You are on page 1of 12

Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess (2009) 23:1143–1154

DOI 10.1007/s00477-008-0288-5

ORIGINAL PAPER

Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System for drought forecasting
Ulker Guner Bacanli Æ Mahmut Firat Æ
Fatih Dikbas

Published online: 24 October 2008
Ó Springer-Verlag 2008

Abstract Drought causes huge losses in agriculture and
has many negative influences on natural ecosystems. In this
study, the applicability of Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference
System (ANFIS) for drought forecasting and quantitative
value of drought indices, the Standardized Precipitation
Index (SPI), is investigated. For this aim, 10 rainfall
gauging stations located in Central Anatolia, Turkey are
selected as study area. Monthly mean rainfall and SPI
values are used for constructing the ANFIS forecasting
models. For all stations, data sets include a total of 516 data
records measured between in 1964 and 2006 years and data
sets are divided into two subsets, training and testing.
Different ANFIS forecasting models for SPI at time scales
1–12 months were trained and tested. The results of ANFIS
forecasting models and observed values are compared and
performances of models were evaluated. Moreover, the
best fit models have been also trained and tested by Feed
Forward Neural Networks (FFNN). The results demonstrate that ANFIS can be successfully applied and provide
high accuracy and reliability for drought forecasting.
Keywords Drought forecasting  ANFIS  Drought
indices  Central Anatolia  Turkey

1 Introduction
Drought is a threatening global and local problem that has
many damages in various ways. It causes huge losses in
agriculture and has many negative influences on natural
U. G. Bacanli  M. Firat (&)  F. Dikbas
Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering,
Pamukkale University, 20017 Denizli, Turkey
e-mail: mfirat@pau.edu.tr

ecosystems. Drought causes degradation of soils and
desertification (Nicholson et al. 1990; Pickup 1998), social
alarm and famine and impoverishment. Studies on climate
change also drew attention to drought in recent years (Byun
and Wilhite 1999) and many studies were made to analyze
the spatial patterns of drought risk in order to assist agricultural or environmental management (Dracup et al.
1980). The development of drought monitoring plans is
a priority in many of these studies (Wilhite 1997; Hayes
et al. 1999) and drought prediction is the subject of some
other studies that investigate the atmospheric causes of
droughts. Drought risk analysis aiming at improving techniques for drought prediction and management are based
on the spatial variation of drought and are mainly focused
on the magnitude, duration, intensity and spatial extent of
droughts. Currently, indirect characteristic features of soil
moisture time series namely drought indices are widely
used. Spatial and temporal extent and severity of drought
can be determined by the help of these indices (Palmer
1995; McKee et al. 1993; Edwards and Mckee 1997; Hayes
1997; Guttmann 1998; Hayes 2000). The Standardized
Precipitation Index (SPI), developed by McKee et al.
(1993), is an effective drought index which has several
advantages over the others. Calculation of the SPI is easier
than the more complex indices such as the Palmer Drought
Severity Index (PDSI; Palmer 1965), because the SPI
requires only precipitation data, whereas the PDSI uses
several parameters. The SPI is comparable in both time and
space and it can be calculated for several time scales
(Sırdas¸ and S¸ en 2003; McKee et al. 1995) and it allows the
determination of duration, magnitude and intensity of
droughts. The SPI identifies various drought types as
hydrological, agricultural or environmental and it has been
extensively used for drought analysis of many areas of the
world. Several studies focused on the SPI’s calculation

123

Moreover. Some specific applications of ANN to hydrology include modeling rainfall-runoff process (Jeong and Kim 2005. Moreover. SPI forecasts at a generic time horizon M were analytically determined. 2005. The results have demonstrated that neural network method can be successfully applied for drought forecasting. Moreover FL and ANN methods offer real advantages over conventional modeling especially when the underlying physical relationships are not fully understood. The objective was to determine the most adequate time scales of SPI to monitor droughts in two basic water usable sources: river discharges and reservoir storages. The new techniques such as artificial neural networks (ANN). Bonaccorso et al. Moreira et al. Traditional methods like regression analysis and autoregressive moving average models are commonly used in the estimation of hydrological processes. For this aim. sediment concentration estimation (Nagy et al. (2004) applied the SPI for drought forecasting in Greece. Liong et al. and spatial and temporal comparability (Keyantash and Dracup 2002). According to results. (2003) used the SPI for drought analysis in Italy and Loukas et al. 9. (2006) analyzed the SPI with the 12-month time scale through adjusting loglinear models to the probabilities of transitions between the SPI drought classes. Mishra and Desai (2006) applied the feed-forward recursive neural network and ARIMA models for drought forecasting using standardized precipitation index (SPI) series as drought index. 18. 2008). estimation of heterogeneous aquifer parameters (Mantoglou 2003). 2004). (2008) investigated the distribution of drought interval time. Nayak et al. 2004. For this aim. Wu et al (2008) applied the neural network method to establish a risk evaluation model of heavy snow disaster using back-propagation artificial neural network (BP-ANN). 2005. Fuzzy Logic (FL) and ANFIS have been recently accepted as an efficient alternative tool for modeling of complex hydrologic systems and widely used for 123 Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess (2009) 23:1143–1154 forecasting. Firat 2007. Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS). 6. as a function of past values of monthly precipitation. mean drought interarrival time. 2002). Morid et al. in terms of conditional expectation. 2005). Altunkaynak et al. Cancelliere et al. Mishra and Desai (2005) used the linear stochastic models known as ARIMA and multiplicative Seasonal Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (SARIMA) models to forecast droughts based on the procedure of model development. Rajurkar et al.1144 procedures. In the first methodology. 2006). They found that Time scales of SPI longer than 12 months do not seem useful to monitor any drought type in their study areas. Because SPI is one of the most widely used methods related to drought. Mishra et al. hydrologic time series modeling (Jain and Kumar 2007). and 24 months for characterizing the drought climatology of Europe. (2007) examined the utility of ANN approach for medium and long-term forecasting of both the likelihood of drought events and their severity. 2000. the Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) series were employed and the time interval of SPI was found to have a significant effect of the probabilistic characteristics of drought. BP-ANN model showed an advantage in heavy snow risk evaluation in Xilingol compared to the conventional method. The models were applied to forecast droughts using standardized precipitation index (SPI) series in the Kansabati river basin in India. In the second methodology. joint probability density function and transition probabilities of drought events using the alternative renewable process and run theory in the Kansabati River basin in India. which identify the most appropriate frequency distributions (Guttmann 1998). the SPI’s spatial stability and coherence in relation to time scales have not been analysed. Drought forecasting plays an important role in the mitigation of impacts of drought on water resources systems. accurate and reliable estimation of SPI is very important. runoff and sediment yield modeling (Agarwal et al. the autocovariance matrix of SPI values was analytically derived. Firat and Gu¨ngo¨r 2007. S¸ en and Altunkaynak 2006. FL is employed to describe human thinking and reasoning in a mathematical framework. has been used in the modeling of nonlinear engineering and water resources problems (Chang and Chang 2006. Hughes and Saunders (2002) used monthly SPIs at time scales of 3. In recent years. 2000. Nayak et al. the effect of time scales on the parameters (Ntale and Gan 2003). 12. The main problem with FL is that there is no systematic procedure to define . Kumar et al. under the hypothesis of uncorrelated and normally distributed monthly precipitation aggregated at various time scales. VicenteSerrano and Lopez-Moreno (2005) analyzed the usefulness of different SPI time scales to monitor droughts in river discharges and reservoir storages. several studies have also been carried out using FL in hydrology and water resources planning (Mahabir et al. as a function of the statistics of the underlying monthly precipitation process. (2007) proposed two methodologies for the seasonal forecasting of SPI. However. Chou and Chen (2007) have used the neuro fuzzy computing technique for the development of drought early warning index. which is integration of ANN and FL methods. an approach has been proposed to develop drought early warning index (DEWI) for southern Taiwan to detect the drought in advance for setting up proper plans to mitigate the water shortage impact. The results showed that the proposed methodologies can be applied for drought monitoring system. On the other hand. ASCE Task Committee reports (2000) did a comprehensive review of the applications of ANN in the hydrological forecasting context.

The classes according to the SPI index are given in the Table 1. b([0) is the scale parameter. Gamma distribution is the best fitting distribution to the climatologic time series. Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS). which is an integration of ANN and FL methods. the cumulative probability distribution is defined as follows: H ð x Þ ¼ q þ ð 1  qÞ  G ð x Þ ð7Þ In the equation above. SPI is a dimensionless index that takes negative values in drought periods and positive values in wet periods.99–(-0. The construction of the fuzzy rule necessitates the definition of premises and consequences as fuzzy sets. Gamma distribution is defined by either the frequency distribution or the probability density function gð x Þ ¼ 1 xa1 ex=b b CðaÞ a for x [ 0: ð2Þ a([0) is the shape parameter. 10 rainfall gauging stations located in Central Anatolia. The main contribution of ANFIS method is that it eliminates the basic problems in fuzzy modeling (defining the membership function parameters and design of fuzzy if–then rules) by using the learning capability of ANN for automatic fuzzy rule generation and parameter optimization. is proposed as an alternative to the traditional methods for drought forecasting using SPI for multiple time scales.0)–(-1. In this paper. n is the number of precipitation observations.0 Moderately wet 0. estimation models were constructed with ANFIS 1145 Table 1 Classification according to the SPI values SPI Drought category 2[ Extremely wet 1.99) Near normal (–1. 2 Standard Precipitation Index (SPI) Standard Precipitation Index calculation is based on longterm precipitation data.99) Severely dry –2\ Extremely dry 2. 9 and 12 months.Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess (2009) 23:1143–1154 the MF parameters and to design of fuzzy rules. Turkey are selected as study area. method by using the SPI outputs for 1. In the proposed study. To illustrate the applicability of ANFIS method in drought forecasting. 9. The time steps may vary according to the condition of water resources in the area. In this situation. Different time steps are determined like 3.49–1.5)–(-1. 3. 123 . In the calculation of a and b. the cumulative probability distribution function is defined as follows: Zx Zx 1 Gð xÞ ¼ gð xÞdx ¼ a xa1 ex=b dx ð6Þ b C ð aÞ 0 4. 6. Then Gamma distribution is fitted to the data set and thus the observed precipitation probabilities are defined. q represents the probability for zero value. and C (a) is the Gamma function. A drought event is considered to occur at a time when the value of SPI is continuously negative and end when SPI becomes positive (Mishra et al. When this is the case.49) Moderately dry (–1. These probability definitions obtained from the present data may later be used to determine the cumulative probability of a value observed at any month. 2008).99–1. SPI is obtained by dividing the difference between precipitation and mean to standard deviation in a specific duration (McKee et al 1993). If m is used for denoting the zero values in a precipitation series then the following definition can be made: q = m/n. The following steps are applied in the SPI method: 1. The calculation of SPI is complex because the precipitation does not fit normal distribution for the periods of 12 months and less and for this reason the precipitation series are fitted to normal distribution xi  xi SPI ¼ : ð1Þ r SPI permits to determine the rarity of a drought or an anomalously wet event at a particular time scale for any location that has a precipitation record. length and duration of drought can be calculated with SPI. The best fit forecasting model structure was determined by comparing the forecasted and observed values. x([0) is the precipitation amount.5 Very wet 1. 12. 0 Gamma function is undefined for x = 0 and precipitation distribution can have zero values. The magnitude. According to this: rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi! 1 4A a¼ 1þ 1þ ð3Þ 4A 3 b¼ x a ð4Þ P A ¼ lnðxÞ  lnð xÞ n ð5Þ 3. maximum probability solutions are used. 24 or 48 months to monitor the variations of the indices by considering the influence of precipitation deficit on various resources. Monthly precipitation data sets are organized for a period of at least 30 years. 6. Monthly mean precipitation and SPI values are used for constructing the ANFIS forecasting models.

P (t − 1) µ A2 w1 f1 f 1 ( SPI (t − 1). There are two types of FISs. For the first-order Sugeno-Takagi FIS. ð8Þ ¼ lBi2 ðPðt  1ÞÞ for i ¼ 3. has the potential to capture the benefits of both these methods in a single framework. Guttmann 1998). ANFIS eliminates the Fig. containing fuzzy if-then rules. SugenoTakagi FIS is used for drought forecasting. basic problem in fuzzy system design (defining the membership function parameters and design of fuzzy if–then rules) by effectively using the learning capability of ANN for automatic fuzzy rule generation and parameter optimization. These are: (1) a rule-base. Membership B1 Degree Membership A1 Degree B1 f1 = p1 * SPI (t −1) + q1 * P(t −1) + r1 B2 A2 f2 = p2 *SPI(t −1) + q2 * P(t −1) + r2 SPI (t-2) µA1 Rule Base and Inference System w1 ( SPI (t − 1). P (t − 1) w2 f 2 w2 w2 ( SPI (t − 1).1). SPI(t . The most important difference between these systems is definition of the consequent parameter. FL approach has become popular and has been successfully used in various engineering problems (Mahabir et al. 1 The scheme of Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System Rule 1: IF SPIðt  1Þ is A1 and Pðt  1Þ is B1 THEN f1 ¼ p1  SPIðt  1Þ þ q1  Pðt  1Þ þ r1 Rule 2: IF SPIðt  1Þ is A2 and Pðt  1Þ is B2 THEN f2 ¼ p2  SPIðt  1Þ þ q2  Pðt  1Þ þ r21 Input notes (Layer 1) Each node in this layer generates membership grades of the crisp inputs and each node’s output O1i is calculated by: O1i ¼ lAi SPIðt  1Þ O1i for i ¼ 1. 2005. Nayak et al.2) is the SPI value at time (t . combining the fuzzy rules and produces the system results (Firat and Gu¨ngo¨r 2007. 2008. SPI(t). Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess (2009) 23:1143–1154 The cumulative probability value H(x) is converted to Z variable with a standard normal random value denoting the SPI value having zero mean value and variance equal to 1. 2. 4 where.1) is the actual precipitation at time (t . zero-order Sugeno FIS (Jang et al.2) to the node i. (2) a data-base. P(t . 2000. Fuzzy inference system (FIS) is a rule based system consisting of three conceptual components. The membership functions and the structure of are shown in Fig. S¸ en 2001). In this study. Liong et al. 1. S¸ en 2001). In recent years. P (t − 1) w1 = w1 w1 + w2 ∏ SPI (t-2) P (t-1) N f 1 ( SPI (t − 1). typical two rules can be expressed as: 3 Adaptive Neuro Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) The FL approach proposed by Zadeh (1965) is based on the linguistic uncertainly expression rather than numerical uncertainty. P (t − 1) w2 = w + w 1 2 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Layer 5 . SPI(t .1146 5. The consequence parameter in Sugeno FIS is either a linear equation. or constant coefficient. ANFIS method. which is integration of ANN and FL methods. 1993. Normalization of SPI values enables the consideration of the variations of precipitation series of that station by both time and place (McKee et al. defining the Membership Function (MF) and (3) an inference system. 1997). The main problem with fuzzy logic is that there is no systematic procedure to define the membership function parameters and to design of fuzzy rules. in literature. H(x) is the value of SPI.1) and P(t . 2000. P (t − 1) µB1 P (t-1) ∏ µB2 Layer 1 123 N f 2 ( SPI (t − 1).1) and one output. Sugeno-Takagi FIS and Mamdani FIS. It is assumed that the FIS includes two inputs. called first-order Sugeno FIS.

the Gauss MF is used. Annual mean temperature is 10.8 mm and most of the precipitation occurs in winter and spring seasons. The percent of summer rains among the annual total is 14. qi and ri are the consequence parameters. Eskis¸ ehir. called firing strengths O2i . (2004). Pðt  1ÞÞ þ w2 ðSPIðt  1Þ. Natural flora consists of steppes in the lower regions and dry forests in the higher regions because of summer droughts. 2 ð10Þ Average nodes (Layer 3) Main target is to compute the ratio of firing strength of each ith rule to the sum firing strength of all rules. Mean temperature of January. The gradient descent method is used to assign the nonlinear antecedent parameters and the least-squares method is employed to identify the linear 5 Drought forecasting by ANFIS 5. This climate is experienced in Central. The SPI for this study have been calculated on the basis of these rainfall data. Turkey. Pðt  1ÞÞf2 ðSPIðt  1Þ. ð9Þ : 4 Study area and data Rule nodes (Layer 2) The outputs of this layer. Nevs¸ ehir and Yozgat) located in Central Anatolia. Ankara. pi. The length of available records at these stations is between 1964 and 2006.Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess (2009) 23:1143–1154 1147 SPI(t) is the SPI value at time (t) to the node i. Pðt  1ÞÞ ¼ P wi fi ¼ Pi i wi X i f1 þ w  i f2  i  fi ¼ w w i ð13Þ this study.7%. East. Southeast Anatolia and Trakya region. are the products of the corresponding degrees obtained from layer 1. as ðSPIðt1ÞcÞ2 2r2 O1i ¼ lAi ðxÞ ¼ e consequent parameters.7%. The firing strength in this layer is normalized as wi i ¼ P O3i ¼ w i ¼ 1. Pðt  1ÞÞ f ðx. In this study. Karaman. The annual mean proportional moisture in the region is 63. which consists of the combination of the ‘‘gradient descent’’ and ‘‘the least-squares’’ methods to determine the input and output model parameters. i ¼ 1. The task of the learning algorithm is to tune all the antecedent and consequence parameters to make the ANFIS response match the training data. ANFIS applies the hybridlearning algorithm. have been selected for w1 f1 þ w2 f2 w1 þ w2 w1 ðSPIðt  1Þ. 2 O4i ¼ w ð12Þ Output nodes (Layer 5) This layer is called as the output nodes in which the single node computes the overall output by summing all incoming signals The temperature difference between summer and winter is high. C¸ankırı. lAi and lBi are the MFs for Ai and Bi linguistic labels.8°C. Mean annual precipitation is 413. Pðt  1ÞÞ þ w2 ðSPIðt  1Þ. The severity of cold weather increases towards the east parts of Central Anatolia. respectively and in this study. Pðt  1ÞÞ ¼ w1 ðSPIðt  1Þ. the values of SPI and precipitation in the previous months are used for generating a drought estimation model with ANFIS 123 . All these parameters are updated using this hybrid learning algorithm until acceptable error is reached. Climate of Central Anatolia has the following properties: The weather in the summer is a little hot and winters are cold. Pðt  1ÞÞf1 ðSPIðt  1Þ. 24 and 48 months are determined as (1) for monitoring the variations in the indexes by considering the effect of precipitation lack on different water resources.7°C and it is 22°C in July. Observed monthly rainfall data records from ten meteorological stations (Aksaray. The details and mathematical background of these algorithms can be found in Jang et al. named as w as follows: O2i ¼ wi ¼ lAi SPIðt  1ÞlBi Pðt  1Þ. the precipitation generally occurs in spring and winter and dry periods dominate summers. Konya. ð14Þ i is the ith node output from the previous layer as where w demonstrated in the third layer. 6. (12)  i fi ¼ w i ðpi SPIðt  1Þ þ qi Pðt  1Þ þ ri Þ i ¼ 1. is 0. 2 ð11Þ i wi Consequent nodes (Layer 4) The contribution of ith rule towards the total output or the model output and/or the function defined is calculated by Eq.1 Input variables Different time steps like 3. the hottest month. 12. Ai and Bi are the linguistic labels. Kırs¸ ehir. the coldest month. yÞ ¼ Q5i ¼ f ðSPIðt  1Þ. (1997) and in Nayak et al. Kayseri.

953 0.79 38.1). R(t .2).078 1.0 137. SPI(t .1) SPI(t) M8 R(t .7 34. R(t . R(t . And each fuzzy rule would be constructed through several parameters of membership function in layer 2.92 0.1 28. R(t .0 164.11 1.4).1) SPI(t) 123 .33 25.802 and the results of the model.92 672. SPI(t .3) SPI(t . In order to get more reliable evaluation and comparison.329 2.74 23.3). SPI(t .0 24.1 29.11 0. the SPI outputs for 1.4).0 148.61 1414. models are tested by evaluating a data set which was not used during the training process. SPI(t .2).764 Nevs¸ ehir 0. different estimation models were constructed for each phase.5) R(t .47 23. skewness coefficient and Kurtosis for training and testing data sets are calculated and given in Tables 2 and 3 to see a comparison of the training and testing data sets. maximum value.2).1) SPI(t) One of the most important steps in developing a satisfactory forecasting model is the selection of the input variables.46 754.5) SPI(t) M6 SPI(t .540 2. Max.91 28.107 Yozgat 192.47 551.92 671.0 133.1) SPI(t) M17 SPI(t .96 1.7 33. SPI(t .87 0.5).1).21 539.3). Max. The Kayseri 0.2) R(t .813 0. SPI(t .2) R(t .4).0 145. SPI(t .1).823 Karaman 0.954 0. 20 models with different input numbers and structures were constructed for each phase by using these variables.4) R(t .3).668 -0.856 Eskis¸ ehir 0. The models for 1.182 1. SPI(t .1) R(t .3).07 25.053 1. Mean SD Variance Skewness Kurtosis Aksaray 0.14 0.3) R(t .56 760.2). In each model every input variable must be clustered into several class values in layer 1 to build up fuzzy rules.1) SPI(t) M15 SPI(t .1148 Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess (2009) 23:1143–1154 Table 2 The statistical parameters for training data sets (1964–1986) Min.2) SPI(t) 5.2). SPI-6.49 702. SPI-3 and SPI-6 were considered as the index for short term or seasonal variation. Testing data set consists of data records observed between 1987 and 2006 years. mean. SPI(t .1).07 1. 6.433 Kırs¸ ehir 0.8 31.869 Konya 0. 9 and 12 months.08 680.0 Table 3 The statistical parameters for testing data sets (1987–2006) Min. Because.142 Ankara 0. SPI(t . 9 and 12 months were named as SPI-1.39 25. variance.28 1. SPI(t . R(t .27 22.01 37.92 0.4) R(t .1).15 26.62 26.3).64 709.1).2) SPI(t) M16 SPI(t . the subtractive fuzzy clustering function was used to establish the fuzzy rule based on the relationship between the input–output variables. different models were generated for each of the SPI output for 1. SPI-9 for short term drought and SPI-12 was considered as the drought index for long term.916 0. The statistical parameters.94 23.2).2) SPI(t) M3 M4 SPI(t .0 149.1).18 1.0 method.876 0.0 128.799 -0.3 48. the hybrid algorithm was used.100 Ankara 0.0 112.8 33.956 0. R(t .3) R(t .3). R(t . SPI(t . Here.1).70 562.1).1).98 0. M9 R(t . SPI(t . In this study. R(t . In order to determine the nonlinear input and linear output parameters. SPI(t .01 0.318 Yozgat 172.430 Nevs¸ ehir 0.2).1). SPI(t .5) R(t .12 0. R(t . SPI(t .4).775 0.28 0.012 0.0 121.909 Table 4 The structures of forecasting models Kırs¸ ehir Model Input structure Output M1 SPI(t .0 124. SPI(t . R(t . forecasting models based on various combinations of antecedent values of actual precipitations and SPI values were constructed (Table 4). R(t .820 0. SPI(t .14 792.2). SPI(t .2 34.91 1.1).5). R(t .29 26.0 110.24 0.381 2.2).87 570.4) SPI(t) M11 M12 R(t . SPI(t .7 29.3) SPI(t) M10 R(t .68 1496.1). 3.0 31.630 C¸ankırı 0.1) SPI(t) M14 SPI(t .86 26.1) SPI(t) M2 SPI(t .4 32.0 121.819 0. minimum value.1).4).2).663 Konya 0.2 30.1).60 510.3).3).4) SPI(t) SPI(t) M5 SPI(t .1). R(t .88 722. R(t . Here. 6. The data sets for all stations were divided into two subsets.0 116.17 536.0 129. The training data set includes data records measured between 1964 and 1986 years.1).2).0 101.84 26.8 26. standard deviation. SPI(t . In the construction of estimation models.5 34.62 27.42 646.7 34.2) SPI(t) 0.2). SPI-3.36 500.16 22.1). As the number of parameters increases with the fuzzy rule increment. SPI-1. SPI(t . For this.0 144.475 0.2).3 28.54 0.469 Kayseri 0. SPI(t .50 23. the model structure becomes more complicated. SPI(t .56 705. R(t .6) SPI(t) M7 R(t .1).2) SPI(t) M20 SPI(t .22 0. In this study. SPI(t .245 0. Mean SD Variance Skewness Kurtosis Aksaray 0. again.0 122.96 23.1).927 0. SPI(t . 9 and 12 months were considered.0 121.876 0.28 1. R(t .175 Eskis¸ ehir 0.949 Karaman 0. SPI(t . training and testing data set.8 32. respectively. SPI-9 and SPI-12. R(t .2 28.3). SPI(t . 3.6) SPI(t) SPI(t) M13 SPI(t .2 Model structures M18 SPI(t . these variables determine the structure of forecasting model and affect the weighted coefficient M19 SPI(t . R(t . SPI(t . 3.0 50. SPI(t .76 27. SPI(t .005 C¸ankırı 0. 6.89 0.

As a result. Kırs¸ ehir.526 C¸ankırı (M5) Eskis¸ ehir(M5) 0.810 0.601 0.6 0. Ankara.846 0.825 0. it was determined that M14 ANFIS model had the best performance for Nevs¸ ehir station.68 0.4 E RMSE Fig.3 0.818 0. The results of other stations that are not presented here due to space restrictions indicate that the ANFIS models for SPI-12 have shown the best performance at all stations.686 0. the model defined Testing set E RMSE CORR E RMSE Aksaray (M20) 0.712 0.470 Yozgat (M20) 0.824 0. 2.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Model Model 123 .8 1.860 0.821 0.599 0. show that the performances of the models at all stations are close to each other and that the model defined as M5 has a better performance than the others. The figure shows that the model (M12) generated by using the values at (t .855 0.628 0.578 0. When the results of the ANFIS models are compared. On the other side. A general decrease in performance was observed in all models when the values at (t .731 0.521 Kayseri (M20) 0.8 0.841 0. The RMSE statistic indicates a model’s ability to predict a value away from the mean.1 0.7 0.578 0.8 0.872 0. When the results of the models consisting of only the precipitation values are evaluated. It is seen that the performances of ANFIS model for SPI-12 at Ankara station is better than those of other models. The testing performances of ANFIS models for SPI-6 are given in Fig. the variations of CORR. it is seen that the performances of models composed of precipitation values belonging to the previous time step are lower than the performances of the other models.9 CORR Station 0. On the other hand. The reason for the ANFIS models developed by using SPI outputs of 12 months to show a better performance is that the SPI Ankara Station 1.644 0. had the best results over the other models.767 0.Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess (2009) 23:1143–1154 1149 learning procedure and the construction of the rules were provided by this algorithm. By using the precipitation and SPI variables together for all stations.6) time step were used.443 Nevs¸ ehir (M14) 0.549 as M20 ANFIS for Aksaray.4 Training set CORR 0.837 0.549 0.5 CORR E 0.6 0.870 0.608 0. Konya and Yozgat stations.6) time step generally have lower performances.815 0.5 0. 2 Comparison of performances of ANFIS Models for SPI-6 at Ankara station Table 5 The performances of the best fit models for SPI-6 at all stations Ankara Station RMSE 0.828 0. Karaman. In this figure.701 0.0 0.547 0. only the results for SPI-6 at Ankara station (Ankara is the capital of Turkey and it is one of the cities where water shortage and drought is severely experienced) are presented.694 0.615 0.741 0. an improvement has been achieved in the model performances. while the best results are obtained from the M5 model for Eskis¸ ehir and C¸ankırı stations.773 0.7 0.704 0. The performance of ANFIS models for training and testing data sets were evaluated according to statistical criteria such as.9 0.710 0.714 0.710 0. only performances of the models giving the most suitable results are presented.810 0.) are shown in Table 5. The results of models in which SPI is used.876 0.514 Ankara (M20) 0.0 indicate good model performance.603 0. and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE). The values of CORR and E of ANFIS models for SPI-1 are lower than those of other models. Correlation Coefficient (CORR).781 0. Kayseri.879 0.667 0. Figure 3 shows the performances of ANFIS models at Ankara station for the data from 1 month to 12 months (SPI-1 to SPI-12).804 0.6 0.541 Konya (M20) 0.1) time step has the lowest performance. The E is one of the widely employed statistics to evaluate model performance.508 0.656 0. it is seen that M11 is the model with the best performance for all stations.471 Karaman (M20) 0.2 0.9 0.462 Kırs¸ ehir (M20) 0.2 0.685 0.826 0. It can be stated that the model performances of ANFIS models for all stations are at an acceptable level for SPI-6.3 0. the investigation of the results given in the graphs for SPI-6 show that the models generated with the previous values of SPI and precipitation data have a better performance. The values of CORR and E close to 1. E and RMSE criteria for SPI-1 to SPI-12 at Ankara station during the testing period are demonstrated. Efficiency (E).642 0. As it is impossible to show the model results for each phase having 20 models because of space restrictions. The CORR is a commonly used statistic and provides information on the strength of linear relationship between the observed and the computed values.7 0. the performances of the best fit ANFIS models for SPI-6 at all stations (after the analysis of all stations. It was also observed that the model (M7) composed of precipitation values at the (t .761 0. According to the criteria.754 0.

The results suggest that the ANFIS method is superior to the FFNN method in the forecasting of drought. The main contribution of ANFIS method is that it eliminates the basic problems in fuzzy modeling (defining the membership function parameters and design of fuzzy if–then rules) by using the learning capability of ANN for automatic fuzzy rule generation and parameter optimization. the ANFIS estimation models constructed with the SPI values calculated for shorter periods. the coefficient of momentum and epochs were selected by trial and error method during the training. 3 The performances of ANFIS models for SPI-1. In this paper.7 0.9 0.8 0. Figure 4 shows the results of ANFIS models for Ankara station from SPI-1 to SPI-12.1 0. Turkey were selected as study area. It may be noted that a trial and error procedure has to be performed for FFNN models to develop the best network structure while such a procedure is not required in developing an ANFIS model.Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess (2009) 23:1143–1154 Ankara Station 1 0. The number of hidden layers and the hidden neurons in this layer. Thus.6 0.3 0. 5. it is said that ANFIS can be successfully applied and provide high accuracy and reliability for drought forecasting. Besides. The results of FFNN and MLR models for SPI-12 at Ankara station are shown in Table 6 and Fig.4 0. it can be seen that the RMSE values of the ANFIS models are lower than that of FFNN model.7 0.2 0.1 CORR E 1 3 6 9 Ankara Station 1 0. cannot catch dry and wet periods and give unsuccessful results.6 1. 6 Conclusions SPI is one of the most widely used methods related to drought and SPI should be estimated accurately and reliably. SPI-6. it is seen that the performance of the ANFIS model for SPI-12 are better than other ANFIS models for SPI-1 to SPI-9. in 3 months period. comparing the results of ANFIS and FFNN forecasting models for Ankara station (SPI-1 to SPI-12). Passages between positive and negative values occur more frequently and this also results with instability.4 0. The FFNN models have been trained and tested using the same data sets. The NRMSE values of ANFIS model are also lower than those of MLR models.3 0.5 0. the best fit models for Ankara station (SPI-1 to SPI-12) have also been tested by Feed Forward Neural Networks (FFNN) and Multiple Linear Regression (MLR). it is seen that only the performances of models composed of precipitation values belonging to the previous time step are lower . the values of E and CORR of the 123 RMSE 1150 RMSE 0. To illustrate the applicability of ANFIS method in drought forecasting. the ANFIS models developed by using SPI outputs for 12 months can catch dry and wet periods and give better results.5 0. Figure and table indicate that the best result was obtained from the models developed for SPI-12 as in the ANFIS method. SPI-9 and SPI-12 at Ankara station 12 Month values calculated for a long term include dry and wet periods for longer duration. SPI-3. Comparing performances of ANFIS models for Ankara station. Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) was proposed as an alternative drought forecasting tool to the traditional methods. On the other hand. Comparing the performances of ANFIS and MLR models.9 0. SP-6.4 0.6 0. This means that for shorter periods the SPI values may contain 1 month dry and 1 month wet period and this causes instability. The results show that ANFIS method can be successfully applied to establish accurate and reliable drought forecasting models.2 1 3 6 9 12 Month ANFIS model are also higher than those of FFNN models. SPI-9 and SPI-12 were trained and tested. In order to evaluate the results of ANFIS models. the SPI outputs for 12 months have a more stable run.8 0. 10 rainfall gauging stations located in Central Anatolia. In addition. the learning rate. The error back propagation algorithm and tangent activation function is used for training/testing of the FFNN models. As a result. For this reason. When the results of the ANFIS models are compared. it can be seen that the values of E and CORR of the ANFIS model are also higher than those of MLR models. Traditional methods like regression analysis and autoregressive moving average models are commonly used in the estimation of hydrological processes. For example. SPI-3.8 0.2 1 E CORR Fig. drought occurs more frequently and for a shorter time and when the period increases the duration of drought increases but its frequency decreases. Different ANFIS forecasting models for SPI-1. The results suggest that the ANFIS method is also superior to the MLR method in the drought forecasting. Short term periods like 1 or 3 months may include a wet or a dry period for a short time.2 0.

0 Month Observed 123 .0 Forecasted Forecasted Observed SPI 2.0 0.0 Month Observed Ankara (SPI-6) 4 4.0 Forecasted Forecasted Observed SPI 2.0 1 14 27 40 53 66 79 92 105 118 131 144 157 170 183 196 209 222 235 Forecasted Forecasted Observed 2 0 -4 -2.0 Observed Month Ankara (SPI-3) 4 4.0 1 14 27 40 53 66 79 92 105 118 131 144 157 170 183 196 209 222 235 2 0 -4 -2 0 -2 -2.Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess (2009) 23:1143–1154 Fig. 4 The results of ANFIS models for for Ankara station (SPI-1 to SPI-12) 1151 Ankara (SPI-1) 4 4.0 -4 -4.0 0.0 0.0 Month Observed Ankara (SPI-9) 4 4.0 Month Observed Ankara (SPI-12) 4 4.0 Forecasted Forecasted Observed SPI 2.0 -4 -4.0 Forecasted Forecasted Observed SPI 2.0 -2 0 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 -2 -4.0 -4 -4.0 -4 -6.0 0.0 SPI 2.0 -4 -4.0 2 0 -4 1 14 27 40 53 66 79 92 105 118 131 144 157 170 183 196 209 222 235 -2 0 -2 -2.0 0.0 2 0 -4 1 14 27 40 53 66 79 92 105 118 131 144 157 170 183 196 209 222 235 -2 0 -2 -2.0 1 2 0 -4 14 27 40 53 66 79 92 105 118 131 144 157 170 183 196 209 222 235 -2 0 -2 -2.

694 0.549 0.887 0.619 0. On the other hand. 5 The results of FFNN and MLR models for SPI-12 at Ankara station 2 0 -4 1 14 27 40 53 66 79 92 105 118 131 144 157 170 183 196 209 222 235 -2 4 2 4 -4 -4.669 0.654 M20 ANFIS (for SPI-6) 0.652 0.754 0.0 0.502 0.582 M20 MLR (for SPI-9) 0.577 0. it was found that M11 has Forecasted 4.968 M20 ANFIS (for SPI-3) 0.417 0.584 0.904 0.453 M20 MLR (for SPI-1) 0.920 0.392 0.885 M20 MLR (for SPI-6) 0.752 0.0 123 0 Observed shown the best performance for all stations.490 0.254 0.0 Month Observed Ankara MLR Mode l (SPI-12) 4 Forecasted Observed 2.804 0.524 0.876 0.584 0.930 0.576 0.026 M20 FFNN (for SPI-3) M20 FFNN (for SPI-6) 0.829 0.425 0.6) time step is used.794 0.561 0.600 0.733 0.625 0.593 0.813 0. The results of models in which only the SPI is used.851 0.707 0.096 0.526 M20 ANFIS (for SPI-9) 0.738 0.451 1. an improvement was achieved in the model performances.016 0.808 0.1) had the lowest performance.569 0.851 0.0 Forecasted Fig.811 0.257 1.719 0.845 0.0 0.528 0.573 0.0 4 Forecasted Observed SPI 2.916 0. The model defined as M7 composed of the precipitation value at time step (t .371 1.893 0.847 0.687 0. FFNN and MLR models for Ankara station Station Testing set Training set CORR E RMSE CORR E RMSE M20 ANFIS (for SPI-1) 0.512 0. According to the .0 SPI 2 -2 -2.799 0.302 1.722 0.824 0.685 0.487 0.6) generally have a lower performance. when the results of models containing only the precipitation values were investigated.435 Ankara FFNN Mode l (SPI-12) 4.422 0.398 1.575 M20 FFNN (for SPI-9) 0.0 -4 -4.375 M20 FFNN (for SPI-1) 0. there is a decrease in performance for all stations generally.380 0.306 0.833 0.1152 Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess (2009) 23:1143–1154 Table 6 Comparison of performances of ANFIS.0 Month than the performances of the other models.462 M20 MLR (for SPI-12) 0. It was also observed that when the SPI value at (t . The results indicate that the models (M12) generated by using the precipitation values at time step (t .507 0. By using the precipitation and SPI variables together for all stations.822 0.0 1 14 27 40 53 66 79 92 105 118 131 144 157 170 183 196 209 222 235 2 0 -4 -2 0 -2 -2.354 M20 MLR (for SPI-3) 0.674 0.401 M20 ANFIS (for SPI-12) 0.525 M20 FFNN (for SPI-12) 0.298 1.411 0.291 0.858 0.621 0.894 0.865 0. show that the model named M5 has a better performance than the other models.402 0.314 0.

Hydrol Process 22(13):2122–2132 Guttmann NB (1998) Comparing the Palmer drought index and the standardized precipitation index. Ram S. for Eskis¸ ehir and C ¸ ankırı stations. Moreover. Comparing the performances of ANFIS models for SPI-1. USA. Drought Network News. NJ. Available at: www. The results suggest that the ANFIS method is superior to the FFNN and MLR methods in the forecasting of drought. it was seen that the performances of the models for SPI12 at all stations are better than those of other models. Passages between positive and negative values occur more frequently and this also results with instability. Moreover. Wilhite DA (1999) Objective quantification of drought severity and duration. Department of Atmospheric Sciences. Wilhite DA. Rossi G. Rossi G (2007) Drought forecasting using the standardized precipitation index. Colorado State University. Lee KS. Di Mauro G. Math Comput Simul 75(3–4):87–96 Firat M. pp 155 Firat M (2007) Watershed modeling by adaptive Neuro-fuzzy inference system approach. For this reason.Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess (2009) 23:1143–1154 criteria given in the figures. Konya and Yozgat stations. Adv Water Resour 29:1–10 Chou FNF. Kırs¸ ehir. Vanyarkho OV (1999) Monitoring the 1996 drought using the standardized precipitation index. Cancielliere A. Bonaccorso B. Gu¨ngo¨r M (2008) Hydrological time-series modeling using adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system. Fort Collins. Paulson EG (1980) On the statistical characteristics of drought events. which includes the antecedent values of SPI variable. Pamukkale University. for Aksaray. Dracup J (2002) The quantification of drought: an evaluation of drought indices. unl.edu Hayes MJ (2000) Revisiting the SPI: Clarifying the Process. It can be seen that the NRMSE value of ANFIS models were lower than those of MLR models. J Am Water Resour Assoc 34:113–121 Hayes M (1997) Drought indices. Ankara. the model defined as M20 ANFIS model. In addition. that M14 ANFIS model had the best performance for Nevs¸ ehir station. 607pp. Englewood Cliffs. SPI-9 and SPI-12) have also been trained and tested by FFNN method. Water Resour Manage 21:801–819 Chang FJ. Acknowledgments The authors are grateful for editors and anonymous reviewers for their helpful and constructive comments on an earlier draft of this paper. The values of E and CORR of ANFIS models were also higher than those of MLR models. The FFNN models have been trained and tested using the same data sets. J Hydrol Eng ASCE 5(2):124– 137 Bonaccorso B. In: 8th international symposium on advanced intelligence systems 2007. J Clim 12:2747–2756 Cancelliere A. O prediction of Istanbul City by using fuzzy logic approach. the SPI outputs for 12 months have a more stable run. Thus. Besides. Water Resour Manage 19:641–654 ASCE Task Committee (2000) Artificial neural networks in hydrology. it was determined. Sun CT. the result showed that ANFIS method can be successfully applied to establish accurate and reliable drought forecasting models. SP-6. SPI-9 and SPI-12 at 10 stations during the testing period. while the best results are obtained from the M5 ANFIS model. C¸akmakcı M (2005) Water consumption Altunkaynak A. Korea. Doctor of Philosophy Thesis. Kayseri. Comparing the results of ANFIS and FFNN forecasting models for Ankara station. SPI-3. II. Gu¨ngo¨r M (2007) River flow estimation using adaptive neurofuzzy inference system. Water Resour Manage 17:273–296 Byun HR. In order to evaluate the results of ANFIS models. which consists of the combination of the antecedent values of the rainfall and SPI variables. Biosyst Eng 94(4):597–613 ¨ zger M. the values of E and CORR of the ANFIS model were also higher than those of FFNN models. CO. Int J Climatol 22:1571–1592 Jain A. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 80:429–438 Hughes BL. Water Resour Res 16:289–296 Edwards DC. cannot catch dry and wet periods and give unsuccessful results. Saunders MA (2002) A drought climatology for Europe. Chang YT (2006) Adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system for prediction of water level in reservoir. Karaman. Sutera A (2003) Spatial variability of drought: an analysis of the SPI in Sicily. Kumar AM (2007) Hybrid neural network models for hydrologic time series forecasting. Singh JK (2006) Simulation of runoff and sediment yield using artificial neural networks. The reason for the ANFIS models to show a better performance is that the SPI values calculated for long periods contain longer periods of dry and wet periods. p 11. Chen BPT (2007) Development of drought early warning index: using neuro-fuzzy computing technique. 1153 References Agarwal A. Kim YO (2005) Rainfall-runoff models using artificial neural networks for ensemble stream flow prediction. it can be seen that the RMSE values of the ANFIS models were lower than that of FFNN model. Appl Soft Comput 7:585–592 Jang JSR. the best fit models for Ankara station were compared to MLR model. To get more reliable evaluation of performance of ANFIS model. This means that for shorter periods the SPI values may contain 1-month dry and 1-month wet period and this causes instability. Hydrol Process 19:3819–3835 Keyantash J. the ANFIS estimation models constructed with the SPI values calculated for shorter periods. SP-6. 97–2. had the best results over the other models. Hydrologic applications. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 83:167– 118 123 . Bordi I. Mishra SK. Turkey (in Turkish) Firat M. the ANFIS models developed by using SPI outputs for 12 months can catch dry and wet periods and give better results. Climatology Report. 13–15 Hayes MJ. Paper No:A1469 Dracup JA. the best fit models for Ankara station (SPI-1. Prentice Hall. Svoboda MD. ISBN 0-13-261066-3 Jeong D. McKee TB (1997) Characteristics of 20th century droughts in the United States at multiple time scales.drought. Mizutani E (1997) Neuro-fuzzy and soft computing. SPI-3. A Newsletter of the International Drought Information Center and the National Drought Mitigation Center 12/1 (Winter 1999–Spring 2000).

J Hydr Eng 128:588–595 Nayak PC. Hicks FE. Doesken NJ. Malo AR (1990) A comparison of the vegetation response to rainfall in the Sahel and east Africa. Lopez-Moreno JI (2005) Hydrological response to different time scales of climatological drought: an evaluation of the Standardized Precipitation Index in amountainous Mediterranean basin. Hydrol Process 19:955–968 Nicholson SE. Ramasastri KS (2004) A Neuro Fuzzy computing technique for modeling hydrological time series. Int J Climatol 27:2103–2111 Nagy HM. Altunkaynak A (2006) A comparative fuzzy logic approach to runoff coefficient and runoff estimation. 8th Conference on Applied Climatology. Kojiri T. Doesken NJ. Agarwal PK (2005) Rainfallrunoff modelling using artificial neural networks: comparison of network types. California. Lim WH. doi:10. Ramasastri KS (2005) Fuzzy computing based rainfall-runoff model for real time flood forecasting. J Hydrol 331:349–359 Morid S. Sudheer KP. J Hydrol 291:52–66 123 Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess (2009) 23:1143–1154 Nayak PC. using normalized difference vegetation index from NOAA-AVHRR. 172pp. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 9:523–533 Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 19:326–339 Mishra AK. Chaube UC (2004) Modeling of the daily rainfall-runoff relationship with artificial neural network. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess (in press). Li CH (2008) Risk evaluation of heavy snow disasters using BP artificial neural network: the case of Xilingol in Inner Mongolia. Sudheer KP. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess (in press). Yang HJ. Preprints. Clim Change 17(2–3):209–241 Ntale HK. Singh VP.1007/s00477-007-0181-7 Vicente-Serrano SM. Desai VR (2006) Drought forecasting using feed-forward recursive neural network. Kothyari UC. Ecol Model 198:127–138 Mishra AK.1007/s00477-007-0194-2 Moreira EE. ISBN: 9758509233 (in Turkish) S¸ en Z. Fayek AR (2000) Application of fuzzy logic to the seasonal runoff. Research Paper. Hori T (2000) Advance flood forecasting for flood stricken Bangladesh with a fuzzy reasoning method. Turkey. Desai VR (2005) Drought forecasting using stochastic models. Hydrol Process 19:1277–1291 Liong SY. US Pickup G (1998) Desertification and climate change – the Australian perspective. BKS Publisher. Paulo AA. pp 179–184 McKee TB. Pereira LS. Li N. doi:10. January 17–22 Anaheim. Geogr Rev 38:55–94 Mishra AK. Bagherzadeh K (2007) Drought forecasting using artificial neural networks and time series of drought indices.1154 Kumar ARS. Washington. Hydrol Sci 48(5):809–820 S¸ en Z (2001) Fuzzy logic and foundation. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 17:339–352 McKee TB. Clim Res 11:51–63 Rajurkar MP. J Hydrol 285:96–113 Sırdas¸ S. Int J Climatol 23:1335–1357 Palmer WC (1965) Meteorological drought. Hirano M (2002) Prediction of sediment load concentration in rivers using artificial neural network model. Davenport ML. Jain SK. Hydrol Process 20:1993–2009 Wilhite DA (1997) A methodology for drought preparedness. Mexia JT (2006) Analysis of SPI drought class transitions using loglinear models. Gan T (2003) Drought indices and their application to East Africa. Desai VR (2008) Drought characterization: a probabilistic approach. Kleist J (1993) The relationship of drought frequency and duration to time steps. Watanabe K. Hydrol Process 14:431–448 Mahabir C. Inf Control 8(3):338–353 . US Weather Bureau Research Paper 45. Nat Hazards 13:229–252 Wu JD. S¸ en Z (2003) Spatio-temporal drought analysis in the Trakya region. Rangan DM. Smakhtin V. Kleist J (1995) Drought monitoring of climate. DC Palmer WC (1995) Meteorological Drought. Hydrol Process 17:3749–3762 Mantoglou A (2003) Estimation of heterogeneous aquifer parameters from piezometric data using ridge functions and neural networks. Sudheer KP.