| Literature DB >> 35567684 |
Deyun Wang1, Ying-An Yuan2, Yawen Ben2, Hongyuan Luo2,3, Haixiang Guo2.
Abstract
Accurate estimations of municipal solid waste (MSW) generation are vital to effective MSW management systems. While various single-point estimation approaches have been developed, the non-linearity and multiple site-specific influencing factors associated with MSW management systems make it challenging to forecast MSW generation quantities precisely. To address these concerns, this study developed a two-stage modeling and scenario analysis procedure for MSW generation and taking Shanghai as a test case demonstrated its viability. In the first stage, nine influencing factors were selected, and a hybrid novel forecasting model based on a long short-term memory neural network and an improved particle swarm optimization (IPSO-LSTM) was proposed for the forecasting of the MSW generation quantities, after which actual Shanghai data from 1980 to 2019 were used to test the performance. In the second stage, the future influencing variable values in different scenarios were predicted using an improved grey model, after which the predicted Shanghai MSW generation quantities from 2025 to 2035 were evaluated under various scenarios. It was found that (1) the proposed IPSO-LSTM had higher accuracy than the benchmark models; (2) the MSW generation quantities are expected to respectively increase to 9.971, 9.684, and 9.090 million tons by 2025 and 11.402, 11.285, and 10.240 by 2035 under the low, benchmark, and high scenarios; and (3) the MSW generation differences between the high and medium scenarios were decreasing.Entities:
Keywords: Forecasting; Improved GM (1,1); Improved particle swarm optimization; Long short-term memory; Municipal solid waste; Scenario analysis
Year: 2022 PMID: 35567684 PMCID: PMC9107017 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-022-20438-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int ISSN: 0944-1344 Impact factor: 5.190
Fig. 1The thermal distribution of MSW production on the Chinese mainland in 2019
Fig. 2Internal MSW generation mechanism
Fig. 3Historical data for the influencing factors
Correlation matrix between the variables
| MSW | PRP | NOT | GDP | TI | CPI | RPI | UPCCE | UPCDI | TIFA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MSW | Pearson Corr | 1 | .962** | .943** | .927** | .930** | .964** | .856** | .943** | .933** | .976** |
| Sig.(2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||
| PRP | Pearson Corr | .962** | 1 | .985** | .936** | .937** | .924** | .785** | .939** | .933** | .979** |
| Sig.(2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||
| NOT | Pearson Corr | .943** | .985** | 1 | .940** | .938** | .876** | .717** | .938** | .931** | .974** |
| Sig.(2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||
| GDP | Pearson Corr | .927** | .936** | .940** | 1 | .999** | .843** | .670** | .997** | .998** | .970** |
| Sig.(2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||
| TI | Pearson Corr | .930** | .937** | .938** | .999** | 1 | .847** | .674** | .998** | .999** | .971** |
| Sig.(2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||
| CPI | Pearson Corr | .964** | .924** | .876** | .843** | .847** | 1 | .950** | .870** | .857** | .926** |
| Sig.(2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||
| RPI | Pearson Corr | .856** | .785** | .717** | .670** | .674** | .950** | 1 | .709** | .691** | .784** |
| Sig.(2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||
| UPCCE | Pearson Corr | .943** | .939** | .938** | .997** | .998** | .870** | .709** | 1 | .999** | .976** |
| Sig.(2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||
| UPCDI | Pearson Corr | .933** | .933** | .931** | .998** | .999** | .857** | .691** | .999** | 1 | .970** |
| Sig.(2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||
| TIFA | Pearson Corr | .976** | .979** | .974** | .970** | .971** | .926** | .784** | .976** | .970** | 1 |
| Sig.(2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Fig. 4MSW generation in Shanghai from 1980 and 2019
Fig. 5LSTM block schematic diagram
Fig. 6Versoria function and its decreasing curve
Fig. 7Comparison of the PSO and IPSO efficiencies
IPSO-LSTM parameter settings
| IPSO | LSTM | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PN | MAXITER | [ | LR | EPOCH | NFHL | NSHL | ||
| 10 | 20 | [1.5,2] | [0.8,0.3] | [0.9,0.4] | [0.005,0.01] | [100,1000] | [1,50] | [1,50] |
Fig. 8Forecasting model construction
The criteria of MAPE
| MAPE(%) | Forecasting power |
|---|---|
| < 10 | Excellent |
| 10–20 | Good |
| 20–50 | Reasonable |
| > 50 | Incorrect |
Optimal LSTM hyperparameters
| LR | EPOCH | NFHL | NSHL |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00092 | 1061 | 2 | 19 |
Fig. 9Performance of IPSO-LSTM model: a Loss curve of the training set and test set; b Overall prediction effect
Qualitative prediction efficiency evaluation index
| MAPE (%) | RMSE | MAE | R2 | TIC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training set | 4.96 | 23.1614 | 17.7080 | 0.9856 | 0.0254 |
| Testing set | 6.28 | 60.2500 | 52.3602 | 0.7178 | 0.0351 |
Comparison of the prediction performances of the different models
| Methods | MAPE (%) | RMSE | MAE | R2 | TIC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IPSO-LSTM | 6.28 | 60.2500 | 52.3602 | 0.7178 | 0.0351 |
| ARIMA | 6.81 | 83.3343 | 63.0699 | 0.4601 | 0.0502 |
| LSTM | 7.23 | 82.0535 | 65.6662 | 0.4766 | 0.0492 |
| SVR | 7.50 | 101.2884 | 89.4319 | 0.0030 | 0.0685 |
| BPNN | 8.54 | 90.9766 | 76.1667 | 0.3566 | 0.0544 |
Fig. 10Radar map of the errors
GM(1,1) accuracy testing
| Accuracy level | Small error probability ( | Post-error ratio ( |
|---|---|---|
| I | 0.95 ≤ | |
| II | 0.80 ≤ | 0.35 < |
| III | 0.70 ≤ | 0.50 < |
| IV | 0.60 ≤ | 0.65 < |
Comparative verification of improved GM (1,1)
| GDP | TI | CPI | RPI | UPCCE | UPCDI | TIFA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Original | 0.525 | 0.900 | 1.000 | 0.700 | 0.900 | 0.850 | 0.875 | |
| 1.027 | 0.473 | 0.339 | 0.539 | 0.438 | 0.601 | 0.494 | ||
| Improved | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.875 | 0.950 | 0.975 | 1.000 | |
| 0.312 | 0.297 | 0.244 | 0.486 | 0.325 | 0.290 | 0.182 |
Fig. 11Prediction results of influencing factors under three scenarios
Fig. 12Scenario prediction results
Fig. 13The MSW generation gap between different scenarios