COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MODELS FOR TIMES TO SERIES MODELING AND FORECASTING OF SCHEME OF AVERAGE MONTHLY STREAMFLOW OF THE DOCE RIVER, COLATINA ESPIRITO SANTO, BRAZIL

Authors

  • Wanderson de Paula Pinto Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo - UFES, Faculdade da Região Serrana - FARESE e Centro Universitário do Espírito Santo - UNESC.
  • Gemael Barbosa Lima Núcleo Integrado de Pesquisa em Engenharia Ambiental – NUPEA - Departamento de Ciências Ambientais da Faculdade da Região Serrana – FARESE – Santa Maria de Jetibá/ ES - Brasil e Centro Universitário do Espírito Santo - UNESC.
  • Juliano Brás Zanetti Núcleo Integrado de Pesquisa em Engenharia Ambiental – NUPEA - Departamento de Ciências Ambientais da Faculdade da Região Serrana – FARESE – Santa Maria de Jetibá/ ES - Brasil.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X17143

Keywords:

Recursos hídricos, ARIMA, sazonalidade.

Abstract

http://dx.doi.org/10.5902/2179460X17143

This work shows a time series study of the average monthly flow using stochastic model of the SARIMA class (Seasonal Autoregressive Moving Average). The hydrology model is an important tool in the planning and management of water resources programs. This article aimed to analyse, comparatively, time series models, as well as to realize forecasting of average monthly flow taken Doce River as watershed, it’s situated in Colatina municipality/ES. The applied methodology in this work was based in the proposal by Box and Jenkins. The identification of the order of the models was made by graphic analysis of the autocorrelation function (ACF) e partial autocorrelation (PACF). Among possible models was selected those that obtained minor value of the following parameters: AIC, BIC, EQM and EAM. The chosen model was SARIMA(1,1,1)(1,1,2)12, that represented well the dynamic of the series studied and showed the best numerical results in both calibration and validation stages. The chosen model was used to make forecasting to months of 2014 and 2015. The average monthly flow forecasting showed, obtained with the considered models, can be used to analyse hydrology regime of the Doce river, mainly to the critical months of 2015, as well as it can propose preventive measures to reduce both environmental and economic impacts in this municipality.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Wanderson de Paula Pinto, Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo - UFES, Faculdade da Região Serrana - FARESE e Centro Universitário do Espírito Santo - UNESC.

Graduado em Matemática, Mestre em Engenharia Ambiental, Doutorando em Engenharia Ambiental, PPGEA - UFES. Professor da FARESE e do UNESC.

Gemael Barbosa Lima, Núcleo Integrado de Pesquisa em Engenharia Ambiental – NUPEA - Departamento de Ciências Ambientais da Faculdade da Região Serrana – FARESE – Santa Maria de Jetibá/ ES - Brasil e Centro Universitário do Espírito Santo - UNESC.

Engenheiro Ambiental, Mestre em Engenharia Ambiental, Professor do NUPEA/FARESE e do UNESC.

Juliano Brás Zanetti, Núcleo Integrado de Pesquisa em Engenharia Ambiental – NUPEA - Departamento de Ciências Ambientais da Faculdade da Região Serrana – FARESE – Santa Maria de Jetibá/ ES - Brasil.

Licenciado em Ciências Agrícolas, Mestre em Fitotecnia, Professor do NUPEA/FARESE.

Downloads

Published

2015-09-26

How to Cite

Pinto, W. de P., Lima, G. B., & Zanetti, J. B. (2015). COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MODELS FOR TIMES TO SERIES MODELING AND FORECASTING OF SCHEME OF AVERAGE MONTHLY STREAMFLOW OF THE DOCE RIVER, COLATINA ESPIRITO SANTO, BRAZIL. Ciência E Natura, 37(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X17143

Issue

Vol. 37 No. 3 (2015)

Section

Statistics

License

To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.

 

Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication

The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles. 

Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.

In particular, 

Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.

Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.

Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.