Journal of Hydrology 588 (2020) 125033

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hydrology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhydrol

Research papers

Spatial prediction of groundwater potential mapping based on convolutional T

neural network (CNN) and support vector regression (SVR)
⁎
Mahdi Panahia,b, Nitheshnirmal Sadhasivamc, Hamid Reza Pourghasemid, , Fatemeh Rezaiee,
⁎
Saro Leeb,f,
a
Division of Science Education, Kangwon National University, College of Education, # 4-301, Gangwondaehak-gil, Chuncheon-si, Gangwon-do 24341, South Korea
b
Geoscience Platform Division, Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM), 124, Gwahak-ro Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 34132, Korea
c
Department of Geography, School of Earth Science, Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu 620 024, India
d
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Engineering, College of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
e
Department of Geophysics, Young Researchers and Elites Club, North Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
f
Department of Geophysical Exploration, Korea University of Science and Technology, 217 Gajeong-ro Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 34113, Korea

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

This manuscript was handled by Emmanouil
Anagnostou, Editor-in-Chief
Keywords:
Groundwater potential mapping
Support vector regression (SVR)
Convolution neural network (CNN)
Freshwater shortages have become much more common globally in recent years. Water resources that are
naturally available beneath the surface are capable of reversing this condition. Spatial modeling of groundwater
distribution is an important undertaking that would aid in subsequent conservation and management of
groundwater resources. In this study, groundwater potential maps were developed using a machine learning
algorithm (MLA) and a deep learning algorithm (DLA), specifically the support vector regression (SVR) and
convolution neural network (CNN) functions, respectively. Initially, 140 groundwater datasets were created
through an extensive survey and then arbitrarily divided into groups of 100 (70%) and 40 (30%) datasets for
model calibration and testing, respectively. Next, 15 groundwater conditioning factors (GCFs), including
catchment area (CA), convergence index (CI), convexity (Co), diurnal anisotropic heating (DH), flow path (FP),
slope angle (SA), slope height (SH), topographic position index (TPI), terrain ruggedness index (TRI), slope
length (LS) factor, mass balance index (MBI), texture (TX), valley depth (VD), land cover (LC), and geology (GG)
were produced and applied for model training. Finally, the calibrated model was validated using both training
and testing data, and the independent measure of the receiver operating characteristic-area under the curve
(ROC-AUC). For validation using training data, the AUC values of CNN and SVR were 0.844 and 0.75, whereas
those of CNN and SVR during validation with the testing data were 0.843 and 0.75. Therefore, CNN has better
predictive ability than SVR. The findings of this study will help policymakers develop better strategies for
conservation and management of groundwater resources.

1. Introduction manufacturing and agricultural activities (Pham et al., 2018; Zahedi

Nearly one-fourth of global freshwater reserves are stored as
groundwater (Naghibi et al., 2017). Groundwater water is highly va-
lued, as it is less prone to contamination and more extensively available
than surface water resources. Almost 33% of the global population re-
lies on underground freshwater for everyday use, which has led to
overexploitation (Rahmati et al., 2018). Furthermore, certain recent
factors including inadequate precipitation, surging populations, and
scarcity of surface water have led to increased demand for groundwater
resources worldwide (Neshat et al., 2014; Sajedi-Hosseini et al., 2018).
Increases in populations have also led to more demand for freshwater
resources due to expansions of urban areas and increased
et al., 2017). Overall, groundwater levels have been falling due to ex-
cessive usage and insufficient conservation measures, so precise spatial
prediction of groundwater potential regions is essential for the devel-
opment of sustainable groundwater exploitation, preservation, and
management strategies (Chen et al., 2018; Nosrati and Van Den
Eeckhaut, 2012). The accuracy of groundwater investigations pre-
dominantly depends on the selection of suitable conditioning factors
(CFs) and the use of precise approaches for spatial modeling (Arabameri
et al., 2019).
Several traditional field-based approaches have been used to detect
groundwater, but these are complicated, expensive, and time-con-
suming (Goldman and Neubauer, 1994; Owen et al., 2006). More

⁎
Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: hr.pourghasemi@shirazu.ac.ir, hamidreza.pourghasemi@yahoo.com (H.R. Pourghasemi), leesaro@kigam.re.kr (S. Lee).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125033
Received 22 February 2020; Received in revised form 27 April 2020; Accepted 29 April 2020
Available online 07 May 2020
0022-1694/ © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
M. Panahi, et al.
recently, integrated RS (remote sensing) and GIS (geographic in-
formation system) approaches have been applied in studies of
groundwater worldwide (Celik and Aslan, 2020; Andualem and
Demeke, 2019; Moghaddam et al., 2015; Rahmati et al., 2015; Sener
et al., 2005; Shahid et al., 2000). RS approaches offer inexpensive da-
tasets with wide coverage of all regions over a short period of time,
whereas GIS is regarded as the ultimate tool for mapping of CFs, and is
therefore very helpful in assessing groundwater resources (Kharazmi
et al., 2018). Several probabilistic and knowledge-based approaches
have been integrated with GIS techniques to identify possible ground-
water areas: weight of evidence (WOF: Arabameri et al., 2019), cata-
strophe theory (Kaur et al., 2020), logistic regression (Lee et al., 2018),
Shannon’s entropy (Khoshtinat et al., 2019), frequency ratio (FR:
Khoshtinat et al., 2019), index of entropy (Al-Abadi et al., 2016), cer-
tainty factor (CF: Azareh et al., 2019; Hou et al., 2018), evidential belief
function (EBF: Pourghasemi and Beheshtirad, 2015), and multi-criteria
decision-making (MCDM: Arabameri et al., 2019; Çelik, 2019;
Chowdhury et al., 2010).
Recently, scholars have recognized the superior efficiency of ma-
chine learning algorithms (MLAs) over statistical approaches (Chen
et al., 2019b; Pham et al., 2018). MLAs can manage large datasets that
have diverse formats, are non-separable, and are obtained from dis-
similar sources. Those employed for groundwater potential investiga-
tion include boosted regression tree (BRT: Naghibi et al., 2018; Naghibi
et al., 2016), classification and regression tree (CART: Choubin et al.,
2019), multivariate adaptive regression spline (MARS: Golkarian et al.,
2018; Zabihi et al., 2016), support vector machine (SVM: Lee et al.,
2018; Naghibi et al., 2018), random forest (RF: Naghibi et al., 2018),
mixture discriminant analysis (Kalantar et al., 2019), and linear dis-
criminant analysis (Kalantar et al., 2019) and general additive model
(GAM: Naghibi et al., 2017). Combinations of two MLAs and fusions of
conservative statistical methods with MLA outperform the precision
attained by any individual MLA (Aghdam et al., 2017; Chen et al.,
2019b; Dodangeh et al., 2020; Khosravi et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2019).
However, the predictive outcome of these combined methods relies
solely on the precision of the datasets utilized and the internal structure
of the model (Chen et al., 2019c). Studies using the MLAs listed above
have gained prominence, but many similar novel algorithms have also
been successfully implemented in other fields with high precision, and
therefore should be tested for forecasting groundwater potential.
Among such novel algorithms, support vector regression (SVR) follows
the regression strategy of SVM, which has been widely utilized in the
prediction of flash floods and flood stages (Wu et al., 2019), frequency
of flooding (Sharifi Garmdareh et al., 2018), landslides (Miao et al.,
2018), and water levels (Sivapragasam and Liong, 2005), but has not
been yet applied for predictive groundwater potential modeling. Ad-
ditionally, deep learning algorithms (Hinton and Salakhutdinov, 2006;
LeCun et al., 2015) have garnered exceptional interest in recent years
due to their significant capabilities (Zhang et al., 2019). The convolu-
tional neural network (CNN) is an extensively used DLA that has been
employed in various fields including forecasting forest fires (Zhang
et al., 2019), determining flood conditions (Gebrehiwot et al., 2019;
Sarker et al., 2019), object identification (Radovic et al., 2017), image
classification, and segmentation (Längkvist et al., 2016; Maggiori et al.,
2016). CNN employs multiple neuron layers to automatically analyze
objects (Gebrehiwot et al., 2019). Few previous studies have in-
vestigated the efficacy of CNN in groundwater spatial modeling (GMS).
Therefore, this study was conducted to compare the predictive abilities
of SVR and CNN in groundwater potential mapping and to assess their
performance using ROC-AUCs (receiver operating characteristic – area
under the curve) along with training and testing data.
2. Description of the study area
The Damyang area, which extends over 452 km2, is situated in the
south of South Korea (Fig. 1). It falls within the latitude range of
2
Journal of Hydrology 588 (2020) 125033
35°06′52″ N to 35°13′33″N, and the longitude range of 127°01′27″ E to
127°07′24″ E (WGS_1984_UTM_52). Based on a topographic map of the
study area, the elevation of the Damyang area ranges between 0 m and
955 m, with slope angles from 0° to 63.03° (Fig. 4). The Yeongsan River
is the main river of the Damyang area. The average annual temperature
is 13.52 °C, with a winter average of 2.6 °C and a summer average of
24.8 °C. Mean annual precipitation is 108.58 mm/year, and the rainy
season lasts from June to September (https://web.kma.go.kr/). The
main land cover types in the Damyang area are forest, agricultural land,
and inhabited areas, which occupy 59.5, 29.3, and 4.07% of the land
area, respectively. The area includes 61 geologic groups and units, and
the main lithology includes alluvium, granite, and feldspathic gneiss
(https://www.kigam.re.kr/).
3. Methodology
Fig. 2 presents the multi-phase methodological framework used in
this study.
3.1. Generation of input data
3.1.1. Groundwater inventory map (GIM)
A thorough understanding of the associations among groundwater
conditioning factors (GCFs) and the potential for groundwater using a
GIM is extremely important for GMS (Naghibi et al., 2016). Here, a GIM
is constructed using wide-ranging field measurements. First, it is ne-
cessary to prepare non-groundwater data that are equivalent to the
groundwater data used for GMS. Through arbitrary separation, both the
groundwater and non-groundwater data are split into calibration and
testing sets in the proportion of 70:30 (Pourghasemi and Beheshtirad,
2015; Termeh et al., 2019). The groundwater and non-groundwater
training data are employed for calibration of the models, while the
groundwater and non-groundwater testing data are utilized for model
confirmation (Chen et al., 2019c).
3.1.2. Dataset preparation for spatial modeling
It is essential to select appropriate GCFs, because these govern the
forecasting precision of the models (Garosi et al., 2019). In this study,
15 GCFs were employed for GMS, based on earlier investigations:
catchment area (CA), convergence index (CI), convexity (Co), diurnal
anisotropic heating (DH), flow path (FP), slope angle (SA), slope height
(SH), topographic position index (TPI), terrain ruggedness index (TRI),
slope length (LS) factor, mass balance index (MBI), texture (TX), valley
depth (VD), land cover (LC), and geology (GG) (Chen et al., 2019a;
Golkarian et al., 2018; Kalantar et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2018; Lee et al.,
2018; Miraki et al., 2019; Ozdemir, 2011; Rahmati et al., 2018;
Rahmati et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2019).
CA refers to the region discharging water to the opening of a par-
ticular catchment; it is a significant factor in determining groundwater
potential, because it controls flow accumulation (Freeman, 1991;
Gruber and Peckham, 2009). The CA index of the study area ranges
between 30 and 97,590 (Fig. 3a). CI is another important topographic
factor that illustrates the curvature of a slope (San, 2014); it indicates
convergence or divergence of a cell, with positive values signifying
divergent pixels while negative values denote convergent pixels (Kim
et al., 2018; Rahmati et al., 2018). The minimum convergence indicates
a high potential for groundwater (Kim et al., 2018). The CI index varies
between maximum divergence (1 0 0) and maximum convergence
(−1 0 0) (Fig. 3b). Co is a vital factor for GMS, as it represents the
displacement of slope due to gravity (Pourghasemi et al., 2018). High
Co leads to high runoff and low infiltration. The Co index in the study
area ranges between 4.2 and 75.1 (Fig. 3c). In this study, DH was used
to identify groundwater potential, and was computed as follows
(Böhner and Antonić, 2009):
Hγ = cos(γmax − γ ) × arctan(λ ) (1)
M. Panahi, et al. Journal of Hydrology 588 (2020) 125033

Fig. 1. Location of the study area.

where γmax , γ , and λ denote the aspect with maximum aggregate heat PC ⎞0.4 slope ⎞1,3
LS = ⎛FA × × sin ⎛
excess, slope aspect, and gradient, respectively; the DH index of the ⎝ 22.13 ⎠ ⎝ 0.0896 ⎠ (2)
Damyang area ranges between −0.77 and 0.82 (Fig. 3d). FP was em-
ployed in this investigation to determine the groundwater potential, as where FA and PC indicate flow accumulation and pixel size, respec-
it governs the runoff; the FP index ranges between 0 and 3154 (Fig. 3e) tively (Gayen et al., 2019). The LS index ranges from 0 to 193 (Fig. 3f).
in the study area. The LS factor governs the rapidity of overflow and is MBI is considered a significant factor for predicting the occurrence of
assessed using the following expression (Moore and Burch, 1986): groundwater, and ranges from −0.90 to 1.09 (Fig. 3g). SA is indis-
pensable when forecasting groundwater potential, as it governs the
slope inclination, which influences the rapidity of overflow and

Fig. 2. Methodological framework.

3
M. Panahi, et al. Journal of Hydrology 588 (2020) 125033

Fig. 3. GCFs: (a) CA, (b) CI, (c) Co, (d) DH, (e) FP, (f) LS, (g) MBI, (h) SA, (i) SH, (k) TPI, (l) TRI, (n) TX, (m) VD, (n) LC, (o) GG.

infiltration (Adiat et al., 2012; Miraki et al., 2019). In this study, the SA SH value indicates lower recharge, and vice versa (Manap et al., 2013).
index ranges from 0 to 1.17° (Fig. 3h). SH is a significant factor for The SH index in the Damyang area ranges from 0 to 451 (Fig. 3i). TPI is
predicting groundwater potential, as it controls the permeation and an influencing factor of GMS (Arulbalaji et al., 2019); it determines the
runoff processes (Manap et al., 2013; Oh and Pradhan, 2011). A higher variance with elevation of each cell (A0) and the average elevation of

4
M. Panahi, et al. Journal of Hydrology 588 (2020) 125033

Fig. 3. (continued)

Fig. 4. The structure of the CNN employed in this study.

the surrounding area (A) within a fixed radius (R) (De Reu et al., 2013).
TPI = A0 − A (3)
Positive and negative values of TPI indicate higher and lower ele-
vations compared to the mean of their surroundings, respectively
(Choubin et al., 2019). In this research, TPI values range from −12.02
to 14.68 (Fig. 3j). TRI is assessed by summing the variance in elevation
among a cell and the surrounding cells. Lower TRI values signify higher
groundwater potential; here, values range from 0 to 51.49 (Fig. 3l). VD
is computed as the variance between elevation and an interpolated
ridge level (Peplau and Conrad, 1989); here, VD values range from 0
and 353.74 (Fig. 3m).

5
M. Panahi, et al.
Diverse LC types support variations in infiltration capacity (Termeh
et al., 2019), and seven types of LC occur within the study area
(Fig. 3n). GG largely governs the infiltration capacity and porosity,
altering the specific groundwater storage. The study area includes
eleven GG types: diorite (Jdi), foliated granite (Jfgr), granite (Jgr), acid
granite (Kns), neutral and alkaline granite (Kiv), sandstone and mud-
stone (Knjs), the Seorok-ri formation (PCEs), biotite gneiss (PCEsbgn),
granite gneiss (PCEsgrgn), the Yongamsan formation ('PCEy), and soil-
sand-gravel (Qa) (Fig. 3o).
3.2. Groundwater spatial modeling algorithms
3.2.1. CNN
DLAs are modeled on human brain structure and are grounded in an
artificial neutral network (ANN), which is a computational system. One
well-known DLA is CNN, which was introduced by LeCun et al. (1998).
Recently, classification and prediction using CNN has been increasingly
applied to a variety of disciplines, including earth sciences (Ding et al.,
2016; Lin and Weng, 2018; Yu et al., 2017; Zuo et al., 2019). CNN is
differentiated from a traditional neural network by its use of multiple
layers, pooling, local connections, and shared weights. The main con-
cept underlying CNN is that input data are images, or can be interpreted
as images. This can significantly reduce the number of parameters,
resulting in more rapid processing. Generally, CNN architecture consists
of layers including convolutional layers (CLs), pooling layers (PLs), and
the rectified linear unit (ReLU). CLs learn the convolutions and provide
the best performance for data categorization. PLs govern overfitting,
allow for stable conversion, and improve computational performance
by reducing the number of structures resulting from the convolutions
(Nair and Hinton, 2010). A ReLU enhances the nonlinear properties of
the network through the ReLU activation function. Researchers have
developed and introduced different structures for studies based on the
type of data, image, and objective; some of the most popular structures
include GoogleNet (Szegedy et al., 2015), ZFNet (Zeiler and Fergus,
2014), and VGGNet (Simonyan and Zisserman, 2014). Numerous pa-
pers have provided full explanations of these layer types, primary
learning parameters, and how the CNN handles training data (LeCun
et al., 2015). Here, the CNN-2D structure because it has been used
previously in significant earth science research (Wang et al., 2019).
CNN input data must be images that are 1-D: for optimal initialization
performance, a 1-D input grid cell (vector) containing diverse char-
acteristic structures can be converted into a 2-D input grid cell, and this
technique is used for landslide vulnerability mapping. Because no data
are classified and analysis is continuous, the images are large in size.
Fig. 4 presents the structure of the CNN used in this study.
3.2.2. SVR
SVR is a popular MLA that was developed based on the concept of
Vapnik (1995). This method is used to model and control complex
engineering systems. It can identify any connections between input and
output variables in terms of the structural risk minimization (SRM)
norm, which is calculated using Eqs. (4) and (5) (Su et al., 2018):
y = k (z ) = vϕ (z ) + c (4)
where z = (z1, z2, ....,z/) denotes the input data and yb ∈ Rl represents
the resultant value. Additionally, v ∈ Rl , c ∈ R , and l are the weight
factor, a mathematical constant number, and the dataset size, respec-
tively. Furthermore, ϕ (z ) is an irregular function for mapping input
data to high-dimensional feature space. To define v andc , the following
formula is employed based on the principle of SRM:
6
Journal of Hydrology 588 (2020) 125033
l
Minimize:⎡ 2 ∥v∥2 + P ∑ (ζb + ζb∗)⎤
1
⎢ ⎥
⎣ b=1 ⎦
P ≻0
⎧ y − (vϕ (z b) + cb) ⩽ ε + ζb
⎪ b
Subject to: (vϕ (z b) + cb) − yb ⩽ ε + ζb∗
⎨
⎪ ζb, ζb∗ ⩾ 0
⎩ (5)
in which P is the penalty factor that balances the empirical risk and
model flatness, ζb, ζb∗ represents loose variables, and ε is a constant
called the tube size that represents the optimization performance
(Vapnik, 1998; Wang et al., 2012). Accordingly, the dual convex opti-
mization problem shown in Eq. (5) can be solved using the Lagrangian
function:
L (v, c, ζb, ζb∗, βb, βb∗, δb, δb∗)
l l
1
= ∥v∥2 + D ∑ ζb + ζb∗ − ∑ βb (ζb + ε − yb + vϕ (z b) + c ) −
2 b=1 b=1
l l
∑ βb∗ (ζb∗ + ε + yb −vϕ (z b)−c )− ∑ (δb ζb + δb∗ ζb∗)
b=1 b=1 (6)
where δb, δb∗, βb and βb∗ are Lagrangian multipliers. Finally, the regres-
sion function of SVR was calculated as follows (Su et al., 2018):
l
k (z ) = ∑ (βb − βb∗) m (z, z b)+ c
b=1 (7)
where m (z b, z ) = 〈ϕ (z ), ϕ (z b) 〉 represents the kernel function. Many
types of kernel exist; a detailed explanation of this approach has been
provided previously (Andrew, 2000; Ansari and Gholami, 2015; Smola
and Schölkopf, 2004; Zhang et al., 2017).
3.3. Model performance validation and comparison
The outcomes of a model using data unexploited in the calibration
phase must be validated to prove the scientific reliability of the results.
Here, the cut-off independent measure of the ROC-AUC curve is used to
validate the outcome of the GMS using model testing data (Gayen et al.,
2019). AUC values vary between 0.5 and 1, where values near 1 in-
dicate excellent performance and values near 0.5 denote very poor
forecasting accuracy (Pourghasemi et al., 2012; Sameen et al., 2020;
Zabihi et al., 2016).
4. Results and validation
4.1. Application of models
It is important to consider optimization measures for both the CNN
and SVR in order to determine the best model for optimization. Figs. 5
and 6 (a) present the target and outputs of the CNN and SVR training set
with 100 samples, and Figs. 5 and 6 (b) represent the targets and out-
puts of the CNN and SVR testing set; these figures show the perfor-
mance of the model output on the target. It is essential to identify the
mean square error (MSE) and root mean square error (RMSE) of the
training and testing stages to identify the best model in optimization. As
shown in Figs. 5 and 6 (c), the MSE and RMSE of CNN were 0.043 and
0.209, and were 0.032 and 0.178, respectively, for SVR for the training
set, indicating that the CNN model marginally underperformed SVR in
the training stage. Figs. 5 and 6 (e) show that the MSE and RMSE of the
testing dataset for the CNN model were 0.029 and 0.172, whereas they
were 0.048 and 0.221 for the SVR model, respectively. This result re-
veals that CNN slightly outperformed SVR in the testing stage. The same
trend was also observed in the frequency of errors for the training set
(Figs. 5 and 6 (d)) and testing set (Figs. 5 and 6 (e)).
M. Panahi, et al. Journal of Hydrology 588 (2020) 125033

Fig. 5. The CNN method: (a) target and outputs for the training set; (b) targets and outputs for the validation dataset; (c) MSE and RMSE for the calibration dataset;
(d) frequency of errors for the calibration dataset; (e) MSE and RMSE for the validation dataset; (f) frequency of errors for the validation dataset.

4.2. Groundwater spatial modeling (MP), low potential (LP), and very low potential (VLP) classes based on
the quantile method (Rahmati et al. 2015; Rahmati et al., 2016). The
In this study, the indices of the generated GMS were categorized GMS indices of CNN ranged from 1.62 to −0.72, with the ranges of
into very high potential (VHP), high potential (HP), moderate potential (1.62)–(0.96), (0.96)–(0.74), (0.74)–(0.49), (0.49)–(0.26), and

7
M. Panahi, et al. Journal of Hydrology 588 (2020) 125033

Fig. 6. The SVR method: (a) target and outputs for the training dataset; (b) targets and outputs for the validation dataset; (c) MSE and RMSE for the calibration
dataset; (d) frequency of errors for the validation dataset; (e) MSE and RMSE for the validation dataset; (f) frequency of errors for the validation dataset.

(0.26)–(−0.72) representing the VHP, HP, MP, LP, and VLP classes,
respectively (Fig. 7). Likewise, the GMS indices of SVR ranged between
1.45 and −0.25, with ranges for the VHP, HP, MP, LP, and VLP classes
of (1.45)–(1.10), (1.10)–(0.83), (0.83)–(0.50), (0.50)–(0.28), and
(0.28)–(−0.25), respectively.
Based on the CNN model, the proportions of the total area covered
by the VHP, HP, MP, LP, and VLP categories are 19.96, 20.20, 20.40,
20.12, and 19.32, respectively. Similarly, in the SVR model, 14.84,
22.39, 23.09, 20.07, and 19.62 of the area fall into the VHP, HP, MP,
LP, and VLP classes for groundwater, respectively.

8
M. Panahi, et al. Journal of Hydrology 588 (2020) 125033

Fig. 7. GMS generated using CNN and SVR.

4.3. Validation of groundwater potential maps

Model validation using the ROC-AUC curve was carried out with
both training and testing datasets. For AUC using the training and
testing data, the CNN model yielded maximum AUC values of 0.844 and
0.843, while the SVR model yielded AUC values of 0.75 and 0.75, re-
spectively (Figs. 8 and 9). The results of both the training and testing
data AUC values reveal that the CNN has better forecasting accuracy

Fig. 9. AUC of CNN and SVR using testing data.

than the SVR model (Table 1).

5. Discussion

Recently, considerable attention has been paid to the spatial mod-

eling of groundwater occurrence due to changing climatic conditions
Fig. 8. AUC of CNN and SVR using the training data. and rising population. In places where reliance on groundwater is

9
M. Panahi, et al.
Table 1
Evaluation of model performance.
Model Train data Test data
RMSE MSE AUC RMSE MSE AUC
CNN 0.209 0.043 0.844 0.178 0.032 0.845
SVR 0.172 0.029 0.75 0.221 0.048 0.75
exceptionally high, scholars have emphasized the need to understand
the factors supporting better prediction of groundwater resources. In
general, spatial modeling of natural resources is a complex task and no
algorithm has perfect forecasting ability or works flawlessly (Chen
et al., 2019c; Panahi et al., 2019). In this study, two infrequently ap-
plied DLA (CNN) and MLA (SVR) methods were examined and com-
pared in terms of predicting groundwater occurrence. The outcomes of
the validation process revealed that CNN performs better than the SVR
model. This difference may be due to its consideration of the relation-
ships among neighboring spatial data and its ability to examine factors
based on the association between spatial and geographic features
(Zhang et al., 2019). CNN conserves the association among pixels
through identification of the internal elements using various factors
(Zhang et al., 2019). DLAs reveal the deep elements and discriminate
among the variances of spatial factors. Despite its advantages, CNN also
has disadvantages, including: (a) extensive datasets and extraordinary
computational resources are necessary for calibration, (b) gathering
and classifying the datasets requires extensive manual labor, (c) addi-
tional investigation to improve algorithms is required, and (d) the un-
derlying concept of the CNN has not been recognized to date, although
numerous effective methods grounded in it are available (Gu et al.,
2018). The low predictive ability of the MLA in this research may be
due to its direct classification of inputs without feature mining, which
does not allow the labeled features to be extracted from the data to
enhance the precision of classification. However, in contrast to MLA,
DLA can detect manifold features of large datasets, which is helpful for
determining the spatial variations of groundwater potential. However,
Mueller et al. (2019) concluded that the naive network model MLP
(multilayer perceptron) outperformed CNN for predicting groundwater
occurrence. Ghorbanzadeh et al. (2019) compared MLAs including
ANN, SVM, and RF with a DLA, which was CNN, for landslide identi-
fication and concluded that the CNN using spectral information out-
performed ANN, SVM, and RF. They also demonstrated the significance
of choosing suitable methods and parameters for CNN to enhance its
predictive ability. Brodrick et al. (2019) illustrated the various ecolo-
gical applications of CNN. Zhang et al. (2019) investigated vulnerability
to forest fires using CNN, RF, SVM, MLP, and kernel logistic regression
(KLR) algorithms, revealing that CNN had better precision than the
MLAs. Wang et al. (2019) concluded that CNN had better predictive
ability than SVM. Zhang et al. (2019) demonstrated that MLAs only
possess a minimal capacity to simplify and learn from novel conditions.
Although CNN has greater forecasting ability, it requires more time for
calibration than MLAs, although this time can be reduced in later ca-
libration periods due to its reusable function after preliminary cali-
bration. Can et al. (2019) achieved an accuracy of 94% in validation
using landslide photos gathered by civilians. Sameen et al. (2020) found
that CNN was more precise in forecasting landslide risk areas in
Southern Yangyang Province of South Korea compared to SVM and
ANN. Bayr and Puschmann (2019) used CNN for automated identifi-
cation of woody vegetation, and obtained 87.7% precision in distin-
guishing woody from non-woody vegetation.
The results of the present study demonstrate the superior effec-
tiveness of CNN in forecasting groundwater potential compared to SVR,
supporting the greater capability of DLAs compared to MLAs for pre-
dictive modeling. However, the performance of CNN would have been
further improved by increasing the sizes of the training and testing
10
Journal of Hydrology 588 (2020) 125033
datasets. It should be noted that the forecasting precision of an algo-
rithm is wholly based on the accuracy of the input data as well as the
internal processing capability and structure. Additionally, better opti-
mization of the CNN through selection of appropriate parameters would
enhance the predictive power of the calibrated model.
6. Conclusion
Spatial modeling of the availability of groundwater resources is
crucial for sustainable development and management of freshwater
resources, as it can be utilized to increase the extraction of water from
appropriate sites. In this study, an MLA, namely SVR, was compared
with a DLA, i.e., CNN, for spatial prediction of groundwater potential in
Damyang, South Korea. For this purpose, 140 groundwater datasets
were prepared using an extensive GIM and arbitrarily partitioned into
calibration and testing datasets in a proportion of 70:30. Equal quan-
tities of non-groundwater training and testing data were constructed for
calibration and validation of the models. Additionally, 15 GCFs in-
cluding CA, CI, Co, DH, FP, LS, MBI, SA, SH, TPI, TRI, TX, VD, LC, and
GG were prepared and employed for model calibration. During opti-
mization of the models, SVR outperformed CNN in the training stage
and the opposite pattern was observed during the testing stage, when
SVR underperformed CNN. The ROC-AUC accuracy measure was used
to validate the calibrated model with testing data. The outcomes of
model validation and comparison revealed that CNN has greater pre-
dictive ability than SVR with regard to forecast mapping of ground-
water potential. The groundwater potential map generated using CNN
can be employed to develop appropriate freshwater management and
conservation strategies in the study area.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Mahdi Panahi: Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology.
Nitheshnirmal Sadhasivam: Writing - original draft. Hamid Reza
Pourghasemi: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - original
draft, Writing - review & editing. Fatemeh Rezaie: Writing - original
draft. Saro Lee: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review &
editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This research was conducted by the Basic Research Project of the
Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM) funded
by the Ministry of Science and ICT.
References
Adiat, K., Nawawi, M., Abdullah, K., 2012. Assessing the accuracy of GIS-based ele-
mentary multi criteria decision analysis as a spatial prediction tool–a case of pre-
dicting potential zones of sustainable groundwater resources. J. Hydrol. 440, 75–89.
Aghdam, I.N., Pradhan, B., Panahi, M., 2017. Landslide susceptibility assessment using a
novel hybrid model of statistical bivariate methods (FR and WOE) and adaptive
neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) at southern Zagros Mountains in Iran. Environ.
Earth Sci. 76 (6), 237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-017-6558-0.
Al-Abadi, A.M., Al-Temmeme, A.A., Al-Ghanimy, M.A., 2016. A GIS-based combining of
frequency ratio and index of entropy approaches for mapping groundwater avail-
ability zones at Badra–Al Al-Gharbi–Teeb areas, Iraq. Sustainable Water Resour.
Manage. 2 (3), 265–283.
Andrew, A.M., 2000. Understanding intelligence, by Rolf Pfeifer and Christian Scheier,
MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1999, xx+ 697 pp. ISBN 0-262-16181-8 (hardback,£
37.50). Robotica, 18(6): 687–689.
Andualem, T.G., Demeke, G.G., 2019. Groundwater potential assessment using GIS and
remote sensing: a case study of Guna tana landscape, upper blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia.
M. Panahi, et al.
J. Hydrol.: Regional Studies 24, 100610.
Ansari, H.R., Gholami, A., 2015. An improved support vector regression model for esti-
mation of saturation pressure of crude oils. Fluid Phase Equilib. 402, 124–132.
Arabameri, A., Rezaei, K., Cerda, A., Lombardo, L., Rodrigo-Comino, J., 2019. GIS-based
groundwater potential mapping in Shahroud plain, Iran. A comparison among sta-
tistical (bivariate and multivariate), data mining and MCDM approaches. Sci. Total
Environ. 658, 160–177.
Arulbalaji, P., Padmalal, D., Sreelash, K., 2019. GIS and AHP techniques based delineation
of groundwater potential zones: a case study from southern Western Ghats, India. Sci.
Rep. 9 (1), 1–17.
Azareh, A., et al., 2019. Modelling gully-erosion susceptibility in a semi-arid region, Iran:
investigation of applicability of certainty factor and maximum entropy models. Sci.
Total Environ. 655, 684–696.
Bayr, U., Puschmann, O., 2019. Automatic detection of woody vegetation in repeat
landscape photographs using a convolutional neural network. Ecol. Inform. 50,
220–233.
Böhner, J., Antonić, O., 2009. Land-surface parameters specific to topo-climatology. Dev.
Soil Sci. 33, 195–226.
Brodrick, P.G., Davies, A.B., Asner, G.P., 2019. Uncovering Ecological Patterns with
Convolutional Neural Networks. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34 (8), 734–745. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tree.2019.03.006.
Can, R., Kocaman, S., Gokceoglu, C., 2019. A convolutional neural network architecture
for auto-detection of landslide photographs to assess citizen science and volunteered
geographic information data quality. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 8 (7).
Çelik, R., 2019. Evaluation of groundwater potential by GIS-based multicriteria decision
making as a spatial prediction tool: case study in the Tigris River Batman-Hasankeyf
Sub-Basin, Turkey. Water 11 (12), 2630.
Celik, R., Aslan, V., 2020. Evaluation of hydrological and hydrogeological characteristics
affecting the groundwater potential of Harran Basin. Arabian J. Geosci. 13 (4), 1–13.
Chen, W., et al., 2018. GIS-based groundwater potential analysis using novel ensemble
weights-of-evidence with logistic regression and functional tree models. Sci. Total
Environ. 634, 853–867.
Chen, W., et al., 2019a. Spatial prediction of groundwater potentiality using ANFIS en-
sembled with teaching-learning-based and biogeography-based optimization. J.
Hydrol. 572, 435–448.
Chen, W., et al., 2019b. Novel hybrid integration approach of bagging-based fisher’s
linear discriminant function for groundwater potential analysis. Nat. Resour. Res. 28
(4), 1239–1258.
Chen, W., Tsangaratos, P., Ilia, I., Duan, Z., Chen, X., 2019c. Groundwater spring po-
tential mapping using population-based evolutionary algorithms and data mining
methods. Sci. Total Environ. 684, 31–49.
Choubin, B., et al., 2019. Regional groundwater potential analysis using classification and
regression trees. In: Spatial Modeling in GIS and R for Earth and Environmental
Sciences. Elsevier, pp. 485–498.
Chowdhury, A., Jha, M.K., Chowdary, V., 2010. Delineation of groundwater recharge
zones and identification of artificial recharge sites in West Medinipur district, West
Bengal, using RS, GIS and MCDM techniques. Environ. Earth Sci. 59 (6), 1209.
De Reu, J., et al., 2013. Application of the topographic position index to heterogeneous
landscapes. Geomorphology 186, 39–49.
Ding, A., Zhang, Q., Zhou, X., Dai, B., 2016. Automatic recognition of landslide based on
CNN and texture change detection. In: 2016 31st Youth Academic Annual Conference
of Chinese Association of Automation (YAC). IEEE, pp. 444–448.
Dodangeh, E., et al., 2020. Integrated machine learning methods with resampling algo-
rithms for flood susceptibility prediction. Sci. Total Environ. 705, 135983.
Freeman, T.G., 1991. Calculating catchment area with divergent flow based on a regular
grid. Comput. Geosci. 17 (3), 413–422.
Garosi, Y., Sheklabadi, M., Conoscenti, C., Pourghasemi, H.R., Van Oost, K., 2019.
Assessing the performance of GIS-based machine learning models with different ac-
curacy measures for determining susceptibility to gully erosion. Sci. Total Environ.
664, 1117–1132.
Gayen, A., Pourghasemi, H.R., Saha, S., Keesstra, S., Bai, S., 2019. Gully erosion sus-
ceptibility assessment and management of hazard-prone areas in India using different
machine learning algorithms. Sci. Total Environ. 668, 124–138.
Gebrehiwot, A., Hashemi-Beni, L., Thompson, G., Kordjamshidi, P., Langan, T.E., 2019.
Deep convolutional neural network for flood extent mapping using unmanned aerial
vehicles data. Sensors 19 (7), 1486.
Ghorbanzadeh, O., Blaschke, T., Gholamnia, Kh., Meena, S.R., Tiede, D., Aryal, J., 2019.
Evaluation of Different Machine Learning Methods and Deep-Learning Convolutional
Neural Networks for Landslide Detection. Remote Sens. 11 (2), 196. https://doi.org/
10.3390/rs11020196.
Goldman, M., Neubauer, F., 1994. Groundwater exploration using integrated geophysical
techniques. Surv. Geophys. 15 (3), 331–361.
Golkarian, A., Naghibi, S.A., Kalantar, B., Pradhan, B., 2018. Groundwater potential
mapping using C5. 0, random forest, and multivariate adaptive regression spline
models in GIS. Environ. Monit. Assess. 190 (3), 149.
Gruber, S., Peckham, S., 2009. Land-surface parameters and objects in hydrology. Dev.
Soil Sci. 33, 171–194.
Gu, J., et al., 2018. Recent advances in convolutional neural networks. Pattern Recogn.
77, 354–377.
Hinton, G.E., Salakhutdinov, R.R., 2006. Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural
networks. Science 313 (5786), 504–507.
Hou, E., Wang, J., Chen, W., 2018. A comparative study on groundwater spring potential
analysis based on statistical index, index of entropy and certainty factors models.
Geocarto Int. 33 (7), 754–769.
Kalantar, B., et al., 2019. Optimized conditioning factors using machine learning tech-
niques for groundwater potential mapping. Water 11 (9), 1909.
11
Journal of Hydrology 588 (2020) 125033
Kaur, L., Rishi, M.S., Singh, G., Thakur, S.N., 2020. Groundwater potential assessment of
an alluvial aquifer in Yamuna sub-basin (Panipat region) using remote sensing and
GIS techniques in conjunction with analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and cata-
strophe theory (CT). Ecol. Ind. 110, 105850.
Kharazmi, R., et al., 2018. Monitoring and assessment of seasonal land cover changes
using remote sensing: a 30-year (1987–2016) case study of Hamoun Wetland, Iran.
Environ. Monitor. Assess. 190 (6), 356.
Khoshtinat, S., Aminnejad, B., Hassanzadeh, Y., Ahmadi, H., 2019. Groundwater potential
assessment of the Sero plain using bivariate models of the frequency ratio, Shannon
entropy and evidential belief function. J. Earth Syst. Sci. 128 (6), 152.
Khosravi, K., et al., 2019. Meteorological data mining and hybrid data-intelligence
models for reference evaporation simulation: a case study in Iraq. Comput. Electron.
Agric. 167, 105041.
Kim, J.-C., Jung, H.-S., Lee, S., 2018. Groundwater productivity potential mapping using
frequency ratio and evidential belief function and artificial neural network models:
focus on topographic factors. J. Hydroinf. 20 (6), 1436–1451.
Längkvist, M., Kiselev, A., Alirezaie, M., Loutfi, A., 2016. Classification and segmentation
of satellite orthoimagery using convolutional neural networks. Remote Sens. 8 (4),
329.
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., Hinton, G., 2015. Deep learning. Nature 521, 436–444.
Lee, S., Hong, S.-M., Jung, H.-S., 2018. GIS-based groundwater potential mapping using
artificial neural network and support vector machine models: the case of Boryeong
city in Korea. Geocarto Int. 33 (8), 847–861.
LeCun, Y., Bottou, L., Bengio, Y., Haffner, P., 1998. Gradient-based learning applied to
document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE 86 (11), 2278–2324.
Lee, S., et al., 2019. Sevucas: a novel gis-based machine learning software for seismic
vulnerability assessment. Appl. Sci. 9 (17), 3495.
Lin, L., Weng, F., 2018. Estimation of hurricane maximum wind speed using temperature
anomaly derived from advanced technology microwave sounder. IEEE Geosci.
Remote Sens. Lett. 15 (5), 639–643.
Maggiori, E., Tarabalka, Y., Charpiat, G., Alliez, P., 2016. Convolutional neural networks
for large-scale remote-sensing image classification. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens.
55 (2), 645–657.
Manap, M.A., Sulaiman, W.N.A., Ramli, M.F., Pradhan, B., Surip, N., 2013. A knowledge-
driven GIS modeling technique for groundwater potential mapping at the Upper
Langat Basin, Malaysia. Arabian J. Geosci. 6 (5), 1621–1637.
Miao, F., Wu, Y., Xie, Y., Li, Y., 2018. Prediction of landslide displacement with step-like
behavior based on multialgorithm optimization and a support vector regression
model. Landslides 15 (3), 475–488.
Miraki, S., et al., 2019. Mapping groundwater potential using a novel hybrid intelligence
approach. Water Resour. Manage. 33 (1), 281–302.
Moghaddam, D.D., Rezaei, M., Pourghasemi, H., Pourtaghie, Z., Pradhan, B., 2015.
Groundwater spring potential mapping using bivariate statistical model and GIS in
the Taleghan watershed, Iran. Arabian J. Geosci. 8 (2), 913–929.
Moore, I.D., Burch, G.J., 1986. Physical basis of the length-slope factor in the universal
soil loss equation 1. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 50 (5), 1294–1298.
Mueller, J., Park, J., Sahu, R., Varadharajan, C., Arora, B., Faybishenko, B., Agarwal, D.,
2019. Surrogate Optimization of Deep Neural Networks for Groundwater Predictions.
arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10947.
Naghibi, S.A., Moghaddam, D.D., Kalantar, B., Pradhan, B., Kisi, O., 2017. A comparative
assessment of GIS-based data mining models and a novel ensemble model in
groundwater well potential mapping. J. Hydrol. 548, 471–483.
Naghibi, S.A., Pourghasemi, H.R., Abbaspour, K., 2018. A comparison between ten ad-
vanced and soft computing models for groundwater qanat potential assessment in
Iran using R and GIS. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 131 (3–4), 967–984.
Naghibi, S.A., Pourghasemi, H.R., Dixon, B., 2016. GIS-based groundwater potential
mapping using boosted regression tree, classification and regression tree, and random
forest machine learning models in Iran. Environ. Monit. Assess. 188 (1), 44.
Nair, V., Hinton, G.E., 2010. Rectified linear units improve restricted boltzmann ma-
chines. In: Proceedings of the 27th international conference on machine learning
(ICML-10), pp. 807–814.
Neshat, A., Pradhan, B., Pirasteh, S., Shafri, H.Z.M., 2014. Estimating groundwater vul-
nerability to pollution using a modified DRASTIC model in the Kerman agricultural
area, Iran. Environ. Earth Sci. 71 (7), 3119–3131.
Nosrati, K., Van Den Eeckhaut, M., 2012. Assessment of groundwater quality using
multivariate statistical techniques in Hashtgerd Plain, Iran. Environ. Earth Sci. 65 (1),
331–344.
Oh, H.-J., Pradhan, B., 2011. Application of a neuro-fuzzy model to landslide-suscept-
ibility mapping for shallow landslides in a tropical hilly area. Comput. Geosci. 37 (9),
1264–1276.
Owen, R., Gwavava, O., Gwaze, P., 2006. Multi-electrode resistivity survey for ground-
water exploration in the Harare greenstone belt, Zimbabwe. Hydrogeol. J. 14 (1–2),
244–252.
Ozdemir, A., 2011. GIS-based groundwater spring potential mapping in the Sultan
Mountains (Konya, Turkey) using frequency ratio, weights of evidence and logistic
regression methods and their comparison. J. Hydrol. 411 (3–4), 290–308.
Panahi, M., et al., 2019. GIS-Based SWARA and Its Ensemble by RBF and ICA Data-Mining
Techniques for Determining Suitability of Existing Schools and Site Selection of New
School Buildings, Spatial Modeling in GIS and R for Earth and Environmental
Sciences. Elsevier, pp. 161–188.
Peplau, L.A., Conrad, E., 1989. Beyond nonsexist research: the perils of feminist methods
in psychology. Psychol. Women Quarterly 13 (4), 379–400.
Pham, B.T., Hoang, T.-A., Nguyen, D.-M., Bui, D.T., 2018. Prediction of shear strength of
soft soil using machine learning methods. Catena 166, 181–191.
Pourghasemi, H., Gayen, A., Park, S., Lee, C.-W., Lee, S., 2018. Assessment of landslide-
prone areas and their zonation using logistic regression, logitboost, and naïvebayes
M. Panahi, et al.
machine-learning algorithms. Sustainability 10 (10), 3697.
Pourghasemi, H.R., Beheshtirad, M., 2015. Assessment of a data-driven evidential belief
function model and GIS for groundwater potential mapping in the Koohrang
Watershed, Iran. Geocarto Int. 30 (6), 662–685.
Pourghasemi, H.R., Mohammady, M., Pradhan, B., 2012. Landslide susceptibility map-
ping using index of entropy and conditional probability models in GIS: Safarood
Basin. Iran. Catena 97, 71–84.
Radovic, M., Adarkwa, O., Wang, Q., 2017. Object recognition in aerial images using
convolutional neural networks. J. Imag. 3 (2), 21.
Rahmati, O., et al., 2018. Groundwater spring potential modelling: Comprising the cap-
ability and robustness of three different modeling approaches. J. Hydrol. 565,
248–261.
Rahmati, O., Pourghasemi, H.R., Melesse, A.M., 2016. Application of GIS-based data
driven random forest and maximum entropy models for groundwater potential
mapping: a case study at Mehran Region, Iran. Catena 137, 360–372.
Rahmati, O., Samani, A.N., Mahdavi, M., Pourghasemi, H.R., Zeinivand, H., 2015.
Groundwater potential mapping at Kurdistan region of Iran using analytic hierarchy
process and GIS. Arabian J. Geosci. 8 (9), 7059–7071.
Sajedi-Hosseini, F., et al., 2018. A novel machine learning-based approach for the risk
assessment of nitrate groundwater contamination. Sci. Total Environ. 644, 954–962.
Sameen, M.I., Pradhan, B., Lee, S., 2020. Application of convolutional neural networks
featuring Bayesian optimization for landslide susceptibility assessment. Catena 186,
104249.
San, B.T., 2014. An evaluation of SVM using polygon-based random sampling in landslide
susceptibility mapping: the Candir catchment area (western Antalya, Turkey). Int. J.
Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 26, 399–412.
Sarker, C., Mejias, L., Maire, F., Woodley, A., 2019. Flood mapping with convolutional
neural networks using spatio-contextual pixel information. Remote Sens. 11 (19),
2331.
Sener, E., Davraz, A., Ozcelik, M., 2005. An integration of GIS and remote sensing in
groundwater investigations: a case study in Burdur, Turkey. Hydrogeol. J. 13 (5–6),
826–834.
Shahid, S., Nath, S., Roy, J., 2000. Groundwater potential modelling in a soft rock area
using a GIS. Int. J. Remote Sens. 21 (9), 1919–1924.
Sharifi Garmdareh, E., Vafakhah, M., Eslamian, S.S., 2018. Regional flood frequency
analysis using support vector regression in arid and semi-arid regions of Iran. Hydrol.
Sci. J. 63 (3), 426–440.
Simonyan, K., Zisserman, A., 2014. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale
12
Journal of Hydrology 588 (2020) 125033
image recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556.
Sivapragasam, C., Liong, S.-Y., 2005. Flow categorization model for improving fore-
casting. Hydrol. Res. 36 (1), 37–48.
Smola, A., Schölkopf, B., 2004. A tutorial on support vector regression, statist. Comput
14, 199–222.
Su, H., Li, X., Yang, B., Wen, Z., 2018. Wavelet support vector machine-based prediction
model of dam deformation. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 110, 412–427.
Szegedy, C., et al., 2015. Going deeper with convolutions. In: Proceedings of the IEEE
Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 1–9.
Termeh, S.V.R., et al., 2019. Optimization of an adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system for
groundwater potential mapping. Hydrogeol. J. 27 (7), 2511–2534.
Vapnik, V.N., 1998. Statistical learning theory. Adaptive and learning systems for signal
processing. Commun. Control 2, 1–740.
Wang, J., Li, L., Niu, D., Tan, Z., 2012. An annual load forecasting model based on support
vector regression with differential evolution algorithm. Appl. Energy 94, 65–70.
Wang, Y., Fang, Z., Hong, H., 2019. Comparison of convolutional neural networks for
landslide susceptibility mapping in Yanshan County, China. Sci. Total Environ. 666,
975–993.
Wu, J., et al., 2019. Flash flood forecasting using support vector regression model in a
small mountainous catchment. Water 11 (7), 1327.
Yu, H., Ma, Y., Wang, L., Zhai, Y., Wang, X., 2017. A landslide intelligent detection
method based on CNN and RSG_R. In: IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics
and Automation (ICMA). IEEE, pp. 40–44.
Zabihi, M., Pourghasemi, H.R., Pourtaghi, Z.S., Behzadfar, M., 2016. GIS-based multi-
variate adaptive regression spline and random forest models for groundwater po-
tential mapping in Iran. Environ. Earth Sci. 75 (8), 665.
Zahedi, S., Azarnivand, A., Chitsaz, N., 2017. Groundwater quality classification deriva-
tion using multi-criteria-decision-making techniques. Ecol. Ind. 78, 243–252.
Zeiler, M.D., Fergus, R., 2014. Computer Vision–ECCV 2014: 13th European Conference,
Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014. Proceedings, Part I, 818: 833.
Zhang, G., Wang, M., Liu, K., 2019. Forest fire susceptibility modeling using a convolu-
tional neural network for Yunnan Province of China. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 10 (3),
386–403.
Zhang, X., Wang, J., Zhang, K., 2017. Short-term electric load forecasting based on sin-
gular spectrum analysis and support vector machine optimized by Cuckoo search
algorithm. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 146, 270–285.
Zuo, R., Xiong, Y., Wang, J., Carranza, E.J.M., 2019. Deep learning and its application in
geochemical mapping. Earth-Sci. Rev.