Coastal Modelling Environment Version 1.0: a Framework For
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 2715–2740, 2017 https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2715-2017 © Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Coastal Modelling Environment version 1.0: a framework for integrating landform-specific component models in order to simulate decadal to centennial morphological changes on complex coasts Andrés Payo1,6, David Favis-Mortlock1, Mark Dickson3, Jim W. Hall1, Martin D. Hurst6,a, Mike J. A. Walkden4, Ian Townend5, Matthew C. Ives1, Robert J. Nicholls2, and Michael A. Ellis6 1Oxford University Centre for the Environment, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3QY, UK 2Faculty of Eng. and the Env. Energy and Climate Change, Southampton Univ., Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK 3School of Env. University of Auckland, 10 Symonds St, Auckland Private Bag 92 019, New Zealand 4WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff, Keble House, Southernhay Gardens, Exeter EX1 1NT, UK 5National Oceanography Centre, Southampton University, SO14 3ZH, UK 6British Geological Survey, Keyworth, NG12 5GD, UK anow at: University of Glasgow, East Quad, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK Correspondence to: Andrés Payo ([email protected]) Received: 10 October 2016 – Discussion started: 15 November 2015 Revised: 7 June 2017 – Accepted: 14 June 2017 – Published: 17 July 2017 Abstract. The ability to model morphological changes on beach model and two wave propagation approaches. We ver- complex, multi-landform coasts over decadal to centennial ify that CoastalME can reproduce behaviours of the compo- timescales is essential for sustainable coastal management nent landform-specific models. Additionally, the integration worldwide. One approach involves coupling of landform- of these component models within the CoastalME framework specific simulation models (e.g. cliffs, beaches, dunes and reveals behaviours that emerge from the interaction of land- estuaries) that have been independently developed. An alter- forms, which have not previously been captured, such as the native, novel approach explored in this paper is to capture influence of the regional bathymetry on the local alongshore the essential characteristics of the landform-specific models sediment-transport gradient and the effect on coastal change using a common spatial representation within an appropri- on an undefended coastal segment and on sediment bypass- ate software framework. This avoid the problems that result ing of coastal structures. from the model-coupling approach due to between-model differences in the conceptualizations of geometries, vol- umes and locations of sediment. In the proposed framework, the Coastal Modelling Environment (CoastalME), change in 1 Introduction coastal morphology is represented by means of dynamically linked raster and geometrical objects. A grid of raster cells Coastal managers worldwide must plan for decadal to cen- provides the data structure for representing quasi-3-D spa- tennial time horizons (e.g. Nicholls et al., 2012) and may tial heterogeneity and sediment conservation. Other geomet- well need to also assess longer-term adaptation measures rical objects (lines, areas and volumes) that are consistent (Brown et al., 2014; Hall et al., 2012). However, quantita- with, and derived from, the raster structure represent a li- tive prediction of morphological coastal changes at meso- brary of coastal elements (e.g. shoreline, beach profiles and scales (decades to centuries and tens to hundreds of kilome- estuary volumes) as required by different landform-specific tres) is scientifically challenging. Physics-based, reduction- models. As a proof-of-concept, we illustrate the capabilities ist models that represent small-scale processes have proven of an initial version of CoastalME by integrating a cliff– to be of limited use in this task, both because of the ac- cumulation of small errors over long timescales (de Vriend Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union. 2716 A. Payo et al.: Coastal Modelling Environment version 1.0 et al., 1993) because of the omission of processes that govern We suggest that integrated modelling must go beyond long-term change (Murray, 2007; Werner, 2003) and compu- the software coupling issues that have been the focus of tational limitations (Daly et al., 2015). Faced with this im- OpenMI and CSDMS. Instead, as argued by Raper and Liv- passe, coastal geomorphologists have begun to adopt sim- ingstone (1995), integrated modelling should deal more di- pler behaviourally based approaches or large-scale coastal rectly with the semantics of the various entities modelled. behavioural (LSCB) models (Terwindt and Battjes, 1990). We propose a way to address this: by means of a modu- LSCB models seek to represent the main physical governing lar, object-oriented framework in which these entities are processes on appropriate time and space scales (Cowell et al., the primary constructs. In other words, the objects that in- 1995; French et al., 2016b; Murray, 2013). Central to these teract within the model framework should correspond to the approaches has been selective characterization of the coast- main real-world constructs considered by coastal scientists line: thus, we have seen the development of models that sim- and managers. Figure 1 illustrates the modelling approach ulate the temporal evolution of a range of individual elements underpinning the proposed modelling framework; represen- of coastal morphology, such as coastal profiles, shorelines tation of space, and of the changes occurring within its spa- or estuary volumes. However, modelling of complex coast- tial domain, involves both raster (i.e. grid) and vector (i.e. lines involving multiple landforms (for example, beaches and coastline, profile and sediment-sharing polygons) represen- tidal inlets) requires consideration of interactions between tations of spatial objects. This is commonplace in modern the component landforms, subject to the principles of mass GIS (geographic information system) packages. What is rel- conservation. This is difficult: modelling these interactions is atively unusual, however, is that in the proposed framework, still not commonplace. data are routinely and regularly transformed between these One possible way forward is the development and use two representations during each time step of a simulation. of model-to-model interfaces: software wrappers that al- In this paper, we provide a detailed description of the pro- low coupling of independently developed component mod- posed Coastal Modelling Environment (CoastalME). We also els (Moore and Hughes, 2016; Sutherland et al., 2014). Sig- provide a proof-of-concept illustration of its integrative ca- nificant effort has been oriented in this direction during the pacity by unifying independently developed cliff, beach and last decade, in particular by the Open Modelling Interface wave propagation models. Validation of the geomorpholog- (OpenMI) and Community Surface Dynamics Modelling ical outcomes of model runs against real-world data will be System (CSDMS). OpenMI emerged from the water sector the subject of a future study. This paper is organized in six as a way to link existing stand-alone models that were not sections. In Sect. 2, we have outlined the background and ra- originally designed to work together (Gregersen et al., 2005), tionale for the proposed coastal modelling environment. In while CSDMS draws on a large pool of well-understood Sect. 3, we explain in detail the proposed framework, includ- open-access models (Hutton et al., 2014). The promise of ing the representation of space and time, inputs and outputs, OpenMI and CSDMS is to provide a unified system to link main operations within time steps, treatment of the domain various models in order to explore broader system behaviour. boundary conditions, implementation and CoastalME mod- However, a range of challenges becomes apparent when link- ular design. In Sect. 4, we present some simulation results ing component models in this way. These include difficul- to illustrate how the different model components integrated ties associated with fully accounting for the cumulative ef- in this first composition interact to produce realistic coastal fect of various assumptions made by, and uncertainties in, the morphological changes and we discuss its advantages and constituent models, and non-trivial technical issues concern- limitations. In Sect. 5, we discuss and in Sect. 6 summarize ing variable names and units (Peckham et al., 2013). Such the main conclusions. In the Code Availability section, we software-coupling frameworks are themselves agnostic with outline the main websites and weblinks from which the code, regard to the spatial structures of component models. This the input files used for the test cases and a dedicated wiki site creates a further significant challenge when coupling exist- are available. ing LSCB models due to fundamental between-model differ- ences in the conceptualizations of geometries, volumes and locations of sediment. For example, the Soft Cliff and Plat- 2 Background and rationale of the proposed coastal form Evolution (SCAPE; Walkden and Hall, 2011) model modelling environment assumes a beach of finite thickness perched at the top of the bedrock shore profile, while “one-line” approaches as- 2.1 Determinants of large-scale coastal behaviour sume infinite beach thickness (Payo et al., 2015). Similarly, a 2-D estuary model uses the bathymetry to define the form The dynamic behaviour observed in coastal geomorphol- as a continuum, whereas an aggregated model, such as AS- ogy is