Reply to: Houston, J.R., Rejoinder to: Pilkey, O.H., Young, R.S., Thieler, E.R., Jacobs, B.S., Katuna, M.P., Lennon, G. and Moeller, M.E., 1996: Reply to Houston, J.R., A discussion of the Generalized Model for Simulating Shoreline Change (GENESIS).

Orrin H. Pilkey, E. Robert Thieler, Robert S. Young, David M. Bush

Abstract


In his rejoinder to our reply (PILKEY et al., 1996) of his discussion of YOUNG et al. (1995), HOUSTON (1998) states that we "provide virtually no concrete criticism that GENESIS developers can address" (p. 1173). On the contrary, we believe that we offered very fundamental criticisms of GENESIS that need to be answered. In this reply to HOUSTON (1998), we reiterate eight criticisms of GENESIS that form the basis of the criticism in our original paper (YOUNG et al. 1995). If deterministic numerical models used in beach design are to have credibility, it is essential that fundamental criticisms such as ours be addressed. We ask that Houston respond to these questions as the first step in a dialogue between model proponents and critics. Such a dialogue, centered around the widely used GENESIS shoreline change model (HANSON and KRAUS, 1989; HANSON, 1989), should be useful for coastal managers who see model applications on an almost daily basis and who apply models with little understanding of how they work. We feel that our criticisms are fair, objective, and worthy of a response.


Full Text:

PDF

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.