Water resource management is a complex engineering problem, due to the stochastic nature of inflow, various demands and environmental flow downstream. With the increase in water consumption for domestic use and irrigation, it becomes more challenging. Many more difficulties, such as non-convex, nonlinear, multi-objective, and discontinuous functions, exist in real life. From the past two decades, heuristic and metaheuristic optimization techniques have played a significant role in managing and providing better performance solutions. The popularity of heuristic and metaheuristic optimization techniques has increased among researchers due to their numerous benefits and possibilities. Researchers are attempting to develop more accurate and efficient models by incorporating novel methods and hybridizing existing ones. This paper's main contribution is to show the state-of-the-art of heuristic and metaheuristic optimization techniques in water resource management. The research provides a comprehensive overview of the various techniques within the context of a thorough evaluation and discussion. As a result, for water resource management problems, this study introduces the most promising evolutionary and swarm intelligence techniques. Hybridization, modifications, and algorithm variants are reported to be the most successful for improving optimization techniques. This survey can be used to aid hydrologists and scientists in deciding the proper optimization techniques.

  • This paper reviews the different evolutionary algorithms and their applications.

  • This paper reviews the different swarm intelligence algorithms and their applications.

  • It identifies the importance and demerits of different heuristic and meta-heuristic algorithms.

  • It highlights some of the observations on the challenges and needs.

  • It highlights the state-of-the-art of water resources management and planning.

Scarcity of water sources and increasing demand as a result of population increase and effects of climate change have always been difficult and critical problems for many river planners and managers (Lun et al. 2021). In the last few decades, many projects have been implemented. However, it is difficult to construct more and more water resource projects owing to the high investments involved and the land acquisition problems (Kumar & Yadav 2019). In this regard, planning, design, development and operational activities of projects need a solution based on qualitative procedures (Mohammed et al. 2017). Optimization and effectively managing the existing projects is an alternative solution to overcome these problems. Optimization techniques have been applied in the planning, operation and management of water resources for decades (Kumar & Yadav 2020b).

Conventional optimization techniques include linear (LP), non-linear (NLP) and dynamic (DP) programming. Kantorovich (1960) introduced LP in 1939; the technique was developed during World War II to plan and reduce army expenses. It is one of the most popular and simplest optimization techniques. Later, it was implemented in other fields, including water resources. Despite the advantages, it has certain limitations too (Azizipour et al. 2016). It can be applied only when the objective functions, equations and constraints are linear. The technique is unable to deal with the uncertainty problem (Hossain & El-shafie 2013). NLP was developed to overcome the shortcomings of LP, and it is capable of solving non-linear problems. NLP has been successfully applied in hydropower, reservoir operation and other water resource contexts. However, the technique fails when the dimensionality of the problem increases; it gets stuck in the local optimal solution and is unable to achieve a global solution (Hossain & El-shafie 2013). DP was developed to solve stochastic and non-linear problems. The problem arises when multiple state variables are present. DP also has a few limitations, especially when the scale of the problem increases (Ahmadianfar et al. 2017). It requires more memory and suffers from an exponential increase in computational time. DP is also known as the curse of dimensionality (Kumar & Yadav 2020a). Therefore, these conventional optimization techniques do not guarantee global optimum performance and have led to the quest for new methods.

Heuristic and metaheuristic optimization techniques were developed in the late ‘70 s to overcome the drawbacks of LP, NLP and DP (Rao & Keesari 2018). A heuristic is a technique aimed to solve a problem faster when traditional techniques are too slow. A metaheuristic is a higher-level technique or heuristic that seeks, generates, or selects a heuristic that may provide a sufficiently good solution to an optimization problem (Attea et al. 2021). These newer techniques were developed to address problems such as nonlinearity, multi-objective, uncertainty and so on (Fayaed et al. 2013). Broadly, they are classified into population-based algorithms and neighbourhood-based algorithms. Population-based algorithms are evolutionary computation and swarm intelligence (Rao & Pawar 2020). These techniques are flexible and are capable of providing a global solution with more ease. The results depend on the initial population, which is randomly generated to obtain the global solution based on probabilistic theory. Evolutionary computations include genetic algorithm (GA), differential evolution (DE), genetic programming (GP), evolutionary programming (EP), and evolutionary strategies (ES) (Du & Swamy 2016). Swarm intelligence-based algorithms include ant colony optimization (ACO), harmony search (HS), particle swarm optimization (PSO), cuckoo search (CS), artificial bee colony (ABC), firefly algorithm (FA), bat algorithm (BA), honey bee mating optimization (HBMO), and shuffled frog leaping algorithm (SFLA). Neighbourhood-based algorithms include simulated annealing (SA) and tabu search (TS) (Kumar & Yadav 2021). Figure 1 shows the flow chart of different algorithms.

Figure 1

Flow chart of different algorithms.

Figure 1

Flow chart of different algorithms.

Close modal

Several heuristics and metaheuristic techniques have been applied to solve water resource problems successfully. For example, various algorithms have been used to solve reservoir operation problems such as GA (Khadr & Schlenkhoff 2021), PSO (Chen et al. 2020; Bozorg-Haddad et al. 2021), ABC (Moeini & Soghrati 2020), DE (Ahmadianfar et al. 2021), shark algorithm (SA) (Mohammed et al. 2017), and CS (Ming et al. 2015). To solve optimal cropping and water allocation problems GA (Dutta et al. 2016), nondominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II) (Lalehzari et al. 2016), DE (Adeyemo & Otieno 2010), and PSO (Davijani et al. 2016) have been used. For water distribution network problems, for instance, PSO (Torkomany et al. 2021) DE (Pant & Snasel 2021), ABC (Li & Feng 2020), ACO (Mehzad et al. 2020). Reservoir flood control operation and management problems, for example, evolutionary algorithm (Qi et al. 2017), DE (Jia et al. 2016), PSO (Jahandideh-Tehrani et al. 2020), immune algorithm (Luo et al. 2015) and NSGA-II (Lei et al. 2018). Groundwater system management can be implemented by GA (Fowe et al. 2015), surface water and groundwater using FA (Kazemzadeh-Parsi et al. 2015a), GA (Ayvaz & Elçi 2018), agricultural land allocation using ACO (Mi et al. 2015), evapotranspiration modelling using FA (Tao et al. 2018).

Most of the algorithms have their advantages and limitations. For example, GA is one of the oldest EAs that has been successfully applied in the water resources field. It can provide multiple solutions to a problem. However, it requires a proper tuning of algorithm-specific parameters such as mutation, crossover and reproduction. Besides, the computational time is high when it comes to simulation-optimization based links and it is time-consuming to fully understand the art (Zheng et al. 2017). GP is a simple, robust, flexible, and effective algorithm, which requires less computational time and provides accurate results. However, it necessitates internal parameters such as crossover and mutation probability (Rao & Pawar 2020). DE can handle non-differentiable, non-linear and multimodal functions. Nonetheless, careful selection of algorithm-specific parameters is needed – for instance, the scaling factor and crossover rate. When the system dimensions are increased, DE convergence ability and flexibility are affected. It could be observed that it may easily drop to the local optimal solution (Rao et al. 2011). ACO is robust enough to solve non-uniform, complex and non-linear problems, and it is capable of achieving quick convergence. Nevertheless, its computation gets affected when the problem is of the explicit or implicit stochastic type. Further, it needs tuning parameters such as relative pheromone trail, heuristic information, and evaporation (Chen et al. 2017b). PSO is simple to code, provides fast convergence, and involves low computational cost. But, tuning of parameters such as inertia weight, social, and cognitive parameters is required. If the parameters are set correctly, the algorithm can achieve a global solution (Rezaei et al. 2017). ABC is flexible, simple, robust, easy to implement and capable of performing a global search. However, it is quite slow in sequential processing and requires tuning parameters such as scout, onlooker and employed bees (Li & Feng 2020).

While HS has fewer mathematical necessities and does not need the initial value to set the decision variables, it requires many parameters, such as memory size and pitch adjustment. Moreover, the rate of choosing the memory and neighbouring values is important (Jung et al. 2018). FA is useful in finding both global and local solutions synchronically and effectively. FA is useful for parallel implementation as different fireflies can work independently. However, the tuning of randomization parameter, attractiveness and absorption coefficient is needed (Wang et al. 2018). CS uses Levy flights, a process that helps the search space to explore more effectively. CS provides an efficient and global convergence solution. Furthermore, it requires lesser tuning parameters, such as probability factor, and the results are not very sensitive to these parameters (Sheikholeslami et al. 2015). BA is flexible, simple, and easy to implement. It yields the best solution in less time, has fast convergence at the early state, and later the convergence rate decreases. The convergence is affected if the proper tuning of parameters such as wavelength and emission coefficient is not done (Gandomi et al. 2013). SFL is faster in searching the space. However, too many internal parameters need to be set, including the number of memeplexes, frogs in each memeplex and submemeplex, and the step size (Mora-Melia et al. 2016). The advantage of the HBMO algorithm is its robust, adaptive, simple, and scalable nature. The limitations include the necessity for tuning mating flights, size of the hive, number of accepted solutions and trial solutions, and constant parameters such as queen's energy and initial speed (Niknam et al. 2011). The tuning parameters are called algorithm-specific parameters, which need to be entered before running the algorithm. Their improper tuning affects the overall performance of the algorithm and may result in a local optimum solution. With practice, one can understand the way to tune these parameters to obtain a global optimum solution.

The main aim is to show the state-of-the-art of heuristic and metaheuristic optimization techniques in water resource management. The research provides a comprehensive overview of various evolutionary and swarm intelligence techniques such as GA, DE, GP, ACO, POS, ABC, HS, FA, CS, BA, and SFLA in water resource management. This survey can be used to aid hydrologists and scientists in deciding the proper optimization techniques.

The most powerful metaheuristics technique for optimization is the evolutionary algorithm (EA), which is a nature-inspired technique used for stochastic global optimization. The algorithm refers to a major approach in the field of optimization to build adaptive systems (Whitley et al. 1996). The technique is quite simple; yet, it can reach the near-optimum or global optimum (maximum or minimum) solution. EA is especially useful when a conventional calculus-based method is not able to solve or is difficult to implement. EA can be applied to complex problems in multi-reservoir, multi-objective, non-continuous, and non-differentiable contexts. The most popular EA is a genetic algorithm (GA). The steps involved in EA are population generation, fitness selection and choice of the basic operators, namely crossover, mutation and selection. A few of the best EAs are given as follows.

Genetic algorithm (GA)

GA is an EA based on the mechanism of genetics and is derived from the natural evolution and selection process. It is a metaheuristic technique developed by Holland (1975). GA is used in optimization and search problems. The algorithm comprises four basic units, namely gene, bit, chromosome and gene pool. First, the initial population is selected for participation in the reproduction process. The second one is the crossover, in which the two strings exchange building blocks to create new ones. The next one is a mutation, where the new strings to the population are added and the best fitness selection is done. The strings are repeated until an optimal solution is obtained. Figure 2 shows the pseudo-code of the genetic algorithm. The details of GA can be found in Savic & Walters (1997).

Figure 2

Pseudo-code of genetic algorithm.

Figure 2

Pseudo-code of genetic algorithm.

Close modal

GA was utilized in water resources in the early 1990s. Goldberg & Kuo (1987) employed GA to obtain an optimal pipeline system. Dandy et al. (1996) proposed an improved version of GA by using variable power scaling as the fitness function and creeping mutation for obtaining an optimal pipe network. Sharif & Wardlaw (2000) made use of the technique for multi-reservoir system operation. The results obtained by GA were quite close to the optimum solution. Deb et al. (2002) proposed a multi-objective (MO) EA called Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA II); it was tested with difficult test problems and the results were superior. Reddy & Kumar (2006) used a multi-objective genetic algorithm (MOGA) to operate the optimum Bhadra reservoir system and presented the efficiency and utility of the MOGAs in the development of multi-objective operating strategies in reservoirs. Kim et al. (2008) used NSGA II to operate the operating rules of a single reservoir. Results indicate that different inflow series would be handled by the developed operating rule. Nicklow et al. (2010) provided a state-of-the-art for GA in water resources planning and management. The paper covered pertinent work related to water distribution, fresh-water, sewer, hydrologic, and groundwater systems. Haghighi & Bakhshipour (2012) used an adaptive GA for the optimal design of sewer networks. The result revealed that the model is effective in terms of reliability and time. Tabari & Soltani (2013) used NSGA II to address the multi-objective model of reservoir operation and compared the outcomes with sequential genetic algorithms (SGA). NSGA II has been discovered to decrease the calculation burden significantly compared to SGA. Deb & Jain (2014) developed modified-GA, a multi-objective optimization algorithm known as NSGA III. NSGA III has an advantage over Pareto-front and convergence optimal solution. Although NSGA III is good, there is scope for development. Kalteh (2015) studied wavelet-based GA-support vector regression (SVR) for forecasting the monthly flow. The results were more promising than those obtained with normal GA-SVR. Zheng et al. (2017) proposed NSGA II with improved search behaviour using five crossover operators to obtain improved results in the water distribution system. The findings ascertain that simplex and simulated binary crossovers have an enhanced ability to find Pareto-front solutions. Chen et al. (2017a) improved the NSGA III for enabling reservoir flood control operation. The observations were compared with NSGA II and original NSGA III and superior performance was witnessed. Table 1 provides the summary of the application of GA to water resource planning and management.

Table 1

Application of the Genetic Algorithm (GA) to water resource planning and management

Case study referenceAlgorithmApplicationsCatchment/study areaContribution
Goldberg & Kuo (1987)  GA Application of GA for pipeline optimization. Benchmark problem The results showed that the algorithm doesn't depend on the search space's underlying continuity and requires no information except the payoff values. 
Dandy et al. (1996)  Improved GA Application of GA for pipeline network optimization. New York City water supply problem The findings showed that improved GA solutions are less cost-effective than the standard GA. 
Sharif & Wardlaw (2000)  GA Application of GA for the multi-reservoir system. Brantas basin, East Java, Indonesia The results of this research have proved GA's effectiveness in optimizing the multi-reservoir system, but the probability of the optimal results being reduced when the chromosomes are very long. 
Deb et al. (2002)  NSGA-II Developed NSGA-II to help improve computational complexity. Difficult test problems The proposed NSGA-II is capable of finding a much wider range of solutions and better convergence. 
Reddy & Kumar (2006)  MOGA MOGA is used to generate a set of optimal operation policies. Bhadra reservoir system, in India This research shows how MOGA can be used to solve a real-life multi-objective reservoir operator with a variety of alternative policies. 
Kim et al. (2008)  NSGA-II Reservoir operation using NSGA-II Soyanggang dam basin, North Han River The results show that the operating rule developed can handle a variety of inflow series. 
Haghighi & Bakhshipour (2012)  Adaptive GA Proposed to design sewer network design Benchmark sewer network The adaptive constraint handling method is shown to be more effective in terms of speed and reliability computation time. 
Tabari & Soltani (2013)  NSGA-II To address the multi-objective model of reservoir operation Karaj reservoir The results of single-objective and multi-objective model operation show that using the NSGA-II model to assess optimum quantities reduces the time it takes to get to the optimal quantity of decision variables and the exchange curve between objectives. 
Deb & Jain (2014)  NSGA-III Developed NSGA-III to handle many-objective optimization problem Test problems This research shows that NSGA III has an advantage over Pareto-front and convergence optimal solutions. 
Zheng et al. (2017)  Improved NSGA-II Applied to different water distribution system design problems Test problems Offers guidance for selecting appropriate operators for real-life water resources problems. 
Chen et al. (2017aImproved NSGA-III Application of improved NSGA-III for the reservoir flood control operation Three Gorges reservoir The results of the simulation indicate that this method can produce optimal Pareto solutions that are well distributed. 
Case study referenceAlgorithmApplicationsCatchment/study areaContribution
Goldberg & Kuo (1987)  GA Application of GA for pipeline optimization. Benchmark problem The results showed that the algorithm doesn't depend on the search space's underlying continuity and requires no information except the payoff values. 
Dandy et al. (1996)  Improved GA Application of GA for pipeline network optimization. New York City water supply problem The findings showed that improved GA solutions are less cost-effective than the standard GA. 
Sharif & Wardlaw (2000)  GA Application of GA for the multi-reservoir system. Brantas basin, East Java, Indonesia The results of this research have proved GA's effectiveness in optimizing the multi-reservoir system, but the probability of the optimal results being reduced when the chromosomes are very long. 
Deb et al. (2002)  NSGA-II Developed NSGA-II to help improve computational complexity. Difficult test problems The proposed NSGA-II is capable of finding a much wider range of solutions and better convergence. 
Reddy & Kumar (2006)  MOGA MOGA is used to generate a set of optimal operation policies. Bhadra reservoir system, in India This research shows how MOGA can be used to solve a real-life multi-objective reservoir operator with a variety of alternative policies. 
Kim et al. (2008)  NSGA-II Reservoir operation using NSGA-II Soyanggang dam basin, North Han River The results show that the operating rule developed can handle a variety of inflow series. 
Haghighi & Bakhshipour (2012)  Adaptive GA Proposed to design sewer network design Benchmark sewer network The adaptive constraint handling method is shown to be more effective in terms of speed and reliability computation time. 
Tabari & Soltani (2013)  NSGA-II To address the multi-objective model of reservoir operation Karaj reservoir The results of single-objective and multi-objective model operation show that using the NSGA-II model to assess optimum quantities reduces the time it takes to get to the optimal quantity of decision variables and the exchange curve between objectives. 
Deb & Jain (2014)  NSGA-III Developed NSGA-III to handle many-objective optimization problem Test problems This research shows that NSGA III has an advantage over Pareto-front and convergence optimal solutions. 
Zheng et al. (2017)  Improved NSGA-II Applied to different water distribution system design problems Test problems Offers guidance for selecting appropriate operators for real-life water resources problems. 
Chen et al. (2017aImproved NSGA-III Application of improved NSGA-III for the reservoir flood control operation Three Gorges reservoir The results of the simulation indicate that this method can produce optimal Pareto solutions that are well distributed. 

Genetic programming (GP)

Fogel et al. (1966) initiated the concept of GP. Later, Koza (1990) extended the work and developed GP. In brief, GP is modified from GA (Harris et al. 2003). Meta-genetic programming is a method developed by the genetic programming system. The initial population is randomly generated, and a termination criterion is assigned for the problem. GP uses specified inputs and various operators (+, −, *, /). Each population is assigned a fitness evaluator to help in solving the problem. The new generation is derived based on the operators and the fitness (selection). The reproduction process consists of crossover and mutation. The algorithm is repeated until an optimal solution is reached. The details about the algorithm can be found in Koza (1992). The application of GP in water resource problems started in the early 2000s. Savic et al. (1999) were the first researchers to apply the GP in water resources to develop the weights' matrix for the ANN to study the rainfall-runoff. Guven & Kisi (2013) used linear GP (LGP) for the modelling of monthly pan evaporation and compared the results with fuzzy genetics, ANN, adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference systems. The results suggested that LGP outperformed the other techniques. Akbari-Alashti et al. (2015) applied fixed-length gene GP (FLGGP) in hydropower reservoir operation. The results were compared with GA and NLP, and FLGGP was discerned to be more effective and powerful. Fallah-Mehdipour et al. (2016) applied GP to solve flow routing in simple and compound channels. The results were compared with the Muskingum model and 1-D coupled characteristic dissipative Galerkin. It was inferred that the GP model is effective in prediction and decreases the computational burden. Cobaner et al. (2016) studied groundwater levels using GP. Five different models of artificial intelligence were used, namely radial basis neural network, multi-layer perceptron, multi-gene GP, multilinear and nonlinear regression models. The multi-gene GP model provided more accurate predictions than the other methods. Heřmanovský et al. (2017) studied GP to analyze the runoff models for 176 catchment areas. The results of GP were compared with three conceptual models, and it was found that GP was satisfactory and can be used in runoff modelling. Ravansalar et al. (2017) used a new approach known as hybrid wavelet linear GP for the prediction of monthly streamflow. The results were compared with linear GP, hybrid wavelet-ANN and multilinear regression models. The data indicated that the hybrid wavelet linear GP could help in streamflow prediction. Table 2 provides the summary of the application of GP to water resource planning and management.

Table 2

Application of the genetic programming (GP) to water resource planning and management

Case study referenceAlgorithmApplicationsCatchment/study areaContribution
Savic et al. (1999)  GP Applied GP over rainfall-runoff modelling Kirkton catchment The number of GP parameters (population size, crossover and probability of mutation) is much smaller and doesn't have to change for a runoff problem. 
Guven & Kisi (2013)  LGP Applied LGP for monthly pan evaporation modelling Mediterranean region The findings showed that the LGP method can successfully model monthly pan evaporations. 
Akbari-Alashti et al. (2015)  FLGGP Application of FLGGP in hydropower reservoir operation Karun 3 reservoir The findings have shown that FLGGP is a powerful, efficient tool and can be used as an appropriate replacement for GP. 
Fallah-Mehdipour et al. (2016)  GP Application of GP to flow routing Silakhor River case study and Treske channel case study The results showed that in simple and compound channels differences are similar between GP predicted hydrographs and Muskingum modular hydrographs and CCDG-1D methods. 
Cobaner et al. (2016)  GP Application of GP for the estimation of groundwater level with surface observation Upper Estonia Creek Basin in North Central Florida GP produced more accurate predictions. 
Heřmanovský et al. (2017)  GP Application of GP for runoff modelling Model parameter estimation experiment project The study indicated that the GP is flexible and easy to use and provides a quick and easy way to solve runoff modelling. 
Ravansalar et al. (2017)  Wavelet linear GP Application of wavelet linear GP for the modelling of monthly streamflow Beshar River, Iran The model could be used to simulate the cumulative streamflow data forecast. 
Case study referenceAlgorithmApplicationsCatchment/study areaContribution
Savic et al. (1999)  GP Applied GP over rainfall-runoff modelling Kirkton catchment The number of GP parameters (population size, crossover and probability of mutation) is much smaller and doesn't have to change for a runoff problem. 
Guven & Kisi (2013)  LGP Applied LGP for monthly pan evaporation modelling Mediterranean region The findings showed that the LGP method can successfully model monthly pan evaporations. 
Akbari-Alashti et al. (2015)  FLGGP Application of FLGGP in hydropower reservoir operation Karun 3 reservoir The findings have shown that FLGGP is a powerful, efficient tool and can be used as an appropriate replacement for GP. 
Fallah-Mehdipour et al. (2016)  GP Application of GP to flow routing Silakhor River case study and Treske channel case study The results showed that in simple and compound channels differences are similar between GP predicted hydrographs and Muskingum modular hydrographs and CCDG-1D methods. 
Cobaner et al. (2016)  GP Application of GP for the estimation of groundwater level with surface observation Upper Estonia Creek Basin in North Central Florida GP produced more accurate predictions. 
Heřmanovský et al. (2017)  GP Application of GP for runoff modelling Model parameter estimation experiment project The study indicated that the GP is flexible and easy to use and provides a quick and easy way to solve runoff modelling. 
Ravansalar et al. (2017)  Wavelet linear GP Application of wavelet linear GP for the modelling of monthly streamflow Beshar River, Iran The model could be used to simulate the cumulative streamflow data forecast. 

Differential evolution (DE)

DE is a heuristic optimization technique. Storn & Price (1996) introduced DE as an effective method for optimizing multi-model objective problems. It has only a few controlling points; it is easy to use, robust and can solve complex engineering problems. The first step in DE is to generate a random vector for the population. After initialization, a mutation process is carried out for each vector. Once the mutation phase is over, a crossover operation is applied to increase the diversity. The last one is the selection operation; if the termination criteria are satisfied, the algorithm provides an optimum solution, else it gets repeated. Storn & Price (1997) presented DE and tested it with the minimizing continuous space problem. The results were compared with adaptive simulated annealing (ASA), GA, annealed Nelder and Mead approach (ANM) (Press et al. 1993) and, stochastic differential equations (SDE). DE outperformed all the techniques. Figure 3 shows the pseudo-code of differential evolution. The details of DE can be referred from Storn & Price (1997).

Figure 3

Pseudo-code of differential evolution.

Figure 3

Pseudo-code of differential evolution.

Close modal

Application of DE in water resource engineering was first attempted by Reddy & Kumar (2007b), which used multi-objective (MO) DE in reservoir operation, compared the results with NSGA II, and they found that MODE exhibited superior performance. Vasan & Simonovic (2010) used DE for the optimization of water distribution network design. The result proved that DE can be an alternative tool for the planning and management of water distribution networks as it is economical and reliable. Regulwar et al. (2010) used DE for the optimal operation of a multipurpose reservoir in hydropower generation. The results were compared with GA, and DE was concluded to be a suitable alternative method for achieving an optimal operation. Zheng et al. (2012) compared the use of DE, dither DE, GA and creep mutation GA in water distribution system optimization. The result established that variants of DE significantly outperformed GA. Raju et al. (2012) applied MODE to irrigation planning problems. It was concluded that selecting a suitable parameter is required for the proper implementation of the algorithm.

Nwankwor et al. (2013) proposed hybrid DE and PSO to identify the optimal hydrocarbon reservoir well. The result showed that the hybrid algorithm outperformed the ordinary DE and PSO, apart from being capable of solving other reservoir problems. Gurarslan & Karahan (2015) used DE to identify the sources of groundwater pollution. The results obtained from DE were better than those derived from other models in the literature. Moosavian & Lence (2017) applied a non-dominated sorting differential evolution algorithm (NSDE) and ranking-based mutation (NSDE-RMO) to solve a problem in a looped water distribution system. The results were compared with NSGA-II, and it was found that both NSDE and NSDE-RMO were similar and better than NSGA-II in their performance. Ahmadianfar et al. (2017) introduced an enhanced DE to frame optimal hydropower policies. The applicability of the algorithm applicability was checked using different benchmark problems. The results were effective and robust. Table 3 provides the summary of the application of DE to water resource planning and management.

Table 3

Application of the differential evolution (DE) to water resource planning and management

Case study referenceAlgorithmApplicationsCatchment/study areaContribution
Reddy & Kumar (2007b)  MODE MODE applied to multi-objective reservoir operation Hirakud Reservoir project in Orissa state, India The MODE performance for the reservoir system optimization problem is found to be better than NSGA-II. 
Vasan & Simonovic (2010)  DE Application of DE to optimize the water distribution network New York Water Supply System & Hanoi Water Distribution Network It has been found that the DE model can be combined with the EPANET simulation model. The test results indicated that the technique was robust and simple and could be an alternative method for the water distribution network. 
Regulwar et al. (2010)  DE Application of DE for the reservoir operation Jayakwadi project, Godavari River The analysis indicates that DE can effectively be applied to the multi-objective reservoir operation problems. 
Zheng et al. (2012)  DE Application of DE for the water distribution network Benchmark problem DE is suited better to optimize the water distribution network compared to GA 
Raju et al. (2012)  DE Used DE for irrigation planning Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project, Rajasthan, India. The result demonstrated proper parameter selection is important for effective implementation for real-world problems. 
Nwankwor et al. (2013)  Hybrid DE & PSO Application of Hybrid DE & PSO for optimal good placement Test problems The results indicated that the hybridized algorithm could be potential for reservoir operational problems. 
Gurarslan & Karahan (2015)  DE Application of DE for the ground water pollution source identification Test problems The results obtained by the developed model were better than the literature. 
Moosavian & Lence (2017)  NSDE Application of NSDE for the water distribution system Benchmark problems The optimal Pareto front of the NSDE algorithms dominated all other algorithms, showing optimal Pareto solutions more, distributed and converged earlier. 
Ahmadianfar et al. (2017)  Enhanced DE Application of enhanced DE for reservoir operation problems Benchmark problems The outcome showed the highest performance. 
Case study referenceAlgorithmApplicationsCatchment/study areaContribution
Reddy & Kumar (2007b)  MODE MODE applied to multi-objective reservoir operation Hirakud Reservoir project in Orissa state, India The MODE performance for the reservoir system optimization problem is found to be better than NSGA-II. 
Vasan & Simonovic (2010)  DE Application of DE to optimize the water distribution network New York Water Supply System & Hanoi Water Distribution Network It has been found that the DE model can be combined with the EPANET simulation model. The test results indicated that the technique was robust and simple and could be an alternative method for the water distribution network. 
Regulwar et al. (2010)  DE Application of DE for the reservoir operation Jayakwadi project, Godavari River The analysis indicates that DE can effectively be applied to the multi-objective reservoir operation problems. 
Zheng et al. (2012)  DE Application of DE for the water distribution network Benchmark problem DE is suited better to optimize the water distribution network compared to GA 
Raju et al. (2012)  DE Used DE for irrigation planning Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project, Rajasthan, India. The result demonstrated proper parameter selection is important for effective implementation for real-world problems. 
Nwankwor et al. (2013)  Hybrid DE & PSO Application of Hybrid DE & PSO for optimal good placement Test problems The results indicated that the hybridized algorithm could be potential for reservoir operational problems. 
Gurarslan & Karahan (2015)  DE Application of DE for the ground water pollution source identification Test problems The results obtained by the developed model were better than the literature. 
Moosavian & Lence (2017)  NSDE Application of NSDE for the water distribution system Benchmark problems The optimal Pareto front of the NSDE algorithms dominated all other algorithms, showing optimal Pareto solutions more, distributed and converged earlier. 
Ahmadianfar et al. (2017)  Enhanced DE Application of enhanced DE for reservoir operation problems Benchmark problems The outcome showed the highest performance. 

Swarm Intelligence (SI) was introduced by (Wang & Beni 1989) for simple cellular robotic systems. SI is an intelligent multi-agent system that simulates the behaviour of social insects such as ants, bees, termites and cockroaches and also swarms such as a flock of birds, a school of fishes, and a herd of quadrupeds. Unlike EAs where the populations are competitive among themselves, the performance of SI is optimized by adapting to the environment. A few of the best SIs are given as follows.

Ant colony optimization (ACO)

The behaviours of ants were documented in the early 1970s. Later Dorigo et al. (1991) developed the behaviour into an optimization technique. Thereafter, Dorigo has published many reports on ant colony optimization such as (Dorigo & Di Caro 1999). ACO is a metaheuristic technique and applies to a wide range of problems. It works on the principle of identifying the shortest route between the food sources and the colonies. Figure 4 shows the pseudo-code of ant colony optimization. The details about ACO can be referred from (Maniezzo 1996; Maier et al. 2003). The application of ACO to water resources began in the early 2000s. Abbaspour et al. (2001) estimated the hydraulic parameters of an unsaturated soil using ACO and obtained promising results in eight different applications. Later, many researchers have applied ACO for several water resource problems. Maier et al. (2003) studied ACO for designing water distribution systems. The main purpose of the study was to come up with an alternative to GA for tackling the problem. The results established that ACO outperformed GA in terms of its efficiency and ability to find the global optimal solution. Kumar & Reddy (2006) studied multi-purpose reservoir operation using ACO. The results were compared with GA, and it was found that ACO was superior. López-Ibáñez et al. (2008) studied water distribution networks for the optimal control of pumps using ACO. It was found that ACO yielded better results than GA for small as well as large water network problems.

Figure 4

Pseudo-code of ant colony optimization.

Figure 4

Pseudo-code of ant colony optimization.

Close modal

Hou et al. (2014) presented Pareto ACO for the optimal allocation of water resources in Henan Province, China. Commendable results were obtained from the Pareto ACO than ordinary ACO, MOGA. Afshar et al. (2015) presented the application of ACO in water resources and environmental management problems for both continuous and discrete domains. The paper presented the major advantages, disadvantages and opportunities related to different water resource problems. Tu et al. (2015) studied small-scale irrigation systems by using ACO. The results were compared with GA and it was found that ACO possessed greater reliability and efficiency. Nguyen et al. (2016) developed an improved version of ACO to derive optimal solutions to water and crop allocation problems and secured better results than with other ACO variants. Table 4 provides the summary of the application of ACO to water resource planning and management.

Table 4

Application of the ant colony optimization (ACO) to water resource planning and management

Case study referenceAlgorithmApplicationsCatchment/study areaContribution
Maier et al. (2003)  ACO Application of ACO for the design of systems for water distribution Test problems The finding showed that the ACO is better able to find global solutions in the terms of computational efficiency and capability. 
Kumar & Reddy (2006)  ACO Application of ACO for reservoir operation Hirakud reservoir ACO has performed better for annual power generation while satisfying irrigation requirements. 
López-Ibáñez et al. (2008)  ACO Application of ACO for water distribution network Test problems The overhead computational effort of the ACO algorithm operation is very small. 
Hou et al. (2014)  Pareto ACO Application of Pareto ACO for the allocation of water resources Henan Province, China The algorithm is appropriate for optimizing the complex spatial distribution of water resources at a large scale. 
Tu et al. (2015)  ACO Use of ACO to develop small-scale irrigation systems Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, China The ACO developed could be a useful tool for optimizing irrigation systems. 
Nguyen et al. (2016)  Improved ACO Developed improved ACO for crop and irrigation water allocation Loxton, South Australia The improved ACO makes it possible to reduce the size of the search space and to investigate better regions of the search area. 
Case study referenceAlgorithmApplicationsCatchment/study areaContribution
Maier et al. (2003)  ACO Application of ACO for the design of systems for water distribution Test problems The finding showed that the ACO is better able to find global solutions in the terms of computational efficiency and capability. 
Kumar & Reddy (2006)  ACO Application of ACO for reservoir operation Hirakud reservoir ACO has performed better for annual power generation while satisfying irrigation requirements. 
López-Ibáñez et al. (2008)  ACO Application of ACO for water distribution network Test problems The overhead computational effort of the ACO algorithm operation is very small. 
Hou et al. (2014)  Pareto ACO Application of Pareto ACO for the allocation of water resources Henan Province, China The algorithm is appropriate for optimizing the complex spatial distribution of water resources at a large scale. 
Tu et al. (2015)  ACO Use of ACO to develop small-scale irrigation systems Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, China The ACO developed could be a useful tool for optimizing irrigation systems. 
Nguyen et al. (2016)  Improved ACO Developed improved ACO for crop and irrigation water allocation Loxton, South Australia The improved ACO makes it possible to reduce the size of the search space and to investigate better regions of the search area. 

Particle swarm optimization (PSO)

PSO is a swarm intelligence based optimization technique proposed by Eberhart & Kennedy (1995), which depends on natural grouping and resembles bird flocking. It is a population-based algorithm and provides the optimal solution according to individual and social behaviour (Baltar & Fontane 2008). The initialization is similar to GA, and the population is generated using random solutions; however, the difference is that each potential solution is assigned with a randomly generated velocity. The potential solutions are called particles, which flow in the hyperspace for the best solution, and each particle maintains its track in the search space. The best solution progresses to better positions and helps other swarm particles to update their velocity and position towards the best solution. Once the termination criteria are satisfied, the optimal solution is reached. Figure 5 shows the pseudo-code of particle swarm optimization. The details about the algorithm can be obtained from Eberhart & Kennedy (1995).

Figure 5

Pseudo-code of particle swarm optimization.

Figure 5

Pseudo-code of particle swarm optimization.

Close modal

Application of PSO in water resources was attempted in the mid-2000s and various water resource problems were solved using this technique, such as the design of water distribution networks (Suribabu & Neelakantan 2006), stage predictions (Chau 2007), water resources management and planning (Zarghami & Hajykazemian 2013), groundwater management (Gaur et al. 2011), irrigation water allocation and planning (Morankar et al. 2016), rainfall-runoff (Taormina & Chau 2015) and reservoir operation (Kumar & Yadav 2021).

Reddy & Kumar (2007a) proposed an elitist mutation (EM) EMPSO optimal solution for reservoir operation, which was discerned to be efficient and served as an alternative method to arrive at the optimal solution. Ostadrahimi et al. (2012) presented an optimal rule cure for the operation of a multi-reservoir system using a multi-swarm version of PSO merged with the well-known HEC-ResPRM model. The result indicated that multi-swarm PSO outperformed the implicit stochastic optimization method. Afshar (2012) proposed two different models, namely partial and fully constrained PSO to solve two different problems in water supply and hydropower operation. The results were compared with GA and PSO. The models were found superior to GA and PSO. Noory et al. (2012) compared LP and continuous PSO for optimizing water allocation and solving multi-crop planning problems. Moreover, a mixed-integer linear (MIL) model and discrete (D) PSO were developed. DPSO algorithm revealed that it was a more feasible tool for solving water allocation and multi-crop planning problems.

Zarghami & Hajykazemian (2013) developed a modified PSO by coupling the mutation process. The results of the model were better when compared with those derived from other models for urban water reservoir planning. Sudheer et al. (2013) predicted streamflow using hybrid model support vector machine–quantum behaved PSO (SVM-QPSO). PSO was used to minimize the normalized mean square error. Later, the model was compared with other forecasting models. The result from SVM-QPSO was more acceptable in terms of monthly streamflow prediction. Rezaei et al. (2017) tried to improve surface and groundwater management using a hybrid algorithm, namely fuzzy MOPSO, and the latter outperformed MOPSO. Bai et al. (2017) optimized cascade reservoir operation by fusing the feasible search space (FSS) with PSO and compared the results with classical and chaos PSO. The results indicated that the proposed algorithm was more effective and easier to implement. Table 5 provides the summary of the application of PSO to water resource planning and management.

Table 5

Application of the particle swarm optimization (PSO) to water resource planning and management

Case study referenceAlgorithmApplicationsCatchment/study areaContribution
Reddy & Kumar (2007a)  EMPSO Application of EMPSO for the optimal reservoir operation Malaprabha Reservoir system Krishna Basin The proposed model can be used efficiently to make optimal use of the water resources available in a multi-crop irrigation reservoir. 
Ostadrahimi et al. (2012)  Multi-swarm PSO Application of reservoir operation using multi-swarm PSO Columbia River Basin The result indicated that multi-swarm PSO outperformed the implicit stochastic optimization method. 
Afshar (2012)  Adapted versions PSO Adapted versions PSO is used for the reservoir operation Dez reservoir in Iran The algorithm proposed is insensitive to the swarming dimension and the initial swarm, and can be extended further to multi-reservoir systems. 
Noory et al. (2012)  Discrete PSO Use of discrete PSO for water allocation and crop planning Case Study Central Iran The results show that the algorithm is promising for a real-world irrigation system and could be used for multiple purposes. 
Zarghami & Hajykazemian (2013)  Modified PSO Used for urban water management Tabriz, Iran The results were improved and suggested to solve the problem of multi-objective and non-linear urban water problems. 
Ch et al. (2013)  SVM-QPSO SVM-QPSO application for streamflow prediction Krishna and Godavari Rivers The results showed that the SVM-QPSO offers a high degree of precision and reliability and can be used for the analysis of time series. 
Rezaei et al. (2017)  Fuzzy MOPSO Used for the management of conjunctive water Najafabad Plain in Iran The algorithm proposed is in a position to find the single optimal solution on the Pareto front to facilitate decisions to address major optimization problems. 
Bai et al. (2017)  FSS-PSO PSO application for multi-objective optimization of the cascade reservoir Yellow River basin The results indicate that the FSS-PSO is a promising tool for managing water resources problems. 
Case study referenceAlgorithmApplicationsCatchment/study areaContribution
Reddy & Kumar (2007a)  EMPSO Application of EMPSO for the optimal reservoir operation Malaprabha Reservoir system Krishna Basin The proposed model can be used efficiently to make optimal use of the water resources available in a multi-crop irrigation reservoir. 
Ostadrahimi et al. (2012)  Multi-swarm PSO Application of reservoir operation using multi-swarm PSO Columbia River Basin The result indicated that multi-swarm PSO outperformed the implicit stochastic optimization method. 
Afshar (2012)  Adapted versions PSO Adapted versions PSO is used for the reservoir operation Dez reservoir in Iran The algorithm proposed is insensitive to the swarming dimension and the initial swarm, and can be extended further to multi-reservoir systems. 
Noory et al. (2012)  Discrete PSO Use of discrete PSO for water allocation and crop planning Case Study Central Iran The results show that the algorithm is promising for a real-world irrigation system and could be used for multiple purposes. 
Zarghami & Hajykazemian (2013)  Modified PSO Used for urban water management Tabriz, Iran The results were improved and suggested to solve the problem of multi-objective and non-linear urban water problems. 
Ch et al. (2013)  SVM-QPSO SVM-QPSO application for streamflow prediction Krishna and Godavari Rivers The results showed that the SVM-QPSO offers a high degree of precision and reliability and can be used for the analysis of time series. 
Rezaei et al. (2017)  Fuzzy MOPSO Used for the management of conjunctive water Najafabad Plain in Iran The algorithm proposed is in a position to find the single optimal solution on the Pareto front to facilitate decisions to address major optimization problems. 
Bai et al. (2017)  FSS-PSO PSO application for multi-objective optimization of the cascade reservoir Yellow River basin The results indicate that the FSS-PSO is a promising tool for managing water resources problems. 

Bee metaheuristics

Bees are insects that produce honey and wax. There are approximately 20,000 species of bees. Some of the common types are honey bees, bumblebees, and sweat bees. Each bee executes only a specific task in the hive. The entire colony performs the complex tasks of building the hives, searching for food and harvesting (Karaboga & Basturk 2007b). The colony survives based on the two principles of foraging and mating.

Bee foraging: Two groups of bees in the colony are involved in the harvesting of food; the first is the employed foragers and the second is the unemployed foragers. The latter includes both the onlookers and the scouts. Employed bees exploit a food source and after returning to the hive, share the information with a certain probability. Onlookers search for a better food source based on the information shared by the employed bee and make a choice. The scout bee randomly searches for new food sources (Du & Swamy 2016).

Bee mating: A bee colony consists of the queen, workers (female workers) and drones (male bees). Queen is only capable of laying the eggs (Haddad et al. 2006). Inspired by the behaviour of bees, several optimization techniques have been developed, such as bee colony optimization (Teodorovic & Dell’ Orco 2005), honey bee mating optimization (Haddad et al. 2006), bee algorithm (Pham et al. 2007), and artificial bee colony (Karaboga & Basturk 2007a).

Artificial Bee colony (ABC)

ABC is a swarm-based optimization technique proposed by Karaboga in 2005 (Karaboga 2005). Karaboga & Basturk (2007a) employed an extended version of ABC for solving constrained optimization problems. ABC works on the same principle as the behaviour of the bee and utilizes the food sources as the solution. The algorithm simulates the foraging process of the bees. The colony contains the onlooker, employed and scout bees. The food source is a symbol of a possible solution to the problem. The quality of a food source represents the fitness of the solution. Figure 6 shows the pseudo-code of an artificial bee colony. The details of the algorithm can be found in Karaboga & Basturk (2007a). Application of ABC in water resources was attempted in the late 2010s. Liao et al. (2012) introduced an adaptive artificial bee colony (AABC) and implemented the algorithm for the hydropower reservoir system of the Three Gorges river of China. AABC performed better than a discrete differential dynamic program (DDDP) and PSO. Hossain & El-shafie (2014) applied ABC to optimize the reservoir release policy and it was found ABC performed better than GA. Ahmad et al. (2016) used ABC and gravitational search algorithm (GSA) to optimize the reservoir operation. The results showed the ABC's superiority to GSA in the quicker rates of convergence, stability, greater efficiency and reduced vulnerability, while the GSA's resilience measurement was much better. Choong et al. (2017) used an ABC algorithm for the optimization of multiple hydropower reservoirs operation. The tests showed that the weekly ABC optimization was superior to reliability and vulnerability, leading to a better release policy for optimal operation. Huo et al. (2018) proposed a parallel multi-core (MPABC algorithm and utilized it to optimize the solution for four benchmark problems in the Heihe River Basin. Table 6(a) provides the summary of the application of ABC to water resource planning and management.

Table 6

Application of the (a) artificial Bee colony (ABC) and (b) honey Bee mating optimization (HBMO) to water resource planning and management

Case study referenceAlgorithmApplicationsCatchment/study areaContribution
a) Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) 
Liao et al. (2012)  AABC Application of AABC to the hydropower system Three Gorges River of China AABC was performing better than a DDDP and PSO program. 
Hossain & El-shafie (2014)  ABC Application of ABC for the optimizing release policy of Aswan High Dam Aswan High Dam of Egypt The algorithm was able to achieve a total time period of 98 per cent of the release policy demands. 
Ahmad et al. (2016)  ABC Application for optimization of the reservoir operation Imah Tasoh Dam Results indicated quicker rates of convergence, stability, greater efficiency and reduced vulnerability for ABC 
Choong et al. (2017)  ABC Optimization of the reservoir operation Chenderoh reservoir operation Optimization for ABC was superior and a better release policy. 
Huo et al. (2018)  MPABC Application of MPABC for the hydrological models Heihe River Basin The MPABC algorithm is an effective and feasible way to solve the problem of hydrological models. 
b) Honey Bee Mating Optimization (HBMO) 
Haddad et al. (2006)  HBMO Proposed HBMO for the reservoir operation Dez reservoir in southern Iran The model performance is promising in a real-world reservoir operating problem. 
Sabbaghpour et al. (2012)  HBMO Application for the water distribution network Langarud city The HBMO results are promising. 
Haddad et al. (2008)  HBMO To obtain optimal rules of the reservoir Dez reservoir in southern Iran The proposal and rules are very promising and show that the HBMO algorithm proposed can solve the reservoir operation problem. 
Case study referenceAlgorithmApplicationsCatchment/study areaContribution
a) Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) 
Liao et al. (2012)  AABC Application of AABC to the hydropower system Three Gorges River of China AABC was performing better than a DDDP and PSO program. 
Hossain & El-shafie (2014)  ABC Application of ABC for the optimizing release policy of Aswan High Dam Aswan High Dam of Egypt The algorithm was able to achieve a total time period of 98 per cent of the release policy demands. 
Ahmad et al. (2016)  ABC Application for optimization of the reservoir operation Imah Tasoh Dam Results indicated quicker rates of convergence, stability, greater efficiency and reduced vulnerability for ABC 
Choong et al. (2017)  ABC Optimization of the reservoir operation Chenderoh reservoir operation Optimization for ABC was superior and a better release policy. 
Huo et al. (2018)  MPABC Application of MPABC for the hydrological models Heihe River Basin The MPABC algorithm is an effective and feasible way to solve the problem of hydrological models. 
b) Honey Bee Mating Optimization (HBMO) 
Haddad et al. (2006)  HBMO Proposed HBMO for the reservoir operation Dez reservoir in southern Iran The model performance is promising in a real-world reservoir operating problem. 
Sabbaghpour et al. (2012)  HBMO Application for the water distribution network Langarud city The HBMO results are promising. 
Haddad et al. (2008)  HBMO To obtain optimal rules of the reservoir Dez reservoir in southern Iran The proposal and rules are very promising and show that the HBMO algorithm proposed can solve the reservoir operation problem. 
Figure 6

Pseudo-code of an artificial bee colony.

Figure 6

Pseudo-code of an artificial bee colony.

Close modal

Honey Bee mating optimization (HBMO)

Abbass (2001) proposed the mating process of the honey bees as an optimization approach and Haddad et al. (2006) presented HBMO inspired by the bee mating process. Honeybee colonies mostly start in two ways: The first one is a ‘solitary colony’; that is, a colony begins with one or more queens without family (Du & Swamy 2016). The second method is ‘swarming’, in which one or more queens form a new colony encompassing the workers of the original colony. The working process and details of the algorithm can be found in Afshar et al. (2007). Numerous researchers have successfully studied and applied HBMO in various water resource problems such as reservoir operation (Haddad et al. 2006) the water distribution system (Sabbaghpour et al. 2012), and optimal operation rules for the reservoir (Haddad et al. 2008). Table 6(b) provides the summary of the application of HBMO to water resource planning and management.

Other Bee algorithms

Other methods derived from bee metaheuristics are available. Bee colony optimization (BCO) proposed by Teodorovic & Dell’ Orco (2005) is a metaheuristic technique inspired by the foraging behaviour of bees. BCO is good at exploration but weak at exploitation. To overcome this drawback, Moayedikia et al. (2015) proposed weighted bee colony optimization (wBCO) to improve the exploitation aspects. The bee algorithm proposed by Pham et al. (2007) mimics the foraging nature of the bees. Here, the bees search for food in the neighbourhood using random search. Bee swarm optimization (BSO) proposed by Akbari et al. (2010) is also similar to BA; however, the difference is that the bees can adjust their flying trajectory.

A harmony search (HS)

Geem et al. (2001) developed an HS algorithm to solve water distribution network problems. It is a heuristic optimization technique that tries to mimic the musical process related to searching for a better polish tone. It works on the principle of a musician trying to identify a state of pleasing harmony and continuing to play the pitches to seek better harmony (Lee & Geem 2004). The algorithm is fit to solve both discrete and continuous problems. The HS has three compulsory control parameters and two optional ones (Du & Swamy 2016). Figure 7 shows the pseudo-code of harmony search. The details of the algorithm can be referred from (Geem et al. 2001).

Figure 7

Pseudo-code of harmony search.

Figure 7

Pseudo-code of harmony search.

Close modal

Many variants and improved versions of HS are available. Omran & Mahdavi (2008) proposed the global-best harmony search (GBHS) based on the concept of swarm intelligence. The performance of the GBHS was compared with HS, and it was inferred that GBHS was superior in dealing with ten different benchmark problems. Wang & Huang (2010) proposed self-adaptive HS to overcome the problem of tuning parameters since it is difficult to select the control parameter. Zou et al. (2011) introduced a global harmony search (GHS) consisting of two operations, namely genetic mutation and position updates with a small probability. Khalili et al. (2014) proposed the global dynamic HS by enhancing the key tuning parameters into a dynamic mode so that they need not be predefined. Numerous researchers have successfully studied and applied HS in various water resource problems. Geem et al. (2001) proposed HS and used the algorithm to solve benchmark problems in the water distribution network. Later, Geem et al. (2002) applied HS to solve the pipe network design problem and Geem (2006) to come up with an optimal design for the water distribution network. Bashiri-Atrabi et al. (2015) used HS to optimize the reservoir operation, compared the results with HBMO and ascertained the algorithm's effectiveness. Table 7(a) provides the summary of the application of HS to water resource planning and management.

Table 7

Application of the (a) harmony search (HS); (b) firefly algorithm (FA) and (c) cuckoo search (CS) to water resource planning and management

Case study referenceAlgorithmApplicationsCatchment/study areaContribution
a) Harmony Search (HS) 
Geem et al. (2001)  HS The HS algorithm for the pipeline network design problem Test problem & pipeline network HS has exceeded existing mathematical and heuristic approaches. 
Geem et al. (2002)  HS Application of pipe network design Test problem The results of HS were almost optimal. 
Geem (2006)  HS Design of the water distribution network for the optimal design of costs Test problem The results demonstrate that the HS model is suitable for the design of a water network. 
Bashiri-Atrabi et al. (2015)  HS Application of HS for the reservoir operation Narmab Reservoir For the operation of the reservoir for flood management, the HS algorithm can effectively be used. 
b) Firefly Algorithm (FA) 
Tahershamsi et al. (2014)  Hybrid FS & HS For the design of a water distribution network Benchmark problem The suggested algorithm shows good solution quality performance. 
Kazemzadeh-Parsi et al. (2015a)  Modified FS For the design of unconfined contaminated aquifers Example problem For effective management of contaminated aquifers, the proposed method can be used. 
Garousi-Nejad et al. (2016)  FS FS application for the reservoir operation Aydoghmoush Reservoir FA has achieved better solutions with faster convergence. 
c) Cuckoo Search (CS) 
Wang et al. (2012)  CS CS was used for the optimization of the water distribution network Benchmark problems Compared to NSGA-II, multi-objective CS showed overall excellence in achieving a wide range of solutions. 
Chaowanawatee & Heednacram (2012)  CS CS application to train the neural network to forecast floods Little Wabash River This problem is better suited to the Polyharmonic function than to the Gaussian function. 
Shamshirband et al. (2016)  CS CS application to train the neural network to estimate reference evapotranspiration Serbia The optimized ANFIS version with CSA delivers better results in training and testing stages than the ANFIS model. 
Mohammadrezapour et al. (2017)  COA To optimize the allocation of water and crop planning Qazvin plain, Iran COA's simple structure, excellent search efficiency and strong robustness make it very promising in the field of crop optimization. 
Case study referenceAlgorithmApplicationsCatchment/study areaContribution
a) Harmony Search (HS) 
Geem et al. (2001)  HS The HS algorithm for the pipeline network design problem Test problem & pipeline network HS has exceeded existing mathematical and heuristic approaches. 
Geem et al. (2002)  HS Application of pipe network design Test problem The results of HS were almost optimal. 
Geem (2006)  HS Design of the water distribution network for the optimal design of costs Test problem The results demonstrate that the HS model is suitable for the design of a water network. 
Bashiri-Atrabi et al. (2015)  HS Application of HS for the reservoir operation Narmab Reservoir For the operation of the reservoir for flood management, the HS algorithm can effectively be used. 
b) Firefly Algorithm (FA) 
Tahershamsi et al. (2014)  Hybrid FS & HS For the design of a water distribution network Benchmark problem The suggested algorithm shows good solution quality performance. 
Kazemzadeh-Parsi et al. (2015a)  Modified FS For the design of unconfined contaminated aquifers Example problem For effective management of contaminated aquifers, the proposed method can be used. 
Garousi-Nejad et al. (2016)  FS FS application for the reservoir operation Aydoghmoush Reservoir FA has achieved better solutions with faster convergence. 
c) Cuckoo Search (CS) 
Wang et al. (2012)  CS CS was used for the optimization of the water distribution network Benchmark problems Compared to NSGA-II, multi-objective CS showed overall excellence in achieving a wide range of solutions. 
Chaowanawatee & Heednacram (2012)  CS CS application to train the neural network to forecast floods Little Wabash River This problem is better suited to the Polyharmonic function than to the Gaussian function. 
Shamshirband et al. (2016)  CS CS application to train the neural network to estimate reference evapotranspiration Serbia The optimized ANFIS version with CSA delivers better results in training and testing stages than the ANFIS model. 
Mohammadrezapour et al. (2017)  COA To optimize the allocation of water and crop planning Qazvin plain, Iran COA's simple structure, excellent search efficiency and strong robustness make it very promising in the field of crop optimization. 

Firefly algorithm (FA)

FA is a swarm-based metaheuristic algorithm introduced by Yang (2009), and it is inspired by the fireflies. The insects have the ability to emit light through the biochemical process called bioluminescence. Nonetheless, its purpose is still not ascertained (Fister et al. 2013). The two fundamental functions are to attract potential prey and mating partners. In addition, the flashing light also protects the fireflies from other predators. Three basic assumptions or rules were idealized while developing the firefly algorithm (Yang 2009). First, all the fireflies are unisex. Second, the brightness of the flash is directly proportional to the attractiveness of the fly. Third, the brightness diminishes as the distance increases (Du & Swamy 2016). Figure 8 shows the pseudo-code of the firefly algorithm. The details of the algorithm can be found in Yang (2009). Many variations and improvements of FA have been observed in the past. The application of FA in water resources engineering is quite new. Tahershamsi et al. (2014) used hybrid FA and HS to solve problems in water distribution systems. Kazemzadeh-Parsi et al. (2015b) combined FA with the finite element simulation method (FEM) to optimize the pump design and groundwater treatment remediation systems. Garousi-Nejad et al. (2016) applied FA for the optimization of reservoir operation for irrigation and power generation. Table 7(b) provides the summary of the application of FS to water resource planning and management.

Figure 8

Pseudo-code of firefly algorithm.

Figure 8

Pseudo-code of firefly algorithm.

Close modal

Cuckoo search (CS)

CS is a swarm-based metaheuristic search algorithm proposed by Yang & Deb (2009) for global optimization following the behaviour of cuckoos. The bird lays its eggs in the nest of others and also removes the eggs of the host bird. If the Cuckoo egg resembles that of the host bird and the latter is unable to differentiate between the two, the egg will be well taken care of (Arsenault et al. 2014). However, if the host bird discovers that the eggs are not its own, it pushes them out or abandons the nest. The probability of being discovered by the host bird is between 0 and 1 (Yang & Deb 2009). Yang & Deb (2010) studied the design of spring and welded bean, and compared the results with GA and PSO. CS was discerned to be better than the other two algorithms. Figure 9 shows the pseudo-code of cuckoo search. The detailed methodology can be found in Yang & Deb (2009, 2010). Li & Yin (2015) modified CS by considering the self-adaptive parameters to control the population diversity. The cuckoo optimization algorithm (COA) proposed by Rajabioun (2011) is another metaheuristic population-based algorithm inspired by the bird.

Figure 9

Pseudo-code of cuckoo search.

Figure 9

Pseudo-code of cuckoo search.

Close modal

Numerous researchers have successfully studied and applied CS as well as its variants in various water resource problems. Wang et al. (2012) used MOCS to obtain an optimal water distribution network. The findings indicate that MOCS are superior to NSGA-II in terms of convergence and diversity, providing more alternatives for high quality. Chaowanawatee & Heednacram (2012) combined CS with a radial basis function neural network for determining the flood water level. Shamshirband et al. (2016) studied the ability of CS to optimize the weights from ANN and the adoptive neuro-fuzzy interface system (ANFIS) to estimate the reference evapotranspiration. Mohammadrezapour et al. (2017) made use of COA for the optimization of water allocation and crop planning. Table 7(c) provides the summary of the application of CS to water resource planning and management.

Bat algorithm (BA)

BA is a swarm-based metaheuristic algorithm developed by Yang (2010) which is inspired by the echolocation of bats and is capable of obtaining a global optimum solution. Among the mammals, other than bats, only a few communities of squirrels can fly. It is estimated that nearly 996 species of bats exist. Different species have varied echolocation capabilities through which they can emit a very short and loud sound pulse of up to 100 dB in the ultrasonic region and receive the sound in the form of an echo reflected from the surrounding objects. The bat analyzes the echo, discriminates the pathway, and categorizes the obstacles and prey (Yang & Hossein Gandomi 2012). This phenomenon is formulated into an optimization technique for engineering problems. The echolocation of micro-bats is characterized by three rules based on which the bat algorithm has been developed. First, bats use the process to sense the distance and differentiate between the food and obstructions in their pathway. Second, bats fly at a random speed at position with a fixed frequency , varying wavelength and loudness to hunt for the prey. To target the prey, the bat can adjust the frequency or wavelength depending on its proximity. Third, the loudness echo can be changed from a constant minimum value to a large one (Wang & Guo 2013). BA was designed based on these rules. Figure 10 shows the pseudo-code of the bat algorithm. The detailed methodology can be checked in Gandomi et al. (2013); Yang (2010; 2012).

Figure 10

Pseudo-code of bat algorithm.

Figure 10

Pseudo-code of bat algorithm.

Close modal

The application of BA in water resources is quite new. Bozorg-Haddad et al. (2015) used the BA for the optimization of reservoir operation. In comparison with conventional optimization techniques, the BA was able to achieve the best alternatives. Ahmadianfar et al. (2016) presented a hybrid of BA and DE to solve multi-reservoir operational problems. The results obtained were 99.9% close to the global optimum solution. Kuok et al. (2018) combined BA with ANN to forecast the rainfall, and the results indicated that BANN was capable of avoiding the local trap. Ethteram et al. (2018) used BA for the Aydoghmush dam and Karun 4 dam reservoir operation. It has been found that the bat algorithm with the third-order rule curve is better than the other order rules curves. Table 8(a) provides the summary of the application of BA to water resource planning and management.

Table 8

Application of the (a) Bat algorithm (BA) and (b) shuffled frog leaping algorithm (SFLA) to water resource planning and management

Case study referenceAlgorithmApplicationsCatchment/study areaContribution
a) Bat Algorithm (BA) 
Bozorg-Haddad et al. (2015)  BA Use of BA on operation of the reservoir Benchmark problem In comparison to conventional optimization methods, the BA was able to reach better solutions in reservoir operations. 
Ahmadianfar et al. (2016)  Hybrid BA & DE Hybrid BA & DE application for a multi-reservoir operation Benchmark problem The proposed method provides very promising solutions and significantly improves performance with the best known global results. 
Kuok et al. (2018)  BatNN Application of BatNN for the forecast of rainfall Kuching city The results indicated that BatNN can optimize and accurately predict long-term rainfall. 
Ethteram et al. (2018)  BA BA was used for reservoir operation Aydoughmoush dam and Karoun 4 dam in Iran The bat algorithm can be seen as a suitable optimization model for operation in the reservoir. 
b) Shuffled Frog Leaping Algorithm (SFLA) 
Eusuff & Lansey (2003)  SFLA Applied to the water distribution network Benchmark problem SFLA has found optimal solutions in fewer iterations than GA and simulated annealing. 
Eusuff et al. (2006)  SFLA Applied to the problem of groundwater model and the water distribution system Test problem SFLA is very suitable for parallelization and can be investigated for other water resources problems. 
Sun et al. (2016)  SFLA Used for the reservoir operation Cascade reservoirs The model has been discovered to have better search capabilities and quicker convergence, and parallel calculation can efficiently cut down the time required. 
Fang et al. (2018)  MODE Chaos SFLA Used for optimizing the allocation of water resources Northern China MODE Chaos SFLA possesses the capacity to solve complex water resources optimization problems. 
Li et al. (2018aImproved SFLA Used for reservoir operation Cascade reservoirs Improved SFLA has been discovered to be better than SFLA, PSO, immune SFLA and cloud SFLA. 
Yang et al. (2019)  CNSFLA For the multi-objective reservoir operation Cascade reservoirs CNSFLA's performance analysis checks its efficient search capability for high quality and stability. 
Case study referenceAlgorithmApplicationsCatchment/study areaContribution
a) Bat Algorithm (BA) 
Bozorg-Haddad et al. (2015)  BA Use of BA on operation of the reservoir Benchmark problem In comparison to conventional optimization methods, the BA was able to reach better solutions in reservoir operations. 
Ahmadianfar et al. (2016)  Hybrid BA & DE Hybrid BA & DE application for a multi-reservoir operation Benchmark problem The proposed method provides very promising solutions and significantly improves performance with the best known global results. 
Kuok et al. (2018)  BatNN Application of BatNN for the forecast of rainfall Kuching city The results indicated that BatNN can optimize and accurately predict long-term rainfall. 
Ethteram et al. (2018)  BA BA was used for reservoir operation Aydoughmoush dam and Karoun 4 dam in Iran The bat algorithm can be seen as a suitable optimization model for operation in the reservoir. 
b) Shuffled Frog Leaping Algorithm (SFLA) 
Eusuff & Lansey (2003)  SFLA Applied to the water distribution network Benchmark problem SFLA has found optimal solutions in fewer iterations than GA and simulated annealing. 
Eusuff et al. (2006)  SFLA Applied to the problem of groundwater model and the water distribution system Test problem SFLA is very suitable for parallelization and can be investigated for other water resources problems. 
Sun et al. (2016)  SFLA Used for the reservoir operation Cascade reservoirs The model has been discovered to have better search capabilities and quicker convergence, and parallel calculation can efficiently cut down the time required. 
Fang et al. (2018)  MODE Chaos SFLA Used for optimizing the allocation of water resources Northern China MODE Chaos SFLA possesses the capacity to solve complex water resources optimization problems. 
Li et al. (2018aImproved SFLA Used for reservoir operation Cascade reservoirs Improved SFLA has been discovered to be better than SFLA, PSO, immune SFLA and cloud SFLA. 
Yang et al. (2019)  CNSFLA For the multi-objective reservoir operation Cascade reservoirs CNSFLA's performance analysis checks its efficient search capability for high quality and stability. 

Shuffled frog leaping algorithm (SFLA)

SFLA is a memetic metaheuristic swarm intelligence-based algorithm proposed by Eusuff & Lansey (2003), which is inspired by the social behaviour of frogs. Frogs search for their food in a group. The swamp has many stones and at each one a different quantity of food is present. Frogs try to locate the stone with maximum food sources. To reduce the time spent searching for food, frogs develop their memes by exchanging information. The frogs change their leaping based on the previous memes' conversation. Thus, they are directed towards the position with more food sources. Based on this concept, the SFLA was developed, and the algorithm has three stages, namely partitioning, local search and shuffling. The algorithm combines the deterministic and random approaches and is capable of solving continuous and discrete optimization problems (Du & Swamy 2016). Figure 11 shows the pseudo-code of the Shuffled Frog Leaping Algorithm. The details of the algorithm are given in Eusuff et al. (2006); Eusuff & Lansey (2003).

Figure 11

Pseudo-code of Shuffled Frog Leaping Algorithm.

Figure 11

Pseudo-code of Shuffled Frog Leaping Algorithm.

Close modal

Eusuff & Lansey (2003) proposed SFLA, applied the algorithm in the water distribution network and obtained promising results. Eusuff et al. (2006) used the SFLA for discrete groundwater and water distribution network problems. Upon comparing the results with GA, it was discerned that SFLA is a reliable tool for solving optimization problems. Sun et al. (2016) altered the SFLA by mixing the cloud model algorithm for the optimization of reservoir operation. The model has been discovered to have better search capabilities and quicker convergence, and parallel calculation can efficiently cut down the time required. Fang et al. (2018) studied MODE combined with chaos SFLA for the optimization of water allocation problems. The findings show that MODE-CSFLA is more efficient than NSGA-II and MOPSO. Li et al. (2018a) improved the SFLA through the chaos catfish effect and used it to operate a cascade reservoir. Improved SFLA has been discovered to be better than SFLA, PSO, immune SFLA and cloud SFLA. Yang et al. (2019) used an improved chaotic normal cloud shuffling frog leaping algorithm (CNSFLA) for an ecological planning model with multiple objectives. Finally, CNSFLA's performance analysis checks its efficient search capability for high quality and stability. Table 8(b) provides the summary of the application of SFLA to water resource planning and management.

The complexity of the problems has escalated owing to increased demands, climatic conditions, global warming, and depleting resources. Hence, researchers have developed various new and advanced techniques to optimize the problems related to the planning and management of water resources. Asgari et al. (2016) applied a weed optimization algorithm (WOA) for the optimization of multi-reservoir system problems. WOA is a metaheuristic optimization technique inspired by the weed's life cycle. The result suggests a faster convergence rate and a solution quite close to the global optimum. Ehteram et al. (2017) used the shark algorithm (SA) for the optimization of reservoir operation and inferred that the results were superior to those of GA and PSO. Karami et al. (2018) proposed the improved krill algorithm (IKA) for the optimization of reservoir operation by augmenting the speed of convergence and decreasing the possibility of a local trap. The results obtained from IKA were promising. Ehteram et al. (2018a) used a new metaheuristic algorithm known as the spider monkey algorithm (SMA) to reduce the irrigation deficiencies in Iran's multi-reservoir system. It was found that SMA is an appropriate method for reservoir operation policies. Bozorg-Haddad et al. (2018) used an anarchic society algorithm (ASO) for the optimization of the water distribution network and identified that ASO outperformed. Li et al. (2018b) used a moth flame optimization algorithm (MFOA) for the multi-reservoir system and observed it to be superior to NSGA-II, MOPSO, MODE, and MOBA in terms of improved uniformity and diversity distribution. Bahrami et al. (2018) used cat swarm optimization (CSO) for the reservoir operation. It was found that CSO was efficient in finding the global solution. Feng et al. (2018) used an orthogonal progressive optimality algorithm (OPOA) to optimize hydropower generation, and the results indicated its feasibility for the multi-reservoir system. Yan et al. (2018) employed an ameliorative whale optimization algorithm (AWOA) for the multi-objective water allocation problem. Kumar & Yadav (2018) used teaching learning-based optimization (TLBO) and Jaya algorithms (JA) for the multi-reservoir operation. It was found that JA performed better than TLBO and other algorithms available in the literature. Ehteram et al. (2018b) used a kidney algorithm (KA) to generate an optimal solution for reservoir operation and discerned that it performed better than GA, BA, WOA, SA, and PSO.

The literature review has revealed that with the advancements in computing power, researchers have developed various methods to solve real-world problems. Meta-heuristic and heuristic are emerging study areas for handling a variety of water resources problems, as seen by the vast range of applications listed above. The main advantage of the heuristic and metaheuristic algorithms is the use of search populations that are simultaneously exploring in the search space for the possible solutions, sharing information among the systems, to obtain a better solution. Different evolutionary algorithms such as GA, GP and DE, and swarm intelligence-based algorithms such as ACO, PSO, ABC, HBMO, HS, FA, CS, BA, and SFLA were covered in the review. Future management approaches will have to deal with a variety of challenges that may occur as a result of high nonlinearities, a larger range of uncertainties, real-life challenges, continuous, discrete, complex, stochastic, multi-reservoir, multi-objective problems and the integration of huge system components. For better decision making in water resource management, meta-heuristics-based optimization frameworks are becoming increasingly important. The main question arises about which algorithm to use. EAs have a wide range of applications since they may be used to solve any problem that can be represented as a function optimization problem. For real-world challenges involving multi-modal functions, EAs provide significant benefits. Any form of objectives and constraints can be directly incorporated into EAs. Each of the algorithms of meta-heuristics has its advantages and limitations. GA is one of the oldest and most common techniques in the field of water management, with many applications. The major advantages occur in its ability to manage non-linear, non-convex, and diversity positions as well as in its multimodal strategies and ability to solve the given problems to optimal or near-optimal solutions. However, it also requires the right tuning of the algorithm-specific parameters, such as mutation, crossover and reproduction. GP is a comprehensive, continuous, highly scalable, and efficient algorithm that needs less time to compute and provides good performance. However, it necessitates internal parameters such as crossover and mutation probability. Likewise, DE had advantages similar to that of the GA, but the selection of algorithm-specific parameters is needed; for instance, the scaling factor and crossover rate.

SI techniques are based on the swarm's co-operative group intelligence principles and have proven to be other classes of alternative meta-heuristic methodologies for handling various types of water resource optimization problems. SI algorithms, like EA population-based random search techniques, with heuristic guidance that can cover a variety of problem complexities such as non-linear, non-convex, multi-modal solutions, and so on. SI applicability and convergence properties, however, may differ from one problem to the next. For example, to solve non-uniform, complex and non-linear problems, the ACO is powerful enough, and it is capable of accomplishing rapid convergence. But, tuning parameters such as the relative pheromone trail, heuristic information, and evaporation are required. Similarly, PSO needs tuning of parameters such as inertia weight, social, and cognitive parameters are required. If the parameters are set correctly, the algorithm can achieve a global solution. Other SI algorithms like ABC, HS, FA, CS, BA, SFLA, and HBMO also have similar comparable capabilities and weaknesses, like ACO and PSO. Table 9 compares the strengths and weaknesses of different algorithms. It should be noted that numerous studies have proposed different algorithms for different water resources problems and suggested that certain algorithms are comparatively better than others. However, the results may be applied to those problems that may not be generalized into one or not covered by either of the various types of problems, as each problem may have different complexities according to the problem dimension and existing interactions for the problem. Consequently, the right algorithm option and use for this problem must be based on the form and characteristics of the problem. There are various studies wherein hybridizations of one or more algorithms have been performed. Similarly, modifications of existing algorithms have been done by incorporating elitist, self-adoptive, binary, non-dominated, and chaotic concepts, to get more acceptable results. Finally, no single optimization algorithm is universally declared as a winner that can successfully address all types of problems. Besides, an algorithm is neither extraordinary nor completely inferior; it depends on the problem type. One might be good at solving a particular type of problem but not others. Hence, before judging, many algorithms and their variants need to be compared.

Table 9

Comparison of strengths and weaknesses of different algorithms

AlgorithmsStrengthsWeaknesses
Genetic algorithm (GA) 
  • It is capable of solving any optimization problem that can be represented using chromosomal encoding.

  • It can provide multiple solutions to a problem.

 
  • Proper tuning of algorithm-specific parameters such as mutation, crossover and reproduction are required.

  • There's no guarantee that a genetic algorithm will find a global optimum.

 
Genetic Programming (GP) 
  • It is a simple, robust, flexible, and effective algorithm which requires less computational time and provides accurate results.

 
  • It necessitates internal parameters such as crossover and mutation probability.

 
Differential Evolution (DE) 
  • DE can handle non-differentiable, non-linear and multimodal functions.

  • It keeps the multiplicity of population.

  • It enhances the capacity of local search.

 
  • Selection of algorithm-specific parameters is needed; for instance, the scaling factor and crossover rate.

  • Convergence is unstable

  • Easy to drop into the local optimal solution.

 
Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) 
  • It is robust enough to solve non-uniform, complex and non-linear problems.

  • It is capable of achieving quick convergence.

 
  • Its computation gets affected when the problem is of the explicit or implicit stochastic type.

  • It needs tuning parameters such as relative pheromone trail, heuristic information, and evaporation.

 
Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) 
  • It provides fast convergence and involves low computational costs.

  • It has the character of memory.

 
  • Tuning of parameters such as inertia weight, social, and cognitive parameters are required.

  • The multiplicity of the population is not enough.

 
Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) 
  • It is flexible, simple, robust, easy to implement and capable of performing a global search.

  • It is able to explore the local search

 
  • It is quite slow in sequential processing.

  • It requires tuning parameters such as scout, onlooker and employed bees.

 
Harmony Search (HS) 
  • HS has less mathematical necessities and does not need the initial value to set the decision variables

 
  • It requires many parameters, such as memory size and pitch adjustment.

  • Moreover, the rate of choosing the memory and neighbouring values is important.

 
Firefly Algorithm (FA) 
  • It is useful in finding both global and local solutions synchronically and effectively.

  • FA is useful for parallel implementation as different fireflies can work independently.

 
  • It requires tuning of randomization parameter, attractiveness and absorption coefficient is needed.

 
Cuckoo Search (CS) 
  • It uses Levy flights, a process that helps the search space to explore more effectively.

  • CS provides an efficient and global convergence solution.

 
  • It requires lesser tuning parameters, such as probability factor, and the results are not very sensitive to these parameters.

 
Bat Algorithm (BA) 
  • BA is flexible, simple, and easy to implement.

  • It yields the best solution in less time, has fast convergence at the early state, and later the convergence rate decreases.

 
  • The convergence is affected if the proper tuning of parameters such as wavelength and emission coefficient is not done.

 
Shuffled Frog Leaping Algorithm (SFLA) 
  • It is faster in searching the space.

 
  • However, too many internal parameters need to be set, including the number of memeplexes, frogs in each memeplex and submemeplex, and the step size.

 
Honey Bee Mating Optimization (HBMO) 
  • It is robust, adaptive, simple, and scalable.

 
  • The limitations include the necessity for tuning mating flights, size of the hive, number of accepted solutions and trial solutions, and constant parameters such as queen's energy and initial speed.

 
AlgorithmsStrengthsWeaknesses
Genetic algorithm (GA) 
  • It is capable of solving any optimization problem that can be represented using chromosomal encoding.

  • It can provide multiple solutions to a problem.

 
  • Proper tuning of algorithm-specific parameters such as mutation, crossover and reproduction are required.

  • There's no guarantee that a genetic algorithm will find a global optimum.

 
Genetic Programming (GP) 
  • It is a simple, robust, flexible, and effective algorithm which requires less computational time and provides accurate results.

 
  • It necessitates internal parameters such as crossover and mutation probability.

 
Differential Evolution (DE) 
  • DE can handle non-differentiable, non-linear and multimodal functions.

  • It keeps the multiplicity of population.

  • It enhances the capacity of local search.

 
  • Selection of algorithm-specific parameters is needed; for instance, the scaling factor and crossover rate.

  • Convergence is unstable

  • Easy to drop into the local optimal solution.

 
Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) 
  • It is robust enough to solve non-uniform, complex and non-linear problems.

  • It is capable of achieving quick convergence.

 
  • Its computation gets affected when the problem is of the explicit or implicit stochastic type.

  • It needs tuning parameters such as relative pheromone trail, heuristic information, and evaporation.

 
Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) 
  • It provides fast convergence and involves low computational costs.

  • It has the character of memory.

 
  • Tuning of parameters such as inertia weight, social, and cognitive parameters are required.

  • The multiplicity of the population is not enough.

 
Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) 
  • It is flexible, simple, robust, easy to implement and capable of performing a global search.

  • It is able to explore the local search

 
  • It is quite slow in sequential processing.

  • It requires tuning parameters such as scout, onlooker and employed bees.

 
Harmony Search (HS) 
  • HS has less mathematical necessities and does not need the initial value to set the decision variables

 
  • It requires many parameters, such as memory size and pitch adjustment.

  • Moreover, the rate of choosing the memory and neighbouring values is important.

 
Firefly Algorithm (FA) 
  • It is useful in finding both global and local solutions synchronically and effectively.

  • FA is useful for parallel implementation as different fireflies can work independently.

 
  • It requires tuning of randomization parameter, attractiveness and absorption coefficient is needed.

 
Cuckoo Search (CS) 
  • It uses Levy flights, a process that helps the search space to explore more effectively.

  • CS provides an efficient and global convergence solution.

 
  • It requires lesser tuning parameters, such as probability factor, and the results are not very sensitive to these parameters.

 
Bat Algorithm (BA) 
  • BA is flexible, simple, and easy to implement.

  • It yields the best solution in less time, has fast convergence at the early state, and later the convergence rate decreases.

 
  • The convergence is affected if the proper tuning of parameters such as wavelength and emission coefficient is not done.

 
Shuffled Frog Leaping Algorithm (SFLA) 
  • It is faster in searching the space.

 
  • However, too many internal parameters need to be set, including the number of memeplexes, frogs in each memeplex and submemeplex, and the step size.

 
Honey Bee Mating Optimization (HBMO) 
  • It is robust, adaptive, simple, and scalable.

 
  • The limitations include the necessity for tuning mating flights, size of the hive, number of accepted solutions and trial solutions, and constant parameters such as queen's energy and initial speed.

 

The authors acknowledge the helpful comments and suggestions made by anonymous reviewers to enhance the manuscript. The authors also like to acknowledge with a deep sense of gratitude the valuable help received from the authorities of Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology (SVNIT) and the P.G. Section of Water Resources Engineering.

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

Abbaspour
K. C.
,
Schulin
R.
&
Van Genuchten
M. T.
2001
Estimating unsaturated soil hydraulic parameters using ant colony optimization
.
Advances in Water Resources
24
(
8
),
827
841
.
Abbass
H. A.
2001
MBO: marriage in honey bees optimization – a Haplometrosis polygynous swarming approach
.
Proceedings of the 2001 Congress on Evolutionary Computation
1
,
207
214
.
Adeyemo
J.
&
Otieno
F.
2010
Differential evolution algorithm for solving multi-objective crop planning model
.
Agricultural Water Management
97
(
6
),
848
856
.
Afshar
A.
,
Bozorg Haddad
O.
,
Mariño
M. A.
&
Adams
B. J.
2007
Honey-bee mating optimization (HBMO) algorithm for optimal reservoir operation
.
Journal of the Franklin Institute
344
(
5
),
452
462
.
Afshar
A.
,
Massoumi
F.
,
Afshar
A.
&
Mariño
M. A.
2015
State of the art review of ant colony optimization applications in water resource management
.
Water Resources Management
29
(
11
),
3891
3904
.
Ahmad
A.
,
Razali
S. F. M.
,
Mohamed
Z. S.
&
El-shafie
A.
2016
The application of artificial bee colony and gravitational search algorithm in reservoir optimization
.
Water Resources Management
30
(
7
),
2497
2516
.
Ahmadianfar
I.
,
Adib
A.
&
Salarijazi
M.
2016
Optimizing multireservoir operation: hybrid of bat algorithm and differential evolution
.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
142
(
2
),
05015010
.
Ahmadianfar
I.
,
Samadi-Koucheksaraee
A.
&
Bozorg-Haddad
O.
2017
Extracting optimal policies of hydropower multi-reservoir systems utilizing enhanced differential evolution algorithm
.
Water Resources Management
31
(
14
),
4375
4397
.
Akbari
R.
,
Mohammadi
A.
&
Ziarati
K.
2010
A novel bee swarm optimization algorithm for numerical function optimization
.
Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation
15
(
10
),
3142
3155
.
Akbari-Alashti
H.
,
Bozorg Haddad
O.
&
Mariño
M. A.
2015
Application of fixed length gene genetic programming (FLGGP) in hydropower reservoir operation
.
Water Resources Management
29
(
9
),
3357
3370
.
Arsenault
R.
,
Poulin
A.
,
Côté
P.
&
Brissette
F.
2014
Comparison of stochastic optimization algorithms in hydrological model calibration
.
Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
19
(
7
),
1374
1384
.
Asgari
H.
,
Bozorg Haddad
O.
,
Pazoki
M.
,
Loáiciga
H. A.
,
Haddad
O. B.
,
Pazoki
M.
,
Loáiciga
H. A.
,
Asce
F.
,
Bozorg Haddad
O.
,
Pazoki
M.
&
Loáiciga
H. A.
2016
Weed optimization algorithm for optimal reservoir operation
.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering
142
(
2
),
04015055
.
Attea
B. A.
,
Abbood
A. D.
,
Hasan
A. A.
,
Pizzuti
C.
,
Al-Ani
M.
,
Özdemir
S.
&
Al-Dabbagh
R. D.
2021
A review of heuristics and metaheuristics for community detection in complex networks: current usage, emerging development and future directions
.
Swarm and Evolutionary Computation
63
(
2020
),
100885
.
Azizipour
M.
,
Ghalenoei
V.
,
Afshar
M. H.
&
Solis
S. S.
2016
Optimal operation of hydropower reservoir systems using weed optimization algorithm
.
Water Resources Management
30
(
11
),
3995
4009
.
Bahrami
M.
,
Bozorg-Haddad
O.
&
Chu
X.
2018
Application of Cat swarm optimization algorithm for optimal reservoir operation
.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering
144
(
1
),
04017057
.
Bai
T.
,
Kan
Y.
,
Chang
J.
,
Huang
Q.
&
Chang
F.-J.
2017
Fusing feasible search space into PSO for multi-objective cascade reservoir optimization
.
Applied Soft Computing
51
,
328
340
.
Baltar
A. M.
&
Fontane
D. G.
2008
Use of multiobjective particle swarm optimization in water resources management
.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
134
(
3
),
257
265
.
Bashiri-Atrabi
H.
,
Qaderi
K.
,
Rheinheimer
D. E.
&
Sharifi
E.
2015
Application of harmony search algorithm to reservoir operation optimization
.
Water Resources Management
29
(
15
),
5729
5748
.
Bozorg-Haddad
O.
,
Karimirad
I.
,
Seifollahi-Aghmiuni
S.
&
Loáiciga
H. A.
2015
Development and application of the bat algorithm for optimizing the operation of reservoir systems
.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
141
(
8
),
04014097
.
Bozorg-Haddad
O.
,
Bozorgi
A.
,
Latifi
M.
,
Rajabi
M. M.
,
Naeeni
S. T.
&
Loáiciga
H. A.
2018
Development and application of the anarchic society algorithm (ASO) to the optimal operation of water distribution networks
.
Water Science and Technology: Water Supply
18
(
1
),
318
332
.
Bozorg-Haddad
O.
,
Azad
M.
,
Fallah-Mehdipour
E.
,
Delpasand
M.
&
Chu
X.
2021
Verification of FPA and PSO algorithms for rule curve extraction and optimization of single- and multi-reservoir systems’ operations considering their specific purposes
.
Water Science and Technology: Water Supply
21
(
1
),
166
188
.
Chaowanawatee
K.
&
Heednacram
A.
2012
Implementation of cuckoo search in RBF neural network for flood forecasting
. In:
Proceedings - 4th International Conference on Computational Intelligence, Communication Systems and Networks
, pp.
22
26
.
Chau
K. W.
2007
A split-step particle swarm optimization algorithm in river stage forecasting
.
Journal of Hydrology
346
(
3–4
),
131
135
.
Chen
C.
,
Yuan
Y.
&
Yuan
X.
2017a
An improved NSGA-III algorithm for reservoir flood control operation
.
Water Resources Management
31
(
14
),
4469
4483
.
Chen
Z.
,
Zhou
S.
&
Luo
J.
2017b
A robust ant colony optimization for continuous functions
.
Expert Systems with Applications
81
,
309
320
.
Chen
H. T.
,
Wang
W. C.
,
Chen
X. N.
&
Qiu
L.
2020
Multi-objective reservoir operation using particle swarm optimization with adaptive random inertia weights
.
Water Science and Engineering
13
(
2
),
136
144
.
Choong
S.-M.
,
El-Shafie
A.
&
Wan Mohtar
W. H. M.
2017
Optimisation of multiple hydropower reservoir operation using artificial bee colony algorithm
.
Water Resources Management
31
(
4
),
1397
1411
.
Cobaner
M.
,
Babayigit
B.
&
Dogan
A.
2016
Estimation of groundwater levels with surface observations via genetic programming
.
Journal – American Water Works Association
108
(
6
),
E335
E348
.
Ch
S.
,
Anand
N.
,
Panigrahi
B. K.
&
Mathur
S.
2013
Streamflow forecasting by SVM with quantum behaved particle swarm optimization
.
Neurocomputing
101
,
18
23
.
Dandy
G. C.
,
Simpson
A. R.
&
Murphy
L. J.
1996
An improved genetic algorithm for pipe network optimization
.
Water Resources Research
32
(
2
),
449
458
.
Davijani
H. M.
,
Banihabib
M. E.
,
Nadjafzadeh Anvar
A.
&
Hashemi
S. R.
2016
Optimization model for the allocation of water resources based on the maximization of employment in the agriculture and industry sectors
.
Journal of Hydrology
533
,
430
438
.
Deb
K.
,
Pratap
A.
,
Agarwal
S.
&
Meyarivan
T.
2002
A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II
.
IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation
6
(
2
),
182
197
.
Dorigo
M.
&
Di Caro
G.
1999
Ant colony optimization: a new meta-heuristic
.
Proceedings of the 1999 Congress on Evolutionary Computation
2
,
1470
1477
.
Dorigo
M.
,
Maniezzo
V.
,
Colorni
A.
&
Dorigo
M.
1991
Positive Feedback as A Search Strategy
.
Technical Report 91-016 June
, pp.
1
20
.
Du
K. L.
&
Swamy
M. N. S.
2016
Search and Optimization by Metaheuristics Techniques and Algorithms Inspired by Nature
.
Springer
,
Switzerland
.
Dutta
S.
,
Sahoo
B. C.
,
Mishra
R.
&
Acharya
S.
2016
Fuzzy stochastic genetic algorithm for obtaining optimum crops pattern and water balance in a farm
.
Water Resources Management
30
(
12
),
4097
4123
.
Eberhart
R.
&
Kennedy
J.
1995
A new optimizer using particle swarm theory
. In:
MHS'95. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Micro Machine and Human Science
, pp.
39
43
.
Ehteram
M.
,
Allawi
M. F.
,
Karami
H.
,
Mousavi
S. F.
,
Emami
M.
,
El-Shafie
A.
&
Farzin
S.
2017
Optimization of chain-reservoirs’ operation with a new approach in artificial intelligence
.
Water Resources Management
31
(
7
),
2085
2104
.
Ehteram
M.
,
Karami
H.
,
Mousavi
S. F.
,
Farzin
S.
,
Celeste
A. B.
&
Shafie
A.-E.
2018b
Reservoir operation by a new evolutionary algorithm: kidney algorithm
.
Water Resources Management
32
(
14
),
4681
4706
.
Ethteram
M.
,
Mousavi
S. F.
,
Karami
H.
,
Farzin
S.
,
Deo
R.
,
Othman
F. B.
,
Chau
K. w.
,
Sarkamaryan
S.
,
Singh
V. P.
&
El-Shafie
A.
2018
Bat algorithm for dam–reservoir operation
.
Environmental Earth Sciences
77
(
13
),
1
15
.
Eusuff
M. M.
&
Lansey
K. E.
2003
Optimization of water distribution network design using the shuffled frog leaping algorithm
.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
129
(
3
),
210
225
.
Eusuff
M.
,
Lansey
K.
&
Pasha
F.
2006
Shuffled frog-leaping algorithm: a memetic meta-heuristic for discrete optimization
.
Engineering Optimization
38
(
2
),
129
154
.
Fallah-Mehdipour
E.
,
Bozorg-Haddad
O.
,
Orouji
H.
&
Mariño
M. A.
2016
Application of genetic programming to flow routing in simple and compound channels
.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering
142
(
12
),
04016066
.
Fang
G.
,
Guo
Y.
,
Wen
X.
,
Fu
X.
,
Lei
X.
,
Tian
Y.
&
Wang
T.
2018
Multi-objective differential evolution-chaos shuffled frog leaping algorithm for water resources system optimization
.
Water Resources Management
32
(
12
),
3835
3852
.
Fayaed
S. S.
,
El-Shafie
A.
&
Jaafar
O.
2013
Reservoir-system simulation and optimization techniques
.
Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment
27
(
7
),
1751
1772
.
Feng
Z.
,
Niu
W.
,
Ph
D.
,
Cheng
C.
,
Lund
J. R.
&
Asce
M.
2018
Optimizing hydropower reservoirs operation via an orthogonal progressive optimality algorithm
.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
144
(
3
),
1
12
.
Fister
I.
,
Yang
X. S.
&
Brest
J.
2013
A comprehensive review of firefly algorithms
.
Swarm and Evolutionary Computation
13
,
34
46
.
Fogel
L. J.
,
Owens
A. J.
&
Walsh
M. J.
1966
Intelligent decision making through a simulation of evolution
.
Behavioral Science
11
(
4
),
253
272
.
Fowe
T.
,
Nouiri
I.
,
Ibrahim
B.
,
Karambiri
H.
&
Paturel
J. E.
2015
Optiwam: an intelligent tool for optimizing irrigation water management in coupled reservoir–groundwater systems
.
Water Resources Management
29
(
10
),
3841
3861
.
Gandomi
A. H.
,
Yang
X. S.
,
Alavi
A. H.
&
Talatahari
S.
2013
Bat algorithm for constrained optimization tasks
.
Neural Computing and Applications
22
(
6
),
1239
1255
.
Garousi-Nejad
I.
,
Bozorg-Haddad
O.
,
Loáiciga
H. A.
&
Mariño
M. A.
2016
Application of the firefly algorithm to optimal operation of reservoirs with the purpose of irrigation supply and hydropower production
.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering
142
(
10
),
04016041
.
Gaur
S.
,
Chahar
B. R.
&
Graillot
D.
2011
Analytic elements method and particle swarm optimization based simulation-optimization model for groundwater management
.
Journal of Hydrology
402
(
3–4
),
217
227
.
Geem
Z. W.
,
Kim
J. H.
&
Loganathan
G. V.
2001
A new heuristic optimization algorithm: harmony search
.
Simulation
76
(
2
),
60
68
.
Geem
Z. W.
,
Kim
J. H.
,
Loganathan
G. V.
&
Logonathan
G. V.
2002
Harmony search optimization: application to pipe network design
.
International Journal of Modelling and Simulation
22
(
2
),
125
133
.
Goldberg
D. E.
&
Kuo
C. H.
1987
Genetic algorithms in pipeline optimization
.
Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering
1
(
2
),
128
141
.
Guven
A.
&
Kisi
O.
2013
Monthly pan evaporation modeling using linear genetic programming
.
Journal of Hydrology
503
,
178
185
.
Haddad
O. B.
,
Afshar
A.
&
Mariño
M. A.
2006
Honey-bees mating optimization (HBMO) algorithm: a new heuristic approach for water resources optimization
.
Water Resources Management
20
(
5
),
661
680
.
Haddad
O. B.
,
Afshar
A.
&
Mariño
M. A.
2008
Honey-bee mating optimization (HBMO) algorithm in deriving optimal operation rules for reservoirs
.
Journal of Hydroinformatics
10
(
3
),
257
264
.
Haghighi
A.
&
Bakhshipour
A. E.
2012
Optimization of sewer networks using an adaptive genetic algorithm
.
Water Resources Management
26
(
12
),
3441
3456
.
Harris
E. L.
,
Babovic
V.
&
Falconer
R.
2003
Velocity predictions in compound channels with vegetated floodplains using genetic programming
.
International Journal of River Basin Management
1
(
2
),
117
123
.
Heřmanovský
M.
,
Havlíček
V.
,
Hanel
M.
&
Pech
P.
2017
Regionalization of runoff models derived by genetic programming
.
Journal of Hydrology
547
,
544
556
.
Holland
J. H.
1975
Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems (John H. Holland)
.
University of Michigan Press
,
Ann Arbor, Michigan
.
http://epubs.siam.org/doi/10.1137/1018105
Hossain
M. S.
&
El-shafie
A.
2013
Intelligent systems in optimizing reservoir operation policy: a review
.
Water Resources Management
27
(
9
),
3387
3407
.
Hou
J.
,
Mi
W.
&
Sun
J.
2014
Optimal spatial allocation of water resources based on Pareto ant colony algorithm
.
International Journal of Geographical Information Science
28
(
2
),
213
233
.
Jahandideh-Tehrani
M.
,
Bozorg-Haddad
O.
&
Loáiciga
H. A.
2020
Application of particle swarm optimization to water management: an introduction and overview
.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
192
(
5
),
281
.
Jia
B.
,
Simonovic
S. P.
,
Zhong
P.
&
Yu
Z.
2016
A multi-objective best compromise decision model for real-time flood mitigation operations of multi-reservoir system
.
Water Resources Management
30
(
10
),
3363
3387
.
Jung
D.
,
Kang
D.
&
Kim
J. H.
2018
Development of a hybrid harmony search for water distribution system design
.
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
22
(
4
),
1506
1514
.
Kantorovich
L. V.
1960
Mathematical methods of organizing and planning production
.
Management Science
6
(
4
),
366
422
.
Karaboga
D.
2005
An Idea Based on Honey bee Swarm for Numerical Optimization
.
Technical Report TR06. Erciyes University, Engineering Faculty, Computer Engineering Department
.
Karaboga
D.
&
Basturk
B.
2007a
Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) Optimization Algorithm for Solving Constrained Optimization Problems
. In: Melin, P., Castillo, O., Aguilar, L.T., Kacprzyk, J. & Pedrycz, W. (eds)
Foundations of Fuzzy Logic and Soft Computing
.
IFSA 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4529. Springer
,
Berlin Heidelberg
, pp.
789
798
.
Karami
H.
,
Mousavi
S. F.
,
Farzin
S.
,
Ehteram
M.
,
Singh
V. P.
&
Kisi
O.
2018
Improved krill algorithm for reservoir operation
.
Water Resources Management
32
(
10
),
3353
3372
.
Kazemzadeh-Parsi
M. J.
,
Daneshmand
F.
,
Ahmadfard
M. A.
&
Adamowski
J.
2015a
Optimal remediation design of unconfined contaminated aquifers based on the finite element method and a modified firefly algorithm
.
Water Resources Management
29
(
8
),
2895
2912
.
Kazemzadeh-Parsi
M. J.
,
Daneshmand
F.
,
Ahmadfard
M. A.
,
Adamowski
J.
&
Martel
R.
2015b
Optimal groundwater remediation design of pump and treat systems via a simulation–optimization approach and firefly algorithm
.
Engineering Optimization
47
(
1
),
1
17
.
Khalili
M.
,
Kharrat
R.
,
Salahshoor
K.
&
Sefat
M. H.
2014
Global dynamic harmony search algorithm: GDHS
.
Applied Mathematics and Computation
228
,
195
219
.
Kim
T.
,
Heo
J.-H.
,
Bae
D.-H.
&
Kim
J.-H.
2008
Single-reservoir operating rules for a year using multiobjective genetic algorithm
.
Journal of Hydroinformatics
10
(
2
),
163
.
Koza
J. R.
1990
Genetically breeding populations of computer programs to solve problems in artificial intelligence
.
Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Tools for AI
1
,
819
827
.
Koza
J. R.
1992
A genetic approach to the truck backer upper problem and the inter-twined spiral problem
.
Proceedings of IJCNN International Joint Conference on Neural Networks IV
4
,
310
318
.
Kumar
D. N.
&
Reddy
M. J.
2006
Ant colony optimization for multi-purpose reservoir operation
.
Water Resources Management
20
(
6
),
879
898
.
Kumar
V.
&
Yadav
S. M.
2019
Optimization of cropping patterns using elitist-Jaya and elitist-TLBO algorithms
.
Water Resources Management
33
(
5
),
1817
1833
.
Kumar
V.
&
Yadav
S. M.
2020a
Optimization of Water Releases from Ukai Reservoir Using Jaya Algorithm
. In: Rao, R. V. & Taler, J. (eds). Advanced Engineering Optimization Through Intelligent Techniques.
Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing
, Vol.
949
.
Springer
,
Singapore
.
Kumar
V.
&
Yadav
S. M.
2021
Multi-objective reservoir operation of the Ukai reservoir system using improved Jaya algorithm
.
Water Supply
00
(
0
),
1
24
.
Kuok
K. K.
,
Kueh
S. M.
&
Chiu
P. C.
2018
Bat optimisation neural networks for rainfall forecasting: case study for Kuching city
.
Journal of Water and Climate Change jwc
10
(
3
),
569
579
.
Lalehzari
R.
,
Boroomand Nasab
S.
,
Moazed
H.
&
Haghighi
A.
2016
Multiobjective management of water allocation to sustainable irrigation planning and optimal cropping pattern
.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering
142
(
1
),
05015008
.
Lee
K. S.
&
Geem
Z. W.
2004
A new structural optimization method based on the harmony search algorithm
.
Computers and Structures
82
(
9–10
),
781
798
.
Lei
X.
,
Zhang
J.
,
Wang
H.
,
Wang
M.
,
Khu
S. T.
,
Li
Z.
&
Tan
Q.
2018
Deriving mixed reservoir operating rules for flood control based on weighted non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II
.
Journal of Hydrology
564
,
967
983
.
Li
M.
&
Feng
X.
2020
Application of Improved Artificial Bee Colony Algorithm in constant pressure water supply system
. In:
Proceedings - 5th International Conference on Automation, Control and Robotics Engineering
, pp.
521
525
.
Li
R.
,
Jiang
Z.
,
Li
A.
,
Yu
S.
&
Ji
C.
2018a
An improved shuffled frog leaping algorithm and its application in the optimization of cascade reservoir operation
.
Hydrological Sciences Journal
63
(
15–16
),
2020
2034
.
Li
W. K.
,
Wang
W. L.
&
Li
L.
2018b
Optimization of water resources utilization by multi-objective moth-flame algorithm
.
Water Resources Management
32
(
10
),
3303
3316
.
Liao
X.
,
Zhou
J.
,
Zhang
R.
&
Zhang
Y.
2012
An adaptive artificial bee colony algorithm for long-term economic dispatch in cascaded hydropower systems
.
International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems
43
(
1
),
1340
1345
.
López-Ibáñez
M.
,
Prasad
T. D.
&
Paechter
B.
2008
Ant colony optimization for optimal control of pumps in water distribution networks
.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
134
(
4
),
337
346
.
Lun
K.
,
Hin
S.
,
Najah
A.
,
Zurina
W.
,
Jaafar
W.
&
El-shafie
A.
2021
Optimization of hydropower reservoir operation based on hedging policy using Jaya algorithm
.
Applied Soft Computing
106
,
107325
.
Maier
H. R.
,
Simpson
A. R.
,
Zecchin
A. C.
,
Foong
W. K.
,
Phang
K. Y.
,
Seah
H. Y.
&
Tan
C. L.
2003
Ant colony optimization for design of water distribution systems
.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, ASCE
129
(
3
),
200
209
.
Maniezzo
V.
1996
Ant system: optimization by a colony of cooperating agents
.
IEEE Transactions on SYSTEMS, Man and Cybernetics-Part B
26
(
1
),
1
13
.
Ming
B.
,
Chang
J. x.
,
Huang
Q.
,
Wang
Y. m.
&
Huang
S. z.
2015
Optimal operation of multi-reservoir system based-on cuckoo search algorithm
.
Water Resources Management
29
(
15
),
5671
5687
.
Moayedikia
A.
,
Jensen
R.
,
Wiil
U. K.
&
Forsati
R.
2015
Weighted bee colony algorithm for discrete optimization problems with application to feature selection
.
Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence
44
,
153
167
.
Mohammadrezapour
O.
,
Yoosefdoost
I.
&
Ebrahimi
M.
2017
Cuckoo optimization algorithm in optimal water allocation and crop planning under various weather conditions (case study: Qazvin plain, Iran)
.
Neural Computing and Applications
31
(
6
),
1879
1892
.
Mohammed
E.
,
Karami
H.
,
Mousavi
S.-F.
,
El-Shafie
A.
&
Amini
Z.
2017
Optimizing dam and reservoirs operation based model utilizing shark algorithm approach
.
Knowledge-Based Systems
122
,
26
38
.
Moosavian
N.
&
Lence
B. J.
2017
Nondominated sorting differential evolution algorithms for multiobjective optimization of water distribution systems
.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
143
(
4
),
04016082
.
Morankar
D. V.
,
Raju
K. S.
,
Vasan
A.
&
Ashokavardhan
L.
2016
Fuzzy multiobjective irrigation planning using particle swarm optimization
.
Journal of Water Resource Planning Management
142
(
8
),
1
11
.
Nguyen
D. C. H.
,
Dandy
G. C.
,
Maier
H. R.
&
Ascough
J. C.
II
2016
Improved ant colony optimization for optimal crop and irrigation water allocation by incorporating domain knowledge
.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
142
(
9
),
1
14
.
Nicklow
J.
,
Reed
P.
,
Savic
D.
,
Dessalegne
T.
,
Harrell
L.
,
Chan-Hilton
A.
,
Karamouz
M.
,
Minsker
B.
,
Ostfeld
A.
,
Singh
A.
&
Zechman
E.
2010
State of the Art for genetic algorithms and beyond in water resources planning and management
.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
136
(
4
),
412
432
.
Niknam
T.
,
Taheri
S. I.
,
Aghaei
J.
,
Tabatabaei
S.
&
Nayeripour
M.
2011
A modified honey bee mating optimization algorithm for multiobjective placement of renewable energy resources
.
Applied Energy
88
(
12
),
4817
4830
.
Noory
H.
,
Liaghat
A. M.
,
Parsinejad
M.
&
Haddad
O. B.
2012
Optimizing irrigation water allocation and multicrop planning using discrete PSO algorithm
.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering
138
(
5
),
437
444
.
Nwankwor
E.
,
Nagar
A. K.
&
Reid
D. C.
2013
Hybrid differential evolution and particle swarm optimization for optimal well placement
.
Computational Geosciences
17
(
2
),
249
268
.
Omran
M. G. H.
&
Mahdavi
M.
2008
Global-best harmony search
.
Applied Mathematics and Computation
198
(
2
),
643
656
.
Ostadrahimi
L.
,
Mariño
M. A.
&
Afshar
A.
2012
Multi-reservoir operation rules: multi-swarm PSO-based optimization approach
.
Water Resources Management
26
(
2
),
407
427
.
Pham
D. T.
,
Soroka
A. J.
,
Ghanbarzadeh
A.
,
Koc
E.
,
Otri
S.
&
Packianather
M.
2007
Optimising neural networks for identification of wood defects using the bees algorithm
.
IEEE International Conference on Industrial Informatics
1346
1351
.
Press
W. H.
,
Teukolsky
S. A.
,
Vetterling
W. T.
&
Flannery
B. P.
1993
Numerical Recipes in Fortran
.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
.
Rajabioun
R.
2011
Cuckoo optimization algorithm
.
Applied Soft Computing Journal
11
(
8
),
5508
5518
.
Raju
K. S.
,
Vasan
A.
,
Gupta
P.
,
Ganesan
K.
&
Mathur
H.
2012
Multi-objective differential evolution application to irrigation planning
.
ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
18
(
1
),
54
64
.
Rao
R. V.
&
Keesari
H. S.
2018
Multi-team perturbation guiding Jaya algorithm for optimization of wind farm layout
.
Applied Soft Computing Journal
71
,
800
815
.
Rao
R. V.
&
Pawar
R. B.
2020
Self-adaptive multi-population rao algorithms for engineering design optimization
.
Applied Artificial Intelligence
34
(
3
),
187
250
.
Ravansalar
M.
,
Rajaee
T.
&
Kisi
O.
2017
Wavelet-linear genetic programming: a new approach for modeling monthly streamflow
.
Journal of Hydrology
549
,
461
475
.
Reddy
M. J.
&
Kumar
D. N.
2006
Optimal reservoir operation using multi-objective evolutionary algorithm
.
Water Resources Management
20
(
6
),
861
878
.
Reddy
M. J.
&
Kumar
D. N.
2007b
Multiobjective differential evolution with application to reservoir system optimization
.
Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering
21
(
2
),
136
146
.
Regulwar
D. G.
,
Choudhari
S. A.
&
Raj
P. A.
2010
Differential evolution algorithm with application to optimal operation of multipurpose reservoir
.
Journal of Water Resource and Protection
02
(
06
),
560
568
.
Rezaei
F.
,
Safavi
H. R.
,
Mirchi
A.
&
Madani
K.
2017
f-MOPSO: an alternative multi-objective PSO algorithm for conjunctive water use management
.
Journal of Hydro-Environment Research
14
,
1
18
.
Sabbaghpour
S.
,
Naghashzadehgan
M.
,
Javaherdeh
K.
&
Haddad
O. B.
2012
HBMO algorithm for calibrating water distribution network of Langarud city
.
Water Science and Technology
65
(
9
),
1564
1569
.
Savic
D. A.
&
Walters
G. A.
1997
Genetic algorithms for least-cost design of water distribution networks
.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
123
(
2
),
67
77
.
Savic
D. A.
,
Walters
G. A.
&
Davidson
J. W.
1999
A genetic programming approach to rainfall-runoff modelling
.
Water Resources Management
13
(
3
),
219
231
.
Shamshirband
S.
,
Amirmojahedi
M.
,
Gocic
M.
,
Akib
S.
,
Petkovic
D.
,
Piri
J.
&
Trajkovic
S.
2016
Estimation of reference evapotranspiration using neural networks and Cuckoo Search Algorithm
.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage
142
(
2
),
1
11
.
Sharif
M.
&
Wardlaw
R.
2000
Multireservoir systems optimization using genetic algorithms: case study
.
Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering
14
(
4
),
255
263
.
Sheikholeslami
R.
,
Zecchin
A. C.
,
Zheng
F.
&
Talatahari
S.
2015
A hybrid cuckoo–harmony search algorithm for optimal design of water distribution systems
.
Journal of Hydroinformatics November
18
(
3
),
544
563
.
Storn
R.
&
Price
K.
1996
Minimizing the real functions of the ICEC'96 contest by differential evolution
.
Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation
842
844
.
Sudheer
C.
,
Anand
N.
,
Panigrahi
B. K.
&
Mathur
S.
2013
Streamflow forecasting by SVM with quantum behaved particle swarm optimization
.
Neurocomputing
101
,
18
23
.
Suribabu
C. R.
&
Neelakantan
T. R.
2006
Design of water distribution networks using particle swarm optimization
.
Urban Water Journal
3
(
2
),
111
120
.
Tabari
M. M. R.
&
Soltani
J.
2013
Multi-objective optimal model for conjunctive use management using SGAs and NSGA-II models
.
Water Resources Management
27
(
1
),
37
53
.
Tahershamsi
A.
,
Kaveh
A.
,
Sheikholeslami
R.
&
Azad
S. K.
2014
An improved firefly algorithm with harmony search scheme for optimization of water distribution systems
.
Scientia Iranica
21
(
5
),
1591
1607
.
Tao
H.
,
Diop
L.
,
Bodian
A.
,
Djaman
K.
,
Ndiaye
P. M.
&
Yaseen
Z. M.
2018
Reference evapotranspiration prediction using hybridized fuzzy model with firefly algorithm: regional case study in Burkina Faso
.
Agricultural Water Management
208
(
9
),
140
151
.
Teodorovic
D.
&
Dell’ Orco
M.
2005
Bee colony optimization-cooperative learning approach to complex transportation problems
.
Advanced OR and AI Methods in Transportation
51
60
.
Torkomany
M. R.
,
Hassan
H. S.
,
Shoukry
A.
,
Abdelrazek
A. M.
&
Elkholy
M.
2021
An enhanced multi-objective particle swarm optimization in water distribution systems design
.
Water (Switzerland)
13
(
10
),
1
21
.
Tu
Q.
,
Li
H.
,
Wang
X.
&
Chen
C.
2015
Ant colony optimization for the design of small-scale irrigation systems
.
Water Resources Management
29
(
7
),
2323
2339
.
Vasan
A.
&
Simonovic
S. P.
2010
Optimization of water distribution network design using differential evolution
.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
136
(
2
),
279
287
.
Wang
J.
&
Beni
G.
1989
Cellular robotic system with stationary robots and its application to manufacturing lattices
.
Proceedings. IEEE International Symposium on Intelligent Control
1989
,
132
137
.
Wang
G.
&
Guo
L.
2013
A novel hybrid bat algorithm with harmony search for global numerical optimization
.
Journal of Applied Mathematics
2013
(Article ID 696491)
,
21
.
Wang
C. M.
&
Huang
Y. F.
2010
Self-adaptive harmony search algorithm for optimization
.
Expert Systems with Applications
37
(
4
),
2826
2837
.
Wang
Q.
,
Liu
S.
,
Wang
H.
&
Savić
D. A.
2012
Multi-objective cuckoo search for the optimal design of water distribution systems
.
Civil Engineering and Urban Planning
2012
(
Ceup
),
402
405
.
Wang
H.
,
Wang
W.
,
Cui
Z.
,
Zhou
X.
,
Zhao
J.
&
Li
Y.
2018
A new dynamic firefly algorithm for demand estimation of water resources
.
Information Sciences
438
,
95
106
.
Whitley
D.
,
Ranaa
S.
,
Dzubera
J.
&
Mathias
K. E.
1996
Evaluating evolutionary algorithms
.
Artificial Intelligence
85
,
245
276
.
Yan
Z.
,
Sha
J.
,
Liu
B.
,
Tian
W.
&
Lu
J.
2018
An ameliorative whale optimization algorithm for multi-objective optimal allocation ofwater resources in Handan, China
.
Water (Switzerland)
10
(
1
),
87
Yang
X. S.
2009
Firefly algorithms for multimodal optimization
. In: Watanabe, O. & Zeugmann, T. (eds)
Stochastic Algorithms: Foundations and Applications. SAGA 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science
,
Springer
,
Berlin, Heidelberg
, vol
5792
, pp.
169
178
.
Yang
X. S.
2010
A new metaheuristic bat-inspired algorithm
.
Studies in Computational Intelligence
284
,
65
74
.
Yang
X.-S.
2012
Bat algorithm for multi-objective optimisation
.
International Journal of Bio-Inspired Computation
3
(
5
),
267
.
Yang
X.-S.
&
Deb
S.
2009
Cuckoo Search via Levy Flights
. In
2009 World Congress on Nature & Biologically Inspired Computing
, pp.
210
214
.
Yang
X.-S.
&
Deb
S.
2010
Engineering optimisation by cuckoo search
.
International Journal of Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Optimisation
1
(
4
),
330
.
Yang
X.
&
Hossein Gandomi
A.
2012
Bat algorithm: a novel approach for global engineering optimization
.
Engineering Computations
29
(
5
),
464
483
.
Zarghami
M.
&
Hajykazemian
H.
2013
Urban water resources planning by using a modified particle swarm optimization algorithm
.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
70
,
1
8
.
Zheng
F.
,
Simpson
A. R.
&
Zecchin
A.
2012
A Performance Comparison of Differential Evolution and Genetic Algorithm Variants Applied to Water Distribution System Optimization
. In:
World Environmental and Water Resources Congress
,
2012 May 2012
, pp.
2954
2963
.
Zou
D.
,
Gao
L.
,
Li
S.
&
Wu
J.
2011
An effective global harmony search algorithm for reliability problems
.
Expert Systems with Applications
38
(
4
),
4642
4648
.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).