Development of a Prototype Framework to Facilitate Interoperable Freshwater Modelling in

New Zealand

Daniel Rutledge, Sandy Elliott, Val Snow, Gabi Turek, Alistair Ritchie, Simon Guest, Alexander Herzig, Trevor Knopp, Paul Smale

NZ Hydrological Society Conference 27 November 2012

Project Need

• Freshwater resources modelling is a key tool supporting environmental policy, planning and resource management in New Zealand

• Increase in number of available freshwater models over the last decade

• Increase also in confusion and concern about how these various models relate to one another and could work together

Confusion & Concern

• Lack of knowledge about what models are available and what they do

• Concern that we have too many models

• Models tied to certain providers

• Large expense associated with connecting data &models

• Large investment required to modify existing models or to build new ones

• Uncertainty around how to use model results for decision-making

• Lack of re-use

• Lack of co-ordination among modelling efforts

Response: IFM Project

• ScientificDevelop a prototype interoperable modelling framework to proof-of-concept stage– Interoperability– Adaptation and re-use– Freely available– Ease-of-use– Technologically nimble

• Policy, Planning & Resource ManagementEnable coordinated and efficient explorations of linkages, interactions and impacts among land use,land management, climate change, and water resources

Methods

• Inventories– Existing interoperable modelling frameworks– NZ Water Resources Models– Relevant data (e.g., climate, soils, water, etc.)

• Model visualisation tool (ModelVis)

• Framework assessment

• Prototype framework development pathway

http://ifm.niwa.co.nz/launch.html

Project Plan

User Workshop Summary• Framework Criteria

– Open (including open source)– Scientifically credible– Easy to add new models and databases– Auditable– Identify uncertainty, assumptions made, and confidence bounds– Collaborative governance structure

• Expected Benefits– Efficiency– More robust model estimates– Transparency– Better and more timely policy and regulatory decisions– Decreased costs of model provisioning– Answer more complex questions

Stage 1 – Preliminary Screening

• Several existing reviews available*

• Consistent, unified method to categorise and characterise available frameworks is lacking

• Developed screening criteria based on peer-reviewed literature, web searches, discussions with framework developers, personal knowledge, results from workshop

*Argent 2004, Hutchings et al. 2002, Jagers 2010

Screening Criteria

• Scope• Development History• Cost and IP• Applications• Technical Considerations• User Information• Other Information• Links• References

https://teamwork.niwa.co.nz/display/IFM/Table+of+Frameworks

Stage 1 Screening Results• 18 frameworks screened

• 12 frameworks not selected for full review

• Reasons for rejection– Aspatial– Uncertainty over longevity or no activity– Not flexible or adaptable– Targeted at another domain– Proprietary

• 6 selected for full review– CSDMS, OMS3, OpenMI, OpenPalm, TIME, Pegasus

APSIM Delft-FEWS GME (Geospatial Modelling Environment) ICMSBespoke Framework Generator ESMF GME (Generic Modelling Environment) OASISEnsym Hydromodler Hydrologists Workbench SEAMLESS

Stage 2 – Full Review

• Developed 32 assessment criteria based on workshop criteria and findings from the screening

• Ranked the criteria (Key, High, Medium)

• Final selection based largely on 13 Key Criteria

Stage 2 – Full Review ResultsCriteria CSDMS OMS3 OpenMI OpenPalm TIME Pegasus

Parameter Re-use

Dynamic Models

Static Models

Add/subtract models

Open source

Available for use

Open model interface

Open data standards

Scalable

Spatial Models

Geospatial Data

Longevity

GUI for set-up

Criterion Met Criterion Partly Met Criterion Not Met Need More Info

Stage 2 – Full Review Results• All frameworks have many benefits and some limitations

• CSDMS and OpenPalm: mainly for highly complex modelling on high-performance computers

• TIME: high risk due to concerns over longevity and lack of investment by main funding organisation (CSIRO)

• Pegasus: Good for large workflowss, but not necessarily interactive modelling

• Conclusions– Proceed with further testing of OMS3– Hold OpenMI in reserve (issues with new version 2.0)

OMS3 Overview & Testing• OMS = Open Modelling System

• Developers: USDA NRCS, Colorado State, USGS

• Attributes– Java-Based (Console for Model Development & Coupling)– Metadata Standards– Model components made discoverable via annotation

(vs. wrapping in OpenMI)– Weak on data integration (does not follow open standards)

• Testing– Models: APSIM, Overseer, WATYIELD, Irrigation– Data: ClimDB (NIWA), SoilsDB (Landcare Research) via Web Services

Next Steps

• Complete OMS3 testing (Feb 2013)

• Project Workshop (June 2013)

• Final Report & Implementation Plan(End September 2013)

More information: IFM Project WIKI

https://teamwork.niwa.co.nz/display/IFM/Framework+for+Interoperable+Freshwater+Models