Ocean & Coastal Management 132 (2016) 46e58

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

Detection and analysis of shoreline changes using geospatial tools and

automatic computation: Case of jijelian sandy coast (East Algeria)
Saci Kermani*, Makhlouf Boutiba, Mostefa Guendouz, Mohamed Said Guettouche,
Dalila Khelfani
Laboratory of Geomorphology and Geo-hazards, Faculty of Earth Sciences, University of Sciences and Technology, Houari Boumedienne (USTHB), Algiers,
Algeria

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Analysis and understanding of coastline variability and coastal erosion-accretion trends are important for
Received 7 March 2016 scientists and local decision-makers for orienting regulation and decisions concerning coastal planning.
Received in revised form This study focuses on the detection and analysis of historical changes in shoreline position of the Bay of
28 July 2016
Jijel (East -Algeria) occurred between 1960 and 2014. Shoreline changes along the Bay of Jijel were
Accepted 10 August 2016
Available online 17 August 2016
studied from multi-dated aerial photographs (1960, 1973 and 1988) and Quick-bird satellite image
(2014). The correction of aerial photographs and satellite image was carried out using the remote sensing
tools and Geographic Information System “GIS”. To attain our objective, the study area was divided into
Keywords:
Corrected aerial photographs
three sectors for analysis: (1) the beaches of Jijel, Tassoust in the western sector, (2) the central area
Satellite image (QuickBird) encompasses beaches of El Kanar, El Mzair and SidiAbdelaziz, (3) the eastern sector contains the beaches
GIS of El Djnah and Beni Belaid. Net rates changes of shoreline position in time were calculated from several
Shoreline changes accretion/erosion statistical methods End Point Rates (EPR), Linear Regression Rates (LRR) and Weighted Linear Regression
EPR & LRR (WLR). These net rates of coastline changes have been calculated, also, on three intervals of times (1960
e1973, 1973e1988 and 1988e2014) and on a period (mid-centennial) of 54 years (1960e2014). The
result shows that the study area is almost stable between 1960 and 1973 with a rate of change equal
to
0.072 m/year. This rate of change, has negatively increased during episodes time 1973e1988 and
1988e2014, with average values of
0.125 m/year and
0.85 m/year, respectively. Over a mid-secular
period, the coast has experienced an average net rate global of changes equal to
0.459 m/year. This
recession of the coastline is due to the combined action of the cumulative effects of stormy climate of the
coast and various human actions on the Jijelian coastal strip.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction investigation will, no doubt, bring a first contribution to this effect.

Shoreline position changes have become, in recent years, one of
the major environment problems affecting the coastal zones
worldwide. Indeed, nearly 80% of the world's coasts are eroding,
with rates ranging from 1 cm/year to 10 m/year (Pilkey and Hume,
2001). The shoreline changes analysis has been subject of several
studies worldwide (Zuzek et al., 2003; Maiti and Bhattacharya,
2009; Appeaning Addo et al., 2011; Moussaid et al., 2015; Ozturk
and Sesli, 2015). This unlike the Algerian coast that has only been
the subject of few similar studies until to date (Boutiba et al., 2009;
Ayadi et al., 2015). The choice of Jijelian coast as terrain of
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: k.saci@yahoo.fr (S. Kermani).
The Jijelian sandy coast, which was left in its natural state until
early 1980, has been the subject, in recent decades, of a major
regional development program. This program was concretized by
the construction of infrastructures (construction of a port of 2nd
world class, a railway, a highway, a power plant). These develop-
ment operations contributed to economic development of this lo-
cality, but they have also destabilized the natural balance of this
coastal area, which supports today a high density of infrastructures.
In recent decades, in the image of rest of Algerian sandy coasts
open to marine agitations, the jijelian coast has known, for its part,
significant variation in shoreline positions, threatening potential
tourism of this attractive coast. Also, on many beaches, erosion has
much accelerated, in recent years, without however being linked to
climate change.
Shoreline changes are related to natural processes (wave,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.08.010
0964-5691/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 S. Kermani et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 132 (2016) 46e58
current, nature of coastal landforms …) and anthropogenic in-
terventions (sand mining, wild urbanization, tourism, construction
of coastal infrastructure …) (Carter, 1988; Komar, 1989; Scott, 2005;
Guariglia et al., 2006; Manca et al., 2013; Natesan et al., 2015). These
shoreline variations translate into erosion and accretion of coastal
areas (Sherman and Bauer, 1993; Al Bakri, 1996; Zuzek et al., 2003;
Alesheikh et al., 2007; Appeaning Addo et al., 2011; Natesan et al.,
2015). An understanding of shoreline change trends is a necessary
step for the environmental control and management of coastal
areas (Mills et al., 2005; Appeaning Addo et al., 2011; Ozturk and
Sesli, 2015). This requires of us the understanding of both histori-
cal and modern shoreline changes. Currently, thanks to new image
processing technology, it is easy to generate exact shoreline posi-
tions. This study analyzed shoreline changes for a period of 54 years
(1960e2014), using geospatial techniques, geographic information
systems (GIS) and automatic computation (DSAS), of the Jijelian
coast. In this study, several statistical approach have been used for
determining the rates of shoreline changes, including End Point
Rates (EPR), Linear Regression Rates (LRR) and Weighted Linear
Regression (WLR) (Himmelstoss, 2009; Moussaid et al., 2015;
Natesan et al., 2015; Ayadi et al., 2015). The main goal of this
work is to map and quantify the erosion and accretion areas and to
evaluate the long-term rates of shoreline changes along the East-
coast of Jijel.
2. Study area
The study area corresponds to the Eastern part of Jijel coast, it is
located at approximately 350 km to the East of Algiers. It lies be-
tween 36 060 0000 e 37 000 0000 N Latitude and 6 000 0000 e 6 060 0000 E
Longitude and oriented NE-SW between Ras Oum Chiche and the
mouth of El kebir wadi and E-W up to the mouth of Mencha wadi
(Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. Location map of the study area, annual swell rose.
47
The coast is formed essentially by a long sandy coast (54 km),
which is interrupted towards the east by the Mouadene spur, which
isolates the beach of Oued Z'Hor from the rest of sandy coast. The
sandy beaches are limited toward the land by the actual cord dunes.
This later, is composed of quite low dunes between Jijel and the
mouth of Djen-Djen wadi then, it becomes gradually higher
15e20 m up to Ras Mouade
ne. These actual dunes are relayed to-
ward inland by consolidated cord dunes of reddish color with an
average mean grain-size of sediment ranging from 0.125 mm to
0.3 mm (Boutiba, 2006; Kermani et al., 2015). This narrow sandy
band, forming the essential of the Jijelian coast, is connected to the
SW to Jijel plain and to the alluvial plain formed by the valley of El
Kebir wadi at the central part of the coast. These coastal plains
represent about 15% of coastal surface, they are slightly tilted to the
south and have a flat topography. Five wadis that drained the wa-
tersheds of the hinterland of Jijel coast, debouches into the Jijelian
bay (Fig. 1). The total volume of solid inputs of these wadis to the
bay is about 14.8  106 m3/year and constitutes the main source of
sediments for the coast.
The study area climate is characterized by an irregular Medi-
terranean regime sub-humid to humid with two distinct seasons: a
cold and rainy winter and a hot and dry summer. However, the
proximity effect of the sea confers to this area a temperate climate,
of the same the rainfall and thermic distribution is strongly influ-
enced by the relief and the sea. Indeed, the summer season ranging
from May to October is characterized by relatively moderate tem-
peratures 25  C in July and 26.1  C in August. During the winter, the
coldest month is January with a value of 11.4  C. The temperature
differences in this coastal area are generally low. They vary between
14  C and 15  C. The average annual rainfall reaches values greater
than 1100 mm at the stations located in mountainous areas (El
Milia 1100 mm, and Texanna 1166 mm), and significantly decreases
at the coastal stations to achieve the value of 892,6 mm at the Jijel
48 S. Kermani et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 132 (2016) 46e58
airport station. At Jijel station, dominant winds are from W and NW
directions and blow during the three quarters (winter, spring and
autumn). Much of the winds issued from these directions have
speeds above 8 m/s. For the third quarter, the prevailing winds
came from E and NE directions, with low to medium speeds
(1e5 m/s).
The study area is exposed to dominant waves coming from the
East and West sectors with respective frequencies of 31% and 17%.
The strong marine agitations with heights exceeding 2.75 m are
observed during the first and fourth quarter. From October to
March, during 15e30% of the time, the wave heights vary between
2.75 and 3.75 m. The low heights of swells come from the
Northeast sector with a rate of 17% and a height that ranges be-
tween 0.75 and 1.75 m. Between April and September, Western,
Eastern and Northeastern swells are mainly dominating with
respective frequencies of 23, 18 and 12.2%, and heights that vary of
0.75e1,75 m (Fig. 1). Between April and September, the swells
coming from the West, East and North-East are mainly dominant
with respective frequencies of 23, 18 and 12%, and heights that
vary from 0.75 to 1.75 m. The recorded wave's heights vary be-
tween 0.25 and 6 m. The period of dominant swells vary between
5.03 and 8.1 s.
The study area has known, during these last decades, numerous
pressures due to human activities as a result of urbanization,
tourism development, sand mining etc. Illegal sand mining
have simultaneously touched the wadis beds (4 million m3), olds
dunes (6,3 millions m3equivalent to 196 ha of old dunes destroyed),
actual sand dunes and beaches (11.1 million m3 corresponding
to189 ha of dunes demolished) (Boutiba, 2006). Hence, erosion was
felt in several places along the coast threatening so, the coastal
ecosystem equilibrium and especially the tourism potential of this
coast.
3. Materials and methods
In this study, the adopted methodology for treatment and
extraction of the shoreline position and the construction of the
database, in order to determine the net rate of shoreline move-
ment, is that used by several authors (Shoshany and Degani, 1992;
Moore, 2000; Liu et al., 2011; Manca et al., 2013; Moussaid et al.,
2015; Ayadi et al., 2015). This methodology is based on three-
stages of data processing: (1) aerial photographs and Quick-bird
satellite image covering the period 1960e2014, were ortho-
rectified using polynomial geo-rectification method, (2) digitiza-
tion and extraction of the coastlines and estimation of errors, and
(3) data analysis techniques to compute shoreline erosion/accre-
tion rates.
3.1. Data sources
In this study, corrected aerial photographs at different scales 1/
10,000, 1/20,000 1/25,000 obtained from different missions (1960,
1973, 1988) and satellite image (Quick-bird Multispectral) covering
the east coast of Jijel (2014) were used to detect shoreline changes
along the Jijelian east coast. Data sources used to examine shoreline
movements are consigned in Table 1.
Table 1
List of data used in this study.
Date Data type
1960 Aerial photos
1973 Aerial photos
1988 Aerial photos
2014 Satellite image (Quick-bird)
3.2. Image processing
The major image processing operations carried out in this study
are: scanning, rectifying and mosaicking aerial photographs. The
aerial photographs were first scanned in Tagged Image File Format
(TIFF) with a resolution of 20 m (1270 DPI dpi/dots per inch), with no
compression. For each of the three dates of photography, a bloc file
was created in ERDAS Imagine Ortho-base and images are con-
verted to IMG format. Geometric correction process was carried out
from the Ground Control Points (GPCs) (more than 35 ground-
control points were selected on the scanned photo image and
base layer) (Kumar et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2011; Maanan et al., 2014;
Moussaid et al., 2015). Geometric correction was performed using
ERDAS Imagine 8.5 software, in order to eliminate distortions
related to scale variation, tilt, and lens distortion (Dolan et al., 1980;
Anders and Mark, 1991; Crowell et al., 1991; Moore, 2000). The next
step was to project the image to real world coordinate Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) with reference to WGS-84 datum. In
order to correct the relief displacement, a Digital Elevation Model
(DEM) was used. These calibrated images were then mosaicked into
one, and saved as an uncompressed TIFF. Finally, geo-rectified and
mosaicked images are exported to ArcGIS software in order to
digitize the coastal shoreline.
3.3. Shoreline extraction and error evaluation
There are many features on the sub-aerial beach that can be
considered as shoreline (Boak and Turner, 2005). The high water
line (HWL) is only the one of the nine shorelines, which meets all
three criteria advanced by Dolan et al. (1978). It is defined as the
limit of variable wave run-up on the beach slope (Langfelder et al.,
1970). However, without knowing the oceanographic conditions
(wave, tide) at the time of taking aerial view, the HWL is quite
difficult to demarcate on aerial photographs of low quality. It has
been shown that the wet/dry line closely approximates the HWL
(Moore, 2000). For these reasons, in this paper, the wet/dry line was
used as an approximation of the high water line, it was digitized
manually on each photomosaic of different mission in ArcGIS 9.2.
After shorelines were digitized for four dates of aerial photog-
raphy missions, all the shorelines necessary for this study were in
ArcGIS shapefile format. The geo-data base was then created in
ArcGIS software from these vectors shorelines. This geo-database
was analyzed with Digital Shoreline Analysis System (DSAS)
developed by United States Geological Survey. This extension was
used to calculate the rate of shoreline movement and changes. In
our study, the DSAS was carried out in four steps: (1) shoreline
preparation, (2) baseline creation, (3) transect generation, and (4)
computation of rate of shoreline change (Thieler et al., 2005).
Shorelines changes rate along the Jijelian coast were calculated
on 1618 transect generated perpendicular to the baseline at in-
tervals of 20 m (Fig. 2). Transects were numbered from 1 to 1618,
with transect 1 at the West and transect 1618 at the meridian of
Moudene spur.
Before any analysis, it was necessary to evaluate the errors
related with each position of the shoreline. Indeed, the recovery of
aerial photographs and automation measures generate a certain
Image scale File type Image type
1/25,000 Geo-TIFF Black & white
1/20,000 Geo-TIFF Black & white
1/10,000 Geo-TIFF Black & white
0.62 m resolution Geo-TIFF Color
 S. Kermani et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 132 (2016) 46e58 49

Fig. 2. Baseline and transects map for shoreline changes analysis along the jijelian coast (example of Beni Belaid beach).

number of potential errors associating to the quality of the data
used (error pixel (Ep)), the images geo-referencing (Square Error
RMSE (ERMs)), the extraction and digitalization of the shorelines
(digitizing error (Ed)) and photo positional uncertainty high tide
level (Ev). These errors are considered random and uncorrelated,
the total errors (Et) is given by the square root of the sum of the
squares of the different variables (Eq. (1)) (Fletcher et al., 2003;
Ayadi et al., 2015).
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Et ¼ Ep2 þ ERMs2 þ Ed2 þ Ev2
These Errors must be calculated before making conclusions on
the evolution of the coastline (Thieler and Danforth, 1994; Moore,
2000; Morton et al., 2004; Moussaid et al., 2015). In this study,
the total error was estimated from two sources (Table 2): (1) the
total error related to the shoreline position was calculated for
four dates of aerial photography; (2) The Annualized transect error
associated to the shoreline change rate at any given transect. It
was calculated on three short periods of time: (1960e1973,
1973e1988 and 1988e2014), and on a global period (1960e2014).
The annualized error was calculated using the following Eq. (2):
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Et12 þ Et22 þ Et32 þ Et42
Ea ¼ (2)
Total period ðYearsÞ
(1)
The annualized uncertainty over a time period of 54 years is
therefore 0.176 m/year (Table 2).
Recently, the uncertainty associated with the computation of
the End Point Rate (EPR) is automatically calculated in the appli-
cation of DSAS. The result of this computation is specified as con-
fidence of the end point rate calculation (ECI) (Thieler et al., 2005).
The ECI is calculated using the following Eq. (3).

Table 2
Estimated measurement errors for each shoreline data source.

1960 1973 1988 2014

Error pixel (Ep) ±1 m ±1 m ±1 m ±1 m

RMS ortho-rectification (ERMs) ±0.5 m ±4.7 m ±4.9 m ±2.5 m
Digitizing error (Ed) ±3 m ±3 m ±3 m ±3 m
Photo positional uncertainty high tide level (Ev) ±0.5 m ±0.5 m ±0.5 m ±0.5 m
Total error (Et) 2.6 5.7 5.9 4.1
Annualized Error (54 years) 0.176 m/year
The again errors of Point rate calculation (ECI) (m/year) 1960e1973 1973e1988 1988e2014 1960e2014
0.49 0.53 0.28 0.093
50 S. Kermani et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 132 (2016) 46e58

Table 3 particular transect. The shoreline change rate along each transect
Shoreline classification based on EPR, WLR and LRR. for all period (1960e2014) was computed by plotting the points
S. No. Rate of shoreline change (m/yr) Shoreline classification where shorelines are intersected by transects and calculating the
1 >
2 Very high erosion
linear regression equation, which has the form: y ¼ a þ bX, where,
2 >
1 e <
2 High erosion (y) represents the distance, in meters, from the base line (1960), (X)
3 >
1 e <0 Moderate erosion shoreline dates (years), (b) represents the shoreline change rate and
4 0 Stable (a) is the y-intercept. In this study, the R-squared, R2 > 0.8 has been
retained as the limit of certainty. The uncertainty of the reported
5 >0 e <þ1 Moderate accretion
6 >þ1 e <þ2 High accretion rate is considered with a confidence interval (LCI) of 95%. Whereas
7 >þ2 Very high accretion the Weighted Linear Regression (WLR), more reliable data are given
greater emphasis or weight towards determining a best-fit line
with a confidence interval of 99.9% (Thieler et al., 2005). The
weighted linear regression rate is determined by plotting the
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
shoreline positions with respect to time. The weight (w) is defined
ðEt AÞ2 þ ðEt BÞ2
ECI ¼ (3) as a function of the variance in the uncertainty of the measurement
date ðAÞ
date ðBÞ (e) (Eq. (5)) (Genz et al., 2007):

where: 1
w¼ (5)
e2
(Et A): Uncertainty of the position of shoreline A
(Et B): Uncertainty of the position of shoreline B The Net Shoreline Movement (NSM) simply the distance (in
date(A): Date of shoreline A meters) between the ancient and new shorelines position for each
date(B): Date of shoreline B transect. It indicates a distance, not a rate.
The negative value of EPR, LRR, WLR and NSM indicates land-
The again error (ECI) is calculated on three short periods of time ward displacement of the shoreline, while positive value denotes
(Table 2): (1960e1973, 1973e1988 and 1988e2014), and on a global seaward migration. The obtained erosion/accretion rates for Jijelian
period (1960e2014). coast were divided into seven categories (Natesan et al., 2015)
(Table 3).

3.4. Erosion/accretion rates calculation

There are several data analysis techniques that can be used to
calculate shoreline erosion/accretion rates, (Thieler et al., 2005). In
this study, changes of the shoreline positions are computed utiliz-
ing four data analysis technics. The End Point Rate (EPR) is simply
calculated by dividing the distance (in meters) separating two
shorelines by the number of years between the dates of the two
shorelines (Eq. (4)). This simply method is the most prevalent to
calculate shoreline movement rates, and it is widely used by
different coastal researchers (Dolan et al., 1991; Genz et al., 2007;
Thieler et al., 2005; Ford, 2013).
D1
D2
EPR ¼
t1
t0
where:
D1 and D2 :distance separating the shoreline and baseline.
t0 and t1 :the dates of the two shoreline positions.
The second method used for calculating erosion rates is through
Linear Rate Regression (LRR). This method consists to fit a least-
squares regression line to multiple shoreline position points for a
4. Results
4.1. Diachronic analysis of the shoreline kinematics
By definition shoreline is a natural dynamic feature. It records
frequent changes, in short term and long term, in response to
natural physical processes (e; g. waves, tide, current, rivers inputs,
sea level rise) and others factors (e.g., seismicity, storms events)
(Scott, 2005; Guariglia et al., 2006; Maiti and Bhattacharya, 2009;
Natesan et al., 2015). The changes of the coastline provide infor-
mation on coastal dynamics and sedimentary transfers taking place
along the coast (Thieler et al., 2005; Hakkou et al., 2011; Moussaid
et al., 2015; Natesan et al., 2015). In the bay of Jijel, these coastal
(4)
sedimentary transfers are controlled by hydrodynamic actions,
solid inputs carried by various wadis, which debouch into the bay
and anthropogenic actions (Boutiba, 2006; Kermani et al., 2015).
The results of the present study are compiled and consigned in
Table 4; they materialise the maximum and minimum coastline
changes (EPR) for the periods: 1960e1973, 1973e1998, 1998e2014
and 1960e2014. The results interpretation is based on End Point
Rate (EPR) parameter, the other parameters (LRR, WLR) are only
represented in Fig. 6. The positive and negative values of the EPR
displayed in the following table indicate accretion and erosion

Table 4
Maximum and minimum values (EPR) for each time-period of the jijelian coast.

e
Anne EPR Eastern Sector Central Sector Western Sector

Jijel beach Tassoust beach El kenar beach El Mzair beach SidiAbdaziz beach Eldjnah beach BeniBelaid beach

1960- Max EPR (accretion) 2.86 4.45 6.15 6.55 7.87 5.29 4.68
1973 Min EPR (erosion)
0.65
8.63
3.41
4.69
5.97
2.82 6.36
1973e1988 Max EPR (accretion) 3.78 0.72 2.36 3.29 7.67 3.71 5.41
Min EPR (erosion)
0.97
8.27
5.42
5.58
3.57
5.06
2.37
1988e2014 Max EPR (accretion) 4.21 4.17 15.2 1.33 1.32
021 0.59
Min EPR (erosion)
2.07
1.82
2.96
2.88
6.1
4.62
3.69
1960e2014 Max EPR (accretion) 3.22 0.35 5.9 0.44 0.71 0.67 0.34
Min EPR (erosion)
0.23
2.36
1.7
1.59
1.75
1.72
1.71
 S. Kermani et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 132 (2016) 46e58 51

Fig. 3. Shoreline evolution between 1960 and 1973 in the overall study area, (erosion and accretion) computed by the End Point Rate (EPR) method.

areas respectively.
4.1.1. Period 1960e1973
The statistical results obtained during this period of time (13
years) on the whole study area show that the shoreline oscillates
between advanced-retreat (Fig. 3). Shorelines exhibiting recession
are located at Tassoust, Sidi Abdelaziz, El Djenah and Beni Belaid,
while accreting shorelines are observed at Jijel beach, El Mzair and
the eastern part of the locality of Sidi Abdelaziz. Maximum erosion
rates of
1.1 and
0.97 m/year are observed at Beni Belaid beach
and Tassoust beach from EPR rates. High accretion with a net rate of
1.42 m/year (EPR) is located at Jijel Beach near the port of Boudiss.
This sand accumulation is due to the blockage of dominant along-
shore sediment transport oriented EasteWest by the secondary
jetty of Boudiss port.
4.1.2. Period 1973e1988
This period is marked by a small increase of the erosion
52 S. Kermani et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 132 (2016) 46e58

Fig. 4. Shoreline evolution between 1973 and 1988 in the overall study area, (erosion and accretion) computed by the End Point Rate (EPR) method.

phenomenon compared to the previous period 1960e1973. Results
of statistical analysis obtained for all transects show alternating
areas of erosion and accretion (Fig. 4). Sedimentation has continued
at Jijel beach with an average progradation rate (EPR) of 1.67 m/
year. Maximum erosion (high and very high erosion) is recorded at
the beaches of Tassoust, El kaner and El Mzair, with average values
(EPR)
3.53,
1.47 and
1.5 m/year respectively. Maximum ac-
cretion is recorded at beaches of Sidi Abdelaziz, El Djenah and Beni
Belaid with EPR average values of 2.81, 1.58 and 1.78 m/year
respectively. Coastal zones with high erosion rates correspond to
areas of economic development, which has began in the early
1980's.
4.1.3. Period 1988e2014
During this period, all transects, except transects n 109e727,
which are subjected to progradation, show recession. The average
rate of shoreline recession at most transects is more significant. It
varies between
0.42 m/year at Jijel beach and
2.95 m/year at Sidi
Abdelaziz beach (Fig. 5). The beach backs on to the secondary jetty
of Djen-Djen port (transects 443e501) recorded a progradation of
 S. Kermani et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 132 (2016) 46e58 53

Fig. 5. Shoreline evolution between 1988 and 2014 in the overall study area, (erosion and accretion) computed by the End Point Rate (EPR) method.

17,77 ha, with maximum rate of accretion of the shoreline (EPR) of
15.2 m/year. Same observations have been made for the port of
Richards Bay (Schoonees et al., 2006), and Port Oharai in Kashi-
manada coast (India) (Matsu-ura et al., 2010).
4.1.4. Period 1960e2014
The changes analysis results of the shoreline position during
these last 54 years (1960e2014) revealed that all transects of the
study area (East, central and West) were subjected to recession. The
average net rate of changes calculated from EPR, LRR and WLR
methods, is of
0.459,
0.465 and
0.443 m/year respectively
(Fig. 6). The shoreline rates calculated by EPR and LRR methods
show that 77% of transects were subject to erosion, with maximum
retreat of
46 m and a maximum rate of
0.85 m/year, at Tassoust
beach. The most significant advance of the coastline, is observed at
the beach leaned with the secondary jetty of Djen-Djen port and at
Jijel beach with accretion rate of 2.10 and 0.61 m/year respectively,
during the last 54 years.
54 S. Kermani et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 132 (2016) 46e58

Fig. 6. Shoreline evolution between 1960 and 2014 in the overall study area, (erosion and accretion) computed by the End Point Rate (EPR), Linear Regression Rates (LRR) and
Weighted Linear Regression (WLR) methods.

4.2. Surface balance sheets of study area beaches and total coastal complemented by surface balance sheets calculation offer a vision
sediment budget of the coastal kinematics in two dimensions. For this purpose, the
surface balance sheets of all the beaches of the Jijelian coast have
Measurements of linear changes of the position of the shoreline been prepared and recorded in Table 5. According to these results,

Table 5
Gain and loss surfaces along the jijelian east coast.

Beaches 1960e1973 1973e1988 1988e2014 1960e2014

Gain (ha) Loss (ha) Net surface Gain (ha) Loss (ha) Net surface Gain (ha) Loss (ha) Net surface Gain (ha) Loss (ha) Net surface
balance balance balance balance
sheets (ha) sheets (ha) sheets (ha) sheets (ha)

Jijel 4 0,03 3,9 5,4 0,19 5,2 1,2 3,5
2,3 75,4 11,1 7,4
Tassoust 8,0 16,3
8,2 0,23 36,9
36,7 18,6 5,0 13,5 47,3 31,7
31,2
El kenar 10,1 4,1 5,9 14,8 14,8 0 17,8 12,6 5,1 11,6 14,7
3,1
El Mzair 4,6 6,7
2,3 3,2 3,2 0 1,78 6,6
4,8 0,17 16,4
16,2
Sidi Abdaziz 15,3 10,4 4,9 29,2 2,4 26,8 0,4 47,9
47,4 4,4 20,3
15,9
Eldjnah 1,3 1,2 0,16 5,6 0,76 4,8 0 9,2
9,2 0,9 5,2
4,3
Beni Belaid 3,3 10,6
7,3 16,4 0,25 16,2 0,08 24,6
24,5 0,4 14,7
14,2
 S. Kermani et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 132 (2016) 46e58 55

Fig. 7. (a and b) Comparison of shoreline rates obtained by different statistical methods (EPR, LRR, WLR) for all transects of the study area. (c) The EPR, LRR and WLR values (m/year)
calculated along all transects (1618) of the study area during the period (1960e2014).
56 S. Kermani et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 132 (2016) 46e58

Table 6
Global statistical synthesis of all the study area during 1960e2014.

Eastern Sector Central Sector Western Sector Regional (total)

Jijel beach Tassoust beach El kenar beach El Mzair beach Sidi Abd- aziz beach El djnah beach Beni Belaid beach

Total number of transects 108 339 280 203 315 94 279 1618
Shorelinelength (km) 4.2 6.8 5.6 4.7 6.3 1.9 5.5 35
Mean rate shoreline change rate (m/year)
EPR þ0.613
0.855
0.093
0.753
0.466
0.410
0.555
0.459
LRR þ0.616
0.962
0.198
0.802
0.382
0.351
0.433
0.465
WLR þ0.66
0.952
0.132
0.777
0.337
0.335
0.477
0.443
Maximum rate shoreline change rate (m/year)
EPR 3.22 0.35 5.9 0.44 0.71 0.67 0.34 5.9
LRR 3.21 0.2 5.93
0.11 1.01 1.44 0.87 5.93
WLR 3.17 0.39 5.5
0.02 0.87 0.88 0.55 5.5
Minimum rate shoreline change rate (m/year)
EPR
0.23
2.36
1.7
1.59
1.75
1.72
1.71
2.36
LRR
0.29
2.28
1.75
1.37
1.24
1.1
0.89
2.28
WLR
0.18
2.48
1.72
1.54
1.48
1.56
1.47
2.48
Total transects that record accretion
EPR 101 24 59 07 106 35 37 369
LRR 95 13 64 00 127 60 84 443
WLR 102 23 64 00 119 49 51 408
Total transects that record erosion
EPR 07 315 221 196 209 59 242 1249
LRR 13 326 216 203 188 34 195 1175
WLR 06 316 216 203 196 45 228 1210
% of total transects that record accretion
EPR 93.51 07.07 21.08 3.45 33.65 37.24 13.26 22.8
LRR 87.96 3.83 22.85 0 40.31 63.83 30.11 27.37
WLR 94.45 6.78 22.85 0 37.77 52.13 18.27 25.21
% of total transects that record erosion
EPR 6.49 92.93 78.92 96.55 66.35 62.76 86.74 77.2
LRR 12.04 96.17 77.15 100 59.69 36.17 69.89 72.63
WLR 5.55 93.22 77.15 100 62.23 47.87 81.73 74.79

total beaches area lost during the period 1960e2014 for the whole
coast reached 85.11 ha except Jijel beach located at the western part
of the coast, which exhibits a 74.36 ha gain. The land loss became
more significant during the period (1988e2014) to reach 88.52 ha.
The maximum erosion occurred during this period (1988e2014) at
Sidi Abdelaziz and Beni Belaid with a loss of, 47.49 ha and 24.57 ha
respectively. During the period 1973e1988 the study area has lost
36.71 ha at Tassoust while the others beaches recorded a total gain
of 53.23 ha.
5. Discussion
The changes of shoreline positions over a mid-centennial period
(54 years) indicate that the whole coastal area of Jijel is subject to
either accretion or retreat. Also, this study revealed that, during this
period, 76.51% of the coastline corresponding to 27.5 km is in
erosion, and only 23% either 8.3 km of the coast are in accretion.
The shoreline changes along the Jijelian coast is controlled by
both natural processes and human activities (Fig. 8-e and f). The
principal causes of erosion in our study area are related to waves
and currents, construction of harbor and infrastructures, sand
mining and the reduced of solids inputs of wadis.
Jijel bay, by its configuration and orientation is open to the NW,
and is mainly reached by marine agitations coming from directions
NW, N and NE. During Northeast waves, sediments from Djen-djen
and Mencha wadis are transported toward Jijel beach (Kermani
et al., 2015). Those from El Kebir wadi are oriented and deposited
at the near-shore of El Djenah. In Northwest waves conditions,
sediments from El kebir wadi are transported and deposited in
near-shore of Beni Belaid coast by littoral drift current.
At two km easterly of the Djen-Djen wadi mouth, about 20 km
east of the city of Jijel has been implanted port Djen-Djen, with its
numerous cross-harbor works. On this coastal portion it is
observed, since the end of the construction of Djen Djen port, sig-
nificant topographic changes. The western part of El Kennar beach,
built against the secondary jetty of Djen-Djen harbor, recorded
progradation over a large area during period 1977e2014 (Fig. 8-c).
The trapped sand volume, during this period, reached the value of
168,837.5 m3 either 7, 05 ha of earned beach. In contrast, the
eastern part of Tassoust beach, built against the main port jetty,
recorded a significant loss in sand volume of 152,922 m3 either 8,
5 ha of beach lost (Fig. 8-d).
The shoreline change rates obtained by three statistical ap-
proaches (EPR, LRR and WLR) have been compared with the values
of EPR vs LRR, EPR vs WLR (Fig. 7-a and b). The R-squared values
obtained indicate good correlation between dependant and inde-
pendent variables. Good correlation between EPR vs LRR and EPR vs
WLR are observed during 1960e2014 (Fig. 7). The values of
shoreline change rates obtained by EPR, LRR and WLR methods are
very close in all the study area (Fig. 7- c, and Table 6).
The study shows that shoreline with high rates of erosion are
located near zones where sand has been illegally extracted since
1973. Indeed, following the vast program of development of Jijel
region, in the 1970s, demand for building materials increased
considerably. The need for building sand alone represents
1,230,000 m3/year either 51.55% of total demand for building ma-
terials. To meet this demand, several extraction sites were opened
along the Jijelian coast. These extractions simultaneously touched
the wadis beds with 4 million m3, the old cord dunes with
6,3 million m3 either 196 ha of old dunes destroyed, actual cord
dunes and beaches with 11.1 million m3 which represents an area of
189 ha of actual dunes destroyed (Fig. 8-a and b). Sand mining in
this area has provoked, this last few years, shoreline retreat. Ob-
servations and measurements realised along the Jijelian coast show
a mean rate of shoreline recoil (EPR) of
0.85 m/year between 1988
and 2014, while it does not exceed
0.07 m/year before 1973.
 S. Kermani et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 132 (2016) 46e58
Fig. 8. (a) Direct extraction of sand on the beach of Tassoust; (b) sand mining on actual dunes of Sidi Abdelaziz; (c) Sand accumulation at the east side of Djen-Djen harbor; (d)
Severely beach erosion, west of rooting the main jetty of Djen-Djen harbor. (e) Urbanization expansion on the coastal dunes at Sidi Abdelaziz; (f) Construction of the railway on the
upper beach.
Most significant changes at Sidi Abdelaziz and Beni Belaid
occurred after the construction of the dam on El Kebirwadi,
particularly after 2000. The Beni Haroun dam, which has been
constructed not very far from the mouth of El Kebir wadi, has
seriously stopped the solid inputs to the bay of Jijel and has
accentuated erosion at Beni Belaid, El Djenah and Sidi Abdelaziz.
These sites, which were in progradation between 1973 and 1988
with rates of accretion of 1.78 m/year, 1.58 m/year and 2.81 m/year
respectively, have switched over toward recession with rates of
erosion of
1.72 m/year,
1.83 m/year and
2.95 m/year respec-
tively, between 2000 and 2014.
The methods developed in this study were found to be effective
tool for detection and assessment the changes in the shoreline
position along microtidal coasts. The jijelian coast shows significant
signs of retreat of the shoreline and was chosen as field of inves-
tigation. This study revealed that the detection of shoreline changes
can be done using corrected aerial photographs, high-resolution
satellite data and selecting spaced transects 20 m. It also revealed
the advantage of using automatic calculation methods (DSAS) to
compute shoreline changes.
According to the obtained results, this study offers to local
coastal managers and decision makers a reliable tool of decision
support that can assist them in evaluating coastal changes that
should be taken into account when elaborating coastal manage-
ment plans. Also, on the basis of obtained results, we suggest that a
monitoring program of shoreline evolution of the jijelian coast
must be set up in order to complete the data and to better manage
the shoreline recession.
57
6. Conclusion
The study of shoreline changes along the jijelian coast between
1960 and 2014 is of major interest for the numerical quantification
of erosion that affected this naturally and economically important
area. These shoreline changes were easily detected and computed
using geospatial techniques and automatic calculations using DSAS.
These changes were measured according to four time-periods:
1960e1973, 1973e1988, 1988e2014 and 1960e2014. The study
revealed highly disparate results on spatial and temporal scale. The
maximum coastal erosion recorded for 1973e1988 and 1988e2014
is of
5.3 ha and
36, 9 ha respectively.
This study showed that the jijelian coast experienced rapid
erosion after 1973 due to dams' construction on main wadis (El
Kebir and Djen-Djen wadis), construction of Djen-Djen harbor and
sand mining. The construction of Djen-Djen port caused a shoreline
advance on its East side and recoil on the west facade. From 1988 to
2014 there were 17.7 ha of beach earned, while during the same
period only 0.62 ha of beach were lost. The dams constructed on El
Kebir and Djen-Djen wadis have seriously reduced solids inputs to
the bay of Jijel, which accentuated the erosion of Jijel coast by waves
and currents. Furthermore, sand mining along this coast, since early
1980's until the present days, has considerably reduced the sedi-
mentary stock, and generated negative impacts on coastal dy-
namics. The results of this article also showed that the use of
numerical aerial photographs, satellite images (high resolution),
geospatial technics (GIS software) and automatic calculation code
(DSAS) could provide valuable information on coastal morpho-
58 S. Kermani et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 132 (2016) 46e58
dynamic, and coastal zone management in Algeria.
References
Al Bakri, C., 1996. Natural hazards of shoreline bluff erosion: a case study of horizon
view, lake Huron. Geomorphology 17, 323e337.
Alesheikh, A.A., Ghorbanali, A., Nouri, N., 2007. Coastline change detection using
remote sensing. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 4 (1), 61e66. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/BF03325962.
Anders, F.J., Mark, R.B., 1991. Accuracy of shoreline change rates as determined from
maps and aerial photographs. Shore Beach 59 (1), 17e26.
Appeaning Addo, K.A., Jayson- Quashigah, P.N., Kufogbe, K.S., 2011. Quantitative
analysis of shoreline change using medium resolution satellite imagery in
Keta,Ghana. Mar. Sci. 1 (1), 1e9. http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.ms.20110101.01.
Ayadi, K., Boutiba, M., Sabatier, F., Guettouche, M.S., 2015. Detection and analysis of
historical variations in the shoreline, using digital aerial photos, satellite im-
ages, and topographic surveys DGPS: case of the Bejaia bay (East Algeria). Arab.
J. Geosci. 9, 1e18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12517-015-2043-9.
Boak, E.H., Turner, I.L., 2005. Shoreline definition and detection: a review. J. Coast.
Res. 21 (4), 688e703. http://dx.doi.org/10.2112/03-0071.1.
Boutiba, M., 2006. Ge omorphologie dynamique et mouvements des se diments le
long de la co ^te Jijelienne (EstAlge rie). The
se de Doctorat d'e tat en
Ge omorphologie. USTHB, Alge rie, 246 pp.
Boutiba, M., Zaourar, N., Guettouche, M.S., Briqueu, L., 2009. Analyse par ondelettes
des variations historiques de la ligne du rivage entre l'Oued Reghaia et l'Oued
Mazafran (Wilaya d'Alger). Bull. Serv. Ge ol. Nat. 20 (2), 127e144.
Carter, R., 1988. Coastal Environments: an Introduction to the Physical, Ecological
and Cultural Systems of Coastlines. Academic Press.
Crowell, M., Leatherman, S.P., Buckley, M.K., 1991. Historical shoreline change: error
analysis and mapping accuracy. J. Coast. Res. 7 (3), 839e852.
Dolan, R., Hayden, B., Heywood, J., 1978. A new photogrammetric method for
determining shoreline erosion. Coast. Eng. 2, 21e39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
0378-3839(78)90003-0.
Dolan, R., Bruce, P.H., Paul, M., Suzette, M., 1980. Reliability of shoreline change
measurements from aerial photographs. Shore Beach 48 (10), 22e29.
Dolan, R., Michael, S.F., Holme, S.J., 1991. Temporal analysis of shoreline recession
and accretion. J. Coast. Res. 7 (3), 723e744.
Fletcher, C., Rooney, J., Barbee, M., Lim, S.C., Richmond, B., 2003. Mapping shoreline
change using digital orthophotogrammetry on Maui, Hawaii. J. Coast. Res.
(SI 38), 106e124.
Ford, F., 2013. Shoreline changes interpreted from multi-temporal aerial photo-
graphs and high resolution satellite images: wotje Atoll, Marshall Islands.
Remote Sens. Environ. 135, 130e140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2013.03.027.
Genz, A.S., Fletcher, C.H., Dunn, R.A., Frazer, L.N., Rooney, J.J., 2007. The predictive
accuracy of shoreline change rate methods and alongshore beach variation on
Maui, Hawaii. J. Coast. Res. 23 (1), 87e105. http://dx.doi.org/10.2112/05-0521.1.
Guariglia, A., Buonamassa, A., Losurdo, A., Saladino, R., Trivigno, M.L., Zaccagnino, A.,
Colangelo, A., 2006. A multisource approach for coastline mapping and iden-
tification of shoreline changes. Ann. Geophys. 4 (1), 295e304. http://dx.doi.org/
10.4401/ag-3155.
Hakkou, M., Castelle, B., Benmohammadi, A., Zourarah, B., 2011. Wave climate and
morphosedimentary characteristics of the Kenitra e Bouknadel sandy coast,
Morocco. J. Environ. Earth Sci. 64, 1729e1739. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12665-
011-0977-0.
Himmelstoss, E.A., 2009. DSAS 4.0 Installation Instructions and User Guide.
Kermani, s., Boutiba, M., Boutaleb, A., Fagel, N., 2015. Distribution of heavy and clay
minerals in coastal sediment of Jijel, East of Algeria: indicators of sediment
sources and transport and deposition environments. Arab. J. Geosci. 9, 1e18.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12517-015-2155-2.
Komar, P., 1989. Physical processes of waves and currents and the formation of
marine placers. Rev. Aquat. Sci. 1, 393e423.
Kumar, A., Narayana, A.C., Jayappa, K.S., 2010. Shoreline change sand morphology of
spits along southern Karnataka, west coast of India: a remote sensing and
statistics based approach. Geomorphology 120, 133e152. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.geomorph.2010.02.023.
Langfelder, L., Staffond, D.B., Amein, M., 1970. Coastal erosion in North Carolina.
Amer. Soc. Civ. Eng. Proc. 96, 531e545 paper 7306, Waterways and Harbs.Div.,
No. wwl.
Liu, S., Fraser, C.S., Zhang, C., Ravanbakhsh, M., Tong, X., 2011. Georeferencing per-
formance of THEOS satellite imagery. Photogramm. Rec. 26 (134), 250e262.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9730.2011.00639.x.
Maanan, M., Ruiz-Ferna ndez, A.C., Maanan, M., Fattal, P., Zourarah, B., Sahabi, M.,
2014. A long-term record of land use change impacts on sediments in Oualidia
lagoon, Morocco. Int. J. Sediment. Res. 29 (1), 1e10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S1001-6279(14)60017-2.
Maiti, S., Bhattacharya, A.K., 2009. Shoreline change analysis and its application to
prediction : a remote sensing and statistics based approach. Mar. Geol. 257,
11e23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2008.10.006.
Manca, E., Pascucci, V., Deluca, M., Cossu, A., Andreucci, S., 2013. Shoreline evolution
related to coastal development of a managed beach in Alghero, Sardinia, Italy.
Ocean. Coast. Manag. 85, 65e76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.
2013.09.008.
Matsu-ura, T., Uda, T., Kumada, T., Sumiya, M., 2010. Sand accumulation in wave-
shelter zone of Oharai Port and change in grain size of seabed materials on
nearby coast. In: Proc. 32nd ICCE, pp. 1e11.
Mills, J.P., Buckley, S.J., Mitchell, H.L., Clarke, P.J., Edwards, J., 2005. A geomaticsdata
integration technique for coastal change monitoring. Earth, Surf. Process. Landf.
30 (6), 651e664. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/esp.1165.
Moore, L., 2000. Shoreline mapping techniques. J. Coast. Res. 16, 111e124.
Morton, R.A., Miller, T.L., Moore, L.J., 2004. National Assessment of Shoreline
Change. Part1: Historical Shoreline Changes and Associated Coastal Land Loss
along the US Gulf of Mexico. U. S. Geological Survey. Open File Report
2004e1043.
Moussaid, J., Ait Fora, A., Zourarah, B., Maanan, M., Maanan, M., 2015. Using auto-
matic computation to analyze the rate of shoreline change on the Kenitra coast,
Morocco. Ocean. Eng. 102, 71e77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.
2015.04.044.
Natesan, U., Parthasarathy, A., Vishnunath, R., Kumar, G.E.J., Ferrer, V.A., 2015.
Monitoring longterm shoreline changes along Tamil Nadu, India using geo-
spatial techniques. Aquat. Procedia 4, 325e332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.aqpro.2015.02.044.
Ozturk, D., Sesli, F.A., 2015. Shoreline change analysis of the Kizilirmak lagoon se-
ries. Ocean Coast. Manag. 1e19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.
2015.03.009.
Pilkey, O.H., Hume, T., 2001. The shoreline erosion problem: lessons from the past.
Water Atmos. 9 (2), 22e23.
Schoonees, J.S., Theron, A.K., Bevis, D., 2006. Shoreline accretion and sand transport
at groynes inside the port of Richards Bay. Coast. Eng. 53, 1045e1058. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2006.06.006.
Scott, D.B., 2005. Coastal changes, rapid. In: Schwartz, M.L. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
Coastal Sciences. Springer, The Netherlands, pp. 253e255. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/1-4020-3880-1_76.
Sherman, D.J., Bauer, B.O., 1993. Coastal geomorphology through the looking glass.
Geomorphology 7, 225e249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0169-555X(93)90018-W.
Shoshany, M., Degani, A., 1992. Shoreline detection by digital image processing of
aerial photography. J. Coast. Res. 8 (1), 29e34.
Thieler, E.R., Danforth, W.W., 1994. Historical shoreline mapping (I): improving
techniques and reducing positioning errors. J. Coast. Res. 10 (3), 549e563.
Thieler, E.R., Himmelstoss, E.A., Zichchi, J.L., Miller, T.L., 2005. Digital Shorline
Analysis System (DSAS) Version 3.0: an Arc Gis Extension for Calculating
Shorline Change. US. Geological survey. Open-file Report 2005-1304. http://
woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project-pages/dsas.
Zuzek, P.J., Nairn, R.B., Thieme, S.J., 2003. Spatial and temporal consideration for
calculating shoreline change rates in the great lakes basin. J. Coast. Res. 38,
125e146.