Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript presents the results of a modeling investigation that examines the use of a framework to better visualize coastal morphologic change. In particular, this study applied the model to a study site to show how different sets of data are integrated in a 3D-thickness model. The manuscript is well-constructed and written. I identify a few comments/questions below that are meant to improve the clarity of the manuscript.

Lines 19-20: “Visualization of simulation outcomes is a non-trivial . . .” (delete “it”)

Line 88: “. . . a series of agreed common guidelines . . .” seems awkward

Lines 122-123: “As a case study, we use a case study of Happisburgh [19] the simulation outcomes obtained by [19] . . .” is repetitive and awkward

Line 127: “We then briefly present CoastalME as an appropriate . . .” (delete “is presented”)

2.1 Happisburgh case study description: What is the size of the study area? What is the area and/or length of coastline?

2.1 Happisburgh case study description: How steep are the cliffs along the coastline? What is the angle of repose of the surficial materials? What is the beach depth?

Line 215: “An alternative approach . . .” (delete “,”)

Line 219: “CoastalME should be understood . . .” (delete “,”)

Line 241 and Figure 6: What is the resolution of x and y cells, or what are the limits to their resolution in this model?

Line 257: “To illustrate the different visualization options, we have used CoastalME . . .”

Line 260: “This is based on a 360-day simulation . . .”

Line 273: “. . . other place where equivalent . . .”

Line 279: What interpolation method was used?

Line 284: Again, what interpolation method was used?

Figure 13: The colored circles are difficult to see. Can they be enlarged?

Line 418: The different interpolation approaches need to be defined and the rationale for application of each specific method explained.

Line 429: Can this “rich and plausible behavior” be supported by field data/observation for validation?

Lines 506-507: What about the reaction of decision makers and planners? What do they think of CoastalME? Has it successfully engaged them? This is discussed as a reason for this research, but was it assessed?

Author Response

We would like to thanks Rviewer#1 for his/her careful review and constructive comments. The authors have addressed all the minor comments (A#) on the revised manuscript as indicated below. We have used track changes to facilitate the identification of the changes in response to the minor corrections suggested by the reviewers.

 

Reviewer 1

R1: Lines 19-20: “Visualization of simulation outcomes is a non-trivial . . .” (delete “it”)

A1: deleted

R2: Line 88: “. . . a series of agreed common guidelines . . .” seems awkward

A2: replaced by “caution and agreed visualization standards are still needed”

R3: Lines 122-123: “As a case study, we use a case study of Happisburgh [19] the simulation outcomes obtained by [19] . . .” is repetitive and awkward

A3: replaced by “To demonstrate the communication of complex beach-shore platform-cliff interactions to both specialist and non-specialist audiences, we have used  the simulation outcomes obtained by [19] for the eroding coast of Happisburgh (eastern England, UK).”

R4: Line 127: “We then briefly present CoastalME as an appropriate . . .” (delete “is presented”)

A4: deleted

R5: 2.1 Happisburgh case study description: What is the size of the study area? What is the area and/or length of coastline?

A5: the following has been added (Line 138): “The length of the coast focus of this study is ca. 3km”

R6: 2.1 Happisburgh case study description: How steep are the cliffs along the coastline? What is the angle of repose of the surficial materials? What is the beach depth?

A6: the following has been added in Line 184: “The cliffs at the study site have slopes slightly lower than and within the range of their peak angle of friction (i.e. 24 to 32 degrees [28]) and range in height from 6 m to 20 m above Ordnance Datum (OD) (Figure 4).”

R7: Line 215: “An alternative approach . . .” (delete “,”)

A7: deleted

R8: Line 219: “CoastalME should be understood . . .” (delete “,”)

A8: deleted

R9: Line 241 and Figure 6: What is the resolution of x and y cells, or what are the limits to their resolution in this model?

A9: The following has been added in Line 241: “The size of the square blocks is determined by the user based on resolution of data availability and model outputs sensitivity.” The resolution of the Happisburgh model is 5 x 5 m as stated in Line 297.

R10: Line 257: “To illustrate the different visualization options, we have used CoastalME . . .”

A10: typo amended as suggested

R11: Line 260: “This is based on a 360-day simulation . . .”

A11: typo amended as suggested

R12: Line 273: “. . . other place where equivalent . . .”

A12: typoamended as requested

R13: Line 279: What interpolation method was used?

A13: added “For the interpolation we have used the SAGA-Close Gaps function with a tension threshold of 0.1. The Close Gaps function uses a method commonly called minimum curvature under tension to interpolate the missing data [38].”

R14: Line 284: Again, what interpolation method was used?

A14: added: “For the interpolation of the 3D geological model we have used GSI3DTM software (version 2013) [39] as described in [19]”

R15: Figure 13: The colored circles are difficult to see. Can they be enlarged?

A15: Figure 13 on pdf version were pixelated but when full quality image is used, colored circles are more clearly visible.

R16: Line 418: The different interpolation approaches need to be defined and the rationale for application of each specific method explained.

A16: Interpolation methods as now been included (see A13 and A14) and rationale was explained in [19] which is cited.

R17: Line 429: Can this “rich and plausible behavior” be supported by field data/observation for validation?

A17: While the focus of this manuscript was on visualization we have added a new reference that support this observation [20].

R18: Lines 506-507: What about the reaction of decision makers and planners? What do they think of CoastalME? Has it successfully engaged them? This is discussed as a reason for this research, but was it assessed?

A18: As stated in Line 119 “The aim of this paper is to illustrate how close linking between the outputs from the Coastal Modelling Environment (CoastalME) [16] and Geographical Information System (GIS) data structures and output formats minimizes the mismatch between scientifically sound model results and user-demanded realism in terms of how the coast is represented.” Assessing the reaction of decision makers and planners was not the aim as this was already done by [12].

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript outlines a modeling framework that can be used to simulate and visualize mesoscale coastline morphological change for coastal specialists and decision-makers. The paper is well-written and the authors have done a nice job of motivating the need for this kind of approach with a case study. The paper fits well within the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering and I recommend that it be accepted following minor revisions.

Minor Comments:
Line 470: Point 3 – This statement misses an important caveat of any standardized interpolation approach - how may persistent submesoscale scale features, which are smoothed out by interpolation over coarser grids, influence the depiction and prediction of mesoscale morphological change? A brief description of the sensitivity of results to model resolution as well as a discussion of how resolution needs may change depending on the complexity of the terrain is warranted.

Figure 10-12, the figures are heavily pixelated in the pdf, consider reformatting for publication.

Author Response

We would like to thanks Reviewer#2 for his/her careful review and constructive comments. The authors have addressed all the minor comments (A#) on the revised manuscript as indicated below. We have used track changes to facilitate the identification of the changes in response to the minor corrections suggested by the reviewers.

R1: Line 470: Point 3 – This statement misses an important caveat of any standardized interpolation approach - how may persistent submesoscale scale features, which are smoothed out by interpolation over coarser grids, influence the depiction and prediction of mesoscale morphological change? A brief description of the sensitivity of results to model resolution as well as a discussion of how resolution needs may change depending on the complexity of the terrain is warranted.

A1: Good point. The following has been added: “The choice of model resolution (spatial and temporal ) is one of the many decisions that can affect the simulation of sub-mesoscale scale features. Sub-grid features (and processes) are necessarily smoothed out by interpolation onto coarser grids, and this may influence the depiction and prediction of mesoscale morphological change. Although it has been argued [43,44] that mesoscale coastal morphodynamics is substantially decoupled from small-scale processes, this is clearly an aspect of model development that requires careful attention. Sensitivity testing of the overall simulation outputs to different interpolation, resolution and other model assumptions ideally requires a standardized approach”

R2: Figure 10-12, the figures are heavily pixelated in the pdf, consider reformatting for publication.

A2: The original quality of figures 10-12 when inserted in the doc version are higher than the one shown in the converted pdf. The higher quality images will be used for final publication.