SeaCities pp 271-294 | Cite as

Modelling of SeaCities: Why, What and How to Model

Part of the Cities Research Series book series (CRS)


In order to realise SeaCities as depicted in this book, several individual projects, at a building (e.g. floating houses) and community (e.g. energy–water–food supply, transportation) levels, need to be designed to solve the inherent issues of such relatively unexplored urban concept. In this chapter, the focus is on the importance of modelling in providing a critical set of support tools to better inform SeaCities design and decision-making. The chapter is intended for the reader interested in SeaCities and relatively unfamiliar with the modelling world. The chapter is structured as follows: First, a brief justification of the need for modelling in SeaCities is provided (“WHY modelling”); this is followed by examples of systems, elements or parameters that will require modelling (“WHAT modelling”). Next, different modelling categories are introduced, based on different criteria, such as the type of inputs available or the type of output desired (“HOW modelling”). The chapter concludes with two case studies, selected as examples of an integrated, participatory systems approach which is suggested as being highly applicable to many of the future SeaCities modelling needs.


  1. Ahmad S, Simonovic SP (2004) Spatial system dynamics: new approach for simulation of water resources systems. J Comput Civil Eng 18(4):331–340Google Scholar
  2. Bertone E, Sahin O, Richards R, Roiko A (2016a) Extreme events, water quality and health: a participatory Bayesian risk assessment tool for managers of reservoirs. J Clean Prod 135:657–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertone E, Sahin O, Richards R, Roiko A (2016b) Modelling with stakeholders: a systems approach for improved environmental decision making under great uncertainty, 8th International Congress on Environmental Modelling & Software (iEMSs). Toulouse, FranceGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertone E, Sahin O, Stewart R, Zou P, Alam M, Hampson K, Blair E (2017) Role of financial mechanisms for accelerating the rate of water and energy efficiency retrofits in Australian public buildings: hybrid Bayesian network and system dynamics modelling approach. Appl Energy. Scholar
  5. Bertone E, Purandare J, Durand B (2019) Spatiotemporal prediction of Escherichia coli and Enterococci for the Commonwealth Games triathlon event using Bayesian Networks. Mar Pollut Bull 146:11–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bertone E, Luna Juncal MJ, Prado Umeno RK, Peixoto DA, Nguyen K, Sahin O (2020) Effectiveness of the early response to COVID-19: data analysis and modelling. Systems 8(2):21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhattacharjee S, Mukherjee N (2017) Floating houses: a design for flood resilience innovations in Bangladesh, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  8. Burdick DM, Short FT (1999) The effects of boat docks on eelgrass beds in coastal waters of Massachusetts. Environ Manage 23(2):231–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Day AH, Babarit A, Fontaine A, He YP, Kraskowski M, Murai M, Penesis I, Salvatore F, Shin HK (2015) Hydrodynamic modelling of marine renewable energy devices: a state of the art review. Ocean Eng 108:46–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Lima R, Boogaard F, de Graaf R, Pires MD, Sazonov V (2015a) Monitoring the impacts of floating structures on the water quality and ecology using an underwater drone, The Hague, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  11. de Lima R, Boogaard F, Graaf Rd (2015b) Innovative dynamic water quality and ecology monitoring to assess about floating urbanization environmental impacts and opportunities. International WaterweekGoogle Scholar
  12. Dlamini W (2011) Probabilistic spatio-temporal assessment of vegetation vulnerability to climate change in Swaziland. Glob Change Biol 17(3):1425–1441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Druzdel MJ, Van Der Gaag LC (2000) Building probabilistic networks: “Where do the numbers come from?”. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 12(4):481–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ESRI (2014) ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10.3 Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CAGoogle Scholar
  15. Fenton N, Neil M (2013) Risk assessment and decision analysis with Bayesian networks. CRC Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Foka E, Rutten M, Boogaard F, de Graaf R, Lima R, Giessen N (2015) The effect of floating houses on water qualityGoogle Scholar
  17. Garrett D. (1999) Teleology in Spinoza and early modern rationalism. New essays on the rationalists, pp 310–336Google Scholar
  18. Gerl T, Kreibich H, Franco G, Marechal D, Schröter K (2016) A review of flood loss models as basis for harmonization and benchmarking. PLoS ONE 11(7):e0159791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gesch DB (2009) Analysis of lidar elevation data for improved identification and delineation of lands vulnerable to sea-level rise. J Coast Res, pp 49–58Google Scholar
  20. Gharib S (2008) Synthesizing system dynamics and geographic information systems in a new method to model and simulate environmental systems. Doctoral thesis. The University of Bergen.
  21. Godet M (2001) Creating futures. EconomicaGoogle Scholar
  22. Gornitz V, Couch S, Hartig EK (2001) Impacts of sea level rise in the New York City metropolitan area. Global Planet Change 32(1):61–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grossman WD, Eberhardt S (1992) Geographical information systems and dynamic modelling. Ann Reg Sci 26:53–66Google Scholar
  24. Gutierrez BT, Plant NG, Thieler ER (2011) A Bayesian network to predict coastal vulnerability to sea level rise. J Geophys Res-Earth Surface 116Google Scholar
  25. Haasnoot M, Middelkoop H, Offermans A, Van Beek E, Van Deursen WP (2012) Exploring pathways for sustainable water management in river deltas in a changing environment. Clim Change 115(3–4):795–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ishaque F, Ahamed M, Hoque M (2014) Design and estimation of low cost floating house. Int J Innov Appl Stud 7(1):49Google Scholar
  27. Ji Z-G (2017) Hydrodynamics and water quality: modeling rivers, lakes, and estuaries. WileyGoogle Scholar
  28. Kenway S, Lant P, Priestley A, Daniels P (2011) The connection between water and energy in cities: a review. Water Sci Technol 63(9):1983–1990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Khanzadi M, Nasirzadeh F, Alipour M (2012) Integrating system dynamics and fuzzy logic modeling to determine concession period in BOT projects. Autom Constr 22:368–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ko KKM (2015) Releasing a floating city a feasibility study of the construction of a floating city, Delft University of Technology, Civil engineering and Geosciences, Specialisation Hydraulic StructuresGoogle Scholar
  31. Kulp SA, Strauss BH (2019) New elevation data triple estimates of global vulnerability to sea-level rise and coastal flooding. Nat Commun 10(1):4844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Labadie JW (2004) Optimal operation of multireservoir systems: state-of-the-art review. J Water Resources Plann Manage 130(2):93–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lamas-Pardo M, Iglesias G, Carral L (2015) A review of Very Large Floating Structures (VLFS) for coastal and offshore uses. Ocean Eng 109:677–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Levi Y, Bekhor S, Rosenfeld Y (2019) A multi-objective optimization model for urban planning: The case of a very large floating structure. Transp Res Part C: Emerging Technol 98:85–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lin Y-H, Chih Lin Y, Tan H-S (2019) Design and functions of floating architecture–a review. Mar Georesour Geotechnol 37(7):880–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lorenz E (2000) The butterfly effect. World Sci Ser Nonlinear Sci Ser A 39:91–94Google Scholar
  37. Ma N, Hirayama T, Ishikawa K (2001) Practical design of ships and other floating structures. Elsevier, pp 187–195Google Scholar
  38. Mayfield HJ, Bertone E, Smith C, Sahin O (2019) Use of a structure aware discretisation algorithm for Bayesian networks applied to water quality predictions. Math Comput SimulGoogle Scholar
  39. McGranahan G, Balk D, Anderson B (2007) The rising tide: assessing the risks of climate change and human settlements in low elevation coastal zones. Environ Urbanization 19(1):17–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mignot E, Li X, Dewals B (2019) Experimental modelling of urban flooding: A review. J Hydrol 568:334–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mohamad MI, Nekooie MA, Ismail ZB, Taherkhani R (2013) Amphibious urbanization as a sustainable flood mitigation strategy in South-East Asia. Trans Tech Publ, pp 1696–1700Google Scholar
  42. Mojaddadi H, Pradhan B, Nampak H, Ahmad N, Ghazali. AHb (2017) Ensemble machine-learning-based geospatial approach for flood risk assessment using multi-sensor remote-sensing data and GIS, Geomatics. Nat Hazards Risk 8(2):1080–1102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nduwimana A, Yang X-L, Wang L-R (2007) Evaluation of a cost effective technique for treating aquaculture water discharge using Lolium perenne Lam as a biofilter. J Environ Sci 19(9):1079–1085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Neumaier A (2004) Modeling languages in mathematical optimization. In: Kallrath J (ed). Kluwer, BostonGoogle Scholar
  45. Norsys (2018) Netica—Bayesian network software, Norsys Software Corp. Available: Vancouver, Canada
  46. Oppenheimer M, Glavovic B, Hinkel J, van de Wal R, Magnan AK, Abd-Elgawad A, Cai R, Cifuentes-Jara M, Deconto RM, Ghosh T (2019) Sea level rise and implications for low lying Islands, coasts and communitiesGoogle Scholar
  47. Pilotti M, Milanesi L, Ranzi R (2016) People and buildings vulnerability to floods in mountain areasGoogle Scholar
  48. Priest S (2007) The British empiricists. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  49. Richards R, Sanó M, Roiko A, Carter R, Bussey M, Matthews J, Smith TF (2013) Bayesian belief modeling of climate change impacts for informing regional adaptation options. Environ Model Softw 44:113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Roeffen B, Zanon BDB, Czapiewska K, De Graaf R (2013) Reducing global land scarcity with floating urban development and food productionGoogle Scholar
  51. Rook L (2013) Mental models: a robust definition. The learning organizationGoogle Scholar
  52. Rosen PS (1978) A regional test of the Bruun Rule on shoreline erosion. Mar Geol 26(1):M7–M16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ruth M, Pieper F (1994) Modeling spatial dynamics of sea‐level rise in a coastal area. Sys Dynam Rev 10(4):375–389Google Scholar
  54. Sahin O (2011) Dynamic assessment of coastal vulnerability and adaptation to sea level rise: an integrated spatial-temporal decision making approach. Griffith University, Gold Coast, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  55. Sahin O, Mohamed S (2013) A spatial temporal decision framework for adaptation to sea level rise. Environ Model Softw 46(2013):129–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sahin O, Mohamed S (2014) Coastal vulnerability to sea-level rise: a spatial-temporal assessment framework. Nat Hazards 70(1):395–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sahin O, Stewart RA, Faivre G, Ware D, Tomlinson R, Mackey B (2019) Spatial Bayesian Network for predicting sea level rise induced coastal erosion in a small Pacific Island. J Environ Manage 238:341–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sahu A, Yadav N, Sudhakar K (2016) Floating photovoltaic power plant: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 66:815–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Shekhorkina S (2015) Basic principles of low-rise residential floating buildings design. Lviv Polytechnic Publishing HouseGoogle Scholar
  60. Smith T, Low Choy D, Thomsen D, Serrao-Neumann S, Crick F, Sano M, Richards R, Harman B, Baum S, Myers S (2015) CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  61. Sterman JD (2000) Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Unied States of AmericaGoogle Scholar
  62. Stopp H, Strangfeld P (2010) Floating houses–chances and problems. WIT Trans Ecol Environ 128:221–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Strangfeld P, Stopp H (2014) Floating houses: an adaptation strategy for flood preparedness in times of global change. WIT Trans Ecol Environ 184:277–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tessem B, Davidsen PI (1994) Fuzzy system dynamics: an approach to vague and qualitative variables in simulation. Syst Dyn Rev 10(1):49–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ugurlu C, Chatzikonstantinou I, Sariyildiz S, Tasgetiren MF (2015) Identification of sustainable designs for floating settlements using computational design techniques. IEEE, pp 2303–2310Google Scholar
  66. Uusitalo L (2007) Advantages and challenges of Bayesian networks in environmental modelling. Ecol Model 203:312–318Google Scholar
  67. Voinov A, Gaddis EJB (2008) Lessons for successful participatory watershed modeling: a perspective from modeling practitioners. Ecol Model 216(2):197–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wong PP, Losada IJ, Gattuso J-P, Hinkel J, Khattabi A, McInnes KL, Saito Y, Sallenger A (2014) Coastal systems and low-lying areas. Field CB, Barros VR, Dokken DJ, Mach KJ, Mastrandrea MD, Bilir TE, Chatterjee M, Ebi KL, Estrada YO, Genova RC, Girma B, Kissel ES, Levy AN, MacCracken S, Mastrandrea PR, White LL (ed) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp 361–409Google Scholar
  69. Yeh N, Yeh P, Chang Y-H (2015) Artificial floating islands for environmental improvement. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 47:616–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Engineering and Built EnvironmentGriffith UniversityBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Cities Research Institute, Griffith UniversityBrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith UniversityBrisbaneAustralia
  4. 4.Griffith Climate Change Response ProgramBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations