Abstract
Nine methods to determine local-scale aerodynamic roughness length (z0) and zero-plane displacement (zd) are compared at three sites (within 60 m of each other) in London, UK. Methods include three anemometric (single-level high frequency observations), six morphometric (surface geometry) and one reference-based approach (look-up tables). A footprint model is used with the morphometric methods in an iterative procedure. The results are insensitive to the initial zd and z0 estimates. Across the three sites, zd varies between 5 and 45 m depending upon the method used. Morphometric methods that incorporate roughness-element height variability agree better with anemometric methods, indicating zd is consistently greater than the local mean building height. Depending upon method and wind direction, z0 varies between 0.1 and 5 m with morphometric z0 consistently being 2-3 m larger than the anemometric z0 . No morphometric method consistently resembles the anemometric methods. Wind-speed profiles observed with Doppler lidar provide additional data with which to assess the methods. Locally determined roughness parameters are used to extrapolate wind-speed profiles to a height roughly 200 m above the canopy. Wind-speed profiles extrapolated based on morphometric methods that account for roughness-element height variability are most similar to observations. The extent of the modelled source area for measurements varies by up to a factor of three, depending upon the morphometric method used to determine zd and z0 .