WP620: WWW implementation and documentation

Aims:

• To make the hydrological model, including documentation, accessible to the public using a World Wide Web interface (610)

• Demonstration packages with input data for the test basins so that potential customers can test the application of the hydrological/software package (620)

• Choice of input data, and variable length of forecast period.

Considerations:

• Precooked demonstrations (snapshots), some interaction, full models, or a mixture?

• Access to basic research/publications?

• Should be suitable for Netscape 3+ and IE4+, or should IE3 be considered as well?

• Screen resolution 800x640, 1024x800 or higher, or lower, or tailored to all resolutions?

WP620: WWW implementation and documentation

WP620: WWW implementation and documentation

• Suggested demonstration types– ‘Professional’ version of SRM-java

– ‘Light’ version of SRM-java

– ‘Tutorial’ version of SRM-java

– SRM-like javascript version

– Precooked example with metadata

My suggestion for a precooked example:• Use complete data for at least one basin derived in 1998. Tuxbach may

be a possibility, since 6 ERS and 2 Radarsat scenes were available.

• The data processing chain for these scenes from raw to SCA could be included provided that this will not cause copyright issues.

• Costs could be included to allow users to assess cost effectiveness

I assume that the necessary data is already available.

WP620: WWW implementation and documentation

Green Non EO dataOrange Hydalp productsYellow Cost/benefit

Raw SAR/RADARSATdata (on 8 dates)

Comparison with actual runoff and

non-EO prediction

Climate stationsand data

Snow cover maps(on 8 dates)

Processingmethodology

Predicted and actual discharge

Stream gaugesand data

HBV/SRM

DEM, vegetation, etc.

Costs of data acquisition

Cost of processing

Possible Tuxbach precooked example

Licence or processing

fee

WP622: SRM ‘light’

• A tailored SRM model for a catchment (BASCH?) which already contains data on elevation and area and general snow depletion curves.

• The user completes input data - current outflow and snow covered area.– These data could be made available at e.g. Berne WWW site if it is

updated regularly (CGI script?)

• The effect of variation in temperature and precipitation on discharge can be investigated.

WP622: Customer issue: reliability

Error and uncertainty should be addressed.

Possible causes of errors/uncertainty

– Weather forecast is inaccurate

– Inaccurate classification of vegetation

– Inaccurate identification of boundaries

– Poor georeferencing

– Cloud/snow confusion

Examples of the consequences of uncertainties could be included.

•Background to work, •why its important, •aims and objectives

Organisations, names and email addresses

•What do users think•did they have problems•general market research•What have other people said?

Acknowledgements

•Background to HBV and SRM,•inputs and outputs•interactive demonstrations

for non-real catchment?Public domain information•climate•dem•gauging stations

Information of ERS, Radarsat, AVHRR•Number of bands and wavelengths•Resolution•Example images•Costs

For a catchment with good data, the user has to estimate the runoff over a length of time (week, month, melt season?). User estimates are compared with the HYDALP estimates and actual runoff.

This will add some ‘fun’, but could also provide a means for estimating cost effectiveness

Real catchments with real data

WP622: Opportunities (?) for the future

• A guided our of the WWW site

• CD version of WWW site - makes large files (.avi, .wrl, etc) possible

• Tutorials

– Ralph Roberts (programmer of SRM): “looking for any online models for educational purposes”

– Jonathan Raper (Professor of Information Science at City University): wants distance learning materials for postgraduate courses

• Continued interest from Insurance companies (CGU)

– link HydAlp to flood prediction models

• Update for “Window on the World”. What did you do with yours?

WP622: And finally

• Every member of the SCFG who has seen the demonstrator has found it useful as a vehicle for promoting discussion….

SCFG - direct interest

• Scottish Hydro-Electric PLC. – Generates 1100 MW from hydroelectric schemes.

– Want advice on snowmelt up to 5 days in advance

– Water spills 50 days per year, and could have been used in a cascade of six dams.

• Commercial and General Union PLC - (CGU)– Interested in flood risk.

– Currently, UK insurance companies not given formal warning of flooding.

– 2 hours of warning can result in a 50% reduction in insurance claims.

• Scottish Environmental Protection Agency - (SEPA)– Responsible for providing flood warnings in Scotland.

– Have expressed interest in the use of EO data and HydAlp outputs.

SCFG - indirect interest

• The Royal Society for Protection of Birds – (RSPB)– Largest charity in the UK with more than 1 million members.

– Sees HYDALP outputs as an important resource which can be used within the RSPB’s educational role.

• Scottish Natural Heritage – (SNH)– Government conservation agency in Scotland,.

– HYDALP outputs important within an educational role.