwater drought. Moreover, groundwater drought was predicted based on the hydro-meteorological parameters (temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, rainfall, groundwater level). The applied models’ performances were evaluated via Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), R-squared (R2), Mean Bias Error (MBE), Bias Factor, and Variance Account Factor (VAF). Linear SVM is generally the best model for predicting GWD, while GLR is the second-best performing model. The KNN algorithm obtained the weakest performances. Although all types of drought and wet categories were observed, normal drought occurred more than in the other drought and wet categories. This study can contribute to the assessment of groundwater drought in regions where there is no groundwater station. © 2024 | |
| dc.description.sponsorship | This study aims to predict groundwater drought-based meteorological drought index using machine learning instead of traditional approaches. Groundwater drought (GWD) was predicted using machine learning methodologies such as Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Random Forest (RF), Least Squares Boosting Tree (LSBT), Generalized Linear Regression (GLR) and k-Nearest Neighbours (KNN). In addition, monthly, seasonal, and annual drought indices such as the Standardised Precipitation-Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI), China Z Index (CZI), Standardised Precipitation Index (SPI), Z-Score Index (ZSI), Decile Index (DI), Percent of Normal Index (PNI) and Rainfall Anomaly Index (RAI) were used to analyse the drought of groundwater. These traditional drought indices were modified for the assessment of groundwater drought. Moreover, groundwater drought was predicted based on the hydro-meteorological parameters (temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, rainfall, groundwater level). The applied models\u2019 performances were evaluated via Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), R-squared (R2), Mean Bias Error (MBE), Bias Factor, and Variance Account Factor (VAF). Linear SVM is generally the best model for predicting GWD, while GLR is the second-best performing model. The KNN algorithm obtained the weakest performances. Although all types of drought and wet categories were observed, normal drought occurred more than in the other drought and wet categories. This study can contribute to the assessment of groundwater drought in regions where there is no groundwater station.Observing and forecasting the emergence of groundwater drought has become increasingly crucial as demand for groundwater has increased. In general, groundwater drought occurs because of a lack of precipitation and soil moisture dryness. However, groundwater drought studies have not received the necessary attention due to their detailed characteristics and complex structure (Seo and Lee, 2023). Since monitoring groundwater and obtaining available data are costly and require much human effort, drought forecasting studies based on machine learning are gaining importance. For example, Banadkooki et al. (2021) used the hybrid artificial neural network (ANN) models to predict the groundwater resource index. Achite et al. (2023) used the extreme learning machine (ELM) and wavelet-based ELM (W-ELM) algorithms to evaluate drought prediction in Algeria. Their findings revealed that the performance of the W-ELM algorithm produced outstanding results at most of the studied stations. Banadkooki et al. (2021) estimated the groundwater resource index (GRI) by hybrid ANN models, including the slap swarm algorithm (SSA), particle swarm optimisation (PSO), and genetic algorithm (GA). Belayneh et al. (2016) predicted the SPI using ANN, support vector regression (SVR), and ANN wavelet model, and they found that wavelet analysis developed the forecasting results. Xu et al. (2022) used six estimation models, including ARIMA, SVR, LSTM, ARIMA-SVR, LS-SVR, and ARIMA-LSTM to predict the SPEI index in a location in China. Their findings showed that the ARIMA-LSTM model made better predictions than other models.The machine learning algortihms included state-of-the-art algorithms such as Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Random Forest (RF), Least Squares Boosting Tree (LSBT), Generalized Linear Regression (GLR), and k-Nearest Neighbours (k-NN). Evaluation of the cognitive approaches relied on a suite of performance metrics, including Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), R-squared (R2), Mean Bias Error (MBE), Bias Factor, and Variance Account Factor (VAF). To benchmark the performance, a range of drought indices was analysed, encompassing The Standardised Precipitation-Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI), China Z Index (CZI), The Standardised Precipitation Index (SPI), Z-Score Index (ZSI), Drought Index (DI), Percent of Normal Index (PNI), and Rainfall Anomaly Index (RAI). This multifaceted approach ensured a robust and comprehensive examination of groundwater drought assessment methodologies (Fig. 2). The flowchart of the present study is shown in Fig. 2This study evaluated the prediction potential of various machine learning models for predicting GW droughts (GWD). In the study, satisfactory outputs were produced by using historical GWD values and various meteorological data to estimate GWD values. Linear SVM is generally the best model for predicting GWD, while GLR is the second-best performing model. The KNN algorithm obtained the weakest performances. Yoon et al. (2011) applied ANN and SVM algorithms to model the GWL values of two wells in a coastal aquifer in Korea. The analyses support the current research in showing that the generalisation ability of the SVM algorithm is better than that of ANN. Uddameri et al. (2019) investigated the relationship between water levels and groundwater droughts in the Edwards Aquifer in Texas. SGI values were calculated by applying the SPI approach to GWL to determine groundwater droughts. The analysis determined that long-term, high-resolution observations are needed to express GWD accurately. It has also been revealed that SPI can be used to respond to GWD emergencies. The study supports the current study in which drought is predicted with SGI. Shamshirband et al. (2020) employed SVM, Gene Expression Programming (GEP), and M5 model trees (MT) to predict SPI, SPEI and Standardized Streamflow Index (SSI). Analyses show realistic results of SPI prediction models. It was determined that the MT model reached the highest accuracy in estimating SSI values, with R: 0.8195 and RMSE: 0.8186. The outputs of Shamshirband et al. (2020) contradict the study in terms of producing superior outputs of arboreal models compared to the SVM model. The use of precipitation-based and GWL-based data inputs can explain this. The SVM algorithm has gained superiority over other models thanks to its effective solution capability in high-dimensional space and its ability to model possible accurate and outlier values that are resistant to overfitting (Oluchi Anyanwu et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2018). The KNN model, on the other hand, can be inferred from the prediction of GWD because if the correct number of neighbours cannot be selected, it is insufficient in the prediction of GWD due to the possibility of encountering overfitting and underfitting problems (Citakoglu and Co\u015Fkun, 2022; Tahraoui et al., 2023). | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1016/j.pce.2024.103757 | |
| dc.identifier.eissn | 1873-5193 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1474-7065 | |
| dc.identifier.scopus | 2-s2.0-85206160810 | |
| dc.identifier.startpage | 103757 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/r/ebyu/11479 | |
| dc.identifier.volume | 136 | |
| dc.identifier.wos | WOS:001335585300001 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | |
| dc.publisher | Elsevier Ltd | |
| dc.relation.ispartof | Physics and Chemistry of the Earth | |
| dc.rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess | |
| dc.subject | Cognitive approaches | |
| dc.subject | Drought indices | |
| dc.subject | Groundwater drought | |
| dc.subject | Groundwater level | |
| dc.subject | Machine learning | |
| dc.subject | Prediction | |
| dc.subject | Adversarial machine learning | |
| dc.subject | Long short-term memory | |
| dc.subject | Rain | |
| dc.subject | Support vector machines | |
| dc.subject | Drought index | |
| dc.subject | Ground water level | |
| dc.subject | Machine learning approaches | |
| dc.subject | Machine-learning | |
| dc.subject | Meteorological drought | |
| dc.subject | Neural-networks | |
| dc.subject | Traditional approaches | |
| dc.subject | Traditional approachs | |
| dc.subject | cognition | |
| dc.subject | drought | |
| dc.subject | groundwater | |
| dc.subject | hydrometeorology | |
| dc.subject | water level | |
| dc.subject | Mean square error | |
| dc.title | Prediction of groundwater drought based on hydro-meteorological insights via machine learning approaches | |
| dc.type | Article | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| rdl.citation.scopus | 16 | |
| rdl.citation.wos | 15 | |
| rdl.oa.status | green | |
| rdl.source.index | SCOPUS | |
| rdl.source.index | WOS | |
| rdl.wos.index | Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) |
