Environmental Modelling and Software 162 (2023) 105638

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Modelling and Software

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsoft

Position Paper

Real-time sensor-based prediction of soil moisture in green infrastructure: A

case study
Kalina Scarbrough a , Padmini Persaud b , Isidora Fletcher c , Aaron Alexander Akin b ,
Jon Hathaway b , Anahita Khojandi a ,∗
a
Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, United States of America
b Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, United States of America
c The Bredesen Center, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, United States of America

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Green infrastructure (GI) is cost-effective for managing urban runoff. However, inspection and maintenance of
Machine learning GI are an increasingly common burden for stormwater managers. For instance, bioretention cells, a popular
Sensor data type of GI, may clog, sometimes unexpectedly, and detection can be challenging due to their dispersed place-
Time series
ment. Current inspection programs nationwide largely rely on time-intensive, manual, qualitative inspections.
Green infrastructure
This study develops an approach for real-time monitoring and prediction of column performance. First, we
Bioretention columns
Real-time monitoring
conduct laboratory experiments to continuously collect soil moisture data using sensors at two different depths
in bioretention column testbeds. Four design configurations are used that allow the water to drain differently
through the column, hence acting as different environmental climates. Next, we develop machine learning
models, i.e., long short-term memory (LSTM) models, to accurately predict current and future soil moisture
levels. Our results suggest that the quality of predictions is overall high, but they vary across the configurations.

1. Introduction
Across the United States, urban stormwater causes surface water
degradation leading watershed managers to turn to Green Infrastruc-
ture (GI) as a way to clean runoff and bring more natural hydrologic
regimes to streams. GI improves existing or builds new infrastructure,
adding resiliency to aged systems and helping manage extreme weather
caused by climate change. Research has shown that besides climate
change benefits, GI provides many health benefits for residents by im-
proving not only stormwater quality and flood defense but also wildlife
habitat, urban heat island mitigation, and public green space. (Kalu-
arachchi, 2020). GI is considered a distributed management technique,
whereby interventions are placed throughout the watershed to provide
local scale improvements.
One such GI approach that has been increasingly utilized over
the past decade is bioretention. There are many design variations of
bioretention that are used. Bioretention has been shown to reduce
the quantity and improve the quality of urban runoff by utilizing
natural processes. Despite these benefits, bioretention cells are prone
to clogging from anthropogenic factors such as debris accumulation
within the contributing watershed, plant die-off, and seasonal weather
changes (Benedict et al., 2002). Additionally, these environmental
variable vary from site to site. Thus, there are ongoing maintenance
and inspection needs for these systems to ensure their functionality.
GI inspection maintenance has increasingly received attention as a
major component of many stormwater management programs. Current
strategies for these programs heavily rely on manual inspection and
maintenance with largely qualitative approaches. This entails perform-
ing hands-on inspections on each GI installation, one by one, across
the entire city (Benedict et al., 2002; Angelstam et al., 2017). The
distributed approach to GI implementation, noted above, complicates
this task and increases the financial burden (Ryan, 2019). As an ex-
ample, Metro Water Services in Nashville, TN, has multiple staff solely
dedicated to this task. Any changes in a given practice function between
these inspections are difficult to anticipate or even identify.
Recently, interest has grown for real-time environmental monitoring
in urban watersheds. Such activities may better quantify the perfor-
mance of GI and allow more quantitative assessments as to when
maintenance is needed. Further, by minimizing hands-on labor required
by staff and saving maintenance time within the system, the stormwater
management program can be more efficient and effective.
As an example, soil moisture data can be used to understand the
timing and pattern of runoff movement through the soil profile. Track-
ing changes in these patterns over time can aid in understanding how

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: khojandi@utk.edu (A. Khojandi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2023.105638
Received 4 October 2021; Received in revised form 13 January 2023; Accepted 22 January 2023
Available online 1 February 2023
1364-8152/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K. Scarbrough et al.
system function is shifting. Changes in soil moisture patterns that
include slower time to peak and a recession with a flatter slope may
indicate that clogging of the system is causing runoff to infiltrate more
slowly, and thus the need for maintenance. These observations can be
relayed back to inspectors to trigger additional actions.
Potentially complicating this approach is the wide array of GI
designs utilized in practice. For bioretention alone, design variations
include: (1) traditional, which are allowed to freely drain at the bottom
of the soil profile, (2) internal water storage, where water ponds in
the bottom of the cell before filling to the level of the drain if a
given storm is large enough, and (3) real-time control, a new design
approach that allows drainage to be instigated or stopped based on a
set of control rules. Real-time control has recently become of interest
due to the adaptability that it affords (Kerkez et al., 2016). Studies
such as Persaud et al. (2019) have shown that real-time control can
instigate favorable conditions for biogeochemical processes to optimize
runoff treatment. However, these systems may not have soil moisture
processes as regimented as standard designs, as opening and closing of
the valve can influence infiltration processes in addition to the onset of
rainfall/runoff.
Technological advancements now allow access to low-cost sensors
which can be installed within each GI structure allowing for real-time
monitoring. Further, these real-time monitoring systems are increas-
ingly becoming user-friendly tools, paving the way for use in real-world
applications (Glasgow et al., 2004; Feuer, 1995). A study by Jim Gao
(2014) showed that RTRM enables many opportunities for system im-
provements. In this study, neural networks (NN) learn the relationships
from the actual operations data to model its function. The model is
tested and validated using Google’s data center. The results suggest that
machine learning, specifically NN, can effectively and efficiently use
existing sensor data to model data centers performance (Gao, 2014).
Other studies test methods, such as Boolean logic-based multi-criteria
analysis, and suggest they are not as accurate in predicting future GI
states. They study artificial neural network (ANN) and network-based
fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) to determine that ANN is 72 percent
accurate where ANFIS is only 65 percent accurate (Labib, 2019).
Internet of Things (IOT) has allowed for many water industry ad-
vancements. Intelligent Water is one of these advancements that is
already operational in multiple cities. South Bend, Indiana, and Ann
Arbor, Michigan, are examples within the United States of where
such systems are implemented and show promise of improving the
drainage system’s function (Atzori et al., 2010). Globally, there have
been other countries that have shown promise of implementation of
improved drainage systems as well. For example, Melbourne, Australia,
which is a forest city, is planning on implementing GI to help com-
bat the worsening urban heat island effect (UHI) and could benefit
from a useful GI monitoring tool (Fuentes et al., 2021). Although
advancements are being made, this is still a new field, and many
applications have yet to be explored. For instance, can GI managers
be informed of maintenance and inspection needs using these new
technology applications? This application represents how innovative
and valuable IOT can be for the water industry (Bumblauskas et al.,
2017). As noted above, the application of IOT to the water industry
has matured which makes successful field deployment possible. Low-
cost sensor nodes may allow maintenance programs and GI inspections
more efficiency by measuring performance quantitatively and allowing
year long assessments. However, determining what tools can be used to
interpret large amounts of data while keeping an overall low cost has
yet to be determined.
This study conducts a proof-of-concept investigation of how data
from sensors installed in bioretention can be analyzed and interpreted.
The objective of this study is to: (1) understand how the soil moisture
in different bioretention columns relate to each other when under the
same conditions; (2) if the number of sensors used in a given installa-
tion can be optimized; (3) predict the future state of the bioretention
column using historical and future soil moisture and rainfall sensor
2
Environmental Modelling and Software 162 (2023) 105638
data. These objectives will build knowledge on using sensors to inform
GI maintenance and pave the way for future research.
In this study, we develop time series models using Long Short-
Term Memory (LSTM) networks (Hochreiter and Schmidhuber, 1997;
Wojciech Zaremba and Vinyals, 2014). In the literature, various types
of time series modeling exist. This includes traditional statistical models
such as Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA), or more
advanced, NN-based models such as LSTM networks. ARIMA is simpler,
and generally works well when there is a clear trend in the time series.
However, in many complex cases, LSTM has shown to outperform
ARIMA — this has been shown in forecasting wind speed (Shivani et al.,
2019), web traffic (Shelatkar et al., 2020), and financial data (Siami-
Namini et al., 2018), among others. In this study, we first perform
some preliminary analysis to compare the performance of ARIMA and
LSTM in our use case. Based on these results, LSTM outperforms
ARIMA, partly because our data trends are rather complex as the data
are collected from sensors capturing the soil moisture in response to
precipitation at different depths. Hence, we perform our main analysis
using LSTMs.
To showcase the model performance, we exploit a column study.
Notably, these columns represent a simplification of field conditions,
based upon more complex hydrologic processes that may vary spatially
across a bioretention. However, even if patterns are slightly different
in a field installation, the methods herein are robust enough to be
trained on those data. Further, this work represents a proof-of-concept
to see how well soil moisture patterns can be modeled and predicted at
an individual location within a bioretention (which is relatively well
represented by the column). This is highly valuable as it allows an
assessment as to how patterns change over time due to perturbations
such as clogging of soil media.
2. Data
To carefully control test conditions, data collection for this case
study took place inside a greenhouse. Bioretention cell function is mim-
icked using PVC columns constructed with materials per typical design
guidance. Specifically, all columns use a 30 centimeter (cm) diameter
column with a drain at the bottom. Biological fouling is a concern when
building the columns, so drains are frequently utilized and monitored.
Column construction and operation included sanding the column’s
interior walls to minimize preferential flow. Lastly, columns are filled
by layers of #57 stone, pea gravel, sand, bioretention media, mulch,
and a ponding zone. Each column is planted in a climate-controlled
greenhouse of 15–27 ◦ C.
The columns are continuously monitored for soil moisture using two
Meter Group’s TEROS 10 Sensors. Two sensors are placed within each
column at depths of 30 and 60 cm from the top of the bioretention
media. The sensors then gather the water volume content, namely
soil moisture, in units of volume/volume (%v/v) every minute for 43
days (Anon, 2020). This time period was selected because: (1) The time
period was not too long as to make the time consuming methodology of
the column study impossible, and (2) a reasonable number of rainfall
events occurred during this period allowing a realistic data set of soil
moisture patterns. While more data are obviously better, we believe
this data set contained variable storm sizes and variable dry periods
between events and thus does give a reasonable data set to test the
machine learning approaches herein. Following data collection, we pre-
process and cleanse the data by removing the missing data points
after verifying that they are caused by sensor failure and/or sensor
anomalies.
To provide a robust analysis, there are four types of column config-
urations representing four potential bioretention design configurations.
There are five columns of each configuration for a total of 20 columns.
Fig. 1 conveys how each configuration is constructed.
– Free Draining (FD): the drain on the bottom of the column is
completely unobstructed i.e., drains via gravity.
K. Scarbrough et al.
Fig. 1. A diagram of each column configuration.
Source: The figure is adopted from Persaud et al.
(2019).
– Internal Water Storage (IWS): an upturned elbow in the pipe
is attached to the drain on the bottom which creates a 45 cm
submerged zone at the bottom of the column.
– Soil Moisture (SM): uses a remote level controller with real-time
monitoring of water depth to control the soil moisture level at a
depth of 30 cm to maintain field capacity.
– Volume Control (VC): actively managed remotely in real-time
by opening and closing the valves within the column to maintain
a storage depth of 30 cm from the bottom of the bioretention
media as measured by a pressure transducer.
To create artificial stormwater for use in the study, tap water was
supplemented with chemicals to achieve typical stormwater runoff
concentrations per Bratieres et al. (2008). Sediment collected from
a local detention pond was sieved and added to the mixture. The
artificial stormwater was continuously mixed while being added to
the columns to ensure even distribution of constituents among the
columns. (Bratieres et al., 2008a). (the detailed breakdown of the
chemical concentrations is provided in Table 7 in the Appendix).
Application of the stormwater is performed to mimic the size and
frequency of real historical rainfall events across a roughly six week
period (July 31, 2019 to September 1, 2019) per data collected from
the McGhee Tyson airport located in Knoxville, TN. The correct volume
of water used for each application is calculated using these rainfall
data and an assumed 20:1 watershed to practice area ratio. Overall,
this resulted in 14 events (Brown et al., 2009). To ensure that similar
concentrations of stormwater pollutants were observed in all columns,
applications were made in three passes. That is, 1/3 of the application
volume was applied to each column, followed by the next 1/3, etc.
This ensures that any settling that occurred in the tank used to make
the stormwater mixture would not be weighted unevenly to one group
of columns. This process took 45 min per column. For the SM and
VC design configurations, which relied on preemptive control of the
system based on rainfall predictions, predictive data are obtained from
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. If a rain event
is expected for a given day, the predicted rainfall depth is sent to
the columns the day prior via wireless communication. The columns
would identify current sensor readings and decide if water should be
released to allow space for the predicted incoming rainfall. A Stevens
pressure transducer is used to measure the water storage levels for the
VC configuration. The valves are triggered to drain or retain water in
3
Environmental Modelling and Software 162 (2023) 105638
order to maintain water storage levels at 30 cm. For more details on
the experimental method and column operation, refer to Persaud et al.
(2019).
3. Methods
In this study, we first use statistical techniques to establish the
differences between various time series collected, and then create three
experiments to examine the extent to which these data streams can
be predicted accurately from historical/temporal data and/or other
independent sources (i.e., other sensors).
To test for similarities among the data streams, we conduct analysis
of variance (ANOVA). This test particularly allows us to check whether
the data streams, in aggregate, statistically follow the same or different
distributions. More specifically, the null hypothesis is that the means of
the data streams considered are statistically the same. Hence, rejecting
the null hypothesis suggests that there are at least two group means
that are statistically significantly different from each other.
We use two different modeling approaches in this study, namely,
ARIMA and LSTM. The ARIMA model is defined as follows,
𝑦̂𝑡 = 𝜇 + 𝜙1 𝑦𝑡−1 + ⋯ + 𝜙𝑝 𝑦𝑡−𝑝 − 𝜃1 𝑒𝑡−1 − ⋯ − 𝜃𝑞 𝑒𝑡−𝑞 (1)
where 𝑝 denotes the amount of the autoregressive (AR) term, 𝑞 is the
order of the moving average (MA) term, and 𝑑 is the number of non-
seasonal differences required to make it stationary (Ho and Xie, 1998).
Furthermore, LSTM, which is a special type of recurrent neural net-
works (RNNs) (Hochreiter and Schmidhuber, 1997; Wojciech Zaremba
and Vinyals, 2014), is defined as follows,
(Forget Gate) 𝑓𝑡 = 𝜎𝑔 (𝑊𝑓 𝑥𝑡 + 𝑈𝑓 ℎ𝑡− + 𝑏𝑓 )
1
(Input Gate) 𝑖𝑡 = 𝜎𝑔 (𝑊𝑖 𝑥𝑡 + 𝑈𝑖 ℎ𝑡− + 𝑏𝑖 )
1
(Output Gate) 𝑜𝑡 = 𝜎𝑔 (𝑊𝑜 𝑥𝑡 + 𝑈𝑜 ℎ𝑡− + 𝑏𝑜 )
1
(Cell State) 𝑐𝑡 = 𝑓𝑡 𝑐𝑡− + 𝑖𝑡 (𝜎𝑐 (𝑊𝑐 𝑥𝑡 + 𝑈𝑐 ℎ𝑡− + 𝑏𝑐 ))
1 1
(Hidden State) ℎ𝑡 = 𝑜𝑡 𝜎𝑐 (𝑐𝑡 )
where 𝑥𝑡 ∈ R𝑑 is the input vector to the LSTM unit (where 𝑑 refers to
the number of input features), and 𝑊 ∈ Rℎ×𝑑 , 𝑈 ∈ Rℎ×ℎ , and 𝑏 ∈ Rℎ
are weight matrices and bias vector parameters (where ℎ refers to the
number of hidden units). The forget gate decides what information can
move to the next layers by disregarding any information not needed
K. Scarbrough et al. Environmental Modelling and Software 162 (2023) 105638

to create predictions. The input gate goes through the information

received and determines the importance of that information for creating
future predictions. The output gate is responsible for deciding the next
hidden state. Both the hidden and cell states are types of data states
used in the LSTM model. Note that weights and biases need to be
learned during model training through sequential LSTM cells’ inputs
and outputs.
To evaluate the models, we use mean absolute error (MAE) as our
main metric, i.e.,
1 ∑|
𝑛
|
𝑀𝐴𝐸 = |𝑦 − 𝑦̂𝑗 | , (2)
𝑛 𝑗=1 | 𝑗 |

where 𝑦𝑗 and 𝑦̂𝑗 are the response variable, the predicted value for
sample 𝑗, respectively (Willmott and Matsuura, 2005). Note that metric,
MAE, was particularly chosen because it produces a value representing
the average error, which is in the same units as the response variable
of interest. MAE has repeatedly used in the literature for similar model
evaluation purposes and provides a good measure for evaluating the
average model performance error (Diouf et al., 2015).
First, we conduct a comparison between ARIMA and LSTM. To do
so, we conduct an experiment where we predict future soil moisture
using past temporal data (with the data split of 70/30). For this
analysis, we report the MAE as well as the Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency
(NSE). NSE is used for time series models to calculate one minus the
ratio of the error variance divided by the variance of the actual. NSE
ranges from −∞ to 1, where the higher the NSE the better, i.e.,
∑𝑇 ( 𝑡 )2
𝑄 − 𝑄𝑡𝑚
𝑁𝑆𝐸 = 1 − 𝑡=1 ( 𝑜 )2 (3)
∑𝑇 𝑡
𝑡=1 𝑄𝑜 − 𝑄𝑜

where 𝑄𝑜 is the mean of observed discharges, 𝑄𝑚 is modeled discharge,

and 𝑄𝑡𝑜 is observed discharge at time 𝑡 (Zeybek, 2018).
Based on the preliminary results obtained from the comparison, we
opt to use LSTM in the remainder of the study. Specifically, we conduct
the following three sets of experiments using the LSTMs and report the
MAE. Based on preliminary results and a grid search on lookback period
length from 1–50 min in 5-minute increments, we fix the lookback
period to one minute for our LSTM models: Fig. 2. An overview of the modeling and validation approach for Experiment I.

– Experiment I: The model predicts the 30 cm soil moisture sensor

data stream in column 𝑥 using the 30 cm soil moisture sensor
data stream from column 𝑦 and the previous rainfall data, for any
given configuration, where 𝑥, 𝑦 ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}, 𝑥 ≠ 𝑦. The goal of
this experiment is to show how different bioretention columns in
the same conditions relate to each other when it comes to soil
moisture.
– Experiment II: The model predicts the 60 cm soil moisture sensor
data stream in column 𝑥 using the 30 cm soil moisture sensor data
stream from column 𝑦 and the previous rainfall data, for any given
configuration, where 𝑥, 𝑦 ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}, 𝑥 ≠ 𝑦. The goal for this
experiment is to show if we can safely eliminate the need for any
extra sensors within the bioretention columns.
– Experiment III: The model predicts the 30 cm soil moisture
sensor data stream at 𝑡 time points in the future in column 𝑦 using
the 30 cm soil moisture sensor data stream from column 𝑥, the
previous rainfall data, and the future rainfall data up to time 𝑡,
for any given configuration, where 𝑥, 𝑦 ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}. Note that
in this experiment, different from past experiments, 𝑥 can be set
equal to 𝑦 as 𝑡 ≥ 0. The goal of this is to predict the future state
of the bioretention to see if interventions or actions need to be
taken.
Note that in some of the evaluations, particularly in Experiments I
& III, we use temporal 𝑘-fold cross-validation with 𝑘 = 10. Specifically,
we split the data streams into ten segments, each segment containing
data corresponding to consecutive time points. In each fold, we use the
data from nine segments for training and the data in the one remaining
segment for testing (Barari, 2019). Fig. 2 visualizes the approach for
modeling and evaluating for Experiment I.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Descriptive statistics
First, we conduct an ANOVA test with the null hypothesis that all
data streams collected from the sensors at the same depth from the five
columns with the same configuration are statistically the same. Hence,
if this hypothesis is rejected, it suggests that although the columns are
cosmetically similar in configuration and treatment, the data collected
are inherently different.
The detailed results of the ANOVA test are presented in Table 8 in
the Appendix. Across all tests conducted, the p-values corresponding
are extremely small. Hence, the null hypotheses are rejected for all
tests. Therefore, despite the similarities in the sensor readings collected
from the columns within the same configuration, any predictions across
the columns are not trivial. Potential reasons for these differences are
discussed below.
The internal soil moisture within each of the four configurations
differ slightly in pattern but are comparable. Fig. 3 shows example
patterns across the four configurations at 30 cm and 60 cm depths. In
this figure, the peaks depict the rapid increases in the soil moisture,
a.k.a. a rainfall event. The peaks are similar in time and magnitude
which indicates all columns received the same amount of water and
responded in a similar manner. However, the rate at which they return
to the original baseline differs as indicated by variations in the slope
of the declining lines after the peaks. VC returns the quickest (steepest

4
K. Scarbrough et al. Environmental Modelling and Software 162 (2023) 105638

Fig. 3. Comparison of internal water content as a function of time for example columns across all four configurations considered at 30 cm (left) and 60 cm (right).

Fig. 4. All five columns in the Free Draining (FD) configuration compared to each other at 30 cm (left) and 60 cm (right).

Fig. 5. All five columns in the Internal Water Storage (IWS) configuration compared to each other at 30 cm (left) and 60 cm (right).

slope) whereas the IWS is the slowest (flattest slope). Note that FD and
SM are relatively similar over time, as seen in Fig. 3.
Figs. 4–7 provide comparisons of the columns under the same
treatment (for the complete breakdown of each column within all four
configurations over the 43 day period, see Table 9 in the Appendix).
For instance, the IWS column 4 at 60 cm has a fairly low mean and
column 5 has a relatively high mean in comparison to the first three
columns. Similarly, columns 1–3 in the volume control configuration at
60 cm are all similar to each other, but columns 4 and 5 are different.
These outliers should be considered when interpreting the models
results because it would explain whether or not the predicted soil
moisture is worse when using these columns for training. These outliers
can be caused by random discontinuous sensor faults, random noise, or
calibration errors (Baljak et al., 2012). Further, differences in column
construction could lead to these results, such as variable amounts of
compaction of the bioretention media (which could affect infiltration
dynamics), differences in capillary action among the columns, and/or
the presence of unintended preferential flow paths.
Fig. 4 compares each of the five FD columns at 30 cm versus
60 cm. The plots, when compared to each other, can show the water
flow throughout the column. For FD, the two plots maintain similar
patterns for each column, meaning the water is passing through each
column at a controlled rate with minimal restrictions due to clogging.
Furthermore, it drains continuously over time solely due to gravity just
as we would expect it to. FD columns act as one extreme where water
flows through the column relatively quick.
Fig. 5 shows IWS which is the configuration that acts as the other
extreme in comparison to FD. It purposefully slows and even stops
drainage so that ponding occurs at the top of the columns. IWS columns
perform as expected for columns 1–3 by having around a 0.1%v/v

5
K. Scarbrough et al. Environmental Modelling and Software 162 (2023) 105638

Fig. 6. All five columns in the Soil Moisture (SM) configuration compared to each other at 30 cm (left) and 60 cm (right).

Fig. 7. All five columns in the Volume Control (VC) configuration compared to each other at 30 cm (left) and 60 cm (right).

higher value at the 60 cm sensor than at the 30 cm sensor. However, Table 1

column 4 has lower soil moisture readings at 60 cm versus 30 cm ARIMA vs LSTM model performance results (MAE) for Free Draining configuration at
30 cm and 60 cm.
which is rather unexpected. On the other hand, column 5 has very high
Model Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5
readings compared to the values expected given the first few columns.
These irregularities could indicate differences in column construction ARIMA 0.038 0.036 0.040 0.027 0.042
30 cm
LSTM 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.008 0.006
and, since smooth variations are easier to predict, explain why the
ARIMA 0.032 0.038 0.029 0.083 0.027
predictions for columns 4 and 5 perform worse than those for columns 60 cm
LSTM 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.007 0.003
1–3.
Fig. 6 compares all five columns in the SM configuration at 30 cm
versus 60 cm. The SM functions in between FD and IWS so that drainage Table 2
is slowed but not to the extreme that ponding occurs. Columns 1–3 ARIMA vs LSTM model performance results (NSE) for Free Draining configuration at
30 cm and 60 cm.
all perform as the FD configuration did. The columns drain without
Model Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5
signs of blockage and in a controlled manner. Column 4 shows that
the soil moisture is 0.05 v/v higher than the average mean of the ARIMA −1.721 −1.050 −1.785 −0.997 −1.398
30 cm
LSTM 0.954 0.930 0.865 0.798 0.953
first three columns and 0.08 v/v higher than the average maximum
value at the 60 cm sensor. Column 5 is 0.082 v/v higher than the ARIMA −1.889 −1.911 −1.066 −16.559 −2.715
60 cm
LSTM 0.937 0.957 0.947 0.825 0.930
average mean of the first three columns and 0.120 v/v higher than the
average maximum value at the 60 cm sensor. These could be signs of
incorrect sensor readings or poor drainage due to higher compaction
in this column low in the soil profile. Overall, the averages of the difference in their data pattern when compared to the other columns.
data collected from columns 4 and 5 are 22.6 and 37 percent higher, However, close observations show that all the means at 30 cm are very
respectively, when compared with the averages from columns 1–3. This similar, approximately to 0.23, but at 60 cm columns 1–3 stay close
means that these columns show many data inconsistencies which could to 0.23, and columns 4 and 5 rise to about 0.32. This means columns
cause the results produced by the LSTM to not be as accurate when 1–3 are draining the water at an approximately equal rate throughout
specifically trained and/or tested with columns 4 and 5. the column whereas columns 4 and 5 are not. Columns 4 and 5 have a
Fig. 7 shows the VC configuration which also functions in between larger soil moisture in the bottom of the column compared to the top
the two extremes, FD and IWS. It varies from the SM configuration by meaning the flow of water is decreasing.
opening and closing the solenoid valve which controls how the water
drains at a different rate. The VC configuration opens and closes it
much more frequently then the SM configuration (on average nearly 4.2. Model selection: ARIMA vs LSTM
14 times as frequently). This is because VC decides when the valve
opens on a target water storage depth within the column. At 30 cm We perform an analysis where we compare ARIMA and LSTM
and 60 cm, none of the columns in the VC configuration show a large models using the sensor data at both 30 cm and 60 cm for the FD

6
K. Scarbrough et al. Environmental Modelling and Software 162 (2023) 105638

Table 3
Experiment I model performance results (MAE) for all column configurations [FD: Free Draining, VC: Volume Control, IWS:
Internal Water Storage, SM: Soil Moisture].
Train/test Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5
Column 1 – 0.012 ± 0.005 0.011 ± 0.006 0.012 ± 0.004 0.030 ± 0.013
Column 2 0.024 ± 0.012 – 0.024 ± 0.012 0.022 ± 0.012 0.035 ± 0.018
FD Column 3 0.011 ± 0.003 0.014 ± 0.006 – 0.013 ± 0.005 0.042 ± 0.021
Column 4 0.011 ± 0.007 0.010 ± 0.006 0.012 ± 0.005 – 0.042 ± 0.021
Column 5 0.041 ± 0.023 0.041 ± 0.023 0.042 ± 0.021 0.041 ± 0.021 –
Column 1 – 0.026 ± 0.010 0.036 ± 0.021 0.006 ± 0.003 0.013 ± 0.006
Column 2 0.021 ± 0.011 – 0.026 ± 0.013 0.023 ± 0.009 0.012 ± 0.007
VC Column 3 0.023 ± 0.017 0.021 ± 0.008 – 0.028 ± 0.020 0.021 ± 0.011
Column 4 0.008 ± 0.004 0.030 ± 0.011 0.038 ± 0.023 – 0.015 ± 0.004
Column 5 0.017 ± 0.007 0.018 ± 0.009 0.034 ± 0.021 0.014 ± 0.004 –
Column 1 – 0.024 ± 0.011 0.028 ± 0.015 0.022 ± 0.009 0.081 ± 0.044
Column 2 0.038 ± 0.022 – 0.042 ± 0.022 0.035 ± 0.022 0.097 ± 0.059
IWS Column 3 0.023 ± 0.013 0.032 ± 0.011 – 0.023 ± 0.015 0.042 ± 0.026
Column 4 0.021 ± 0.007 0.018 ± 0.010 0.028 ± 0.016 – 0.065 ± 0.034
Column 5 0.039 ± 0.016 0.051 ± 0.022 0.056 ± 0.025 0.034 ± 0.014 –
Column 1 – 0.047 ± 0.027 0.038 ± 0.021 0.047 ± 0.024 0.028 ± 0.015
Column 2 0.033 ± 0.014 – 0.033 ± 0.013 0.051 ± 0.024 0.030 ± 0.014
SM Column 3 0.029 ± 0.013 0.029 ± 0.016 – 0.058 ± 0.024 0.037 ± 0.018
Column 4 0.025 ± 0.016 0.041 ± 0.022 0.036 ± 0.019 – 0.028 ± 0.024
Column 5 0.031 ± 0.014 0.058 ± 0.024 0.052 ± 0.021 0.044 ± 0.019 –

Table 4
Experiment II model performance results (MAE) for all column configurations [FD: Free Draining, VC: Volume Control,
SM: Soil Moisture, IWS: Internal Water Storage].
Train/test Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5
Column 1 – 0.032 0.020 0.010 0.016
Column 2 0.029 – 0.012 0.028 0.022
FD Column 3 0.016 0.017 – 0.014 0.017
Column 4 0.023 0.045 0.033 – 0.044
Column 5 0.016 0.016 0.010 0.013 –
Column 1 – 0.067 0.047 0.013 0.063
Column 2 0.017 – 0.018 0.023 0.085
VC Column 3 0.045 0.062 – 0.034 0.092
Column 4 0.095 0.108 0.088 – 0.074
Column 5 0.139 0.161 0.011 0.033 –
Column 1 – 0.037 0.065 0.176 0.447
Column 2 0.021 – 0.052 0.190 0.439
IWS Column 3 0.053 0.053 – 0.223 0.402
Column 4 0.148 0.167 0.220 – 0.568
Column 5 0.439 0.431 0.384 0.626 –
Column 1 – 0.012 0.015 0.013 0.009
Column 2 0.015 – 0.024 0.016 0.016
SM Column 3 0.009 0.011 – 0.007 0.008
Column 4 0.034 0.034 0.035 – 0.035
Column 5 0.070 0.064 0.071 0.070 –

configuration. We conduct a grid search to determine the best param-
eter values for both ARIMA and LSTM models. For ARIMA, we use
𝑝 = 1, … , 8, 𝑞 = 1, … , 8, and 𝑑 = 1. For LSTM, we modify the number
of neurons for the LSTM layer, ranging from 10 to 150 in increments
of 10, and the dropout rate for the Dropout layer, ranging from 0 to
0.5 in increments of 0.1. The best parameters for ARIMA and LSTM are
provided in Tables 10 and 11 in the Appendix.
Table 1 presents the results of the comparison between the ARIMA
and LSTM models in terms of MAE for each column under the FD
configuration. Similarly, Table 2 presents the results of the comparison
in terms of NSE. Overall, the results show that predictions are more
accurate when using LSTM. LSTM generates substantially lower MAE
values (paired 𝑡-test 𝑝-value < 10−4 ), and higher NSE values. Note that
ARIMA produces negative NSE values, indicating that ARIMA is not
an acceptable model for these data. Fig. 9 in the Appendix presents
an example of this prediction for one of the columns. Based on these
results, we only use LSTM in the remainder of this study.
4.3. Model performance for experiments I–III
Table 3 presents the results for Experiment I, where we predict the
30 cm soil moisture sensor data stream in column 𝑥 using the 30 cm
soil moisture sensor data stream in column 𝑦 and rainfall, under all four
configurations.
Row one shows which column is used to train the model, and
column 1 shows the column on which the model is tested. For instance,
for FD configuration, an MAE of 0.024 ± 0.012 is the result of Exper-
iment I when column 2 is used for training and column 1 is used for
testing. Overall, the MAEs are relatively small in every case suggesting
that relationships between soil moisture levels at the same depth can
somewhat be captured using the LSTM model between columns with
similar designs. Furthermore, this means it is possible to use sensor data
to monitor bioretention columns in the same environment (meaning
they are composed of the same media, have a surrounding area with
the same type of soil, and are receiving similar precipitation) and show
how they are functioning in real-time. This can range several blocks to
a few miles within a town or a city depending on how it is built.

7
K. Scarbrough et al. Environmental Modelling and Software 162 (2023) 105638

Table 5
Experiment III (without future rainfall data) model performance results (MAE) for Free Draining configuration, 𝑡 minutes in the future.
𝑡 Train/test Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5
Column 1 0.017 ± 0.009 0.018 ± 0.009 0.016 ± 0.008 0.016 ± 0.008 0.027 ± 0.019
Column 2 0.023 ± 0.012 0.021 ± 0.012 0.024 ± 0.014 0.027 ± 0.016 0.036 ± 0.019
30 Column 3 0.015 ± 0.008 0.018 ± 0.010 0.016 ± 0.008 0.018 ± 0.011 0.021 ± 0.011
Column 4 0.012 ± 0.006 0.016 ± 0.008 0.013 ± 0.006 0.016 ± 0.007 0.025 ± 0.011
Column 5 0.047 ± 0.026 0.044 ± 0.022 0.046 ± 0.023 0.047 ± 0.024 0.027 ± 0.015
Column 1 0.025 ± 0.013 0.024 ± 0.013 0.020 ± 0.011 0.022 ± 0.012 0.022 ± 0.013
Column 2 0.027 ± 0.013 0.026 ± 0.016 0.027 ± 0.015 0.028 ± 0.016 0.033 ± 0.017
60 Column 3 0.020 ± 0.014 0.023 ± 0.014 0.023 ± 0.012 0.022 ± 0.013 0.017 ± 0.011
Column 4 0.015 ± 0.009 0.018 ± 0.001 0.016 ± 0.008 0.021 ± 0.010 0.021 ± 0.010
Column 5 0.049 ± 0.026 0.048 ± 0.026 0.048 ± 0.026 0.048 ± 0.025 0.033 ± 0.018
Column 1 0.037 ± 0.022 0.034 ± 0.019 0.029 ± 0.017 0.030 ± 0.017 0.014 ± 0.009
Column 2 0.039 ± 0.021 0.041 ± 0.022 0.038 ± 0.020 0.041 ± 0.022 0.027 ± 0.015
120 Column 3 0.031 ± 0.019 0.031 ± 0.002 0.029 ± 0.017 0.029 ± 0.017 0.012 ± 0.008
Column 4 0.028 ± 0.014 0.028 ± 0.015 0.026 ± 0.013 0.031 ± 0.016 0.011 ± 0.007
Column 5 0.055 ± 0.029 0.057 ± 0.028 0.054 ± 0.027 0.052 ± 0.027 0.047 ± 0.025

Table 6
Experiment III (with future rainfall data) model performance results (MAE) for Free Draining configuration, 𝑡 minutes in the
future.
𝑡 Train/test Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5
Column 1 0.017 ± 0.007 0.018 ± 0.008 0.013 ± 0.006 0.009 ± 0.004 0.031 ± 0.014
Column 2 0.016 ± 0.007 0.015 ± 0.008 0.014 ± 0.008 0.011 ± 0.005 0.032 ± 0.015
30 Column 3 0.018 ± 0.007 0.019 ± 0.011 0.017 ± 0.008 0.008 ± 0.004 0.031 ± 0.014
Column 4 0.018 ± 0.009 0.020 ± 0.010 0.016 ± 0.008 0.011 ± 0.004 0.031 ± 0.013
Column 5 0.008 ± 0.002 0.011 ± 0.006 0.008 ± 0.004 0.009 ± 0.004 0.017 ± 0.007
Column 1 0.022 ± 0.010 0.021 ± 0.010 0.018 ± 0.009 0.014 ± 0.006 0.035 ± 0.016
Column 2 0.021 ± 0.010 0.020 ± 0.009 0.019 ± 0.010 0.015 ± 0.007 0.035 ± 0.015
60 Column 3 0.020 ± 0.009 0.023 ± 0.013 0.022 ± 0.009 0.013 ± 0.006 0.032 ± 0.015
Column 4 0.021 ± 0.009 0.023 ± 0.012 0.019 ± 0.009 0.015 ± 0.006 0.033 ± 0.015
Column 5 0.008 ± 0.003 0.012 ± 0.006 0.008 ± 0.004 0.007 ± 0.004 0.024 ± 0.011
Column 1 0.028 ± 0.012 0.027 ± 0.014 0.025 ± 0.012 0.020 ± 0.008 0.039 ± 0.019
Column 2 0.028 ± 0.013 0.028 ± 0.013 0.024 ± 0.012 0.021 ± 0.009 0.039 ± 0.017
120 Column 3 0.028 ± 0.012 0.029 ± 0.016 0.027 ± 0.013 0.019 ± 0.008 0.036 ± 0.016
Column 4 0.027 ± 0.012 0.028 ± 0.015 0.025 ± 0.012 0.021 ± 0.010 0.035 ± 0.015
Column 5 0.010 ± 0.004 0.015 ± 0.009 0.012 ± 0.008 0.007 ± 0.004 0.030 ± 0.013

Table 4 shows the results for Experiment II, where the model Table 7
Sediment contributions and stormwater target concen-
predicts the 60 cm soil moisture sensor data stream in column 𝑥 using
trations.
the 30 cm soil moisture sensor data stream from column 𝑦 and rainfall, Source: Adopted from Bratieres et al. (2008b).
under all four configurations. Constituent Target Con-
For example, similar to Table 3, row one under FD presents the centration
results when the data from column 1 are used to predict the response (mg/L)

variable from column 𝑥, 𝑥 = 2, … , 5. However, care must be taken when 𝑁𝑂𝑥 − 𝑁 0.75
𝑁𝐻4+ − 𝑁 0.27
‘comparing’ the results of Experiments I and II. Recall that Experiment
𝑇 𝐷𝑃 0.04
I predicts the 30 cm soil moisture data stream in one column using 𝐶𝑢2+ 0.05
the 30 cm soil moisture in another column, whereas Experiment II 𝑍𝑛2+ 0.25
predicts the moisture data stream at two different depths. Hence, 𝑃 𝑏2+ 0.14
𝐶𝑟6+ 0.025
overall, the prediction task in Experiment I may be ‘easier’ than the 𝑀𝑛2+ 0.25
one in Experiment II, and that may be why the results are slightly 𝐹 𝑒3+ 1
better in Experiment I. However, the results from the two experiments 𝑁𝑖2+ 0.03
are not inherently comparable as one uses cross-validation and the 𝐶𝑑 2+ 0.0045

other not. This changes the amount of data used in training and the
evaluation process; hence, a direct comparison between results may not
be meaningful.
Table 5 shows the MAE of Experiment III with the FD configuration
without future rainfall, and Table 6 shows the MAE of Experiment III
with the FD configuration with future rainfall. The results show that
predictions are more accurate when future rainfall data is used in the
model. The results also suggest that this model can accurately predict
the soil moisture sensor data stream in the future up to 60 min with
the MAE averaging 0.020. Beyond 1 h, the model looses the desired
relationship, and we can no longer accurately predict the soil moisture
sensor data stream. However, as one can see in Fig. 8, even though the
model can accurately predict the soil moisture sensor data stream up
to 60 min in the future, it is most accurate between zero and 30 min.
5. Conclusion and future work
This study investigates how accurately soil moisture levels can
be predicted in the future. The results suggest that if the dispersed
bioretention cells are close enough to have similar climate conditions,
you can use one cell to predict the state of multiple others up to one
hour in the future. To clarify, a column is similar to having a core of
a sandbox. A bioretention practice is an entire sandbox, and dispersed
practices are like having sandboxes all over a playground. Hence, only
one column needs to have sensors at both 30 and 60 cm, and all
the surrounding columns only need one. This being said, stormwater
managers can view the status of all the bioretention GI practices in

8
K. Scarbrough et al.
Fig. 8. Results of Experiment III when predicting column 2 using column 1 with Free Draining configuration for 𝑡 ∈ {0, 30, 60, 120} min in the future.
Fig. 9. Predicted vs. actual soil moisture readings for column 5 with Free Draining configuration at 30 cm (left) and 60 cm (right).
real-time with the use of monitors instead of performing hands on
inspections. This will save time, money, and resources for the given
companies.
In the future, we aim to create machine learning algorithms that
use data streams from low-cost sensors to enable predicting the future
state of GIs. These predictions will pave the way for a number of ca-
pabilities for future infrastructure design and maintenance. First, if soil
moisture can be accurately predicted based on historical data, changes
in soil moisture patterns can also be identified. These changes can be
linked to the need for maintenance as clogging of filter media will
be identifiable by a longer time to peak and more flat receding limb.
Identifying changes in these patterns can instigate further inspection
by notifying municipal staff. Second, these predictions can be used to
understand how bioretention, and other GI, will respond to incoming
rain events. This can potentially allow for real-time control based on
these predictions. Finally, soil moisture measurements in bioretention
are only one of many potential applications for these approaches.
9
Environmental Modelling and Software 162 (2023) 105638
Sensors measuring water depth, temperature, vegetation health, and
other biogeochemical attributes can be leveraged to track performance
of GI to aid in optimized management of these systems. The methods
herein show great promise in characterizing and predicting such data
streams.
Software and data availability
Developer and contact information: Kalina Scarbrough, kalinascar-
brough@gmail.com
Year first available: 2021
Operating system: OSX, Windows, or Linux
Software required: Python 3.6.0+, numpy 1.21.0+, scipy 1.7.0+,
keras 2.4.0+
Availability and online documentation: https://github.com/kscarb
r3/Real-Time-Sensor-Based-Prediction-of-Soil-Moisture-in-Green-Infras
tructure-A-Case-Study.git
K. Scarbrough et al. Environmental Modelling and Software 162 (2023) 105638

Table 8
ANOVA tables showing statistical differences between each column [SS: Sum-of-Squares, df: degrees of freedom, MS: Mean Squares, F: F-statistical, P: 𝑃 -value,
F crit: F-critical].
Source of Variation SS df MS F P F crit
FreeL
Between Groups 51.67 4 12.92 11394.35 0.00 2.37
Draining
Within Groups 353.05 311400 0.001
at 30 cm
Total 404.73 311404
InternalL Source of Variation SS df MS F P F crit
Water Between Groups 124.41 4 31.10 17228.27 0.00 2.37
Storage Within Groups 559.59 309960 0.002
at 30 cm Total 684.00 309964
Source of Variation SS df MS F P F crit
SoilL
Between Groups 77.28 4 19.32 16181.98 0.00 2.37
Moisture
Within Groups 361.83 303050 0.001
at 30 cm
Total 439.12 303054
Source of Variation SS df MS F P F crit
VolumeL
Between Groups 22.80 4 5.70 6609.23 0.00 2.37
Control
Within Groups 95.19 110368 0.001
at 30 cm
Total 117.99 110372
Source of Variation SS df MS F P F crit
FreeL
Between Groups 158.08 4 39.52 54119.39 0.00 2.37
Draining
Within Groups 226.64 310376 0.001
at 60 cm
Total 384.72 310380
InternalL Source of Variation SS df MS F P F crit
Water Between Groups 12379.38 4 3094.84 1290620.20 0.00 2.37
Storage Within Groups 741.26 309122 0.002
at 60 cm Total 13120.64 309126
Source of Variation SS df MS F P F crit
SoilL
Between Groups 375.09 4 93.77 33507.63 0.00 2.37
Moisture
Within Groups 848.08 303041 0.003
at 60 cm
Total 1223.17 303045
Source of Variation SS df MS F P F crit
VolumeL
Between Groups 136.83 4 34.21 11487.08 0.00 2.37
Control
Within Groups 328.64 110363 0.003
at 60 cm
Total 465.47 110367

Table 9
A statistical breakdown between columns in the same configuration over all 43 days.
Statistic Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5
Mean 0.243 0.205 0.232 0.225 0.219
Free
Std 0.031 0.034 0.033 0.023 0.034
Draining
Min 0.190 0.150 0.130 0.150 0.160
30 cm Data
Max 0.410 0.400 0.410 0.330 0.350
Mean 0.223 0.194 0.229 0.264 0.216
Free
Std 0.025 0.032 0.029 0.029 0.019
Draining
Min 0.180 0.150 0.190 0.200 0.180
60 cm Data
Max 0.370 0.400 0.410 0.420 0.330
Mean 0.232 0.236 0.206 0.222 0.247
Volume
Std 0.033 0.028 0.034 0.034 0.037
Control
Min 0.170 0.120 0.000 0.110 0.190
30 cm Data
Max 0.360 0.370 0.330 0.330 0.440
Mean 0.252 0.225 0.247 0.329 0.329
Volume
Std 0.063 0.035 0.061 0.058 0.058
Control
Min 0.180 0.170 0.000 0.260 0.260
60 cm Data
Max 0.460 0.410 0.440 0.530 0.530
Mean 0.223 0.248 0.232 0.199 0.229
Soil
Std 0.032 0.033 0.036 0.043 0.027
Moisture
Min 0.110 0.190 0.170 0.040 0.120
30 cm Data
Max 0.390 0.420 0.430 0.330 0.340
Mean 0.235 0.226 0.207 0.273 0.305
Soil
Std 0.029 0.021 0.023 0.060 0.093
Moisture
Min 0.200 0.180 0.170 0.200 0.210
60 cm Data
Max 0.440 0.370 0.390 0.480 0.520
Internal Mean 0.277 0.243 0.239 0.217 0.229
Water Std 0.044 0.049 0.033 0.036 0.039
Storage Min 0.200 0.170 0.170 0.160 0.160
30 cm Data Max 0.480 0.430 0.430 0.470 0.440
Internal Mean 0.348 0.361 0.392 0.190 0.791
Water Std 0.054 0.019 0.053 0.041 0.650
Storage Min 0.220 0.320 0.250 0.120 0.230
60 cm Data Max 0.430 0.440 0.460 0.320 0.840

10
K. Scarbrough et al. Environmental Modelling and Software 162 (2023) 105638

Table 10 Barari, 2019. Deep Learning in Python: Training a Neural Network with Keras. SAGE
Best ARIMA parameters for free draining configuration at 30 cm Publications Ltd.
and 60 cm. Benedict, Mark A., McMahon, Edward T., et al., 2002. Green infrastructure: smart
Columns 𝑝 𝑑 𝑞 conservation for the 21st century. Renew. Resour. J. 20 (3), 12–17.
Bratieres, K., Fletcher, T.D., Deletic, A., Zinger, Y., 2008a. Nutrient and sediment
Column 1 8 1 7
removal by stormwater biofilters: A large-scale design optimisation study. Water
Column 2 6 1 0
Res. 42 (14), 3930–3940.
30 cm Column 3 7 1 8
Bratieres, Katia, Fletcher, Tim D., Deletic, Ana, Zinger, Yaron, 2008b. Nutrient and
Column 4 3 1 8
sediment removal by stormwater biofilters: a large-scale design optimisation study.
Column 5 7 1 0
Water Res..
Column 1 4 1 6 Brown, Robert A., Hunt, William Frederick, Kennedy, Shawn G., 2009. Designing Biore-
Column 2 1 1 2 tention with an Internal Water Storage (IWS) Layer. North Carolina Cooperative
60 cm Column 3 2 1 3 Extension.
Column 4 2 1 7 Bumblauskas, Daniel, Gemmill, Douglas, Igou, Amy, Anzengruber, Johanna, 2017.
Column 5 6 1 6 Smart maintenance decision support systems (SMDSS) based on corporate big data
analytics. Expert Syst. Appl. 90, 303–317.
Diouf, Abdoul Aziz, Brandt, Martin, Verger, Aleixandre, Jarroudi, Moussa El,
Table 11 Djaby, Bakary, Fensholt, Rasmus, Ndione, Jacques André, Tychon, Bernard, 2015.
Best LSTM parameters for Free Draining configuration Fodder biomass monitoring in sahelian rangelands using phenological metrics from
at 30 cm and 60 cm. FAPAR time series. Remote Sens. 7 (7), 9122–9148.
Layer Type Best parameter Feuer, Lenny, 1995. Soil moisture sensor. Google Patents.
Fuentes, Sigfredo, Tongson, Eden, Gonzalez Viejo, Claudia, 2021. Urban green in-
1 LSTM neurons = 150 frastructure monitoring using remote sensing from integrated visible and thermal
2 Dropout dropout rate = 0.5 infrared cameras mounted on a moving vehicle. Sensors 21 (1).
3 Dense neurons = 1 Gao, Jim, 2014. Machine learning applications for data center optimization.
Glasgow, Howard B., Burkholder, JoAnn M., Reed, Robert E., Lewitus, Alan J.,
Kleinman, Joseph E., 2004. Real-time remote monitoring of water quality: a review
of current applications, and advancements in sensor, telemetry, and computing
Declaration of competing interest technologies. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 300, 409–448.
Ho, S.L., Xie, M., 1998. The use of ARIMA models for reliability forecasting and
analysis. Comput. Ind. Eng. 35 (1), 213–216.
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
Hochreiter, Sepp, Schmidhuber, Jürgen, 1997. Long short-term memory. Neural
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to Comput. 9 (8), 1735–1780.
influence the work reported in this paper. Kaluarachchi, Yamuna, 2020. Potential advantages in combining smart and green
infrastructure over silo approaches for future cities. Front. Eng. Manag..
Data availability Kerkez, Branko, Gruden, Cyndee, Lewis, Matthew, Montestruque, Luis, Quigley, Marcus,
Wong, Brandon, Bedig, Alex, Kertesz, Ruben, Braun, Tim, Cadwalader, Owen,
Poresky, Aaron, Pak, Carrie, 2016. Smarter stormwater systems. Environ. Sci.
Data will be made available on request. Technol. 50 (14), 7267–7273, PMID: 27227574.
Labib, S.M., 2019. Investigation of the likelihood of green infrastructure (GI) enhance-
Acknowledgments ment along linear waterways or on derelict sites (DS) using machine learning.
Environ. Modell. Softw. 118, 146–165.
Persaud, P.P., Akin, A.A., Kerkez, B., Mccarthy, D.T., Hathaway, J.M., 2019. Real time
This research is partially supported by the University of Tennessee’s control schemes for improving water quality from bioretention cells. Blue-Green
Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment (ISSE), United Syst. 1 (1), 55–71.
States and the National Science Foundation, United States Grant CNS- Ryan, Michael J., 2019. Dynamic green infrastructure: Monitoring long-term changes
1737432. and improving performance with real-time control and machine learning. In:
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. p. 209, Copyright - Database copyright ProQuest
LLC; ProQuest does not claim copyright in the individual underlying works; Last
Appendix updated - 2020-10-09.
Shelatkar, Tejas, Tondale, Stephen, Yadav, Swaraj, Ahir, Sheetal, 2020. Web traffic time
See Tables 7–11 and Fig. 9. series forecasting using ARIMA and LSTM RNN. ITM Web Conf. 32, 03017.
Shivani, Sandhu, K.S., Ramachandran Nair, Anil, 2019. A comparative study of ARIMA
and RNN for short term wind speed forecasting. In: 2019 10th International
Conference on Computing, Communication and Networking Technologies. ICCCNT,
References pp. 1–7.
Siami-Namini, Sima, Tavakoli, Neda, Siami Namin, Akbar, 2018. A comparison of
Angelstam, Per, Pedersen, Simen, Manton, Michael, Garrido, Pablo, Naumov, Vladimir, ARIMA and LSTM in forecasting time series. In: 2018 17th IEEE International
Elbakidze, Marine, 2017. Green infrastructure maintenance is more than land cover: Conference on Machine Learning and Applications. ICMLA, pp. 1394–1401.
Large herbivores limit recruitment of key-stone tree species in Sweden. Landsc. Willmott, Cj, Matsuura, K., 2005. Advantages of the mean absolute error (MAE) over
Urban Plan. 167, 368–377. the root mean square error (RMSE) in assessing average model performance. Clim.
Anon, 2020. TEROS 10: Simple soil moisture sensing. METER. Res. 30, 79–82.
Atzori, Luigi, Iera, Antonio, Morabito, Giacomo, 2010. The internet of things: A survey. Wojciech Zaremba, Ilya Sutskever, Vinyals, Oriol, 2014. Recurrent neural network
Comput. Netw. 54 (15), 2787–2805. regularization. CoRR, arXiv:1409.2329.
Baljak, Valentina, Tei, Kenji, Honiden, Shinichi, 2012. Classification of faults in sensor Zeybek, Melis, 2018. Nash-sutcliffe efficiency approach for quality improvement. J.
readings with statistical pattern recognition. Appl. Math. Comput. 2 (11), 496–503.

11