Reply to: Houston, Journal of Coastal Research, 15(4), Rejoinder to: Pilkey, O.H.; Thieler, E.R.; Young, R.S., and Bush, D.M., 1999. Reply to: Houston, 1999, Rejoinder to: Pilkey, O.H.; Young, R.S.; Thieler, E.R.; Jacobs, B.S.; Katuna, M.P.; Lennon, G.

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

Abstract


We offer the confused reader of this reply a brief summary of events. The original paper (YOUNG et al., 1995), the subject of this series of replies and rejoinders (HOUSTON, 1996, PILKEY etal., 1996, HOUSTON, 1998, PILKEY et al., 1999, HOUSTON, et al., this issue) was a detailed criticism of the mathematical model GENESIS (HANSON and KRAUS, 1989) which is commonly used to predict the behavior of beaches for coastal engineering purposes. In his original discussion of our paper, HOUSTON (1996) chose not to address our detailed criticisms of the GENESIS model, but rather, he chose to criticize our claim that the beach nourishment project at Folly Beach, South Carolina was an example of the failure of GENESIS.

Full Text:

PDF

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.