Evaluation of Urban Local-Scale Aerodynamic Parameters: Implications for the Vertical Profile of Wind Speed and for Source Areas

Nine methods to determine local-scale aerodynamic roughness length [Formula: see text] and zero-plane displacement [Formula: see text] 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 [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] estimates. Across the three sites, [Formula: see text] 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 [Formula: see text] is consistently greater than the local mean building height. Depending upon method and wind direction, [Formula: see text] varies between 0.1 and 5 m with morphometric [Formula: see text] consistently being 2–3 m larger than the anemometric [Formula: see text] . 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 [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] .