1 / 25

Simone Bizzi In collaboration with:

Model and evaluate geomorphology under different catchment management strategies. Simone Bizzi In collaboration with: Dr Andrea Nardini Technical Director of CIRF (Italian Centre for River Restoration). What is Geomorphology?.

dayton
Download Presentation

Simone Bizzi In collaboration with:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Model and evaluate geomorphology under different catchment management strategies Simone Bizzi In collaboration with: Dr Andrea Nardini Technical Director of CIRF (Italian Centre for River Restoration)

  2. What is Geomorphology? “..the study of sediment sources, fluxes and storage within the river catchment and channel over short, medium and longer timescales and of resultant channel and floodplain morphology” (Newson and Sear 1993)

  3. Geomorphology and river management? • Annual expenditure on Flood Defence > £500 million • WFD requirement to maximize habitat quality

  4. Aims of the research Model and evaluate geomorphological features under different catchment managements strategies

  5. Why River Habitat Survey? • 10 years of experiences and more than 10000 samples only in England and Wales • Assessments and decisions are taken using this dataset • Feedbacks for the next versions

  6. Is it the database suitable?

  7. Problems to face • Limited information in the variables • Dynamic system in space and time • Typology: Every river has its behaviour

  8. Model approach Modelling Evaluating Information (Causal Factors) Index (Targets – Geomorphological Features) Evaluation • More experiences in literature Geomorphology (CAESAR,REAS, HEC-RAS ..) • They require detailed and specific data • Most of the time not catchment scale • Evaluation phase most of the time is missing

  9. Model approach Modelling Evaluating Information (Causal Factors) Index (Targets – Geomorphological Features) Evaluation Phase 1: A cluster analysis able to find pattern in the data and structured them in a way suitable for the evaluation

  10. Model approach Modelling Evaluating Information (Causal Factors) Index (Targets – Geomorphological Features) Evaluation Phase 2: A classification model able to give an output suitable for an evaluation

  11. CONCEPTUALIZATION • Geomorphological Features (targets): • Numbers of Bars • Numbers of Pools and Riffles • Type of Bank vegetations • Numbers of woody debris • Bankfull width RHS site

  12. CONCEPTUALIZATION • Natural variables (Causal Factors ) • Slope • Flow Regime • Geology RHS site

  13. CONCEPTUALIZATION • Percentage of Land Use in the sub-catchment (Causal Factor ): • Vegetated • Urban • Improved Grass Land • Arable RHS site

  14. CONCEPTUALIZATION Percentage of area in the sub-catchment obstructed by dams or artificial reservoirs (Causal Factor ) RHS site

  15. CONCEPTUALIZATION • RHS sites • Level of modification in the sites and upstream (Causal Factors) • Hard Modification : • Resectioning • Bank and channels reinforcements • Embankments • Soft Modification: • Weirs • Bridges • ford.. • Culverts d4 d3 d2 RHS site d1

  16. CONCEPTUALIZATION xi (t+1)= f( uRHS,i(t),ucat,i(t), Nat(t)) STEADY STATE xi = f( uRHS,i,ucat,i,Nat) d4 d3 d2 RHS site i d1

  17. Clustering Step

  18. Clustering Step Natural Variables (VERTICAL path) Vs Anthropogenic Variables (HORIZONTAL path)

  19. Clustering Step C1 C2 C3

  20. Model capability C1 ? ? C2 C3

  21. Model capability C1 ? ? C2 C3

  22. Model capability C1 ? ? C2 C3

  23. Conclusions • The weakness of a site specific approach • Flexible Geomorphological tool at national level • RHS limits

  24. Future Directions • Assessing the feasibility to add biology • Developing a “site specific” case study to overcome some limitations intrinsic in the national level • Analysing the level of “integrability” between these two different approach

  25. Thank you for your attention! s.bizzi@sheffield.ac.uk

More Related