Decision Support for Watershed Management Using Evolutionary Algorithms

An integrative computational methodology is developed for the management of nonpoint source pollution from watersheds. The associated decision support system is based on an interface between evolutionary algorithms (EAs) and a comprehensive watershed simulation model, and is capable of identifying optimal or near-optimal land use patterns to satisfy objectives. Specifically, a genetic algorithm (GA) is linked with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) for single objective evaluations, and a Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm has been integrated with SWAT for multiobjective optimization. The model can be operated at a small spatial scale, such as a farm field, or on a larger watershed scale. A secondary model that also uses a GA is developed for calibration of the simulation model. Sensitivity analysis and parameterization are carried out in a preliminary step to identify model parameters that need to be calibrated. Application to a demonstration watershed located in Southern Illinois reveals the capability of the model in achieving its intended goals. However, the model is found to be computationally demanding as a direct consequence of repeated SWAT simulations during the search for favorable solutions. An artificial neural network (ANN) has been developed to mimic SWAT outputs and ultimately replace it during the search process. Replacement of SWAT by the ANN results in an 84% reduction in computational time required to identify final land use patterns. The ANN model is trained using a hybrid of evolutionary programming (EP) and the back propagation (BP) algorithms. The hybrid algorithm was found to be more effective and efficient than either EP or BP alone. Overall, this study demonstrates the powerful and multifaceted role that EAs and artificial intelligence techniques could play in solving the complex and realistic problems of environmental and water resources systems.

[1]  Misgana K. Muleta,et al.  Watershed Management Technique to Control Sediment Yield in Agriculturally Dominated Areas , 2001 .

[2]  D. Mackay,et al.  Impacts of input parameter spatial aggregation on an agricultural nonpoint source pollution model , 2000 .

[3]  Philipp Slusallek,et al.  Introduction to real-time ray tracing , 2005, SIGGRAPH Courses.

[4]  Alan S. Perelson,et al.  Searching for Diverse, Cooperative Populations with Genetic Algorithms , 1993, Evolutionary Computation.

[5]  Xin Yao,et al.  Fast Evolution Strategies , 1997, Evolutionary Programming.

[6]  J. Refsgaard,et al.  Operational Validation and Intercomparison of Different Types of Hydrological Models , 1996 .

[7]  J. Refsgaard.  Parameterisation, calibration and validation of distributed hydrological models , 1997 .

[8]  Misgana K. Muleta,et al.  Evolutionary algorithms for multiobjective evaluation of watershed management decisions , 2002 .

[9]  John H. Holland,et al.  Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence , 1992 .

[10]  Simon Haykin,et al.  Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Foundation , 1998 .

[11]  R. Iman,et al.  The Use of the Rank Transform in Regression , 1979 .

[12]  Hans Peter Schwefel.  Advantages (and Disadvantages) of Evolutionary Computation Over Other Approaches , 1997 .

[13]  John R. Williams,et al.  LARGE AREA HYDROLOGIC MODELING AND ASSESSMENT PART I: MODEL DEVELOPMENT 1 , 1998 .

[14]  Jon C. Helton,et al.  Sampling-based methods for uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. , 2000 .

[15]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Learning internal representations by error propagation , 1986 .

[16]  Mark Guetersloh,et al.  Big Creek Watershed Restoration Plan: A Component of the Cache River Watershed Resource Plan , 2002 .

[17]  Hatim O. Sharif,et al.  On the calibration and verification of two‐dimensional, distributed, Hortonian, continuous watershed models , 2000 .

[18]  Hans-Paul Schwefel,et al.  Advantages (and disadvantages) of evolutionary computation over other approaches , 2018, Evolutionary Computation 1.

[19]  J. Nash,et al.  River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I — A discussion of principles☆ , 1970 .

[20]  David B. Fogel,et al.  Evolution-ary Computation 1: Basic Algorithms and Operators , 2000 .

[21]  Lothar Thiele,et al.  Comparison of Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms: Empirical Results , 2000, Evolutionary Computation.

[22]  R. Müftüoğlu,et al.  Monthly runoff generation by non-linear models , 1991 .

[23]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization and Machine Learning , 1988 .

[24]  J. Arnold,et al.  VALIDATION OF THE SWAT MODEL ON A LARGE RWER BASIN WITH POINT AND NONPOINT SOURCES 1 , 2001 .

[25]  Lawrence J. Fogel,et al.  Intelligence Through Simulated Evolution: Forty Years of Evolutionary Programming , 1999 .

[26]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Muiltiobjective Optimization Using Nondominated Sorting in Genetic Algorithms , 1994, Evolutionary Computation.

[27]  Misganaw Demissie,et al.  Hydrology of the Big Creek Watershed and its influence on the Lower Cache River , 2001 .

[28]  Zbigniew Michalewicz,et al.  Evolutionary Computation 2 : Advanced Algorithms and Operators , 2000 .

[29]  David B. Fogel,et al.  An introduction to simulated evolutionary optimization , 1994, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks.

[30]  Lothar Thiele,et al.  Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength Pareto approach , 1999, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[31]  J. Nazuno.  Haykin, Simon. Neural networks: A comprehensive foundation, Prentice Hall, Inc. Segunda Edición, 1999 , 2000 .

[32]  Kalyanmoy Deb-Kanpur.  Multi-objective Genetic Algorithms : Problem Difficulties and Construction of Test Problems , 2001 .