http://www.docstoc.com/Docs/DownloadFile.ashx?

docId=47919380&key=&pass=

Volume 1, Issue 1, 2010

Analysi s of Shoreline-Changes Ba sed on the Geometric Representation of the Shorelines in the GIS Database
Tarig A. Ali, Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering, American University of Sharjah, atarig@aus.edu Abstract In this paper, the relationship between shoreline-changes and shoreline-curvature has been studied based on the representations of shorelines in the GIS database using a new concept called shoreline-segment orientation. This method determines shoreline-curvature based on the angular deviation of each shorelinesegment from its neighbors and also from the line that connects the shorelines nodes; introducing two types of orientations local and global. Six shorelines in the study area mapped over 28-years have been used to study the relationship. Average shoreline-changes have shown higher correlation with local shorelinecurvature than with global. Results also suggest that concave shoreline-segments experience more erosion than convex and straight ones. Introduction and background Shoreline Mapping Analytical photogrammetry has always been the primary acquisition method of shoreline mapping for its reasonable cost and high accuracy. However, for shoreline change monitoring the mapping frequency has been an issue. With the advances in data acquisition techniques such as digital photogrammetric sensors, Global Positioning Systems (GPS), and other all-weather sensors, coastal researchers have been exploring the potential of more efficient and economic shoreline mapping methods (Li et al. 2001b). For example coastal mapping professionals have used land vehicle based mobile mapping technology in local shoreline mapping utilizing GPS receivers and beach vehicles to trace watermarks along the shoreline (Shaw and Allen 1995; Li 1997). A source of shoreline mapping is single photographs, which are processed through a method known in photogrammetry as the single photo resection in which stereo matching is not performed. This is the method used by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) to extract the 1973 and 1990 Ohio Lake Erie shorelines that are used in this study (ODNR 1996). Also, GPS has been used to provide precise ground control to enhance aerial photogrammetric triangulation, the process of estimating the object space from aerial photography (Merchant 1994). Using GPS in the study area, a network of ground control was established and further used to control the stereo-matched photographs. Shorelines are then extracted from these stereo-matched and geo-referenced aerial photographs both manually and automatically. The manual extraction of shoreline features is a process that involves digitizing the water and land interface, which is known as the instantaneous shoreline at the time of aerial photography. The automatic shoreline extraction process involves the classification of the gray values in the processed aerial photographs to obtain the water and land interface. Recently, satellite-imaging systems have increasingly improved image resolution including the new generation of the high-resolution satellite imagery such as Quick bird and IKONOS I, which has a resolution of 1-meter with stereo imaging capability (Fritz 1996; Li 1998). An investigation of shoreline mapping using such highresolution satellite images demonstrated a promising mapping accuracy of 2-meters and a great reduction of the number of the required ground control points (Li et al. 2001b). Shoreline-change analysis Coastal changes are attracting more focus since they are important environmental indicators that directly impact coastal economic development and land management (Welch et al. 1992; Stokkom et al. 1993). In general, two shoreline definitions exist including abstract and exact. At the abstract level, there is a shoreline known as tide-coordinated shoreline, which is referenced to a stable vertical frame such as a tide gauge datum. The tide-coordinated shoreline is the shoreline estimated through the intersection of the land surface and an average water surface over 19.2 lunar years. In the US, tide-coordinated shorelines are established by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and are used by coastal authorities. On

http://www.docstoc.com/Docs/DownloadFile.ashx?docId=47919380&key=&pass=

the other hand, the instantaneous shoreline is an exact shoreline that represents the intersection between instantaneous water surface and land at a specific time. Based on this, all shoreline representations that exist on images are instantaneous shorelines. The locations of the instantaneous shorelines for a specific area over a period of time are sometimes used to study shoreline change in that area. In this study, the locations of instantaneous shorelines over a period of 28-years have been used to analyze shoreline changes in the study area. Proper shoreline-change analysis requires a thorough understanding of the coastal processes that cause the change as well as the coastal mapping methods. Coastal erosion is generally related to wave energy, shoreline material, coastal topography, and the direction of the approaching waves with respect to the shoreline direction. The breaking waves and currents in the near-shore zone are responsible for the transport of shoreline sediments resulting in shoreline change. This scenario is part of a process called littoral transport, which moves the eroded material in the coastal zone by means of waves and currents. Shoreline mapping focuses on some specific issues such as mapping methods used to acquire shoreline data, models used to represent shorelines in the geographic database, and shoreline-change analysis methods. By knowing the data acquisition method, the inherent errors that normally exist in the underlying measurement processes can be identified and modeled. Also by knowing the models used to represent shorelines in the geographic database, the level of abstraction of the real world inherited in these models can be recognized. This directly influences shoreline-change analysis results. A traditional mapping approach for analyzing shoreline-change subdivides the available shorelines into smaller segments by creating transects at right angles to a master shoreline. The master shoreline is usually chosen from among the available shoreline models mainly based on its higher positional accuracy. Shoreline-changes along these transects are computed and further used to predict future shoreline changes (Carter and Guy 1983; Carter et al. 1986). This method has been adopted over the years to establish the correspondence between shoreline models acquired at different times to predict shoreline-change (Fenster et al. 1993). Rates of change are then employed to summarize historical shoreline movements and to predict future positions based on the perceived historical trends. The method commonly used especially by coastal land planners and managers to predict future shoreline-changes is an extrapolation of a constant rate-of-change (Owens 1985). This method makes use of successive shoreline data available over time, which provides the ability to assess future shoreline changes by reviewing the spatio-temporal changes of the shoreline. Based on the fact that objects within the coastal zone change dynamically as the shoreline itself changes, Li et al. (2001a) have presented a method for shoreline change analysis using the dynamic segmentation concept. This concept is originally based on ESRIs Arc/Info d ynamic segmentation model of linear features in which any length of the shoreline could be attributed precisely unlike the traditional arc-node data model for linear features. The advantage of this model is that, it preserves the topological relationships between the shoreline and coastal features, which are essential for spatial analysis. Using this linear data model, the shoreline is divided into variable segment lengths according to the locations where shoreline attributes change without breaking the actual line into pieces (Li et al. 2001a). Ali et al. (2001) have presented a method based on the theory of conservation of soil mass to estimate the spatial distribution of coastal erosion in an Ohio Lake Erie coastal area. This method computes on a cell-by-cell basis the volume of soil loss due to shoreline erosion over time using a grid-based coastal terrain surface (Ali et al. 2001). Study area and shoreline data Digital shoreline data are becoming more available from federal and state agencies. At the federal level, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are responsible for shoreline mapping with emphasis on safe navigation. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) is responsible for mapping the shoreline for coastal erosion monitoring. The United States Army Corporation of Engineers (USACE) is responsible for developing a National Shoreline Management Study according to the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. These federal agencies collect and process shoreline data and distribute the data in paper and digital formats, each focusing on its area of interest. For example, the USGS has produced shoreline data through its hydrographic data set, which is available in the Digital Line Graphs (DLGs) format in scales ranging from 1: 24,000 to 1: 250,000. In Ohio, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) provides shoreline data focusing on coastal erosion. ODNR has determined shoreline recession rates in Lake Erie using a 1:10,000 scale U.S. Lake Survey charts and 1:12,000 and 1:4,800-scale aerial photographs in the period from the 1930s to 1990. Shoreline positions from these charts and photographs were transferred to 1:2,400-scale enlargements of aerial photographs taken in 1990. In addition, ODNR has released the Lake Erie Coastal Erosion Area Maps in late 1996, as part of the Ohio Coastal Management Program to show the locations of shoreline recession

http://www.docstoc.com/Docs/DownloadFile.ashx?docId=47919380&key=&pass=

lines for 1973 and 1990 respectively (ODNR 1997; Mackey 1994; Liu 1998). The ODNR is required by law to identify coastal erosion areas along the Ohio Lake Erie coasts and to enforce a permit system to manage the new construction and development in these designated areas. The study area for this research shown in Figure 1 below was selected along the Ohio Lake Erie coast extending west to east for fifteen kilometers from Sheldon Marsh Preserve to Vermillion East. This study area was chosen based on the availability of shoreline data and the high coastal erosion rates recorded by the ODNR (ODNR 1996). This area is basically composed of easily eroded material including sand, till, and clay as shown in Figure 1. The digital shorelines available for the study area include (1) two shorelines produced by the ODNR for 1973 and 1990, (2) a shoreline produced by the GIS and Mapping Lab at the Ohio State University (GISM-OSU) from IKONOS 4-meter resolution multi-spectral imagery for 2001, (3) a shoreline produced by the GISMOSU from IKONOS 1-meter resolution panchromatic imagery for 2000, (4) the USGS shoreline from the 1:24000-scale DLG hydrography layer, and (5) a shoreline produced at the GISM-OSU by intersecting the water level model obtained from the Lake Erie Forecasting System at the Ohio State University and a digital elevation model produced at the GISM-OSU (Li et al. 2002). Figure 2 shows an overlay of the shorelines used in this study. In addition, Table 1 below summarizes the temporal and uncertainty information of these shorelines.

Sheldon Marsh

Lake Erie

Vermilion

Figure 1: Study Area

http://www.docstoc.com/Docs/DownloadFile.ashx?docId=47919380&key=&pass=

Shoreline Name ODNR 73 USGS DLG ODNR 90 DEM/WSM IKONOS 1-m IKONOS 4-m

Time of mapping (year) 1973 1979 1990 1997 2000 2001

Data source ODNR USGS ODNR GISM-OSU GISM-OSU GISM-OSU

Estimated accuracy (meter) 6.0 10.0 6.0 2.0 3.0 7.5

Table 1: Temporal, source, and uncertainty information of studied shorelines

Figure 2: Shoreline representations available for the study area Methods Shoreline-shape modeling is crucial for understanding the connection between shoreline-change and shoreline curvature. Shoreline change results from coastal erosion, the effect of the breaking waves in the near-shore zone, and near-shore currents. The breaking waves in the near-shore zone and the near-shore currents are responsible for the transportation of beach sediments that results in shoreline change. To evaluate the alongshore transported sediment, a wave climate representative of the annual wave conditions measured or experienced in offshore waters must be established. The wave climate is in the form of a set of wave heights with different periods and directions, which must be routed towards the shore by a wave refraction model until the waves break on or near the beach. Information on their breaking angles relative to the beach orientation, breaking wave heights, and wave speed at breaking should be determined and used to establish the alongshore components of the energy flux for the two directions along the shore. To establish a representative wave climate, proper understanding of the directional distribution of wave height and wave period is needed, since the distribution of wave heights is converted to an equivalent distribution of wave energy that is a function of the alongshore sediment transportation rate (U.S. Corps. of Engineers, 1992). The approach developed here, computes the direction of the normal to each segment in the shoreline after applying a correspondence establishment method that is explained later (see Figure 3). This helps to understand shoreline curvature, which has been modeled in this study with the shoreline-segment

http://www.docstoc.com/Docs/DownloadFile.ashx?docId=47919380&key=&pass=

orientation with respect to waves direction. The following are the basic assumptions used to develop this method: a) The geometric representation of a shoreline at a given time available in the geographic database encapsulates the effect of the erosion forces that have acted on the shoreline at all previous times. b) The correspondence between the shorelines available for the study area is established by the method, which is explained later in this paper. c) The relationship between these shorelines can be represented in the two-dimensional (2D) space. d) A shoreline model at a later time has been transformed from its location at a previous time only b y the action of coastal erosion forces.

NB NA TA TB B A TA and TB: the Tangents at points A and B respectively NA and NB: the Normals at points A and B respectively

Figure 3: Synthetic shoreline model with tangents and normals at points A & B Shoreline-shape modeling To better understand this shoreline-shape modeling method, refer to Figure 4 below, which illustrates the curvature of a synthetic shoreline with respect to an assumed direction of the approaching waves.

Direction of inco ming waves

Water

Convex shoreline

Concave shoreline

Straight shoreline Land

Figure 4: Types of shoreline curvature with respect to the direction of the wave In this method, two orientations for a given shoreline-segment are defined, local and global. Local orientation of shoreline-segment is defined with respect to its immediate right neighbor (see Figure 5). Based on this, the curvature of the shoreline is defined locally at every point except at the nodes (the two end points). Global orientation of a shoreline-segment, on the other hand is defined for every segment with respect to a line drawn between the shoreline nodes. Global orientation is important in defining the overall shoreline orientation with respect to the direction of the approaching waves while local orientation helps to identify the critical angle with which waves approach every segment in the shoreline.

http://www.docstoc.com/Docs/DownloadFile.ashx?docId=47919380&key=&pass=

The angle that defines the local orientation of the segment S1

The angle that defines the global orientation of the segment S1

A synthetic shoreline

Segment S1

The line that connects shoreline end-points (nodes)

Figure 5: Concept of local and global shoreline-segment orientation This method computes the direction of the normal to every segment in the shoreline locally and globally as shown in Figure 5 above. The computation of the direction of the normal to every segment of a shoreline is preferred over computing the direction of the segment itself to avoid computation complexity when dealing with vertical segments. The direction of the normal to the first shoreline segment, S1 from the x-a xis is defined by the angle 1 that is shown in Figure 6 below and written in Equation 1. The direction of the normal is written in terms of the cosine of the angle 1 simply because a consistent normalized scale can be established for the resulted values, which is necessary to obtain a relative measure of the shorelinecurvature.

Y Th e angle b that defines the local orientation of segments S1

Seg ment S2

Seg ment S1 y 1 b1 x1
Figure 6: Direction of the normal to the shoreline segment S1

b2 X

http://www.docstoc.com/Docs/DownloadFile.ashx?docId=47919380&key=&pass=

With reference to Figure 6 above, the direction of the normal to the shoreline segment S1 that is 1 can be written as follows:

Dy 1 = cos -1 1 S1
Where;

(1)

S1 =

2 2 D x1 + D y1 , and

Dx = x n +1 - x n and Dy = y n +1 - y n
The value of the local angular deviation Db illustrated in Figure 6 above defines three possible types of shoreline orientations. These are convex, concave, and straight shoreline orientations as shown in Figure 7 below. Based on the value of the angular difference (Db local and Dbglobal ) between the normal to any consecutive segments or between the normal to a given segment and the normal to the line that connects shoreline nodes, the three types of possible segment curvatures can be introduced (see equations 2 & 3).

D local

> 0 = ( 2 - 1 ) = < 0 = 0

Convex, is in the range 1 to 179 Concave, is in the range - 1 to - 179 Straight

(2)

Similar expression can be written to obtain the value of the global angular devi ation shoreline as shown in equation 3 below. The difference between the direction of the normal to the segment S1 and the direction of the normal to the line that connects shoreline nodes is obtained as a difference between the values of the angles 1 and shoreline respectively, defining global shoreline-segment orientation.

> 0 global = ( shoreine - 1 ) = < 0 = 0

Convex, is in the range 1 to 179 Concave, is in the range - 1 to - 179 Straight

(b) Concave N1k S1 1 X 2 - 1 < 0 (c) Straight N1k N2 N2
(3)

(a) Convex N1 N2

S1 2 1 2 - 1 > 0

S2

S2 2 X

S1 1 2

S2

X 2 - 1 = 0
Figure 7: Three types of local shoreline-segment orientation

http://www.docstoc.com/Docs/DownloadFile.ashx?docId=47919380&key=&pass=

Establishment of correspondence between shorelines To establish correspondence, shoreline representations available in the geographic database are first standardized as vector-valued functions in the interval [0, 1]. Then comparable points are located on each standardized shoreline at the same distance measured from the left node of the shoreline. This method creates a set of shoreline sub-segments that are meaningful since these shorelines basically represent the location of the same shoreline at different times. This method is justified by the arc length concept since the stored representations of linear features in a geographic database are actually abstractions of reality. To understand the concept of arc length, suppose that the curved line y = f(x) that is shown in Figure 8 below is continuously differentiable in the interval [a, b]. To derive a formula for the length L of this curved line in the interval [a, b] along x-axis, the interval [a, b] is subdivided into n subintervals [x0 , x1 ], [x1 , x2 ]... [xn1,xn ] where a = x0 < x1 < .. < xn- 1 < xn = b, introducing the line segments between the points (x0, f(x0)) and (x1 ,f(x1)), (x1, f(x1)) and (x2 , f(x2)), ..., (xn-1, f(xn-1)) and (xn , f(xn)) respectively. Note that, the resulting connected straight-line segments approximate the curved line y = f(x), and its total length approximates the arc length of curved line over [a,b].

X a = xo x1 x2 x3 b = xn

Figure 8: Curved line y = f(x) drawn in the interval [a, b] along with the segments that approximate it Figure 9 below illustrates how correspondence is establishment between two synthetic shorelines; AB and AB given that AB is longer than AB. Both shorelines are standardized as vector-valued functions in the interval [0, 1] and a set of individual points is then generated in each standardized line. In the figure, the individual points are created every 0 .2 of the standardized 1-unit length generating four points on each standardized line excluding the nodes.

http://www.docstoc.com/Docs/DownloadFile.ashx?docId=47919380&key=&pass=

A A 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.4

Length =1
0.6 0.8

Length =1

0.8 1.0 1.0 B B

Figure 9: Correspondence establishment between shorelines

Results and Discussion The shorelines used in these experiments include the IKONOS 4-m, the IKONOS 1-m, the shoreline obtained by intersecting the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) and Water Surface Model (WSM), the ODNR 90, the USGS DLG, and the ODNR 73. Shoreline-shape modeling As introduced previously, the shoreline change modeling approach developed here, computes the direction of the normal to every segment in the shoreline after implementing the correspondence establishment method explained above. Before creating the comparable points on the shorelines, it is crucial to first identify the shoreline with the greatest geometrical details. This helps to decide the sufficient re-sampling distance to create the set of comparable points in the shorelines (in the example of Figure 9 above, the standardized resampling distance is 0.2). In this study, the shoreline with more geometrical details was the one, which obtained by intersecting Digital Elevation Model (DEM) and Water Surface Model (WSM). The correspondence establishment method presented above was then applied with a standardized re-sampling distance of 19-meters producing 800 segments in all of the shorelines. The directions of the normal to the shorelines segments have then been estimated using equation 1. Moreover, using equation 2 the local orientations of shoreline segment have been obtained and further classified into the appropriate type of the local shoreline segment curvature (convex, concave, and straight). Figure 10 below illustrates the variation of the local orientations of the segments of the shorelines used in this study. In this figure, the local orientation-defining angle values (in radians) are plotted on the Y-axis and the 800 shoreline segments are plotted on the X-axis. The graph of a given shoreline in this figure illustrated its geometric shape based on the local orientation concept.

http://www.docstoc.com/Docs/DownloadFile.ashx?docId=47919380&key=&pass=

2 1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5 0 -1.5 -2.5 Shoreline Segment ID 200 400 600 800 0 -1 -2 -3 Shoreline Segment ID 200 400 600 800

(a) ODNR 73 shoreline

(b)USGS shoreline

1 0.5 0 0 -0.5 -1 -1.5 Shoreline Segment ID 200 400 600 800

4 3 2 1 0 -1 0 -2 -3 -4 Shoreline Segment ID 200 400 600 800

(c)ODNR 90 shoreline

(d) DEM/WSM shoreline

2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 -1 -2 -3 Shoreline ID 200 400 600 800 -0.5 0 -1.5 -2.5 Shoreline Segment ID 200 400 600 800

(e) IKONOS 1-m shoreline

(f) IKONOS 4-m shoreline

Figure 10: The variation of the local orientation of the case study shorelines

Shoreline-change analysis Average shoreline-segment change of the ONDR 73, USGS, ODNR 90, CTM/WSM and IKONOS 1-m shorelines that represent the change occurred during the time periods (1973-1979), (1979-1990), (19901997), (1997-2000) and (2000-2001) respectively have been estimated. Figures 11a,b,c,d,e; below show the pairs of shorelines and the corresponding recorded shoreline change occurred during the stated periods of time. In the set of plots in these Figures, average shoreline changes in meters occurred in the time period shown in each figure are plotted. This helps to understand the amount and pattern of change in the time period between two available shoreline models.

10

http://www.docstoc.com/Docs/DownloadFile.ashx?docId=47919380&key=&pass=

50.0 40.0
Change in meters

30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Shoreline Segment ID

Figure 11a: The ODNR 73 and USGS shorelines and the average change in the period (1973-1979)
50.0 45.0 40.0
Change in meters

35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Shoreline Segment ID

Figure 11b: The USGS and ODNR 90 shorelines and the average change in the period (1979-1990)

50.0 45.0 40.0

Change in meters

35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Shoreline Segment ID

Figure 11c: ODNR 90 and the DEM/WSM shorelines and the average change in the period (1990-1997)
50 45 40
Change in meters

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Shoreline Segment ID

Figure 11d: DEM/WSM and IKONOS-1-m shorelines and the average change in the period (1997-2000)

11

http://www.docstoc.com/Docs/DownloadFile.ashx?docId=47919380&key=&pass=

delta (00-01) in meters

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Shoreline Segment ID

Figure 11e: IKONOS-1-m and IKONOS-4-m shorelines and the average change in the period (2000-2001)

By comparing the local orientation of the ODNR 73 shoreline and the recorded change in the period (19731979), the bundle of the concave shoreline segments on the second half of the shoreline are one reason for the noticeable change occurred at four locations on it. Also, by comparing the variation of the local orientation of the USGS shoreline and the corresponding change in the period (1979-1990), we can see that the shoreline parts that severely eroded are those with relatively more concavity. By comparing the variation of the local orientation of the ODNR 90 shoreline with the corresponding change in the period (1990-1997), a correlation between shoreline concavity and the actual change was noticed. Also, by comparing the variation of the local orientation of the DEM/WSM shoreline with the corresponding change that took place in the period (1997-2000), a connection was noticed between shoreline concavity and the recorded change. In addition, by comparing the distribution of the local orientation of the IKONOS 1-m shoreline and the change occurred in the period (2000-2001), a correlation between concavity and change is also noticed. To investigate the relationship between local shoreline orientation and the recorded shoreline change, a measure of concavity named concavity-ratio has been introduced. The concavity-ratio is governed by the formula of equation 4 below. This measure determines the ratio between the number of the concave shoreline segments and the total number of shoreline segments for a given shoreline. If the shoreline has more concave segments, the value of this measure will be as close as possible to unity.

Concavity ratio =

The number of concave shoreline segments Total number of shoreline segments

(4)

The concavity ratio and the average shoreline change for all of the shorelines used in this study are listed in Table 2 below. Shoreline epoch 1973-1979 1979-1990 1990-1997 1997-2000 2000-2001 Concavity ratio (x) (Local orientation) 0.50 0.79 0.43 0.54 0.59 Average change (y) (meters) 7.67 14.18 6.03 7.91 8.12

Table 2: Relationship between local concavity-ratio and average shoreline change Concavity ratios and the average shoreline changes shown in Table 2 above were plotted as Figure 12 below shows with exaggerating the concavity-ratio five times so that the correlation can easily be noticed. In Figure 12, a correlation between the local orientation of shoreline segments and the recorded change is clearly noticed.

12

http://www.docstoc.com/Docs/DownloadFile.ashx?docId=47919380&key=&pass=

16
Concavity ratio / Avge change

1979

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 1973 1979 1990 1973 1990 1997 2000 (Concavity-ratio)x 5 avge-change

1997 2000

0 1973

1978

1983

1988

1993

1998

Time (years)

Figure 12: Plot of the relationship between the variables of Table 2 above Global shoreline orientations have also been estimated for all of the six shorelines available for the study area using equation 3. Figure 13 below depicts global shoreline orientations obtained for all of the shorelines in which global orientation-defining angle values (in radians) are plotted on the Y-axis and the 800 shoreline segments are plotted on the X-axis. The graph of a given shoreline in this figure illustrated its geometric shape based on the segment global orientation concept. To study the relationship between global shoreline orientation and the average change, the concavity ratios have been estimated. Table 3 lists the concavity ratios estimated in this case and the corresponding average recorded shoreline change. Figure 14 shows the plot of the concavity ratio against the average shoreline change with five times exaggeration of the concavity ratio. From Table 3 and Figure 14, unclear correlation between global shoreline orientation and the average shoreline change was noticed.

13

http://www.docstoc.com/Docs/DownloadFile.ashx?docId=47919380&key=&pass=

1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5 -1 -1.5 Shoreline Segment ID 0 200 400 600 800

1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5 0 -1 -1.5 -2 -2.5 Shoreline Segment ID 200 400 600 800

(a) ODNR 73 shoreline

(b)USGS shoreline

1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5 -1 -1.5 Shoreline Segment ID 0 200 400 600 800

2 1 0 0 -1 -2 -3 Shoreline Segment ID 200 400 600 800

(c)ODNR 90 shoreline
2 1 0 0 -1 -2 -3 Shoreline Segment ID 200 400 600 800 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 -0.50 0 -1.00 -1.50 -2.00

(d) DEM/WSM shoreline

200

400

600

800

Shoreline Segment ID

(e) IKONOS 1-m shoreline

(f) IKONOS 4-m shoreline

Figure 13: Variation of the global orientation of the study shorelines

Shoreline epoch 1973-1979 1979-1990 1990-1997 1997-2000 2000-2001

Concavity ratio (x) (Global orientation) 0.51 0.47 0.67 0.59 0.93

Average change (y) (meters) 7.67 14.18 6.03 7.91 8.12

Table 3: Relationship between global concavity ratio and average shoreline change

14

http://www.docstoc.com/Docs/DownloadFile.ashx?docId=47919380&key=&pass=

16
Concavity-ratio / Avge change

1979

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Times (years) 1973 2000 1979 1990 1997 1973 1990 1997 (Concavity-ratio)x 5 avge-change

2000

Figure 14: Plot of the relationship between the variables of Table 3 above The coefficients of correlation (r) between concavity ratio (x) and the average change (y) for both of the local and global orientations, which are listed in Tables 2 and 3 have been obtained using the following correlation (r) equation:
n

(x
r=
i =1 n

- m x )( yi - m y )
n

(5)

(x
i =1

- m x ) 2 ( yi - m y ) 2
i =1

Where mx and my are the mean values of the variables x (concavity ratio) and y (average change) respectively. By substituting the values of the variables x and y from Tables 2 and 3 in equation 5 above, the correlation coefficients between local-concavity and average-change and global-concavity and averagechange were found to be 0.98 and -0.44 respectively. The value of the correlation coefficient (0.98) illustrates close correlation between concavity ratio and average shoreline-change in the case of local shoreline-orientation. On the other hand, the value of the correlation coefficient (-0.44) illustrates less correlation between concavity ra tio and average shoreline-change in the case of global shoreline-orientation. Conclusion The results have shown that concave shoreline segments with respect to the direction of waves, experienced more coastal erosion than convex or straight segments. This is contrary to most of previous studies, where the convex segments are more rapidly eroded and the beach material fills in and smoothes the concave areas. No geological explanation for this difference, but this could be due in part to the softer shoreline material that characterizes much of the studied length of the shoreline. Local shoreline-segment orientation has shown higher correlation with the average shoreline-change in the study area compared to global. This correlation is confirmed by the values of the correlation coefficients obtained in both cases (local and global shoreline-segment orientations). This result agrees with Murray and Ashton (2002) who found that concave shoreline segments are generally exposed to more wave energy than conve x and straight shoreline-segments therefore experience more coastal erosion. Our conclusion however doesnt hold for all measure lengths (as fractal analysis would imply), rather it holds for the change with length of segment used to approximate the curved shoreline. This method can be used to analyze changes of unprotected shorelines by first segmenting the shoreline into concave and non-concave portions. The concave portions of the shoreline can then be designated as areas with high erosion potential. This will enhance coastal planning and decision making processes.

15

http://www.docstoc.com/Docs/DownloadFile.ashx?docId=47919380&key=&pass=

References Ali, T. A., Ma, R., and Li, R. (2001) Assessment of the Variability of Phosphorus Intensity on Sediment Supply Profiles with Topography in a Lake Erie Coastal Area. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Computer Mapping and GIS for Coastal Zone Management, Halifax, No va Scotia, Canada, on June 18-20, CD ROM. Carter, C., Monroe, C., and Guy, D. (1986) Lake Erie Shore Erosion: The Effect of Beach Width and Shore Protection Structures, Journal of Coastal Research , 2 (1), 17-23. Fenster, S., Dolan, R., and Elder, J. (1993) A New Method for Predicting Shoreline Positions from Historical Data, Journal of Coastal Research , 9, 147-171. Fritz, L. (1996) Commercial Earth Observation Satellites, International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, ISPRS Commission IV, 273-282. Li, R. (1997) Mobile mapping: An emerging technology for spatial data acquisition, Journal of Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing , 63(9), 1085-1092. Li, R. (1998) Potential of high-resolution satellite imagery for national mapping products, Journal of Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing , 64(12), 1165-1169. Li, R., Liu, J-K., and Felus, Y. (2001a) Spatial Modeling and Analysis for Shoreline Change Detection and Coastal Erosion Monitoring, Journal of Marine Geodesy, 24 (1), 1-12. Li, R., Ma, R., Di, K., and Ali, T. (2001b) Coastline Mapping and Change Detection Using One-Meter Resolution Satellite Imagery, a project report, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Geodetic Science, The Ohio State University, 88. Liu, J-K. (1998) Developing Geographic Information System Applications in Analysis of Responses to Lake Erie Shoreline Changes, M. S. thesis, The Ohio State University, 119. Merchant, D. C. (1994) Airborne GPS-Photogrammetry for Transportation Systems. Proceeding of ASPRS/ACSM, 392-395. Murray, A., and Ashton, A. (2002) Self-Organized Evolution of Sandy Coastline Shapes: Connections with Shoreline Erosion Problems, American Geophysical Union, Fall 2002 Meeting. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Ohio Coastal Management (1997), Coastal Erosion Area Management, URL: http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/odnr/relm/coastal/erosion.htm. Ohio Department of Natural Resources (1996), Maps of Coastal Erosion Areas in Lake Erie, Website address: http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/coastal/permits/cea.htm. Owens, D. (1985) Coastal Management in North Carolina, Journal of the American Planning Association, 322-329. Peuquet, D. (1994) Its about time: A conceptual framework for the representation of temporal dynamics in geographic information systems, Annals of the Association of the American Geographers, 84(3), 441461. Shaw, B., and Allen, J. (1995) Analysis of a dynamic shoreline at Sandy Hook, New Jersey, using a geographic information system, Proceedings of ASPRS/ACSM, 382-391. Stokkom, H., Stokman, G., and Hovenier, J. (1993) Quantitative use of passive optical remote sensing over coastal and inland water bodies, International Journal of Remote Sensing , 14, 541-563. U.S. Army Corps. Of Engineers (1992). Engineering and Design - Coastal Littoral Transport, publicly released publication no. EM 1110-2-1502, Washington D.C. Welch, R., Remillard, M., and Alberts, J. (1992) Integration of GPS, Remote Sensing, and GIS Techniques for Coastal Resource Management, Journal of Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing , 58, 1571-1578.

16