See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267995294

Historic shoreline changes: An indicator of coastal vulnerability for human

landuse and development in Kien Giang, Vietnam

Article · January 2010

CITATIONS READS

3 386

7 authors, including:

David Pullar Norman C Duke

The University of Queensland James Cook University
107 PUBLICATIONS   1,500 CITATIONS    231 PUBLICATIONS   7,768 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Clive Mcalpine Nguyen Hai Hoa

The University of Queensland The University of Queensland
330 PUBLICATIONS   6,753 CITATIONS    5 PUBLICATIONS   52 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Large-scale dieback of mangroves in Australia's Gulf of Carpentaria: a severe ecosystem response, coincidental with an unusually
extreme weather event View project

The capacity of forests to protect regional climate under global warming View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Clive Mcalpine on 02 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 HISTORIC SHORELINE CHANGES: AN INDICATOR OF COASTAL
VULNERABILITY FOR HUMAN LANDUSE AND DEVELOPMENT IN KIEN GIANG,
VIETNAM

Hai Hoa Nguyena, David Pullara, Norm Dukeb, Clive McAlpinea, Hien Thu Nguyenc and Kasper
Johansena.
a
School of Geography, Planning & Environmental Management, The University of Queensland, Australia; bSchool
of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland; cThai Nguyen University of Agriculture & Forestry, Vietnam.

ABSTRACT

Shoreline movement caused by erosion and deposition is a major concern for managing the
coastal zone. Dynamic changes in shoreline location, such as those identified along the Kien
Giang coast, poses considerable vulnerability for human landuse and development along the
coastline. Rapid assessment techniques are required to update the shoreline maps of affected
areas and monitor rates of change.

Landsat Thematic Mapper imagery enables monitoring of large coastal sections of shoreline at
relatively coarse spatial resolution. We compared shoreline locations of the Kien Giang coast in
1989, 1992, 2001, 2003, 2006, 2008 and 2010, measuring historical change in shoreline positions
is formalised into Digital Shoreline Analysis System Application 4.1 (DSAS), an extension to
ArcMap developed by the United States Geological Survey and used to interpret rates of
shoreline changes. The results show the mean rates of shoreline change over selected surveyed
areas vary from -9.3 m yr-1 to 12.9 m yr-1 (End Point Rate), -8.5 m yr-1 to 14.9 m yr-1 (Linear
Regression Rate), and -2.2 m to 270.0 m over 1989-2010 (Net Shoreline Movement). Coastal
vulnerability analysis showed 35.69% of surveyed coastlines (equivalent to 45.22 km) are ranked
as very high vulnerability and high vulnerability, while 64.31 % of shorelines (equivalent to
81.48 km) is ranked as moderate, low and very low vulnerability to human landuse and
development. Further aerial photos and SPOT 5 are used for more accurate shoreline
assessments.

KEY WORDS: Accretion, coastal vulnerability assessments, erosion, shoreline positions.

INTRODUCTION

Coastal shorelines are dynamic in nature, shifting over time in response to natural coastal
processes, storms, and the effects of human intervention. The analysis of both current and
historical shoreline trends, including reliable measurements of erosion and accretion rates is very
important to make informed and responsible decisions, coastal managers and shorefront
landowners as climate change and sea-level rise.

Changes in shoreline positions could be due to either a single factor or a combination of many
interrelated factors (Forbes et al. 2004). Spatial-temporal shoreline dynamics are caused by
natural influence, such as storms, marine currents and beach geomorphology (Gopinath and
Seralathan, 2005; Bird, 2008) and man-induced factors like coastal explosion, deforestation and
engineering activities, contributing to considerable impacts on environmental coastal zones (e.g.,
Moore and Griggs, 2002; Carrasco et al. 2007; Dewidar and Frihy, 2007; Anfuso and Pozo,
2009; Sesli et al. 2009). Temporal changes in shorelines are driven by inter-annual and decadal
scale fluctuations at atmospheric and hydrodynamic forcing, while the spatial variation is a
function of geological and geo-morphological conditions, which control the coastal erosion and
sediment supply (Solomon, 2005). Causes of shoreline movement could be grouped into three
different temporal categories, namely, a short-term variation as individual large storm events
(Stone et al. 1997; Donnelly et al. 2001) and seasonal variations in wave energy and circulation
in near-shore zone (Masselink and Pattiaratchi, 2001); and decade-scaled changes in wave energy
and coastal morphodynamics (Forbes et al. 1997; Zhang et al. 1997; Shand et al. 2001), while a
long-term variation in relation to climate and sediment supply (Orford et al. 2002).

Studies on shoreline dynamics are critically dependent on the spatial and temporal scale of
analysis. A short time period of shoreline position and beach volume is carried out at small
spatial scales with beach topographical profiling techniques employed and repeated at regular
intervals to measure daily and annually variations, duration less than 10 years (e.g., Jimenez et al.
1997; Corbau et al. 1999; Anfuso et al. 2007). Other useful sources, such as aerial photographs,
satellite images, maps and charts, are used to reconstruct spatial and temporal shoreline changes
at medium-term periods with duration between 10 and 60 years (Jimenez and Sanchez-Arcilla,
1993) and a long-term periods, more than 60 years (Crowell et al. 1993; Anfuso et al. 2007).

Kien Giang (Fig. 1) is one of the most vulnerable provinces in the Mekong River Delta of
Vietnam. Sea levels are predicted sea-level rise by 100 cm by 2100 (Carew-Reid, 2008). The
province is expected to be subject to up to 12.1% of total national inundation, with 1,756 sq km
of land being inundated (equivalent to 28.2% of province area) by 2100 (Carew-Reid, 2008). To
date, no official assessments of historical shoreline dynamics, potential coastal vulnerability and
mangrove functions have been conducted in Kien Giang province (Duke, 2008; Duke et al.
2009).

The aims of this study was to calculate and compare the change in shoreline positions and their
physical stability in Kien Giang over time. It also intends to explain the historic shoreline change
trends caused by natural and human-induced forces. The coastal vulnerability degrees caused by
shoreline erosion to human landuse and development are then ranked, based on a variation of
rates of shoreline erosion and accretion (Pendleton et al. 2010). Shoreline change initially
documented in this study includes areas of four coastal districts of Kien Giang, namely Hon Dat,
Rach Gia, An Bien and An Minh. This data will aid in the prediction of areas most at risk of
extreme erosion events in the near future, which contribute to an effective coastal management
plan adapting to climate change and sea-level rise in Kien Giang.

METHODS

Imagery acquired to date includes a series of Landsat imagery, namely 1989, 1992, 2001, 2003,
2006, 2008 and 2010 as representing our assessment baseline from which current and past
change can be measured (Table 1). Our plan is to use such a range of imagery from various time
periods to make a comprehensive assessment of historical change for the selected coastline of
Kien Giang province.

Landsat imagery freely provided by the USGS was geo-referenced to UTM WGS-1984 Zone
48N projection and coordinate system and further geometric correction by using ENVI 4.7. A
preliminary assessment has been conducted to review the assessment strategy proposed. The
Vegetation Line Indicator (VL) used as a shoreline indicator was examined to derive historic
rates of shoreline change for the coastal study area. The VL was identified from each geo-
referenced Landsat image as the mangrove-seaward margin. This seaward margin was defined as
unbroken canopy edge, thus excluding opportunistic and pioneer mangrove vegetation (Gilman
et al. 2007). In places where there was no vegetation and artificial structures evident at the
seaward edge of a backshore, the seaward limit of artificial structures was taken as the VL.
ArcGIS 9.3 was used to digitise and create a single shoreline position in the specific year and
baseline at a scale of 1/10,000. Measuring historical change in shoreline position was formalised
into Digital Shoreline Analysis System Application 4.1 (DSAS), an extension to ArcMap
developed by the United States Geological Survey and used to interpret historical shoreline
changes (Thieler et al. 2009). Before using the DSAS to compute change statistics, the initial
data preparation step is taken to reference all shoreline vectors to the same features (as VL
indicators selected) and each shoreline vector represents in a specific time period and must be
assigned to a date in the shoreline feature-class attribute table (Thieler et al. 2009). The process
of historical shoreline interpretation is demonstrated in Fig 2.

Three statistical methods were used to calculate the change in rates of shorelines and distance
from 1989 to 2010, including End Point Rate (EPR), Net Shoreline Movement (NSM) and Linear
Regression (LRR).
1. The End Point Rate was calculated by dividing the distance of shoreline movement by the
time elapsed between the oldest and the most recent shoreline. The major advantages of the
EPR are the ease of computation and minimal requirement of only two shoreline dates.
EPR (m/y) = distance/(time between the oldest and youngest shorelines).
2. The net shoreline movement was used to calculate a distance, not a rate. The NSM is
associated with the dates of only two shorelines. It reports the distance between the oldest
and youngest shorelines for each transect. This represents the total distance between the
oldest and youngest shorelines.
NSM (m) = distance between the oldest and the youngest shorelines.
3. A linear regression rate of change statistic was determined by fitting a least-squared
regression line to all shoreline points for a particular transects. The linear regression rate is
the slope of the line.
PRELIMINARY RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

(a) Rates of historic shoreline change calculation

Vegetation line indicator for Hon Dat Coast

The results from the EPR and NSM show that 3269 transects with a 10-m spacing transect were
recorded with mean accretion, at 3.2 m yr-1 and 66.8 m over period of 1989-2010, while a smaller
number of transects (1540 transects) were identified with the evidence of mean erosion of -2.1 m
yr-1 and -43.0 m over this period (Table 2 & Fig. 3). For the LRR, 4812 transects were obtained
from Hon Dat coastline. LRR shows accretion is dominated, making up 70.6% of the coastline
transects with the mean of 3.3 m yr-1 (3396 transects). Only 1416 transects were observed to
undergo erosion (29.4% with the mean of -2.2 m yr-1).
Vegetation line indicator for Rach Gia Coast

The EPR and NSM show 1335 transects were evidenced with average accretion of 12.9 m yr-1
and 270.3 m over 1989-2010, while only two transects were present with mean erosion of -0.1m
yr-1 and -2.2 m over such period respectively (Table 2 & Fig. 3). For the LRR, there were 1337
transects established for Rach Gia coast. LRR shows accretion is dominant with 99.7% of the
coastline, on the average of 14.9 m yr-1 (1333 transects), while there were only 4 transects
encountered by mean erosion of -1.0 m yr-1 (4 transects).

Vegetation line indicator for An Bien Coast

There were 1378 transects with a 10-m spacing transect in EPR and NSM, obtained with mean
erosion of -1.3 m yr-1 and -27.2 m over 1989-2010. In contrast, only 998 transects were detected
with evidence of mean accretion of 12.6 m yr-1 and 264.9 m over 1989-2010. For the LRR in An
Bien coast, 2374 transects were conducted (Table 2 & Fig. 3), showing there were only 1018
transects (42.9 % of studied coastline) observed with mean accretion of 12.2 m yr-1, while the
number of transects showing erosion is larger than those of accretion, 1356 transects (57.1% of
surveyed coastline) with mean erosion of -1.2 m yr-1.
Vegetation line indicator for An Minh coast

This result shows that some vegetation lines are increasing, but majority are decreasing in An
Minh coast. The analysis of EPR and NSM showed 3753 transects were affected with mean
erosion of -9.3 m yr-1 and -194.4 m over 1989-2010, whereas only 1062 transects with mean
accretion of 6.9 m yr-1 and 143.7 m were recorded at the same period (Table 2 & Fig. 3). Unlike
Hon Dat and Rach Gia, analysing from LRR shows transects (3173 transects, 65.9% of the
coastline) with mean erosion were dominant, valued at -8.5 m yr-1, while only 1644 transects
were evidenced with mean shoreline accretion (equivalent to 34.1% of the coastline) of 5.9 m yr-
1
.
(b) Coastal vulnerability ranking caused by shoreline movement

The method of coastal vulnerability rankings attributed to shoreline movement associated with
human landuse and development was applied following the method of Pendleton et al (2010)
and Ozyurt and Ergin (2010) with appropriate modification. The ranges from 1 to 5 for coastal
vulnerability are based on shorelines with erosion and accretion rates in End Point Rate (Fig. 5).
The EPR is less than or equal to -2.0 m yr-1, ranked as very high vulnerability (5), -2.0 < EPR ≤ -
1.0 yr-1 as high vulnerability (4), -1.0 < EPR ≤ 1.0 yr-1 as moderate vulnerability (3), 1.0 < R ≤
2.0 yr-1 as low vulnerability (2) and EPR >2.0 yr-1 as very low vulnerability (1).

As shown in Table 3 and Fig. 4, the percentage of coastal segments with rankings of very high
(5) and high vulnerability (4) over four districts is 35.69%, equivalent to 45.22 km of which An
Minh and Hon Dat contribute to 27.38 km and 10.68 km respectively. The remaining length of
coastal segments was ranked as moderate, low and very low vulnerability levels, making up
64.31% of total surveyed coastline (81.48 km).
FUTURE RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS ON HISTORIC SHORELINE CHANGES

There is an urgent need to purchase high spatial resolution imagery, including historic aerial
photos and SPOT 5 for accurately completing entire shoreline assessment in Kien Giang over 50
years. Further shoreline assessment will aim to:
Analyse further spatial physical shoreline dynamics over time (50 years).
Identify and analyse the factors influencing shoreline change over time.
Update the statistical methods to calculate shoreline changes: End Point Rate (NPR), Net
Shoreline Movement (NSM), Linear Regression Rate (LRR), Weighted Linear
Regression (WLR).
Classify the further coastal vulnerability to human landuse and development.
Predict the future shoreline changes over 50 years.
Acknowledgements

We are thankful to School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management (GPEM),

The University of Queensland, Australia for giving us this opportunity and facilities to carry out
this study. We are also grateful to GTZ Kien Giang and Kien Giang provincial authorities for
allowing us to work in the shoreline region and supplying us with all logistics support.
References
Anfuso, G and Pozo, FAMD., 2009. Assessment of coastal vulnerability through the use of GIS
tools in south Sicily, Italy. Environmental Management, vol.43, pp.533-545.
Anfuso, G, Domingue, L and Gracia, FJ., 2007. Short and medium-term evolution of a coastal
sector in Cadiz, SW Spain. Catena, vol.70, pp.229-242.
Bird, E., 2008. Coastal geomorphology: an introduction, John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, England.
Carew-Reid, J., 2008. Rapid Assessment of the Extent and Impact of Sea Level Rise in Viet
Nam, ICEM – International Centre for Environmental Management, Indooroopilly, Queensland,
Australia.
Carrasco, AR, Ferreira, O, Matias, A and Dias, JA., 2007. Historic Monuments Threatened by
Coastal Hazards at Boca do Rio, Algarve, Portugal. Coastal Management, vol.35, pp.163-179.
Corbau, C, Tessier, B and Chamley, H 1999. Seasonal evolution of shoreface and beach system
morphology in a macrotidal environment, Dunkerque area, Northern France. Coastal Research,
vol.15, no.1, pp.97–110.
Crowell, M, Leatherman, SP and Buckley, M., 1993. Shore-line change rate analysis: long term
versus short term data. Shore and Beach, vol.61, no.2, pp.13–20.
Dewidar, K and Frihy, O., 2007. Pre- and post-beach response to engineering hard structures
using Landsat time-series at the northwestern part of the Nile delta, Egypt. Coast Conserv,
vol.11, pp.133-142.
Donnelly, JP, Bryant, SS, Butler, J, Dowling, J, Fan, L, Hausmann, N, Newbay, P, Shuman, B,
Stern, J, Westover, K and Webb, T., 2001. 700 year sedimentary record of intense hurricane
landfalls in Southern New England. Geological Society of American Bulletin, vol.113, pp.714–
727.
Duke, NC., 2008. Mangrove and Climate change: Observations of two mangrove areas of Kien
Giang province, including the districts of Hon Dat and An Minh, Report to GTZ Kien Giang
Biosphere Reserve Project, Centre for Marine Studies, University of Queensland.
Duke, NC, Wilson, N, Mackenzie, J and Nguyen, HH., 2009. An Interim report on the current
status of GTZ Kien Giamg Shoreline and management projects for periods up to July - August
2009, Kien Giang Province, Vietnam, 45 pages.
Forbes, D, Parkers, G, Manson and Ketch, GK., 2004. Storms and shoreline retreat in the
southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. Marine Geology, vol.210, no.1-4, pp.169-204.
Forbes, DL, Orford, JD, Taylor, RB and Shaw, J., 1997. Interdecadal variations in shoreline
recession on the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia, Proc. Canadian Coastal Conference '97 Guelph.
Canadian Coastal Science and Engineering Association, Ottawa, pp.360–374.
Gilman, E, Ellison, J and Coleman, R., 2007. Assessment of mangrove response to projected
relative sea-level rise and recent historical reconstruction of shoreline position. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment, vol.124, pp.105-130.
Jimenez, JA and Sauter, K., 1991. Structure and dynamics of mangrove forests along a flooding
gradient. Estuaries, vol.14 (1), pp.49-56.
Jimenez, J and Sanchez-Arcilla, A., 1993. Medium-term coastal response at the Ebro delta,
Spain. Marine Geology, vol.114, pp.105–118.
Gopinath, G and Seralathan, P., 2005. Rapid erosion of the coast of Sagar island. Environ Geol,
vol.48, pp.1058-1067.
Masselink, G and Pattiaratchi, CB., 2001. Seasonal changes in beach morphology along the
sheltered coastline of Perth, Western Australia. Marine Geology, vol.172, pp.243–263.
Moore, L and Griggs, L., 2002. Long-term cliff retreat and erosion hotspots along the central
shores of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Marine Geology, vol.181, pp.265–283.
Orford, JD, Forbes, DL and Jennings, SC., 2002. Organisational controls, typologies and time
scales of paraglacial gravel-dominated coastal systems. Geomorphology, vol.48, pp.51–85.
Ozyurt, G and Ergin, A., 2010. Improving coastal vulnerability assessments to sea-level rise: a
new indicator-based methodology for decision makers. Coastal Research, vol.26(2), pp.265-273.
Pendleton, EA, Thieler, ER and Williams, SJ., 2010. Importance of Coastal Change Variables in
Determining vulnerability to Sea and Lake level change. Coastal Research, vol.26(1), pp.176-
183.
Sesli, FA, Karsli, F, Colkesen, I and Akyol, N., 2009. Monitoring the changing position of
coastlines using aerial and satellite image data: an example from the eastern coast of Trabzon,
Turkey. Environ Monit Assess, vol.153, pp.391-403.
Shand, RD, Bailey, DG and Shepherd, MJ., 2001. Longshore realignment of shore parallel sand-
bars at Wanganui, New Zealand. Marine Geology, vol.179, pp.147–161.
Solomon, SM., 2005. Spatial and temporal variability of shoreline change in the Beaufort-
Mackenzie region, northwest territories, Canada. Geo-Mar Lett, vol.25, pp.127-137.
Stone, GW, Grymes, JM, Dingler, JR and Pepper, DA., 1997. Overview and significance of
hurricanes on the Louisiana coast, USA. Coastal Research, vol.134, pp.656–669.
Thieler, ER, Himmelstoss, EA, Zichichi, JL, and Ergul, A., 2009. Digital Shoreline Analysis
System (DSAS) version 4.0-An ArcGIS extension for calculating shoreline change: U.S.
Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1278.
Zhang, K, Douglas, BC and Leatherman, SP., 1997. East coast storm surges provide unique
climate record. Eos. Transactions American Geophysical Union, vol.78, pp.389–397.

Table 1. Landsat Thematic Mapper imagery

used for historic shoreline assessments.
No Year Spatial Source
Resolution supplier
1. 1989 30mx30m USGS
2. 1992 30mx30m USGS
3. 2001 30mx30m USGS
4. 2003 30mx30m USGS
5. 2006 30mx30m USGS
6. 2008 30mx30m USGS
7. 2010 30mx30m USGS

Fig 1. Geography distribution of fringe mangroves and

coastal study sites.
Table 2. Overall shoreline statistics in selected districts, Kien Giang from 1989 to 2010.

Shoreline Hon Dat Rach Gia An Bien An Minh

statisitcs Erosion Accretion Erosion Accretion Erosion Accretion Erosion Accretion

EPR (m yr-1) -2.05 3.18 -0.1 12.88 -1.3 12.63 -9.27 6.85
NSM (m/period) -43.03 66.77 -2.19 270.3 -27.2 264.94 -194.44 143.69
LRR (m yr-1) -2.2 3.26 -1.02 14.9 -1.19 12.22 -8.51 5.92
 INPUT
Baseline (2006).
Shorelines (1989-2010).

SET PARAMETERS
OUTPUT
Transect settings.
Transects
Shorelines calculation settings.

CAST TRANSECTS
Transect storages geo-database.
Casting methods.

EDIT (optional)
Modify baseline.
Direct edit of individual transects.

CALCULATION CHANGE STATISTICS

OUTPUT
Select statistics to calculate.
Specify confidence interval.
Rates_dmy.

Fig 2. Bar chart showing the process of historical shoreline interpretation.

300
Overall shoreline movement in four districts, Kien Giang (m)
250

200
EPR
150
NSM
100 LRR

50

-50 Hon Dat Rach Gia An Bien An Minh

-100

-150

Fig 3. Shoreline movement in surveyed districts calculated by EPR, NSM and LRR.
Table 3. Length of coastal vulnerability rankings (km).

Vulnerability rankings 1 2 3 4 5 Total

Hon Dat 18.89 8.21 12.46 4.73 5.95 50.24
Rach Gia 11.03 1.42 0.21 0 0 12.65
An Bien 7.69 0.85 9.54 4.54 2.62 25.24
An Minh 6.33 3.07 1.78 1.84 25.54 38.56
Total (km) 43.94 13.55 23.99 11.11 34.11 126.69

Length of coastal vulnerability rankings caused by shoreline movement (km)

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Very high High Moderate Low Very low

Hon Dat Rach Gia An Bien An Minh

Fig 4. Coastal vulnerability rankings in selected coastal districts over 1989-2010 (km).

(a) (b)
 (c)

(d)
Fig 4. Coastal vulnerability rankings based on shoreline erosion and accretion rates.

View publication stats