Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Machine learning models for ecological footprint prediction based on energy parameters

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Neural Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The ecological footprint is an excellent tool to better understand the consequences of the human behavior on the environment. The growing need for natural resources emphasizes the necessity of their accurate observation, calculation, and prediction. This paper develops and compares four hybrid machine learning models for predicting the total ecological footprint of consumption based on a set of hyper-parameters predefined by the Bayesian optimization algorithm. In particular, K-nearest neighbor regression (KNNReg), random forest regression (RFR) with 93 trees, and two artificial neural networks (ANNs) with two hidden layers were developed and later compared in terms of their performance. As energy inputs, the primary energy consumption from (1) natural gas sources, (2) coal sources, (3) oil sources, (4) wind sources, (5) solar photovoltaic sources, (6) hydropower sources, (7) nuclear sources, and (8) other renewable sources was used. Additionally, population number has also been used as an input. The models were developed using a set of data that include 1804 instances. The ANNs were modeled using two different activation functions in the hidden layers: ReLU and SPOCU. The performance was evaluated using the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), mean absolute scaled error (MASE), normalized root-mean-squared error (NRMSE), and symmetric mean absolute percentage error (SMAPE). The results show that KNNReg performs the best with MASE of 0.029, followed by the RFR (0.032), ReLU ANN (0.064), and SPOCU ANN (0.089). Moreover, SMOGN was utilized to produce a synthetic test set which was used to additionally test the best performed model. The performance on the SMOGN set demonstrates good performance (MASE=0.022). Lastly, the best performed model was implemented into a GUI that calculates the ecological footprint based on user inputs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. British Petroleum Company (2018) BP statistical review of world energy. https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2018-full-report.pdf. Accessed 10 June 2019

  2. United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf Accessed 28 October 2018

  3. European Commission (2016) Paris agreement. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiations. Accessed 20 June 2019

  4. Rees WE (1992) Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out. Environ Urban. 4(2):121–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Wackernagel M (1993) How big is our ecological footprint?. A handbook for estimating a community’s appropriated carrying capacity, Verlag nicht ermittelbar

  6. Wackernagel M, Onisto L, Bello P, Linares AC, Falfan ISL, Garcia JM, Guerrero AIS, Guerrero M (1999) National natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept. Ecol Econ 29(3):375–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Borucke M, Moore D, Cranston G, Gracey K, Iha K, Larson J, Lazarus E, Morales JC, Wackernagel M (2013) Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere’s regenerative capacity: the national footprint accounts’ underlying methodology and framework. Ecol Ind 24:518–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Medved S (2006) Present and future ecological footprint of Slovenia —the influence of energy demand scenarios. Ecol Model 192(1–2):25–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Olivier JG, Schure KM, Peters JAHW (2017) Trends in global CO2 and total greenhouse gas emissions. PBL Netherland Environmental Assessment 5

  10. International Energy Agency (2018) Global energy and CO2 status report. https://www.iea.org/geco. Accessed 06 February 2019

  11. Stehlıik M, Dušek J, Kiseĭák J (2016) Missing chaos in global climate change data interpreting? Ecol Complex 25:53–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Liu Y, Tian Y, Chen M (2017) Research on the prediction of carbon emission based on the chaos theory and neural network. Int J Bioautom. 21(4):339

    Google Scholar 

  13. Sabolová R, Sečkárová V, Dušek J, Stehlík M (2015) Entropy based statistical inference for methane emissions released from wetland. Chemometr Intell Lab Syst 141:125–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lu Y, Bin C (2017) Urban ecological footprint prediction based on the Markov chain. J Clean Prod 163:146–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Liu L, Lei Y (2018) An accurate ecological footprint analysis and prediction for Beijing based on SVM model. Ecol Inform 44:33–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wang Z, Yang L, Yin J, Zhang B (2018) Assessment and prediction of environmental sustainability in China based on a modified ecological footprint model. Resour Conserv Recycl 132:301–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bello MO, Solarin SA, Yen YY (2018) The impact of electricity consumption on CO2 emission, carbon footprint, water footprint and ecological footprint: the role of hydropower in an emerging economy. J Environ Manag 219:218–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Destek MA, Sarkodie SA (2019) Investigation of environmental Kuznets curve for ecological footprint: the role of energy and financial development. Sci Total Environ 650:2483–2489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lu F, Xu JH, Wang ZY, Hu XF (2010) Qualitatively analysis on influence factors of ecological footprint and dynamic prediction of ecological footprint: a case study in Xinjiang. Geogr Geo-Inf Sci 26(6):70–74

    Google Scholar 

  20. Yao H (2012) Simulating the total ecological footprint of Suzhou from 1990 to 2009 by BPANN. Pol J Environ Stud 21(6):1901–1910

    Google Scholar 

  21. Huimin L (2013) The impact of human behavior on ecological threshold: positive or negative? grey relational analysis of ecological footprint, energy consumption and environmental protection. Energy Policy 56:711–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pławiak P, Abdar M, Pławiak J, Makarenkov V, Acharya UR (2020) DGHNL: a new deep genetic hierarchical network of learners for prediction of credit scoring. Inf Sci 516:401–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Pławiak P, Abdar M, Acharya UR (2019) Application of new deep genetic cascade ensemble of SVM classifiers to predict the Australian credit scoring. Appl Soft Comput 84:105740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Tuncer T, Ertam F, Dogan S, Aydemir E, Pławiak P (2020) Ensemble residual network-based gender and activity recognition method with signals. J Supercomput 76(3):2119–2138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Tuncer T, Dogan S, Abdar M, Ehsan Basiri M, Pławiak P (2019) Face recognition with triangular fuzzy set-based local cross patterns in wavelet domain. Symmetry 11(6):787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Abdar M, Wijayaningrum VN, Hussain S, Alizadehsani R, Plawiak P, Acharya UR, Makarenkov V (2019) IAPSO-AIRS: a novel improved machine learning-based system for wart disease treatment. J Med Syst 43(7):220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kandala RN, Dhuli R, Pławiak P, Naik GR, Moeinzadeh H, Gargiulo GD, Gunnam S (2019) Towards real-time heartbeat classification: evaluation of nonlinear morphological features and voting method. Sensors 19(23):5079

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hammad M, Pławiak P, Wang K, Acharya UR (2020) ResNet–attention model for human authentication using ECG signals. Expert Systems e12547

  29. Wu M, Wei Y, Lam PT, Liu F, Li Y (2019) Is urban development ecologically sustainable? ecological footprint analysis and prediction based on a modified artificial neural network model: A case study of Tianjin in China. J Clean Prod 237:117795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kisel’ák J, Lu Y, Švihra J, Szépe P, Stehlík M (2020) “SPOCU”: scaled polynomial constant unit activation function. Neural Computing and Applications

  31. Ritchie H, Roser M (2019) Energy production and changing energy sources. https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-and-changing-energy-sources. Accessed 12 February 2019

  32. Global Footprint Network (2018) The national footprint accounts, 2018 edition. https://www.footprintnetwork.org. Accessed 12 May 2019

  33. Data World (2018) NFA 2018 editon. https://data.world/footprint/nfa-2018-edition. Accessed June 2019

  34. World Bank (2019) https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL. Accessed 09 February 2019

  35. Dancey CP, Reidy J (2007) Statistics without maths for psychology. Pearson education, London

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ramachandran P, Zoph B, Le QV (2017) Searching for activation functions. arXiv preprint, arXiv:1710.05941

  37. Farahnakian F, Pahikkala T, Liljeberg P, Plosila J (2013) Energy aware consolidation algorithm based on k-nearest neighbor regression for cloud data centers. In: IEEE/ACM 6th international conference on utility and cloud computing

  38. Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45(1):5–32

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Liaw A, Wiener M (2002) Classification and regression by randomForest. R news 2(3):18–22

    Google Scholar 

  40. Ahmad MW, Reynolds J, Rezgui Y (2018) Predictive modelling for solar thermal energy systems: A comparison of support vector regression, random forest, extra trees and regression trees. J Clean Prod 203:810–821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Bandyopadhyay G, Chattopadhyay S (2007) Single hidden layer artificial neural network models versus multiple linear regression model in forecasting the time series of total ozone. Int J Environ Sci Technol 4(1):141–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Zhang G, Patuwo BE, Hu MY (1998) Forecasting with artificial neural networks: the state of the art. Int J Forecast 14(1):35–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Bergstra JS, Bardenet R, Bengio Y, Kégl B (2011) Algorithms for hyper-parameter optimization. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 24:2546–2554

    Google Scholar 

  44. James G, Witten D, Hastie T, Tibshirani R (2013) An introduction to statistical learning. Springer, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. Lewis CD (1982) Industrial and business forecasting methods. Butterworths, London

    Google Scholar 

  46. Hyndman Rob J, Koehler Anne B (2006) Another look at measures of forecast accuracy. Int J Forecast 22(4):679–688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Branco P, Torgo L, Ribeiro RP (2017) SMOGN: a pre-processing approach for imbalanced regression. Theory and Applications, First International Workshop on Learning with Imbalanced Domains

  48. Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, Michael V, Thirion B, Grisel O, Blondel M, Prettenhofer P, Weiss R, Dubourg V, Vanderplas J (2011) Scikit-learn: machine learning in Python. J Mach Learn Res 12:2825–2830

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  49. Chollet F (2015) Keras documentation. https://keras.io. Accessed 12 February 2019

  50. Bergstra J, Yamins D, Cox D (2013) Making a science of model search: hyperparameter optimization in hundreds of dimensions for vision architectures. In: International conference on machine learning, pp. 115–123

  51. Ruder S (2016) An overview of gradient descent optimization algorithms. ArXiv preprint, arXiv:1609.04747

  52. Kingma DP, Ba J (2014) Adam: a method for stochastic optimization. Available from: arXiv preprint, arXiv:1412.6980

  53. Ahmad MW, Mourshed M, Rezgui Y (2017) Trees vs Neurons: comparison between random forest and ANN for high-resolution prediction of building energy consumption. Energy Build 147:77–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Dong LJ, Li XB, Kang PENG (2013) Prediction of rockburst classification using random forest. Trans Nonferrous Metals Soc China 23(2):472–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Benali L, Notton G, Fouilloy A, Voyant C, Dizene R (2019) Solar radiation forecasting using artificial neural network and random forest methods: application to normal beam, horizontal diffuse and global components. Renew Energy 132:871–884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Wang Q, Wang X, Mao Y (2009) Dynamic assessment of sustainable development based on grey relational analysis and artificial neural network. In: 2009 IEEE International conference on grey systems and intelligent services (GSIS 2009) (pp. 212-217). IEEE

  57. Luo J, Zhou L, Li X (2008) Construction and analysis of ecological footprint dynamic prediction model—-a case study of Wuhan. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin 3

  58. Wackernagel M, Monfreda C (2004) Ecological footprints and energy. Encycl Energy 2(1):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  59. Wu K, Wang L (2006) Partial least square regression model of ecological footprint and its influencing factors. Resour Sci 28(6):182–188

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Serbian Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development through Mathematical Institute of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts and through the project of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of Serbia—TR34023.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mathematical Institute of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Belgrade, Serbia

    Radmila Janković

  2. Technical Faculty in Bor, University of Belgrade, Bor, Serbia

    Ivan Mihajlović & Nada Štrbac

  3. DIMES, University of Calabria, Rende, Cosenza, Italy

    Alessia Amelio

Authors
  1. Radmila Janković
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ivan Mihajlović
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nada Štrbac
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alessia Amelio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Radmila Janković.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Janković, R., Mihajlović, I., Štrbac, N. et al. Machine learning models for ecological footprint prediction based on energy parameters. Neural Comput & Applic 33, 7073–7087 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-020-05476-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-020-05476-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation