1. Freshwater Interoperable Modelling Project Daniel Rutledge, Sandy Elliott, Simon Guest, Alexander Herzig, Trevor Knopp, Alistair Ritchie, Paul Smale, Val Snow, Gabi Turek NZ Hydrological Society Conference 27 November 2012

2. Project Need Water resources modelling is a key tool for environmental planning and management in New Zealand Over the last decade the number of models available for the prediction of water quality and quantity has increased Confusion about how these various freshwater models relate to one another and could work together has also increased

3. Concerns Around Current Modelling Efforts Models are tied to certain model 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 co-ordination among modelling efforts

4. Project Outcome Develop a prototype interoperable modelling framework to proof-of-concept stage – Enables various models of water quality and quantity used in New Zealand, to interoperate – Adapts or re-uses existing frameworks and software tools, preferably open-access ones – Freely available – Easy to use – Makes use of current and emerging computer technologies Enable more coordinated and efficient explorations of the linkages and interactions of changing land use, land management, and climate change effects on water resources

5. Project Plan

6. 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

7. General Interoperability Issues Conceptual – interaction among domains (e.g., surface & fresh water, land & water) Methodological – issues of scale, realisation, etc. Technical – different software languages, different operating systems

8. Stage 1 – Preliminary Screening Several reviews available (Argent 2004, Hutchings et al. 2002, Jagers 2010) but lack of unified way to categorise and characterise the diverse frameworks that are available Search of peer-reviewed literature, web searches, discussions with framework developers, personal knowledge

9. 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

10. 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 APSIMDelft-FEWSGME (Geospatial Modelling Environment)ICMS Bespoke Framework GeneratorESMFGME (Generic Modelling Environment)OASIS EnsymHydromodlerHydrologists WorkbenchSEAMLESS

11. Stage 2 – Full Review Developed a preliminary list of 32 assessment criteria based on workshop criteria and findings from the screening Ranked the criteria (Key, High, Medium) Final selection based on 13 Key Criteria

12. 13 Key Criteria 1.Stores model parameters for re-use 2.Supports dynamics models 3.Supports static models 4.Can add/remove/substitute components 5.Framework software is open source 6.Framework is available for anyone to use at low or nil cost 7.Uses open standards for model interfaces 8.Use open standards for data interfaces 9.Works over a range of scales 10.Supports spatial models 11.Supports geospatial data 12.Historical continuity and prospects of longevity 13.GUI for configuring and setting up models

13. Stage 2 – Full Review Results CriteriaCSDMSOMS3OpenMIOpenPalmTIMEPegasus 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 Criteria Met Criteria Partly Met Criteria Not Met Need More Info

14. OMS3 Testing Models – APSIM – Overseer – WATYIELD – Simple Irrigation Water Demand Model Data – ClimDB (NIWA) – SoilsDB (Landcare Research)

15. OMS3 Test Results (to date) Models – APSIM – Overseer – WATYIELD – legacy code, not designed for integration – Irrigation Demand – in progress Data – ClimDB – in progress – SoilsDB – in progress

16. Next Steps Complete OMS3 testing (Feb 2013) OMS3 decision point (end Jan) Project Workshop (June 2013) Final Report & Implementation Plan (End September 2013)

17. More information: IFM Project WIKI https://teamwork.niwa.co.nz/display/IFM/Framework+for+Interoperable+Freshwater+Models