- Email: [email protected]
Perspectives on Special Issue papers on coastal morphodynamic modeling
Coastal Engineering 51 (2004) 657 – 660 www.elsevier.com/locate/coastaleng
Editorial
Perspectives on Special Issue papers on coastal morphodynamic modeling
1. Introduction The increasing volume of literature on coastal morphodynamic modeling highlights the fact that greater emphasis is being placed by researchers on utilizing models to investigate evolving and resultant morphodynamic states, and the spatiotemporal characteristics of coastal morphology. Worthwhile accounts on the development and application of various modeling approaches for understanding and predicting coastal morphodynamics and coastal evolution can be found in several studies (for example, De Vriend et al., 1993, 2001; Stive et al., 1995; Nicholson et al., 1997; Seminara, 1998; Eleveld, 1999; Short, 1999; LaValle et al., 2001; Niedoroda et al., 2001; Seminara and Blondeaux, 2001; Capobianco et al., 2002; Woodroffe, 2002; Cowell et al., 2003; Hanson et al., 2003; Lakhan, 2003; Southgate et al., 2003). The knowledge that the various models, documented in diverse sources of literature, are unequal in terms of strengths, limitations, and applications, provides the academic basis and purpose of this Issue. Further to advancing the field of coastal morphodynamic modeling, it is also of paramount importance to meet the requirements of coastal engineers and allied professionals to have, in one amalgamated source, a representative selection of state-of-the-art models highlighting the prominent areas of coastal morphodynamic research. While space limitations prevented the inclusion of an encompassing spectrum of innovative coastal morphodynamic models, those papers selected for this 0378-3839/$ - see front matter D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.coastaleng.2004.07.001
Issue, nevertheless, serve to cumulatively enhance and strengthen the field of morphodynamic research, especially from process-oriented, applied, and practical perspectives.
2. Overview and organization of models selected The 14 papers selected for this Special Issue are structured and loosely organized in three broad categories of coastal morphodynamic modeling. The first group of contributions reflects not only the modeling of a portion of the coastal system, but also the modeling of its associated integrated component systems or subsystems at different spatial and temporal scales. Papers in the second category demonstrate the practical applications of morphodynamic models for coastal engineering projects. In the third group of papers, emphasis is placed on the utilization of credible validation procedures in order to evaluate the performance of abstracted coastal morphodynamic models. In the organizational content of this Issue, the first contribution elaborates on the use of statistical moments as a method for describing shoreline evolution and variability. The six subsequent papers provide, in the order mentioned, substantial insights on the morphodynamic modeling of individual morphological features (i.e., subsystems), among them dunes, beach cusps, intertidal bars on macro-tidal beaches, sandy tidal flats, micro-tidal barrier systems, and estuaries. In the next paper, emphasis is placed on
658
Editorial
coastal profile modeling of thermal-abrasion and accretionary coasts. This is then followed by a meaningful contribution that employs an analytical model for investigating equilibrium bathymetric profiles off river mouths associated with subaqueous deltas and clinoforms. The next three papers are included to highlight the operationalization and application of coastal morphodynamic models for coastal engineering projects. In the first of these papers, the morphological behavior of shoreface nourishment is evaluated by analyzing measured data that are compared with model results. The next paper focuses on predicting the effect of beach nourishment and cross-shore sediment variation on beach morphodynamics. The other paper in this group utilizes a 2 DH hydrodynamic and sediment transport numerical model to investigate the long-term evolution of fillet beaches at a harbor. The final two papers enhance both the academic and practical strengths of this Issue by emphasizing the importance of utilizing scientific testing and validation procedures to evaluate the credibility and performance of established morphodynamic models. Essentially, in the first paper, validation is performed across a range of processes and process interactions on a three-dimensional model for sediment transport and associated morphological changes. In the final contribution, the performance of morphological models is then evaluated with rigorous methods that allow for the determination of the bias, the accuracy, and the skill of a model.
3. Assessment of abstracted models When compared to morphodynamic modeling initiatives in the published literature, an objective assessment is that some of the models facilitate considerably more enlightenment on the relationships between process scales and scales of coastal behavior. Furthermore, they are instrumental in contributing to unraveling the complexities of the interactions of the nonlinear hydrodynamic processes operating in the coastal system. While morphodynamic models are becoming progressively more sophisticated, an evaluation of their fidelity requires consideration of the fact that no model, however complex, can be more than an approximation of reality. Therefore, on the
basis of parameterization, the models, especially those on morphological features, can be judged to have justifiable levels of abstraction. Abstractness, considered as a measure of the level of repression of detail, is introduced into the various models because it is almost impossible to comprehend all of the details of the large number of poorly understood nonlinear processes that interact with the wide variety of microand macro-morphological states in the coastal system. Moreover, some of the difficulties in abstracting and modeling the complex coastal system can be attributed to the fact that the coast, with its interacting component systems, can undergo a sequence of illdefined transitory states and is complicated by the presence of multiple feedback mechanisms, operating in complex feedback loops (Lakhan, 1989). Models still cannot fully capture the shifts in morphodynamic states, which effectuate changes in the governing nonlinear processes, and the hydrodynamics of particle–fluid interactions. Consequently, to obtain the level of abstraction which will allow for adequate representation of specific aspects of the coastal morphodynamic system and associated subsystems the contributors, cognizant of Bonini’s paradox (see Dutton and Starbuck, 1971, p. 14), focused on incorporating into their models only the critically important assumptions, parameters, functional relations, and morphodynamic characteristics of desired interest. Since models are essentially homomorphic because they have imperfect correspondence with the real coastal system, it is possible to make the claim that the models possess an acceptable balance of abstraction and similarity of the coastal system. Substantiation of this claim of the attainment of some degree of similarity is provided by the models and their results that imitate, to some extent, salient characteristics of the real morphodynamic systems that have been modeled. Without doubt, there is an obvious trade-off between abstraction and similarity, but the ultimate preference would be the formulation of models with very high abstraction and high similarity.
4. Model application and validation The relevance of morphodynamic models for nourishment design and evaluation, and for the
Editorial
remediation of coastal related features and projects provide justification for the three papers on model operationalization and application. The papers on nourishment of the shoreface, beach nourishment, and the long-term evolution of fillet beaches at a harbor collectively emphasize the importance of coastal morphodynamic models as indispensable tools for the purposes of implementing, analyzing, predicting and maintaining sustainable projects in the coastal environment. The final two contributions reaffirm the necessity for the refinement, testing, and implementation of reliable models. From both papers, it is established that validation is a fundamental task of model evaluation, and must be performed in order to ascertain whether the model faithfully captures the behavioral characteristics of the coast and its composition of component systems. Morphological simulation studies (for example, Lakhan, 1986; Lakhan and Jopling, 1987; Lakhan and LaValle, 1990; LaValle and Lakhan, 1997) have determined that validation can be equated to testing, and one or more tests must be employed to determine the validity of a model. When a model fails a specified validation test, it must be either modified or rejected because the ultimate objective is to formulate and operationalize models with high face validity and structural validity (Lakhan, 2004). Implementation of a model capable of approximately predicting or replicating the coastal system can certainly be obtained with progressive refinement and evaluation of models with rigorous quantitative validation measures. It, therefore, becomes necessary for coastal researchers to have readily available and professionally approved validation criteria or standards to test the performance of coastal morphodynamic models.
5. Conclusion and acknowledgements While significant research progress is being made in implementing a wide diversity of coastal morphodynamic models there is, nevertheless, scope for expanding the modeling frontier. Substantially more research remains to be done on not only the formulation and validation of highly abstracted models, but also on the adoption of innovative approaches for advancing the field of coastal mor-
659
phodynamics. In addition to current research efforts another publication will, hopefully, address coastal morphodynamic modeling issues from the perspectives of nonlinear process simulation modeling, stochastic modeling, interaction between models, integration of coastal morphodynamic models with geographic information systems, multisource data modeling, expert systems, fractal representation, parallel computation modeling, rule-based modeling, sensitivity analysis, neural network modeling, statistical modeling, four-dimensional representation, and merging of coastal morphodynamic models with different scales and dimensions. Any future initiative will obviously depend on the professional participation of contributors and reviewers. For this Issue, I extend my gratitude to all the contributors for their outstanding efforts. The reviewers must also be acknowledged for judging the quality of the manuscripts. Grateful thanks are, therefore, extended to all those who helped with their correspondence, especially Drs. G. Coco, Hans Dette, Ping Dong, Donald Forbes, D. Foster, C.T. Friedrichs, Mark Gravens, Hans Hanson, Robert Holman, Steve Hughes, Nobuhisa Kobayashi, N.C. Kraus, A. Lamberti, Javier Lario, P.D. LaValle, T.J. O’Hare, Julian Orford, S. Pan, Jeff Parsons, C. Pattiaratchi, L. Pratson, J.S. Ribberink, F. Rivero, G. Seminara, A.S. Trenhaile, J. van de Kreeke, and D.J.R. Walstra. Finally, my sincere appreciation to Dr. H.F. Burcharth, Editor-in-Chief of Coastal Engineering, for his professional guidance.
References Capobianco, M., Hanson, H., Larson, M., Steetzel, H., Stive, M.J.F., Chatelus, Y., Aarninkhof, S., Karambas, T., 2002. Nourishment design and evaluation: applicability of model concepts. Coastal Engineering 47 (2), 113 – 135. Cowell, P.J., Stive, M.J.F., Niedoroda, A.W., DeVriend, H.J., Swift, D.J.P., Kaminsky, G.M., Capobianco, M., 2003. The Coastaltract (part 1): a conceptual approach to aggregated modeling of low-order coastal change. Journal of Coastal Research 19 (4), 812 – 827. De Vriend, H.J., 2001. Long-term morphological prediction. In: Seminara, G., Blondeaux, P. (Eds.), River, Coastal and Estuarine Morphodynamics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 163 – 190. De Vriend, H.J., Capobianco, M., Chesher, T., DeSwart, H.E., Latteux, B., Stive, M.J.F., 1993. Approaches to long-term modelling of coastal morphology: a review. Coastal Engineering 21, 225 – 269.
660
Editorial
Dutton, J.M., Starbuck, W.H., 1971. Computer Simulation of Human Behaviour. Academic Press, New York. Eleveld, M.A., 1999. Exploring coastal morphodynamics of Ameland (the Netherlands) with remote sensing monitoring techniques and dynamic modelling in GIS. ITC Publication, vol. 70. ITC, Enschede, The Netherlands. Hanson, H., Aarninkhof, S., Capobianco, M., Jimenez, J.-A., Larson, M., Nicholls, R.J., Plant, N.G., Southgate, H.N., Steetzel, H.J., Stive, M.J.F., De Vriend, H.J., 2003. Modelling of coastal evolution on yearly to decadal time scales. Journal of Coastal Research 19 (4), 790 – 811. Lakhan, V.C., 1986. Modelling and simulating the morphological variability of the coastal system. Presented at the International Congress on Applied Systems Research and Cybernetics, August 18, 1986, Baden-Baden, West Germany. Lakhan, V.C., 1989. Modelling and simulation of the coastal system. In: Lakhan, V.C., Trenhaile, A.S. (Eds.), Applications in Coastal Modeling. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 17 – 41. Lakhan, V.C. (Ed.), 2003. Advances in Coastal Modeling. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 595 pp. Lakhan, V.C., 2004. Modeling and simulation of the coastal system. In: Schwartz, M. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Coastal Science. Kluwer Academic Publishing, The Netherlands, pp. 330 – 334. Lakhan, V.C., Jopling, A., 1987. Simulating the effects of random waves on concave-shaped nearshore profiles. Geografiska Annaler 69A, 251 – 269. Lakhan, V.C., LaValle, P.D., 1990. Development and testing of a simulation model for nearshore profile changes. In: Ricketts, P.J. (Ed.), Studies in Marine and Coastal Geography. St. Mary’s University, Halifax, NS, pp. 61 – 73. LaValle, P.D., Lakhan, V.C., 1997. Utilizing microcomputer-based models to simulate changes in the nearshore environment. Environmental Modelling and Software 12, 19 – 26.
LaValle, P.D., Lakhan, V.C., Trenhaile, A.S., 2001. Space-time series modeling of beach and shoreline data. Environmental Modelling and Software 16, 299 – 307. Nicholson, J., Broker, I., Roelvink, J.A., Price, D., Tanguy, J.M., Moreno, L., 1997. Intercomparison of coastal area morphodynamic models. Coastal Engineering 31, 97 – 123. Niedoroda, A.W., Reed, C.W., Stive, M., Cowell, P., 2001. Numerical simulations of coastal-tract morphodynamics. In: Hanson, H., Larson, M. (Eds.), Coastal Dynamics ’01. ASCE, Virginia, pp. 403 – 412. Seminara, G., 1998. Stability and morphodynamics. Meccanica 33, 59 – 99. Seminara, G., Blondeaux, P., 2001. Perspectives in morphodynamics. In: Seminara, G., Blondeaux, P. (Eds.), River, Coastal and Estuarine Morphodynamics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 1 – 9. Short, A.D. (Ed.), 1999. Handbook of Beach and Shoreface Morphodynamics. Wiley, New York, 379 pp. Southgate, H.N., Wijnberg, K.M., Larson, M., Capobianco, M., Jansen, H., 2003. Analysis of field data of coastal morphological evolution over yearly and decadal time scales: part 2. Non-linear techniques. Journal of Coastal Research 19 (4), 776 – 789. Stive, M.J.F., DeVriend, H.J., Cowell, P.J., Niedoroda, A.W., 1995. Behavior-oriented models of shoreface evolution. Proceedings Coastal Dynamics ’95. ASCE, Reston, VA, pp. 998 – 1005. Woodroffe, C.D., 2002. Coasts: Form, Process, and Evolution. Cambridge Univ. Press, New York
V. Chris Lakhan Department of Earth Sciences, School of Physical Sciences, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada N9B 3P4 E-mail address: [email protected].
Editorial
Perspectives on Special Issue papers on coastal morphodynamic modeling
1. Introduction The increasing volume of literature on coastal morphodynamic modeling highlights the fact that greater emphasis is being placed by researchers on utilizing models to investigate evolving and resultant morphodynamic states, and the spatiotemporal characteristics of coastal morphology. Worthwhile accounts on the development and application of various modeling approaches for understanding and predicting coastal morphodynamics and coastal evolution can be found in several studies (for example, De Vriend et al., 1993, 2001; Stive et al., 1995; Nicholson et al., 1997; Seminara, 1998; Eleveld, 1999; Short, 1999; LaValle et al., 2001; Niedoroda et al., 2001; Seminara and Blondeaux, 2001; Capobianco et al., 2002; Woodroffe, 2002; Cowell et al., 2003; Hanson et al., 2003; Lakhan, 2003; Southgate et al., 2003). The knowledge that the various models, documented in diverse sources of literature, are unequal in terms of strengths, limitations, and applications, provides the academic basis and purpose of this Issue. Further to advancing the field of coastal morphodynamic modeling, it is also of paramount importance to meet the requirements of coastal engineers and allied professionals to have, in one amalgamated source, a representative selection of state-of-the-art models highlighting the prominent areas of coastal morphodynamic research. While space limitations prevented the inclusion of an encompassing spectrum of innovative coastal morphodynamic models, those papers selected for this 0378-3839/$ - see front matter D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.coastaleng.2004.07.001
Issue, nevertheless, serve to cumulatively enhance and strengthen the field of morphodynamic research, especially from process-oriented, applied, and practical perspectives.
2. Overview and organization of models selected The 14 papers selected for this Special Issue are structured and loosely organized in three broad categories of coastal morphodynamic modeling. The first group of contributions reflects not only the modeling of a portion of the coastal system, but also the modeling of its associated integrated component systems or subsystems at different spatial and temporal scales. Papers in the second category demonstrate the practical applications of morphodynamic models for coastal engineering projects. In the third group of papers, emphasis is placed on the utilization of credible validation procedures in order to evaluate the performance of abstracted coastal morphodynamic models. In the organizational content of this Issue, the first contribution elaborates on the use of statistical moments as a method for describing shoreline evolution and variability. The six subsequent papers provide, in the order mentioned, substantial insights on the morphodynamic modeling of individual morphological features (i.e., subsystems), among them dunes, beach cusps, intertidal bars on macro-tidal beaches, sandy tidal flats, micro-tidal barrier systems, and estuaries. In the next paper, emphasis is placed on
658
Editorial
coastal profile modeling of thermal-abrasion and accretionary coasts. This is then followed by a meaningful contribution that employs an analytical model for investigating equilibrium bathymetric profiles off river mouths associated with subaqueous deltas and clinoforms. The next three papers are included to highlight the operationalization and application of coastal morphodynamic models for coastal engineering projects. In the first of these papers, the morphological behavior of shoreface nourishment is evaluated by analyzing measured data that are compared with model results. The next paper focuses on predicting the effect of beach nourishment and cross-shore sediment variation on beach morphodynamics. The other paper in this group utilizes a 2 DH hydrodynamic and sediment transport numerical model to investigate the long-term evolution of fillet beaches at a harbor. The final two papers enhance both the academic and practical strengths of this Issue by emphasizing the importance of utilizing scientific testing and validation procedures to evaluate the credibility and performance of established morphodynamic models. Essentially, in the first paper, validation is performed across a range of processes and process interactions on a three-dimensional model for sediment transport and associated morphological changes. In the final contribution, the performance of morphological models is then evaluated with rigorous methods that allow for the determination of the bias, the accuracy, and the skill of a model.
3. Assessment of abstracted models When compared to morphodynamic modeling initiatives in the published literature, an objective assessment is that some of the models facilitate considerably more enlightenment on the relationships between process scales and scales of coastal behavior. Furthermore, they are instrumental in contributing to unraveling the complexities of the interactions of the nonlinear hydrodynamic processes operating in the coastal system. While morphodynamic models are becoming progressively more sophisticated, an evaluation of their fidelity requires consideration of the fact that no model, however complex, can be more than an approximation of reality. Therefore, on the
basis of parameterization, the models, especially those on morphological features, can be judged to have justifiable levels of abstraction. Abstractness, considered as a measure of the level of repression of detail, is introduced into the various models because it is almost impossible to comprehend all of the details of the large number of poorly understood nonlinear processes that interact with the wide variety of microand macro-morphological states in the coastal system. Moreover, some of the difficulties in abstracting and modeling the complex coastal system can be attributed to the fact that the coast, with its interacting component systems, can undergo a sequence of illdefined transitory states and is complicated by the presence of multiple feedback mechanisms, operating in complex feedback loops (Lakhan, 1989). Models still cannot fully capture the shifts in morphodynamic states, which effectuate changes in the governing nonlinear processes, and the hydrodynamics of particle–fluid interactions. Consequently, to obtain the level of abstraction which will allow for adequate representation of specific aspects of the coastal morphodynamic system and associated subsystems the contributors, cognizant of Bonini’s paradox (see Dutton and Starbuck, 1971, p. 14), focused on incorporating into their models only the critically important assumptions, parameters, functional relations, and morphodynamic characteristics of desired interest. Since models are essentially homomorphic because they have imperfect correspondence with the real coastal system, it is possible to make the claim that the models possess an acceptable balance of abstraction and similarity of the coastal system. Substantiation of this claim of the attainment of some degree of similarity is provided by the models and their results that imitate, to some extent, salient characteristics of the real morphodynamic systems that have been modeled. Without doubt, there is an obvious trade-off between abstraction and similarity, but the ultimate preference would be the formulation of models with very high abstraction and high similarity.
4. Model application and validation The relevance of morphodynamic models for nourishment design and evaluation, and for the
Editorial
remediation of coastal related features and projects provide justification for the three papers on model operationalization and application. The papers on nourishment of the shoreface, beach nourishment, and the long-term evolution of fillet beaches at a harbor collectively emphasize the importance of coastal morphodynamic models as indispensable tools for the purposes of implementing, analyzing, predicting and maintaining sustainable projects in the coastal environment. The final two contributions reaffirm the necessity for the refinement, testing, and implementation of reliable models. From both papers, it is established that validation is a fundamental task of model evaluation, and must be performed in order to ascertain whether the model faithfully captures the behavioral characteristics of the coast and its composition of component systems. Morphological simulation studies (for example, Lakhan, 1986; Lakhan and Jopling, 1987; Lakhan and LaValle, 1990; LaValle and Lakhan, 1997) have determined that validation can be equated to testing, and one or more tests must be employed to determine the validity of a model. When a model fails a specified validation test, it must be either modified or rejected because the ultimate objective is to formulate and operationalize models with high face validity and structural validity (Lakhan, 2004). Implementation of a model capable of approximately predicting or replicating the coastal system can certainly be obtained with progressive refinement and evaluation of models with rigorous quantitative validation measures. It, therefore, becomes necessary for coastal researchers to have readily available and professionally approved validation criteria or standards to test the performance of coastal morphodynamic models.
5. Conclusion and acknowledgements While significant research progress is being made in implementing a wide diversity of coastal morphodynamic models there is, nevertheless, scope for expanding the modeling frontier. Substantially more research remains to be done on not only the formulation and validation of highly abstracted models, but also on the adoption of innovative approaches for advancing the field of coastal mor-
659
phodynamics. In addition to current research efforts another publication will, hopefully, address coastal morphodynamic modeling issues from the perspectives of nonlinear process simulation modeling, stochastic modeling, interaction between models, integration of coastal morphodynamic models with geographic information systems, multisource data modeling, expert systems, fractal representation, parallel computation modeling, rule-based modeling, sensitivity analysis, neural network modeling, statistical modeling, four-dimensional representation, and merging of coastal morphodynamic models with different scales and dimensions. Any future initiative will obviously depend on the professional participation of contributors and reviewers. For this Issue, I extend my gratitude to all the contributors for their outstanding efforts. The reviewers must also be acknowledged for judging the quality of the manuscripts. Grateful thanks are, therefore, extended to all those who helped with their correspondence, especially Drs. G. Coco, Hans Dette, Ping Dong, Donald Forbes, D. Foster, C.T. Friedrichs, Mark Gravens, Hans Hanson, Robert Holman, Steve Hughes, Nobuhisa Kobayashi, N.C. Kraus, A. Lamberti, Javier Lario, P.D. LaValle, T.J. O’Hare, Julian Orford, S. Pan, Jeff Parsons, C. Pattiaratchi, L. Pratson, J.S. Ribberink, F. Rivero, G. Seminara, A.S. Trenhaile, J. van de Kreeke, and D.J.R. Walstra. Finally, my sincere appreciation to Dr. H.F. Burcharth, Editor-in-Chief of Coastal Engineering, for his professional guidance.
References Capobianco, M., Hanson, H., Larson, M., Steetzel, H., Stive, M.J.F., Chatelus, Y., Aarninkhof, S., Karambas, T., 2002. Nourishment design and evaluation: applicability of model concepts. Coastal Engineering 47 (2), 113 – 135. Cowell, P.J., Stive, M.J.F., Niedoroda, A.W., DeVriend, H.J., Swift, D.J.P., Kaminsky, G.M., Capobianco, M., 2003. The Coastaltract (part 1): a conceptual approach to aggregated modeling of low-order coastal change. Journal of Coastal Research 19 (4), 812 – 827. De Vriend, H.J., 2001. Long-term morphological prediction. In: Seminara, G., Blondeaux, P. (Eds.), River, Coastal and Estuarine Morphodynamics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 163 – 190. De Vriend, H.J., Capobianco, M., Chesher, T., DeSwart, H.E., Latteux, B., Stive, M.J.F., 1993. Approaches to long-term modelling of coastal morphology: a review. Coastal Engineering 21, 225 – 269.
660
Editorial
Dutton, J.M., Starbuck, W.H., 1971. Computer Simulation of Human Behaviour. Academic Press, New York. Eleveld, M.A., 1999. Exploring coastal morphodynamics of Ameland (the Netherlands) with remote sensing monitoring techniques and dynamic modelling in GIS. ITC Publication, vol. 70. ITC, Enschede, The Netherlands. Hanson, H., Aarninkhof, S., Capobianco, M., Jimenez, J.-A., Larson, M., Nicholls, R.J., Plant, N.G., Southgate, H.N., Steetzel, H.J., Stive, M.J.F., De Vriend, H.J., 2003. Modelling of coastal evolution on yearly to decadal time scales. Journal of Coastal Research 19 (4), 790 – 811. Lakhan, V.C., 1986. Modelling and simulating the morphological variability of the coastal system. Presented at the International Congress on Applied Systems Research and Cybernetics, August 18, 1986, Baden-Baden, West Germany. Lakhan, V.C., 1989. Modelling and simulation of the coastal system. In: Lakhan, V.C., Trenhaile, A.S. (Eds.), Applications in Coastal Modeling. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 17 – 41. Lakhan, V.C. (Ed.), 2003. Advances in Coastal Modeling. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 595 pp. Lakhan, V.C., 2004. Modeling and simulation of the coastal system. In: Schwartz, M. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Coastal Science. Kluwer Academic Publishing, The Netherlands, pp. 330 – 334. Lakhan, V.C., Jopling, A., 1987. Simulating the effects of random waves on concave-shaped nearshore profiles. Geografiska Annaler 69A, 251 – 269. Lakhan, V.C., LaValle, P.D., 1990. Development and testing of a simulation model for nearshore profile changes. In: Ricketts, P.J. (Ed.), Studies in Marine and Coastal Geography. St. Mary’s University, Halifax, NS, pp. 61 – 73. LaValle, P.D., Lakhan, V.C., 1997. Utilizing microcomputer-based models to simulate changes in the nearshore environment. Environmental Modelling and Software 12, 19 – 26.
LaValle, P.D., Lakhan, V.C., Trenhaile, A.S., 2001. Space-time series modeling of beach and shoreline data. Environmental Modelling and Software 16, 299 – 307. Nicholson, J., Broker, I., Roelvink, J.A., Price, D., Tanguy, J.M., Moreno, L., 1997. Intercomparison of coastal area morphodynamic models. Coastal Engineering 31, 97 – 123. Niedoroda, A.W., Reed, C.W., Stive, M., Cowell, P., 2001. Numerical simulations of coastal-tract morphodynamics. In: Hanson, H., Larson, M. (Eds.), Coastal Dynamics ’01. ASCE, Virginia, pp. 403 – 412. Seminara, G., 1998. Stability and morphodynamics. Meccanica 33, 59 – 99. Seminara, G., Blondeaux, P., 2001. Perspectives in morphodynamics. In: Seminara, G., Blondeaux, P. (Eds.), River, Coastal and Estuarine Morphodynamics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 1 – 9. Short, A.D. (Ed.), 1999. Handbook of Beach and Shoreface Morphodynamics. Wiley, New York, 379 pp. Southgate, H.N., Wijnberg, K.M., Larson, M., Capobianco, M., Jansen, H., 2003. Analysis of field data of coastal morphological evolution over yearly and decadal time scales: part 2. Non-linear techniques. Journal of Coastal Research 19 (4), 776 – 789. Stive, M.J.F., DeVriend, H.J., Cowell, P.J., Niedoroda, A.W., 1995. Behavior-oriented models of shoreface evolution. Proceedings Coastal Dynamics ’95. ASCE, Reston, VA, pp. 998 – 1005. Woodroffe, C.D., 2002. Coasts: Form, Process, and Evolution. Cambridge Univ. Press, New York
V. Chris Lakhan Department of Earth Sciences, School of Physical Sciences, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada N9B 3P4 E-mail address: [email protected].