Atmosphere 09 00107

atmosphere
Article
Detecting Coastline Change with All Available
Landsat Data over 1986–2015: A Case Study for
the State of Texas, USA
Nan Xu
Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Earth System Modelling, Department of Earth System Science,
Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China; xun14@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn
Received: 6 December 2017; Accepted: 6 March 2018; Published: 14 March 2018
Abstract: Coastline change often results from social and natural factors, such as human activities in the
coastal zone, long-term and short-term sea level change, hurricane occurrences, subsequent recovery,
and so on. Tracking coastline change is essential to deepen our understanding of coastal responses to
these factors. Such information is also required for land use planning and sustainable development
of coastal zones. In this context, we aimed to collect all available Landsat data (TM: Thematic
Mapper, ETM+: Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus and OLI: Operational Land Imager) over 1986–2015
for tracking the coastline dynamic and estimating its change rate in the State of Texas, USA. First,
the land vs. water maps at an annual scale were derived from the satellite images. The border between
land and water represents the coastline in this study. Second, the annual land area was obtained to
characterize the coastline dynamic and a linear regression model was used for estimating the change
rate. We also analyzed the potential driving factors of the observed coastline change. The results
reveal that the coastline in the State of Texas changed at a rate of −0.154 ± 0.063 km2 /year from
1986 to 2015, which indicates that the coastline has mainly experienced an erosion over the past
three decades. Specifically, 52.58% of the entire coastline retreated to the land while a 47.42% portion
advanced to the ocean. Long-term sea level rise can result in the erosion of coastline. Hurricane
occurrences can explain the relatively strong coastline erosion. Besides, significant difference between
the coastline change rate with a higher curvature and a lower curvature was observed. This study
establishes a general method for detecting coastline change at large spatial and long-term temporal
scales, by using remote sensing that can give fundamental information on coastline change. This is
important for making scientific and reasonable policies of sustainable development of coastal zones.
Keywords: coastline change; beach; sea level; hurricane; remote sensing; State of Texas
1. Introduction
Coastline retreat is a potential consequence of climate-change driven sea-level rise, as a result of
permanent passive submersion and coastal erosion [1–3]. The landfall of a hurricane often intensely
changes the coastline position in a short period [4]. Additionally, increasing anthropic activities in
coastal areas, such as beach nourishment, port construction and tourism development, tends to change
the coastal environment and reshape the coastline [5–8].
Tracking the coastline change can be used not only to investigate the potential association between
spatial-temporal patterns of sea-level rise and those of coastline changes, but also make it possible to
provide fundamental information for government officials and coastal managers to make scientific
and rational policies for land use planning and sustainable development of coastal zones [9,10].
Therefore, it is necessary to track the coastline dynamic at large spatial scales and over long time
periods, especially for sandy coastlines as the world’s coastlines are dominated by sandy shores [11].
Atmosphere 2018, 9, 107; doi:10.3390/atmos9030107 www.mdpi.com/journal/atmosphere

Atmosphere 2018, 9, 107 2 of 20
The change of coastline position has been selected as a proxy for monitoring the environmental
change in coastal zone [12], and its long-term trend is important for a better understanding of the
coastal response to sea level rise and further for better modeling and prediction of coastline change [13].
Numerous indicators have been proposed for different purposes across different criteria and
data sources for representing the location of the coastline [14]. For example, the instantaneous
land vs. water boundary (i.e., waterline) is a basic indicator of coastline location [15], which is
obvious and easily identified for most coastlines with relatively simple morphologies, such as those
coastlines with beaches and rocky outcrops. A transect-based indicator was proposed for these
coastlines [16]. However, the waterline is more fragmented and difficult to identify for some coastlines
with complex morphologies such as those around river deltas and salt marshes [17]. Correspondingly,
the transect-based indicator fails to characterize the coastline position and its change over time.
Under these circumstances, a sub-pixel level area-based indicator that covers the land-water boundary
has been proposed to represent coastlines with subtle changes (i.e., the change within one pixel) while
a pixel level area-based indicator has been developed to represent coastlines with significant changes
(i.e., the change greater than one pixel) [18,19]. However, for the sub-pixel level area-based indicator,
it is difficult to deal with those situations where the coastline change exceeds the size of one pixel.
The estimated change rate serves no practical purpose when the coastline crosses one pixel. For the
pixel level area-based indicator, it is difficult to generate the value of coastline change rate along
the coast.
Besides, because of the interaction between land and water, the dynamic coastline experiences
continuous change derived from a range of coastal processes at various timescales, such as long-term
trend, seasonal variation, tidal-induced water level fluctuation, hurricane-driven regime shift and
disturbance of human activity [20–22]. The significant variables (e.g., tidal-induced water level
fluctuation and hurricane-driven regime shift) would have further impact on the long-term estimation
of coastline change.
Some studies have been already carried out for reducing such impact. Yu et al. [23] has attempted
to use satellite images obtained at similar tidal heights and under clear sky conditions to reduce
the effect of tide-induced water level fluctuations on the estimation of coastline change. However,
the necessary data are often biased and inaccessible, and consequently insufficient for monitoring
the coastline change at a larger spatial scale. Only nine images over the period from 1987 to 2008 in
this study were available in west-central Florida that met the requirement of tidal range, despite the
greatest amount of Landsat images in the USA [23]. In addition, Chen et al. [24] has done the tidal
correction using high spatial resolution satellite images and real-time data of tidal level to reduce the
impact of tidal level variability on estimation of coastline change. Such models may not be adaptable
to the study areas where the coastal topography is lacking.
To date, many studies used only several temporal images to derive the rate of coastline
change [19,25–27]. Increasing the observations of coastline appears particularly relevant for reducing
the impact of variability of instantaneous coastline position on the estimation of coastline change.
Remotely sensed data have been widely used for coastline delineation and change
quantification [25–27] as it is a cost-effective option compared with other data sources including
aerial photographs [19], light detection and ranging (LIDAR) data [28], video images [29] and global
positioning systems (GPS) data [30]. Among various images, Landsat imagery appears more suitable
for frequently identifying the land vs. water boundary at large scale [31–33]. Further, the annual mean
coastline (i.e., land vs. water boundary), obtained by averaging many coastline positions for one year,
is able to characterize the temporal change of coastline at an annual scale [34].
The State of Texas is a typical area dominated by sandy beaches and its coastline suffered from
sea level variation and the landfall of hurricanes [35,36]. In this context, this study took the State of
Texas as the study area and collected all available Landsat imageries over the period of 1986–2015
for a long-term trend estimation of coastline change and assessing its association with the sea level
variation, hurricanes and alongshore sediment transport. The approach consisted of: (i) producing the
Atmosphere 2018, 9, 107 3 of 20
Atmosphere 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 19
maps;
time (ii) characterizing
series themaps;
of land vs. water spatial-temporal changethe
(ii) characterizing of the border of land
spatial-temporal and water;
change of the(iii) examining
border of land
the association
and between coastline
water; (iii) examining change, between
the association sea levelcoastline
variation,change,
hurricanes and variation,
sea level alongshorehurricanes
sediment
transport.
and alongshore sediment transport.
2. Study Area
2. Study Area and
and Materials
Materials
2.1. Study Area

2.1. Study Area
The
The study
study was
was implemented
implemented the the State
State of
of Texas,
Texas, which
which isis located
located inin the
the south
south central
central part
part of
of the
the
USA, extending between 93 ◦ 31 0 W–106 ◦ 39 0 W and 25 ◦ 50 0 N–36 ◦ 30 0 N (Figure 1). The coastline presents
USA, extending between 93°31′ W–106° 39′ W and 25° 50′ N–36° 30′ N (Figure 1). The coastline
various
presentsforms,
varioussuch as pelagic
forms, such ascoastline frontingfronting
pelagic coastline the open ocean
the openand more
ocean andsheltered coastline
more sheltered in the
coastline
bays. In this study, only the pelagic coastline fronting the open ocean was considered,
in the bays. In this study, only the pelagic coastline fronting the open ocean was considered, whichwhich is mainly
occupied
is mainly by beach. by beach.
occupied
Figure 1. Location of the State of Texas and the distribution of Landsat scenes. Blue polygons
Figure 1. Location of the State of Texas and the distribution of Landsat scenes. Blue polygons represent
represent the positions of Landsat imagery and red dot represents the location of Rockport station
the positions of Landsat imagery and red dot represents the location of Rockport station mentioned
mentioned in Section 2.5.
in Section 2.5.
The rates of sea level rise have varied from between 0 to 9 mm/year over the last few decades,
Therates
and the ratesare
of higher
sea level risethose
than haveofvaried from between
most other 0 toUSA
states in the 9 mm/year over
[37]. Over thethe last
past few decades,
decades, Texas
and the rates are higher than those of most other states in the USA [37]. Over
has experienced some hurricanes [38]. For example, Hurricane Ike caused extensive damage with athe past decades,
Texas has experienced
significant storm surge some
andhurricanes
widespread [38]. For example,
coastal floodingHurricane Ikemade
[39], which caused extensive
landfall neardamage with
Galveston,
aTexas
significant storm surge and widespread coastal flooding [39], which made landfall near Galveston,
in September 2008. Also, this hurricane resulted in great casualties and property losses [40,41].
Texas in September 2008. Also, this hurricane resulted in great casualties and property losses [40,41].
2.2. Remotely Sensed Data
2.2. Remotely Sensed Data
All available Landsat Surface Reflectance Climate Data Record (Landsat CDR) (TM: Thematic
All available Landsat Surface Reflectance Climate Data Record (Landsat CDR) (TM: Thematic
Mapper, ETM+: Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus and OLI: Operational Land Imager, 30 m) over the
Mapper, ETM+: Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus and OLI: Operational Land Imager, 30 m) over the
period 1986–2015 were used in this study. The six Landsat scenes covering the coastal zone of State
period 1986–2015 were used in this study. The six Landsat scenes covering the coastal zone of State of
of Texas were presented in Figure 1. All images had been pre-processed to L1T level (i.e., Standard
Texas were presented in Figure 1. All images had been pre-processed to L1T level (i.e., Standard Terrain
Terrain Correction). The geo-registration is consistent and within prescribed tolerances (i.e., <12 m
Correction). The geo-registration is consistent and within prescribed tolerances (i.e., <12 m root mean
root mean square error) (https://lta.cr.usgs.gov/LETMP). Note that atmospheric correction is not
square error) (https://lta.cr.usgs.gov/LETMP). Note that atmospheric correction is not conducted
conducted for L1T level products. According to some previous studies [42,43], the atmospheric
for L1T level products. According to some previous studies [42,43], the atmospheric correction is not
correction is not needed for land cover classification. Such high-quality Landsat data is suitable for
needed for land cover classification. Such high-quality Landsat data is suitable for time series analysis.
time series analysis. A total of 4357 scenes of Landsat images were included for this study. All of the
A total of 4357 scenes of Landsat images were included for this study. All of the detailed information
detailed information was summarized in Table 1. Figure 2a presents the temporal distribution of
was summarized in Table 1. Figure 2a presents the temporal distribution of Landsat images.
Landsat images.
Atmosphere 2018, 9, 107 4 of 20
Figure 2.
Figure 2. (a)
(a) Annual
Annualdistribution
distributionofofLandsat
Landsatimages;
images;(b)
(b)Temporal
Temporal distribution
distribution of of hurricane
hurricane occurred
occurred in
in the study area. (TM: Thematic Mapper, ETM+: Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus
the study area. (TM: Thematic Mapper, ETM+: Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus and OLI: Operational and OLI:
Operational
Land Imager). Land Imager).
Table1.1.Summarized
Table Summarizedinformation
information of Landsat
of Landsat images
images usedused in study.
in this this study. TM: Thematic
TM: Thematic Mapper,
Mapper, ETM+:
ETM+: Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus and OLI: Operational Land
Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus and OLI: Operational Land Imager. Imager.
Scene Amount per Sensor

Path/Row Level Scene Amount per Sensor Total Amount per Scene
Path/Row Level TM ETM+ OLI Total Amount per Scene
024/039 L1T TM
372 ETM+
284 48OLI 704
024/039
025/039 L1T
L1T 372
396 284
279 5348 704
730
025/039
025/040 L1T
L1T 396
387 279
286 4753 730
722
025/040 L1T 387 286 47 722
026/040
026/040
L1T
L1T
379
379
282
282
5050 719
719
026/041
026/041 L1T
L1T 369
369 288
288 5252 719
719
026/042
026/042 L1T
L1T 401
401 299
299 5252 763
763
2.3. Validation
2.3. Validation Data
Data
Light detection
Light detection and
and ranging
ranging(LIDAR)
(LIDAR)data dataand
andwater
water level from
level fromGalveston
Galveston station were
station used
were for
used
validating
for the land-water
validating map map
the land-water derived from the
derived fromLandsat image. image.
the Landsat LIDAR LIDAR
data wasdataobtained from the
was obtained
website
from the of Texas of
website Natural Resources
Texas Natural Information
Resources System System
Information (https://tnris.org/data-catalog/). Such data
(https://tnris.org/data-catalog/).
was acquired
Such data was in July 2006
acquired with2006
in July an with
altitude datum of
an altitude North
datum of American Vertical
North American DatumDatum
Vertical of 1988.
of
Specifically, a high-density LIDAR elevation data map of Galveston County, Texas
1988. Specifically, a high-density LIDAR elevation data map of Galveston County, Texas was collected.was collected. It
provides a bare earth digital elevation model (DEM) after removing the vegetation.
It provides a bare earth digital elevation model (DEM) after removing the vegetation. Then, a raster Then, a raster
DEM with
DEM with aa spatial
spatial resolution
resolution of
of 1.4
1.4 m
m was
was generated
generated using
using the
the raw
raw point
point file based on
file based on ArcGIS
ArcGIS 10.2.
10.2.
The spatial resolution of 1.4 m is fine enough for validation of land-water map with
The spatial resolution of 1.4 m is fine enough for validation of land-water map with 30 m derived from 30 m derived
from Landsat
Landsat images.images. Water
Water level waslevel was from
obtained obtained from the
the website website Oceanic
of National of National Oceanic and
and Atmospheric
Atmospheric Administration
Administration (https://www.co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/)
(https://www.co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/) with thedatum
with the same altitude same ofaltitude datum
the LIDAR of
data.
the LIDAR data.
2.4. Hurricane Data
2.4. Hurricane Data
The historical hurricane records were obtained from the Unisys Weather website [44]. With the
The historical
hurricane hurricane records
tracking information, werenumber
the annual obtainedoffrom the Unisys
hurricanes makingWeather
landfallwebsite
in the [44].
State With the
of Texas
hurricane
was computedtracking
and information,
presented in the annual
Figure 2b. number of hurricanes making landfall in the State of Texas
was computed and presented in Figure 2b.
2.5. Sea Level Data
2.5. Sea
SeaLevel
levelData
rise is one of the important drivers of the position change of sandy coastline according to
the Bruun Rulerise
Sea level [45]. The of
is one seathe
level data was
important provided
drivers byposition
of the the Rockport
changestation (number:
of sandy 8774770)
coastline [46].
according
Here, the annual mean sea level (Figure 3) was used to study the linkage between the
to the Bruun Rule [45]. The sea level data was provided by the Rockport station (number: 8774770) inter-annual
variability
[46]. Here, of coastline
the annual position
mean seaand sea(Figure
level level. Besides, hourly
3) was used to sea level
study theoflinkage
the Rockport
between station was
the inter-
used to estimate the effect of observation frequency on estimation of coastline change rate.
annual variability of coastline position and sea level. Besides, hourly sea level of the Rockport station
was used to estimate the effect of observation frequency on estimation of coastline change rate.
Atmosphere 9, x107
2018, 9,
Atmosphere 2018, FOR PEER REVIEW 55 of
of 20
19
Figure 3. Observed annual sea level at Rockport station.

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Observed
Observed annual
annual sea
sea level
level at
at Rockport
Rockport station.
station.
3. Methodology
3. Methodology
3. Methodology
The overall methodology was summarized in Figure 4. The detail steps are presented hereafter.
The overall methodology was summarized in Figure 4. The detail steps are presented hereafter.
The overallthe
Detecting methodology was summarized
long-term coastline in Figurethe
change requires 4. The detail steps
following steps:are
(1) presented
producinghereafter.
the time
Detecting the long-term coastline change requires the following steps: (1) producing the time
Detecting the long-term coastline change requires the following steps: (1) producing the
series of land vs. water maps from all Landsat imageries over 1986–2015; (2) defining the satellitetime series
series of land vs. water maps from all Landsat imageries over 1986–2015; (2) defining the satellite
of land vs. water maps from all Landsat imageries over 1986–2015; (2) defining the satellite
imagery-based coastline and detecting the temporal change; (3) assessing the potential influencing imagery-
imagery-based coastline and detecting the temporal change; (3) assessing the potential influencing
based
factors.coastline and detecting the temporal change; (3) assessing the potential influencing factors.
factors.
Figure 4.
4. Summarizedmethodology
methodology forestimating
estimatingthe
the temporal change of coastline
andand analyzing
Figure 4. Summarized
Figure Summarized methodologyforfor estimating temporal
the change
temporal of coastline
change of coastline analyzing
and the
analyzing
the potential
potential influencing
influencing factors.
factors.
the potential influencing factors.
3.1. Annual
3.1. Land—Water Maps
Annual Land—Water Maps Generation
Generation
Generation
The Landsat Fmask product
The Landsat Fmask product was was applied
applied toto remove
remove the the clouds
clouds and
and cloud shadows
shadows inin the
the initial
initial
clouds and cloud
cloud
Landsat imageries
Landsat imageries [47]. Then, modified Normalized Difference Water(MNDWI)
Index (MNDWI) was
Landsat imageries[47]. Then,
[47]. Then,modified Normalized
modified Difference
Normalized Water Index
Difference Water Index (MNDWI)was computed was
computed
for effectivelyfor effectively identifying land and water. The MNDWI is the modification of the
computed foridentifying
effectivelyland and water.land
identifying The MNDWI is theThe
and water. modification
MNDWI ofisthe theNormalized Difference
modification of the
Normalized
Water Difference
Index (NDWI), Water Index (NDWI), which has been widely used in previous studies [48,49].
Normalized Differencewhich
Waterhas been
Index widely which
(NDWI), used inhas
previous studies
been widely [48,49].
used Joshua’s
in previous study[48,49].
studies shows
Joshua’s
that study shows
the MNDWI is the that the
best MNDWI
index is the bestcoastline
for automatic index for automatic coastline
to itsmapping owing to
Joshua’s study shows that the MNDWI is the best index formapping
automaticowing
coastline performance
mapping owing andto
its performance
threshold and
replicability threshold
[50]. replicability
Specifically, the [50].
MNDWI Specifically,
has the the MNDWI
highest combined has the highest
accuracy withcombined
88.4% of
its performance and threshold replicability [50]. Specifically, the MNDWI has the highest combined
accuracy
both with 88.4%
coastlines fallingof both coastlines falling within
basedthe
on intertidal area based on the GPS-surveyed
accuracy with 88.4% ofwithin the intertidal
both coastlines area
falling within the the GPS-surveyed
intertidal area based high
on tide lines and low
the GPS-surveyed
high
tide tide lines and low tide lines. The MNDWI is expressed as:
highlines. The MNDWI
tide lines and low tide is expressed
lines. Theas:MNDWI is expressed as:
MNDWI Green MIR / Green MIR (1)
MNDWI= (Green
MNDWI Green− MIRMIR)/ / (Green
Green +MIRMIR) (1)
(1)
where Green is the green band (band 2 for Landsat TM/ETM+ data and Landsat OLI data), MIR is the
where Green is the green band (band 2 for Landsat TM/ETM+ data and Landsat OLI data), MIR is the
middle infrared band (band 5 for Landsat TM/ETM+ data and band 6 for Landsat OLI data,
middle infrared band (band 5 for Landsat TM/ETM+ data and band 6 for Landsat OLI data,
respectively).
respectively).
Atmosphere 2018, 9, 107 6 of 20
where Green is the green band (band 2 for Landsat TM/ETM+ data and Landsat OLI data), MIR is
the middle infrared band (band 5 for Landsat TM/ETM+ data and band 6 for Landsat OLI data,
respectively).
Based
Based onon the
the results
results of
of MNDWI
MNDWI computation,
computation, the the threshold value of
threshold value of zero
zero was
was applied
applied to
to map
map
the
the extent of land and water [51–53]. In reality, zero was determined as the optimal threshold for
extent of land and water [51–53]. In reality, zero was determined as the optimal threshold for
land-water classification using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves [54]. As shown
land-water classification using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves [54]. As shown in Figurein Figure 5,
threshold zero is stable and repeatable for coastline mapping based on the MNDWI
5, threshold zero is stable and repeatable for coastline mapping based on the MNDWI and does not and does not
require
require calibration
calibration in in various
various sites
sites [50].
[50].
Figure 5.
Figure 5. An
An example
example ofof generating
generating aa land-water
land-water classification
classification map
map around the Galveston,
around the Galveston, Texas on
Texas on
13 July
13 July 2006.
2006. (a)
(a) Landsat
Landsat false
false color
color composite
composite image
image (band
(band 432);
432); (b)
(b) The
The modified
modified Normalized
Normalized
Difference Water Index (MNDWI) map; (c) The frequency distribution of all data values
Difference Water Index (MNDWI) map; (c) The frequency distribution of all data values of the MNDWI of the
MNDWI image; (d) Land-water classification map. In (c), the blue dashed line represents
image; (d) Land-water classification map. In (c), the blue dashed line represents the zero-threshold the zero-
for
threshold for classifying land
classifying land and water pixels.and water pixels.
Finally, all Landsat imageries were classified into three classes: (1) Land; (2) Water and (3)
Finally, all Landsat imageries were classified into three classes: (1) Land; (2) Water and (3) Nodata
Nodata (i.e., clouds and shadows). In each year, all land cover maps were stacked together for
(i.e., clouds and shadows). In each year, all land cover maps were stacked together for counting the
counting the number of pixels classified as water or land for each location. The water frequency index
number of pixels classified as water or land for each location. The water frequency index (WFI) at
(WFI) at an annual scale was computed using the following formula:
an annual scale was computed using the following formula:
WFI N ⁄ N N (2)
WFI = Nwater /(Nland + Nwater ) (2)
where N and N are the number of pixels that were observed as water and land within one
year, respectively.
where Nwater and Nland are the number of pixels that were observed as water and land within one
year, Figure 6c shows the WFI map around the Galveston, Texas in 2006.The pixels with the value of
respectively.
WFI Figure
greater6c or equal
shows theto
WFI 0.5mapwere reclassified
around as water
the Galveston, Texas areas at annual
in 2006.The scale
pixels with(Figure 6d).
the value The
of WFI
morphological operations (i.e., filling operator) were then applied for removing
greater or equal to 0.5 were reclassified as water areas at annual scale (Figure 6d). The morphologicalthe pixels of inland
water and noise.
operations Such land
(i.e., filling vs. water
operator) weremaps
then were
appliedusedfortoremoving
characterize
thethe annual
pixels average
of inland coastline
water and
positions, which can minimize the impact of short-term coastal changes
noise. Such land vs. water maps were used to characterize the annual average coastline positions, resulted from sea level
variations,
which the lengththe
can minimize of wave
impact run-up, sedimentary
of short-term coastalseasonal
changes changes
resultedinfrom
the beach profile
sea level and coastal
variations, the
storms [34]. Specifically, using the median method allows us to solve a number
length of wave run-up, sedimentary seasonal changes in the beach profile and coastal storms [34]. of potential problems
with the Landsat
Specifically, usingobservations
the median as follow:allows
method (1) datausgaps suchaasnumber
to solve Landsatof7 potential
Enhancedproblems
ThematicwithMapper the
Plus (ETM+) Scan Line Corrector (SLC)-off gap striping; (2) residual
Landsat observations as follow: (1) data gaps such as Landsat 7 Enhanced Thematic Mapper noise and confounding factors
Plus
not captured
(ETM+) by pixel
Scan Line quality
Corrector flagginggap
(SLC)-off (e.g., cloud, (2)
striping; shadows
residualand their
noise andedge pixels); (3)factors
confounding temporalnot
random variations that may affect individual NDWI values [55]. Finally, a dataset
captured by pixel quality flagging (e.g., cloud, shadows and their edge pixels); (3) temporal random of 30-year land vs.
water maps
variations wasmay
that generated.
affect individual NDWI values [55]. Finally, a dataset of 30-year land vs. water
maps was generated.
Atmosphere 2018, 9, 107 7 of 20
Figure 6.
Figure 6. An
An example
generating anan annual
annual land-water
land-water map
map around
around thethe Galveston,
Galveston, Texas
Texas in
in 2006.
2006.
(a) Heatmap showing number of clear observations as per pixel around the Galveston,
(a) Heatmap showing number of clear observations per pixel around the Galveston, Texas during Texas during
2006; (b)
2006; (b) Heatmap
Heatmap showing number of
showing number of clear
clear observations (i.e., without
observations (i.e., without clouds
clouds and
and shadows) per pixel
shadows) per pixel
around the Galveston, Texas in 2006; (c) The WFI map in 2006; (d) The annual land-water classification
around the Galveston, Texas in 2006; (c) The WFI map in 2006; (d) The annual land-water classification
map during
map during 2006.
2006. A
A total
total of
of 38
38 Landsat
Landsat images
images (21
(21 TM
TM images
images and and 17
17 ETM+
ETM+ images)
images) were
were used
used for
for
demonstrating the generation of the land-water map at an annual
demonstrating the generation of the land-water map at an annual scale. scale.
3.2. Coastline
3.2. Coastline Change
Change Rate Estimation
Rate Estimation
The transect-based
The transect-basedmethod methodand andthethe
area-based
area-based methodmethod are two
are methods
two methods that havethatbeenhavewidely
been
used in coastline change rate estimation. In fact, the former was
widely used in coastline change rate estimation. In fact, the former was widely used for detecting widely used for detecting the
coastline change by computing the distance between the self-defined
the coastline change by computing the distance between the self-defined reference baseline and reference baseline and multi-
temporal coastlines
multi-temporal [16]. [16].
coastlines The Thebaseline
baselinewaswas manually
manually generated
generated along
alongthe thecoastline
coastlinewith with various
various
directions [56–58]. Transects were generated along the baseline with
directions [56–58]. Transects were generated along the baseline with a given interval. This method a given interval. This method can
can lose some information obtained from remotely sensed data because
lose some information obtained from remotely sensed data because the interval between transects is the interval between transects
is always
always greater
greater thanthan
30 m.30Additionally,
m. Additionally, the baseline
the baseline lacks consistent
lacks consistent standards standards
because itbecause it was
was designed
designed manually. The latter evaluated the coastline change by
manually. The latter evaluated the coastline change by comparing the change of land or water areascomparing the change of land or
water multi-temporal
using areas using multi-temporal
land vs. water landmapsvs. [19,59–61].
water mapsHowever, [19,59–61]. theHowever,
area-based themethod
area-based method
can only use
can only use total land area change to characterize the coastline change
total land area change to characterize the coastline change and it is unable to obtain the coastline and it is unable to obtain the
coastline change rate along the coastline. In this study, the two methods
change rate along the coastline. In this study, the two methods were combined to calculate the coastline were combined to calculate
the coastline
change change
rate. The rate. is
method The methodas
described is follows.
described as follows.
First, the coastline in the Texas
First, the coastline in the Texas State of State of 2001
2001 was was selected
selected as as the
the base
base coastline,
coastline, as as 2001
2001 is is the
the
middle of
middle of the
the study
study period.
period. Then,
Then, the the base
base coastline
coastline was was divided
divided intointo two
two portions
portions according
according to to their
their
different orientations (Figure 7a). Specifically, the border between portion
different orientations (Figure 7a). Specifically, the border between portion 1 and portion 2 for each 1 and portion 2 for each ofof
the sampled coastline pixels is located in the coastline from southwest
the sampled coastline pixels is located in the coastline from southwest to northeast with 45 . After the to northeast with ◦ 45°. After
the division,
division, the coastline
the coastline in portion
in portion 1 is more
1 is more parallel parallel
to x-axis to and
x-axis and coastline
coastline in portion in portion
2 is more 2 is more
parallel
to y-axis, which results in the classification shown in Figure 7a. Change rate of coastline in portionin1
parallel to y-axis, which results in the classification shown in Figure 7a. Change rate of coastline
portion
and 1 and
portion portion
2 was 2 waswith
calculated calculated with similar
similar steps. For portionsteps.1, For portion
x-axis was used1, x-axis
as thewas usedand
baseline as the
the
baseline and the midline is perpendicular to x-axis. For Section 2, y-axis
midline is perpendicular to x-axis. For Section 2, y-axis was used as the baseline and the midline is was used as the baseline and
the midline is to
perpendicular perpendicular
y-axis. Here, we to y-axis. Here, 1we
took portion as took portionto1demonstrate
an example as an example the to demonstrate
method of coastlinethe
methodrate
change of coastline
estimation.change rate
First, forestimation.
one year, the First,
landforarea
one wasyear,divided
the landinto
areamanywas divided into many
land sections with
land sections with 10-pixel widths. Correspondingly, the coastline
10-pixel widths. Correspondingly, the coastline was divided into many coastline sections. The was divided into many coastline
length
sections.
of midlineThe waslength of midline
calculated was calculated
by dividing the land by dividing
section area by thethe
land section
width (i.e.,area
300by m),the width
which (i.e., 300
represents
m), average
the which represents the average
coastline position of thecoastline
coastlineposition
section of of this
the coastline
year. These section
steps of werethisconducted
year. These forsteps
each
year to obtain the annual coastline position of each coastline section. Second, the long-termSecond,
were conducted for each year to obtain the annual coastline position of each coastline section. change
the long-term
rate change
of the midline ratewas
length of the midlineaslength
estimated was estimated
the coastline change rate as the coastline
using the linearchange rate using
regression. All the
the
linear regression. All the elements used were presented in Figure 7b. The averaged change rate of the
coastline of Texas was computed for characterizing the magnitude of coastline retreat or expansion.
Note that a result with more spatial details can be obtained after the division of portion 1 and portion
Atmosphere 2018, 9, 107 8 of 20
elements used were presented in Figure 7b. The averaged change rate of the coastline of Texas was
computed for 9,characterizing
Atmosphere 2018, the magnitude of coastline retreat or expansion. Note that a result 8with
x FOR PEER REVIEW of 19
more spatial details can be obtained after the division of portion 1 and portion 2 with a 10-pixel land
2 with a In
section. 10-pixel
addition,landthe
section. In addition,
total land area wasthe total
used to land area was
represent used to represent
the coastline the
position at coastline
state scale.
position at
Temporal state scale.
analysis Temporal
of coastline in theanalysis of coastline
Texas State in the using
was conducted Texasthe
State wasland
annual conducted using the
area (Sections 4.2
annual
and 4.3).land area (Sections 4.2 and 4.3).
Figure 7.
Figure 7. Illustration of the
Illustration of the estimation
estimation of
of coastline
coastline change
change rate.
rate. (a)
(a) portion
portion 11 and
and portion
portion 22 in
in the
the Texas
Texas
State; (b) elements used for defining the coastline and estimating the rate of coastline change.
State; (b) elements used for defining the coastline and estimating the rate of coastline change.
3.3. Uncertainty
3.3. Uncertainty Assessment
Assessment
Being jointly
Being jointly determined
determined by bycoastal
coastaltopography
topographyand andsea level,
sea thethe
level, area of each
area landland
of each section has
section
an innate temporal auto-correlation, which should be considered to the estimation of coastline
has an innate temporal auto-correlation, which should be considered to the estimation of coastline change
rate. Thus,
change rate.for each for
Thus, land section,
each land the freedom
section, the degree
freedom was computed
degree using the Quenouille
was computed procedure
using the Quenouille
[62]. The standard deviation was calculated using the resulting freedom value for assessing
procedure [62]. The standard deviation was calculated using the resulting freedom value for assessing the
uncertainty.
the uncertainty.
3.4. Impact
3.4. Impact of
of Hurricane
Hurricane on
on Coastline
Coastline Change
Change
Previous studies
Previous studies suggested
suggested that
that hurricanes
hurricanes can
can alter
alter the
the geomorphology
geomorphology ofof coast
coast and
and further
further
affect the
affect thecoastline
coastline position
position [63,64].
[63,64]. To quantitatively
To quantitatively assessassess the hurricane-induced
the hurricane-induced impact on impact on
coastline
coastline change, a hurricane frequency index (HFI) was introduced, which was similar to
change, a hurricane frequency index (HFI) was introduced, which was similar to the storm frequency the storm
frequency
index index developed
developed by Nebel
by Nebel [65]. HFI is[65]. HFI as
defined is follows:
defined as follows:
Hurricane Frequency Index n (3)

Hurricane Frequency Index = (3)
y
where is the number of hurricanes occurred in study area, and is the temporal interval. A 5-
where n is thewas
year interval number
used of this study. occurred in study area, and y is the temporal interval. A 5-year
in hurricanes
interval was used in this study.
Besides, a hurricane concentration index (HCI) was defined to indicate the degree of
concentrationa hurricane
Besides, concentration
of hurricanes. index
This index was(HCI) was defined
defined as the to indicatedeviation
standard the degreeof
of the
concentration
time that
of hurricanes. This index was defined
hurricanes occurred in the study area: as the standard deviation of the time that hurricanes occurred in
the study area:
HurricaneConcentration
Hurricane ConcentrationIndex
Index = STD
STD (TT) (4)
(4)
where TTisisthe
thetiming
timingsequence
sequenceofofhurricanes
hurricanes{t{t,1,t t,2,t t3,,.… tn}.
where 1 2 3 . . tn }.
During the temporal interval of 5 years, we performed aa linear
During the temporal interval of 5 years, we performed linear regression
regression between
between the
the change
change
rates and
rates and the
the two
two indexes
indexes for
for reflecting
reflecting the
the impact
impactof ofhurricanes
hurricaneson
oncoastline
coastlinechange.
change.
3.5. Impact
3.5. Impact of
of Sea
Sea Level
Level Variation
Variation on
on Coastline
Coastline Change
Change
Both sea
Both sea level
level and
and coastline
coastline position
position varied
varied at
at different
different temporal
temporal scales.
scales. Sea
Sea level
level rise
rise results
results in
in
the retreat of coastline position to land by mainly changing the coastal geomorphologies at
the retreat of coastline position to land by mainly changing the coastal geomorphologies at a larger a larger
temporal scale [66]. Moreover, coastlines may shift when the sea level fluctuates at a smaller temporal
scale [67]. Here, two terms of sea level data (i.e., trend term and fluctuation term) were used for
studying the relationship between sea level variation and change of coastline position.
The sea level variability at a monthly scale was collected for studying its association with trend
term of coastline position. First, a moving average filter was applied to obtain the trend term of sea
Atmosphere 2018, 9, 107 9 of 20
temporal scale [66]. Moreover, coastlines may shift when the sea level fluctuates at a smaller temporal
scale [67]. Here, two terms of sea level data (i.e., trend term and fluctuation term) were used for
studying the relationship between sea level variation and change of coastline position.
The sea level variability at a monthly scale was collected for studying its association with trend
term of coastline position. First, a moving average filter was applied to obtain the trend term of
sea level. Then, the residual between the smoothed result and annual sea level was used as the
fluctuation term of sea level for measuring the temporal variability. Correspondingly, the position of
coastline was also decomposed into the trend term and fluctuation term using the same method. Finally,
we performed a correlation analysis between coastline position and sea level. The correlation analysis
was also implemented between the change rate of coastline position and sea level. Note that the trend
term of coastline position and sea level is used herein and the study period of 1986–2015 was divided
into six 5-year intervals for estimation of change rate.
3.6. Coastline Morphology Anlysis

In this study, the curvature was calculated to measure the morphology (i.e., concave/convex) of
the coastline. Note that the curvature is positive when the local coastline is convex to the land while the
curvature is negative when the local coastline is convex to the ocean. For each center coastline section,
a 1001-coastline section moving spatial window was used to generate the mean local curvature (MLC).
Coastline sections with a higher curvature and a lower curvature compared with the mean coastline
change rate were grouped. Then, the mean coastline change rates of coastline sections with a higher
curvature and a lower curvature compared with the mean coastline change rate were calculated,
respectively. Change rates of coastline sections with a higher curvature and a lower curvature were
compared to explore the possible linkage between the coastline morphology and coastline change.
3.7. Effect of Observation Frequency on Estimation of Coastline Change Rate

The fluctuation of coastline position was mainly controlled by the fluctuation of sea level based on
the assumption that the coastal slope is stable. Given the average slope of 1/25 in Texas [36], the impact
of observation frequency on coastline position was assessed using the Monte Carlo simulation method.
First, for each simulation, the observation frequency of Landsat was randomly generated (i.e., 1 to 30
in each year) and the mean sea level was calculated based on hourly sea level time series. Second,
the process was repeated 10,000 times and the standard deviation was computed as the uncertainty of
coastline position at an annual scale.
At a long-term scale, the annual sea level uncertainty can result in the uncertainty of coastline
change rate. We achieved the relationship between the observation frequency and the uncertainty of
coastline change rate using the average coastline change rate obtained in Section 3.2.
4. Results
4.1. Spatial Pattern Analysis of Coastline Change

The change rates and the corresponding uncertainties were calculated along the coastline in the
State of Texas. Figure 8 presents the spatial distribution of coastline change rates during the study
period. In this region, the change rates vary spatially, ranging from −29.51 to 40.32 m/year. 52.58% of
coastline experienced erosion (i.e., with a negative value), but only 6.54% of coastline experienced
erosion with the rate value less than −5 m/year (red dots). Moreover, 47.42% of coastline experienced
accretion (i.e., with a positive value), but only 4.02% of coastline experienced accretion rates greater
than 5 m/year (green dots).
As shown in Figure 8, the coastline retreat was mainly concentrated in the northeast and southwest
of the State of Texas. The coastline retreat rate in northeast Texas is higher than in the southwest.
Moreover, the coastline around Port O’Connor exhibited an advance to the ocean. Additionally,
the coastline around some estuaries or inlets exhibited a relatively large change. Figure 9 shows
Atmosphere 2018, 9, 107 10 of 20
the uncertainty map of estimation of coastline change rates. We found that the uncertainty is
relatively low between Port Isabel and Port Aransas. Additionally, the uncertainty is relatively high
around some estuaries or inlets. Among the total 1742 coastline sections of study area, 37.03% were
characterized by statistically significant accretion and 41.45% by statistically significant erosion.
The state average change rate over all the coastline sections and its uncertainty were −0.27 m/year
and 0.06 m/year,
Atmosphere respectively.
2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 19
Figure 8.
Figure 8. Spatial distribution
Spatial distribution
8. Spatial of
distribution of coastline
of coastline change
coastline change rates
change rates in
rates in the State
in the
the State of
of Texas.
Texas.
Figure State of Texas.
Figure 9. Spatial distribution of uncertainties of coastline change rates in the State of Texas.
Figure
Figure 9.
9. Spatial
Spatial distribution
distribution of
of uncertainties
uncertainties of
of coastline
coastline change
change rates
rates in
in the
the State
State of
of Texas.
Texas.
4.2. Temporal Variation Analysis of Coastline Change
4.2.
4.2. Temporal Variation Analysis
Temporal Variation Analysis of of Coastline
Coastline Change
Change
The annual land area at the state scale was calculated to characterize the average position of
The
The annual
annual land area at thethestate scale
scalewaswascalculated totocharacterize thetheaverage position of
coastline (Figure land10a). area
The at
coastline state
change rate calculated
over 1986–2015 characterize
and its uncertainty average
were position
−0.154
coastline
of (Figure 10a).10a).The The
coastline change rate over 1986–2015 and itsanduncertainty were −0.154
km2coastline
2/year and(Figure
0.063 km22/year, coastline
respectively. change rate suggest
The results over 1986–2015
that this region itsmainly
uncertainty were
experienced
km
− /year
0.154 kmand
2 0.063
/year km
and /year,
0.063 respectively.
km 2 /year, The results
respectively. suggest
The that
results this
suggestregion
that mainly
this experienced
region mainly
erosion from 1986 to 2015 (R2 = 0.320, p-value = 0.001). We also calculated the change rates for the
2
erosion
experiencedfromerosion
1986 to from
2015 1986
(R =to 0.320,
2015p-value = 0.001).
(R2 2010–2015
= 0.320, We =
p-value also calculated
0.001). We also thecalculated
change rates for the
the change
three intervals of 1986–2002, 2003–2009 and to describe the temporal variation (Figure 10b).
three
rates intervals
for the of 1986–2002,
three intervals 2003–2009
of 1986–2002, and 2010–2015
2003–2009 andto 2010–2015
describe the totemporal
describe variation
the (Figure
temporal 10b).
variation
Two obvious tipping points can be discovered in 2003 and 2009.
Two
(Figureobvious tipping
10b). Two pointstipping
obvious can bepoints
discoveredbeindiscovered
2003 and 2009. and 2009.
Specifically, the coastline retreated tocan the land at a rateinof2003 −0.146 ± 0.086 km22/year from 1986 to
Specifically, the coastline
coastlineretreated
retreatedtotothetheland
landatata arate
rateofof−−0.146 ±±−0.501
0.086 km
km2 /year
/year from 1986 to
2002 (R2 = 0.147, p-value = 0.129) and retreated to the land at a 0.146
Specifically,
2 the rate of 0.086 ± 0.332 kmfrom 1986
2/year fromto
2002 (R 2 = 0.147, p-value = 0.129) and retreated to the land at a rate of −0.501
rate ofat−a0.501 ± 0.332
±1.068 km 22/year from
2002
2003 (Rto 2009 (R2 =p-value
= 0.147, = 0.129)
0.314, p-value and retreated
= 0.191), to the land
but it advanced at aocean
to the rate of 0.332±km
0.543/year from
km2/year
2003 to 2009 (R2 = 0.314, p-value = 0.191), but it advanced to the ocean at a rate of 1.068 ± 0.543 km2/year
from 2010 to 2015 (R2 = 0.633, p-value = 0.058).
from 2010 to 2015 (R2 = 0.633, p-value = 0.058).
We found that the land area reached its lowest level (Figure 10a) after some hurricane events
during 2003–2008 that will be further discussed in Section 4.3. In the absence of a hurricane, the
during 2003–2008 that will be further discussed in Section 4.3. In the absence of a hurricane, the
coastline started to advance to the ocean during 2009–2015, which might be explained as beach
coastline started to advance to the ocean during 2009–2015, which might be explained as beach
recovery from the damage of previous hurricanes [4,68].
Atmosphere 2018, 9, 107 11 of 20
2003 to 2009 (R2 = 0.314, p-value = 0.191), but it advanced to the ocean at a rate of 1.068 ± 0.543 km2 /year
from 2010 to 2015 (R2 = 0.633, p-value = 0.058).
during 2003–2008 that will be further discussed in Section 4.3. In the absence of a hurricane, the coastline
started to advance to the ocean during 2009–2015, which might be explained as beach recovery from
the2018,
Atmosphere damage of previous
9, x FOR hurricanes [4,68].
PEER REVIEW 11 of 19
Figure 10. Temporal variation in the position of the coastline for the State of Texas: (a) 5-year trend
curve and linear regression during the period 1986–2015; (b) linear regression performed in three
temporal intervals.
Figure 10. Temporal
Figure variation
10. Temporal in in
variation the
theposition ofthe
position of thecoastline
coastlinefor for the State
the State of Texas:
of Texas: (a)trend
(a) 5-year 5-year trend
curve
curve and and linear
linear regression
regression duringthe
during theperiod
period 1986–2015;
1986–2015;(b)(b)
linear regression
linear performed
regression in three in three
performed
4.3. Influencing Factor Analysis
temporal intervals.
temporal intervals.
The4.3.
results of theFactor
Influencing influencing
Analysis factors analysis conducted on hurricane and sea level variation are
4.3. Influencing Factor Analysis
presented. Both HFI and HCI have a negative correlation with the change rate of coastline position
The results of the influencing factors analysis conducted on hurricane and sea level variation are
at the The
scale of fiveof
results
presented. years,
theHFI
Both with the have
influencing
and HCI linear
factorsregression
analysis
a negative coefficient
conducted
correlation with the (R
on 2) equal to 0.71 and 0.66, respectively
hurricane
change rate of and sea position
coastline level variation
at are
(Figure 11a,b).
the scale
presented. BothFigure
five 12a
ofHFI and suggests
years,HCI the that
withhave linear the relationship
regression
a negative between
coefficient
correlation (R 2
with trend
) equal term
thetochange
0.71 and of coastline
0.66,
rate position
ofrespectively
coastline and
position
sea level
at the (Figure
(R of
scale 2 11a,b).
= five
0.594, Figure 12a
p-value
years, suggests
with<the
0.001). that
linear the
Figure relationship
12b shows
regression between
that the
coefficient trend term
(R2)rates of coastline
equaloftosea0.71levelposition
and rise and
0.66,are strongly
respectively
sea level (R 2 = 0.594, p-value < 0.001). Figure 12b shows that the rates of sea level rise are strongly
associated withFigure
(Figure 11a,b). the coastline change
12a suggests thatrates (R = 0.966,between
2
the relationship p-value trend < 0.001).
termAs of shown
coastline inposition
Figure and
13,
associated with the coastline change rates (R2 = 0.966, p-value < 0.001). As shown in Figure 13,
significant
sea level (Rdifference between< 0.001).
2 = 0.594, p-value the coastline
Figure change
12b showsrate with arates
higher curvature riseand
are astrongly
lower
significant difference between the coastline change rate with athat
higher thecurvature ofandsea level curvature
a lower
curvature
associated
waswaswithobserved.
the coastline change rates (R2 = 0.966, p-value < 0.001). As shown in Figure 13,
observed.
significant difference between the coastline change rate with a higher curvature and a lower
curvature was observed.
Figure 11. (a) Relationship

Figure between
11. (a) Relationship coastline
between coastlinechange rateand
change rate and hurricane
hurricane frequency;
frequency; (b) Relationship
(b) Relationship
between coastline change rate and hurricane concentration.
Figure 11. (a) Relationship between coastline change rate and hurricane frequency; (b) Relationship
Figure 11. (a) Relationship between coastline change rate and hurricane frequency; (b) Relationship
Atmosphere 2018, 9, 107 12 of 20
Figure 12. Relationship

Figure between
12. Relationship thethe
between change
changeofof coastline position
coastline position andand sea level:
sea level: (a) annual
(a) annual coastlinecoastline
position and sea level; (b) change rate of coastline position and sea level during the periods
position and sea level; (b) change rate of coastline position and sea level during the periods 1986– 1986–1990,
Atmosphere 1991–1995, 1996–2000,
2018, 9, x FOR 2001–2005, 2006–2010 and 2011–2015, respectively.
PEER REVIEW 12 of 19
1990, 1991–1995, 1996–2000, 2001–2005, 2006–2010 and 2011–2015, respectively.
Figure 13. Comparison

Figure 13. Comparison of of
coastline
coastlinechange
changerate
rate with
with aa higher
higher(blue)
(blue)coastline
coastline curvature
curvature andand a lower
a lower
(black) coastline curvature. The shadow area demonstrates corresponding confidence
(black) coastline curvature. The shadow area demonstrates corresponding confidence intervals. Number intervals.
Number of coastline
of coastline sectionsection on the horizontal
on the horizontal axis the
axis indicate indicate
centralthe central
number of number of spatial
the moving the moving
windowspatial
used to derive the mean change rate of coastline.
window used to derive the mean change rate of coastline.
4.4. Validation
4.4. Validation of Land-Water
of Land-Water MapMapUsing
UsingLIDAR
LIDAR Data
Data
The The coastline

coastline derivedfrom
derived fromthe
theLandsat
Landsat data
data was
was validated
validatedbybymapping
mapping the the
result fromfrom
result
corresponding LIDAR data. Figure 14 shows the validation results for a coastline with sandy beach
corresponding LIDAR data. Figure 14 shows the validation results for a coastline with sandy beach
around Galveston, Texas. Figure 14a is the high-resolution image from google earth. Figure 14b is the
around Galveston, Texas. Figure 14a is the high-resolution image from google earth. Figure 14b is the
LIDAR-based DEM. Figure 14c represents the LIDAR-derived land-water map based on the water
LIDAR-based DEM. to
level correspond Figure 14c represents
the Landsat the The
observation. LIDAR-derived
water level ofland-water
the Landsatmap based
image was on the water
obtained
levelfrom
correspond to the
the National Landsat
Oceanic andobservation.
AtmosphericThe water level of
Administration the Landsat
(NOAA) image
website. was obtained from
The LIDAR-derived
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) website.
coastline was resampled to 30 m (the spatial resolution of Landsat data) for comparison The LIDAR-derived
with the
coastline was resampled
Landsat-derived to 30map.
land-water m (the spatial
As shown in resolution of Landsatpixels
Figure 14d, inconsistent data)between
for comparison with the
two land-water
Landsat-derived land-water
maps were labeled map.(i.e.,
with yellow Aserror
shown in Figure
pixels). 14d, inconsistent
In the selected pixels
area, only two between
incorrect pixelstwo
wereland-
produced, which suggest a higher mapping accuracy.
water maps were labeled with yellow (i.e., error pixels). In the selected area, only two incorrect pixels
were produced, which suggest a higher mapping accuracy.
level correspond to the Landsat observation. The water level of the Landsat image was obtained from
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) website. The LIDAR-derived
coastline was resampled to 30 m (the spatial resolution of Landsat data) for comparison with the
Landsat-derived land-water map. As shown in Figure 14d, inconsistent pixels between two land-
water maps
Atmosphere were
2018, 9, 107labeled with yellow (i.e., error pixels). In the selected area, only two incorrect13
pixels
of 20
were produced, which suggest a higher mapping accuracy.
Figure 14.
Figure 14. An
An example
generating an
an annual
annual land-water
land-water map
map using
using Landsat
Landsat images
images around
around the
the
Galveston, Texas
Galveston, Texasin
in2006.
2006. (a)
(a) high-resolution
high-resolution image
image from
from google
google earth;
earth; (b)
(b) light
light detection
detection and
and ranging
ranging
(LIDAR)-based digital elevation model (DEM); (c) LIDAR-derived land-water map; (d) two
(LIDAR)-based digital elevation model (DEM); (c) LIDAR-derived land-water map; (d) two land-water land-
water maps derived from LIDAR data and Landsat
maps derived from LIDAR data and Landsat images. images.
4.5.
Atmosphere4.5. Validation
2018, 9, x FOR
Validation ofPEER
of Coastline Change in
REVIEW
Coastline Change in the
the Texas
TexasState
State 13 of 19
The coastline
The coastlinechange
changeinformation
informationinin
thethe Texas
Texas State
State derived
derived fromfrom Landsat
Landsat data data was validated
was validated with
derived the
DEM
with the atresults
results
about 0.6 m
from
from LIDAR
above
LIDAR data
data and
local mean sea level.
andphotographs
aerial aerial photographs The coastline
with
with a high a high
spatial
in 2007
spatial
resolution
was extracted
resolution
[36,69,70]. [36,69,70].
Note that
from the
Note
in theirthat
aerial photographs in their
using
studies, studies, coastline
theinwet
coastline 2000, 2010,in2011
beach/dry 2000, 2010,
20122011
beach
and was and
boundary. 2012
extracted was extracted
Specifically,
from from
the netthe
the LIDAR-derived LIDAR-
land
DEM area
at change
betweenabout
different yearslocal
0.6 m above wasmean
used seatolevel.
characterize the
The coastline in coastline changefrom
2007 was extracted during fivephotographs
the aerial periods (i.e., 2000–
2012, 2007–2010, 2010–2011, 2010–2012, 2011–2012). As shown in Figure 15, a gooddifferent
using the wet beach/dry beach boundary. Specifically, the net land area change between agreement was
years2 was used to characterize the coastline change during five periods (i.e., 2000–2012, 2007–2010,
achieved (R = 0.83, p-value < 0.05) between the coastline change derived from Landsat data and
2010–2011, 2010–2012, 2011–2012). As shown in Figure 15, a good agreement was achieved (R2 = 0.83,
results from other studies.
p-value < 0.05) between the coastline change derived from Landsat data and results from other studies.
Figure
Figure 15. 15. Comparison
Comparison between our
between ourresults and and
results the results
the from previous
results fromstudies. Grey points
previous represent
studies. Grey points
the coastline change during different years and the blue line represents the linear fitting line. The dashed
represent the coastline change during different years and the blue line represents the linear fitting
grey line reflects the 1:1 line.
line. The dashed grey line reflects the 1:1 line.
5. Discussions
5.1. Influencing Factors of Coastline Change

From the results in Section 4.1, the coastline around some estuaries and inlets exhibited a
Atmosphere 2018, 9, 107 14 of 20
5. Discussions
5.1. Influencing Factors of Coastline Change

From the results in Section 4.1, the coastline around some estuaries and inlets exhibited a relatively
large change and a relatively high uncertainty. The rivers can transport sediments to the ocean from
upstream. If the sediments reach the coastal zones, some sediments can deposit around estuaries and
result in a change of coastline [71]. The coastline around inlets tends to advance to the ocean because
the sediment from alongshore current can be stabilized by long jetties. Such jetties are constructed to
maintain the inlet for boat traffic [71].
According to previous analysis in Section 4.3, coastline change in the State of Texas during the past
30 years was significantly linked with the HFI (R2 = 0.71, p-value < 0.05) (Figure 11a) and HCI (R2 = 0.66,
p-value < 0.05) (Figure 11b). The results of HFI show that the coastline is more likely to be eroded with
more hurricanes, which suggests the importance of the damage (i.e., coastline erosion) on coastlines
from hurricanes. Such results are in agreement with some previous studies [72,73]. The results of HCI
highlight the impact of hurricane sequence on coastline change compared with isolated hurricanes.
Our results indicate a significant negative correlation between the HCI and coastline change. It means
that the impact on coastline of two hurricanes with a smaller interval is smaller than two hurricanes
with a larger interval. Coco et al. also found that the sequence of extreme storms did not result in
enhanced erosion [74]. Another study also obtained a similar conclusion and claimed that a storm
group with an interval of one year (group of two storms) would induce erosion equivalent to the effect
of a single storm with an interval of about 9 years [75]. Future climate change is predicted to lead to
increased intensity of storms and hurricanes, which will continuously impact the coastline change [76].
Additionally, a significant relationship between long-term coastline position and sea level
(R2 = 0.594, p-value < 0.001) was observed (Figure 12a). We also found that the rates of sea level rise are
strongly associated with the coastline change rates (R2 = 0.966, p-value < 0.001) (Figure 12b). Our results
were consistent with the Bruun Rule, which explains the linkage between the coastline change and
sea level rise [66]. Such a relationship was also confirmed in Leatherman’s study, which illustrates
a high correlation (R2 = 0.89) between sea level rise and beach erosion along the U.S. east coast [77].
In the future, the continuous sea level rise may have a potential impact on coastline change. Moreover,
the relationship between coastline change and sea level rise should be further examined at a larger
spatial scale.
Hurricanes and sea level rise are two potential driving factors that contribute to the erosion
of coastline. However, the alongshore sediment transport can also have an impact on the coastline
change. In particular, it is likely to result in coastline accretion. In reality, eroding mainland shores
and the continental shelf are the primary sources of sand for maintaining the beaches in the State of
Texas [71]. Rivers around the State of Texas generally do not contribute significantly to the present
sand budget of the beaches because they can only provide a very little sediment [78]. The eroding sand
will move parallel to the coast by alongshore currents from the northeast to the southwest. Specifically,
the sand tends to deposit around the concave coast owing to lower current velocity [79]. As a result,
the coastline can advance to the ocean around these regions. Another study also gave a similar result
and claimed that concave-shaped coastline tends to exhibit accretion while convex-shaped coastline
tends to exhibit erosion [80], which was consistent with our result (Figure 13).
In addition, the sea level data from Rockport station is the relative sea level determined by
absolute sea level changes and vertical land motion that can result from glacial isostatic adjustment,
tectonic processes, coastal subsidence and uplift caused by anthropogenic factors [81]. Specifically,
the change rate of vertical land movements calculated from the satellite altimeter data and tide gauge
records in Rockport station is −3.5 mm/year [81]. It means that the land subsidence occurred around
Rockport, Texas. In the future, the land subsidence should be considered as a potential factor that
affects coastline change in the Texas State.
Atmosphere 2018, 9, 107 15 of 20
Apart from the natural factors, human activities can also influence the coastline change.
Around some coastline, beach nourishment projects and coastline protection structures are constructed
to prevent the erosion of coastline (preservation of private property and conservation of the beach) [71].
Moreover, beach nourishment is the most common method to reduce the damage caused by storms.
Such methods can result in an artificial accretion of coastline in a short period [73]. Additionally,
some jetties are constructed to maintain the inlet for boat traffic. Such operations can effectively reduce
coastline erosion. Additionally, the submerged berm is another solution to beach erosion around
tidal inlets [71]. It serves as a submerged breakwater causing large waves to break offshore and thus
can reduce the coastline erosion caused by storms. In the future, more attention should be paid to
distinguish the influence between natural factors and human activities. Assessing the contribution of
natural factors and human activities to coastline change is needed for management and planning in
coastal zones.
5.2. Effect of Observation Frequency on Estimation of Coastline Change Rate

It is clear that the uncertainty of coastline position is strongly negatively related to the observation
frequency (Figure 16a). Similarly, the increase of observation frequency can reduce the uncertainty of
coastline change rate (Figure 16b). The results suggest that increasing the observation frequency can
effectively improve the accuracy of estimation of coastline change rate. It also states that using all the
Landsat imageries over 1986–2015 is relevant for the State of Texas.
To further demonstrate the advantage of the method using high frequent observations, a section
of coastline around Galveston, Texas was selected and the coastline area was presented (Figure 17).
As shown in Figure 17b, yellow is the area of dynamic coastline in 2006. An intertidal zone with 2-pixel
width was observed, which can represent the variation extent of coastline during one year. If only one
Landsat image was used for the estimation of coastline change rate, some coastlines with tiny change
cannot be observed owing to a 2-pixel variation extent of coastline during one year. The variation extent
of coastline during one year make it necessary to make full use of all Landsat images to minimize
the uncertainty caused by water level fluctuation. In reality, the multi-temporal Landsat stacking
method has been used in some previous studies [55] for water detection and waterline delineation.
Additionally, Almonacid-Caballer et al. also demonstrated that it is better to understand the coastline
dynamics
Atmosphere 2018, 9,using such
x FOR PEERannual
REVIEWaverage coastlines [34]. 15 of 19
Figure 16. Impact

Figure ofofsatellite
16. Impact observation
satellite observation frequency
frequency on theon the estimation
estimation of change
of coastline coastline
rate.change rate. (a,b)
(a,b) represent
represent the association
the association of observation
of observation frequency
frequency with withof uncertainty
uncertainty of coastline
coastline position position
and uncertainty of and
uncertainty
coastlineof coastline
change rate,change rate, respectively.
respectively.
Figure 16. Impact of satellite observation frequency on the estimation of coastline change rate. (a,b)
represent
Atmosphere 2018, 9, the
107 association of observation frequency with uncertainty of coastline position and 16 of 20
uncertainty of coastline change rate, respectively.
Figure17.
Figure 17.Demonstration
Demonstrationofofthethevariation
variationofofcoastline
coastlinearound
aroundGalveston,
Galveston,Texas
Texasinin2006.
2006.(a)
(a)Heatmap
Heatmap
showingnumber
showing number ofof clear
clear observations
observations peras per around
pixel pixel around the Galveston,
the Galveston, Texas 2006;
Texas during during(b)2006; (b) The
The area of
area of coastline
coastline during
during one year. one year.
In (b), In (b),
orange orange represents
represents the area
the area always alwaysasobserved
observed land andas land
blue and blue
represents
represents
the the observed
area always area always observed
as water. Yellowas indicates
water. Yellow indicates
the variation the of
extent variation
dynamics extent of dynamics
coastline during
coastline
one year. during one year.
5.3.Further
5.3. FurtherConsiderations
Considerations
TheLandsat
The Landsatdatadatapermits
permitsboth
bothlong-term
long-termand andshort-term
short-termcontinuous
continuousfollow-up
follow-upofofthe
thecoastline
coastline
position. However, the spatial resolution of 30 m might omit the tiny changes of coastline.
position. However, the spatial resolution of 30 m might omit the tiny changes of coastline. Therefore, Therefore,
higherspatial
higher spatialresolution
resolutioncould
couldbebeconsidered
consideredfor forthis
thisdeficiency.
deficiency.For
Forexample,
example,Sentinel-2
Sentinel-2could
couldrealize
realize
the high frequent observations at large-scale from 2015 and provide four spectral bands
the high frequent observations at large-scale from 2015 and provide four spectral bands with a spatial with a spatial
resolution of 10 m. Moreover, optical imageries often present the limits due
resolution of 10 m. Moreover, optical imageries often present the limits due to the cloud cover. to the cloud cover.
Syntheticaperture
Synthetic apertureradar
radar(SAR)
(SAR)sensors,
sensors,such
suchas asSentinel-1
Sentinel-1and
andPhased
PhasedArray
ArrayL-band
L-bandSAR SAR(PALSAR),
(PALSAR),
enable to penetrate such barrier and are easy to distinguish the land vs. water
enable to penetrate such barrier and are easy to distinguish the land vs. water boundary using boundary usingtheir
their
cloud-penetrating capacity and day and night
cloud-penetrating capacity and day and night measurements. measurements.
Eventually,future
Eventually, futureworks
worksmight
mightfocus
focusononthetheextending
extendingthis
thisgeneral
generalapproach
approachtotoother
otherareas
areaswith
with
various coastline types for diachronically producing the coastline position and estimating
various coastline types for diachronically producing the coastline position and estimating the change the change
rates.In
rates. Inaddition,
addition,we weneed
needtotopay
paymore
moreattention
attentiontotoestimate
estimatethethecontribution
contributionofofhuman
humanactivities
activitiesinin
coastal zones to the coastline change in the State
coastal zones to the coastline change in the State of Texas. of Texas.
6.6.Conclusions
Conclusions
Thisstudy
This study developed aa general
generalmethod
methodfor detecting
for detectingcoastline change
coastline at larger
change spatial
at larger and long-
spatial and
term temporal
long-term scales
temporal by using
scales satellite
by using images.
satellite Coastline
images. dynamics
Coastline at an annual
dynamics scale and
at an annual scaletheand
change
the
rate over
change rate1986–2015 for the State
over 1986–2015 of State
for the Texasofwere obtained
Texas and presented.
were obtained Our results
and presented. Ourwere compared
results were
with the LIDAR
compared with thedata and data
LIDAR someand other
somestudies.
other The spatial
studies. Thedistribution of the change
spatial distribution of the rate for rate
change each
defined
for land section
each defined and its
land section andcorresponding
its corresponding uncertainty
uncertaintywere
wereassessed.
assessed.We We also explored the
also explored the
associationbetween
association between thethe coastline
coastline change,
change, sea rise,
sea level level rise, hurricanes
hurricanes and alongshore
and alongshore sediment
sediment transport.
transport.
The results The
show results show
that the that theincoastline
coastline in Texas
Texas State State underwent
underwent erosion overerosion overthree
the past the past three
decades.
This approach can easily be used in other study areas, where the beach dominates, and might also be
adapted for estimating other coastlines types. In the future, more attention should be paid to exploring
the impact of human activities on coastline change in the State of Texas.
Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Peng Gong (at Tsinghua University, Beijing), Arthur Philip Cracknell
(at University of Dundee, Dundee), Wenyu Li (at Tsinghua University, Beijing), Zhichao Li (at Tsinghua University,
Beijing), Zhenpeng Ge (at East China Normal University, Shanghai), Honglin Song (at Tongji University, Shanghai),
Yaying Lin (at Tsinghua University, Beijing) for their constructive comments. We also thank anonymous reviewers
for their insightful advice. This research was partially supported by Special Fund for Meteorology Scientific
Research in the Public Welfare (GYHY201506010).
Author Contributions: Nan Xu designed the broad research strategy for the work, developed the methods,
executed the analysis and finished the writing.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declare no conflict of interest.
Atmosphere 2018, 9, 107 17 of 20
References
1. Yang, J.; Gong, P.; Fu, R.; Zhang, M.; Chen, J.; Liang, S.; Xu, B.; Shi, J.; Dickinson, R. The role of satellite
remote sensing in climate change studies. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2013, 3, 875–883. [CrossRef]
2. Ranasinghe, R.; Callaghan, D.; Stive, M.J.F. Estimating coastal recession due to sea level rise: Beyond the
Bruun rule. Clim. Chang. 2011, 110, 561–574. [CrossRef]
3. Zhang, K.; Douglas, B.C.; Leatherman, S.P. Global warming and coastal erosion. Clim. Chang. 2004, 64, 41–58.
[CrossRef]
4. Fearnley, S.M.; Miner, M.D.; Kulp, M.; Bohling, C.; Penland, S. Hurricane impact and recovery shoreline
change analysis of the Chandeleur Islands, Louisiana, USA: 1855 to 2005. Geo-Mar. Lett. 2009, 29, 455–466.
[CrossRef]
5. Syvitski, J.P.M.; Kettner, A.J.; Overeem, I.; Hutton, E.W.H.; Hannon, M.T.; Brakenridge, G.R.; Day, J.;
Vörösmarty, C.; Saito, Y.; Giosan, L.; et al. Sinking deltas due to human activities. Nat. Geosci. 2009, 2, 681–686.
[CrossRef]
6. Jennings, S. Coastal tourism and shoreline management. Ann. Tour. Res. 2004, 31, 899–922. [CrossRef]
7. Tanaka, N.; Sato, S. Topographic change resulting from construction of a harbor on a beach: Kashima Port.
Coast. Eng. 1976, 1977, 1824–1843.
8. Peterson, C.H.; Bishop, M.J. Assessing the environmental impacts of beach nourishment. Bioscience 2005, 55,
887–896. [CrossRef]
9. Muttitanon, W.; Tripathi, N.K. Land use/land cover changes in the coastal zone of Ban Don Bay, Thailand
using Landsat 5 TM data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2005, 26, 2311–2323. [CrossRef]
10. Shalaby, A.; Tateishi, R. Remote sensing and GIS for mapping and monitoring land cover and land-use
changes in the northwestern coastal zone of Egypt. Appl. Geogr. 2007, 27, 28–41. [CrossRef]
11. Defeo, O.; McLachlan, A.; Schoeman, D.S.; Schlacher, T.A.; Dugan, J.; Jones, A.; Lastra, M.; Scapini, F. Threats
to beach ecosystems: A review. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2009, 81, 1–12. [CrossRef]
12. Cazenave, A.; Cozannet, G.L. Sea level rise and its coastal impacts. Earth’s Future 2014, 2, 15–34. [CrossRef]
13. Le Cozannet, G.; Garcin, M.; Yates, M.; Idier, D.; Meyssignac, B. Approaches to evaluate the recent impacts
of sea-level rise on shoreline changes. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2014, 138, 47–60. [CrossRef]
14. Boak, E.H.; Turner, I.L. Shoreline definition and detection: A review. J. Coast. Res. 2005, 214, 688–703.
[CrossRef]
15. Gens, R. Remote sensing of coastlines: Detection, extraction and monitoring. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2010, 31,
1819–1836. [CrossRef]
16. Thieler, E.R.; Himmelstoss, E.A.; Zichichi, J.L.; Ergul, A. The Digital Shoreline Analysis System (DSAS) Version
4.0-An ArcGIS Extension for Calculating Shoreline Change (No. 2008-1278); US Geological Survey: Reston, VA,
USA, 2009.
17. Shaw, J.B.; Wolinsky, M.A.; Paola, C.; Voller, V.R. An image-based method for shoreline mapping on complex
coasts. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2008, 35, L12405. [CrossRef]
18. Li, W.; Gong, P. Continuous monitoring of coastline dynamics in western Florida with a 30-year time series
of Landsat imagery. Remote Sens. Environ. 2016, 179, 196–209. [CrossRef]
19. Rahman, A.F.; Dragoni, D.; El-Masri, B. Response of the Sundarbans coastline to sea level rise and decreased
sediment flow: A remote sensing assessment. Remote Sens. Environ. 2011, 115, 3121–3128. [CrossRef]
20. Honeycutt, M.G.; Crowell, M.; Douglas, B.C. Shoreline-position forecasting: Impact of storms, rate-calculation
methodologies, and temporal scales. J. Coast. Res. 2001, 17, 721–730.
21. Karunarathna, H.; Reeve, D.E. A hybrid approach to model shoreline change at multiple timescales.
Cont. Shelf Res. 2013, 66, 29–35. [CrossRef]
22. Ghoneim, E.; Mashaly, J.; Gamble, D.; Halls, J.; AbuBakr, M. Nile delta exhibited a spatial reversal in the rates
of shoreline retreat on the Rosetta promontory comparing pre- and post-beach protection. Geomorphology
2015, 228, 1–14. [CrossRef]
23. Yu, K.; Hu, C.; Muller-Karger, F.E.; Lu, D.; Soto, I. Shoreline changes in west-central Florida between 1987
and 2008 from Landsat observations. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2011, 32, 8299–8313. [CrossRef]
24. Chen, W.-W.; Chang, H.-K. Estimation of shoreline position and change from satellite images considering
tidal variation. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2009, 84, 54–60. [CrossRef]
Atmosphere 2018, 9, 107 18 of 20
25. Ford, M. Shoreline changes interpreted from multi-temporal aerial photographs and high resolution satellite
images: Wotje atoll, Marshall Islands. Remote Sens. Environ. 2013, 135, 130–140. [CrossRef]
26. Frihy, O.E.; Dewidar, K.M.; Nasr, S.M.; El Raey, M.M. Change detection of the northeastern Nile Delta
of Egypt: Shoreline changes, spit evolution, margin changes of Manzala lagoon and its islands. Int. J.
Remote Sens. 1998, 19, 1901–1912. [CrossRef]
27. Fletcher, C.H.; Romine, B.M.; Genz, A.S.; Barbee, M.M.; Dyer, M.; Anderson, T.R.; Lim, S.C.; Vitousek, S.;
Bochicchio, C.; Richmond, B.M. National Assessment of Shoreline Change: Historical Shoreline Change in the
Hawaiian Islands; U.S. Department of the Interior: Washington, DC, USA, 2011.
28. Stockdonf, H.F.; Holman, R.A. Estimation of shoreline position and change using airborne topographic lidar
data. J. Coast. Res. 2002, 18, 502–513.
29. Pianca, C.; Holman, R.; Siegle, E. Shoreline variability from days to decades: Results of long-term video
imaging. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 2015, 120, 2159–2178. [CrossRef]
30. Harley, M.D.; Turner, I.L.; Short, A.D.; Ranasinghe, R. Assessment and integration of conventional, RTK-GPS
and image-derived beach survey methods for daily to decadal coastal monitoring. Coast. Eng. 2011, 58,
194–205. [CrossRef]
31. Gong, P. Remote sensing of environmental change over China: A review. Chin. Sci. Bull. 2012, 57, 2793–2801.
[CrossRef]
32. Hui, F.; Xu, B.; Huang, H.; Yu, Q.; Gong, P. Modelling spatial-temporal change of Poyang Lake using
multitemporal Landsat imagery. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2008, 29, 5767–5784. [CrossRef]
33. Kovalskyy, V.; Roy, D.P. The global availability of Landsat 5 TM and Landsat 7 ETM+ land surface
observations and implications for global 30 m Landsat data product generation. Remote Sens. Environ. 2013,
130, 280–293. [CrossRef]
34. Almonacid-Caballer, J.; Sánchez-García, E.; Pardo-Pascual, J.E.; Balaguer-Beser, A.A.; Palomar-Vázquez, J.
Evaluation of annual mean shoreline position deduced from Landsat imagery as a mid-term coastal evolution
indicator. Mar. Geol. 2016, 372, 79–88. [CrossRef]
35. Leatherman, S.P. Coastal geomorphic responses to sea-level Rise, Galveston Bay, Texas. In Greenhouse Effect
and Sea-Level Rise: A Challenge for this Generation; Barth, M.C., Titus, J.G., Eds.; Van Nostrand Reinhold:
New York, NY, USA, 1984; pp. 151–178.
36. Paine, J.G.; Caudle, T.L.; Andrews, J.R. Shoreline and sand storage dynamics from annual airborne Lidar
surveys, Texas Gulf coast. J. Coast. Res. 2017, 33, 487–506. [CrossRef]
37. Sea Level Trends. Available online: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/ (accessed on 1 July 2015).
38. Roth, D. Texas Hurricane History; Long Island Business News: New York, NY, USA, 2006.
39. Effect of Hurricane Ike in Texas. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_Hurricane_
Ike_in_Texas#cite_note-YNaft-2 (accessed on 1 July 2015).
40. Zane, D.F.; Bayleyegn, T.M.; Hellsten, J.; Beal, R.; Beasley, C.; Haywood, T.; Wiltz-beckham, D.; Wolkin, A.F.
Tracking deaths related to hurricane Ike, Texas, 2008. Disaster Med. Public Health Prep. 2011, 5, 23–28.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
41. Center, N.H. Tropical Cyclone Report Hurricane Ike (al092008) 1–14 September 2008; National Hurricane Center:
Gainesville, FL, USA, 2008.
42. Song, C.; Woodcock, C.E.; Seto, K.C.; Lenney, M.P.; Macomber, S.A. Classification and change detection using
Landsat TM data: when and how to correct atmospheric effects? Remote Sens. Environ. 2001, 75, 230–244.
[CrossRef]
43. Lin, C.; Wu, C.C.; Tsogt, K.; Ouyang, Y.C.; Chang, C.I. Effects of atmospheric correction and pansharpening
on LULC classification accuracy using WorldView-2 imagery. Inf. Process. Agric. 2015, 2, 25–36. [CrossRef]
44. Unisys Weather Information System. Available online: http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/ (accessed on
1 July 2015).
45. Fitzgerald, D.M.; Fenster, M.S.; Argow, B.A.; Buynevich, I.V. Coastal impacts due to sea-level rise. Annu. Rev.
Earth Planet. Sci. 2007, 36, 601–647. [CrossRef]
46. Real-time Water Level Information in the USA. Available online: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/stations.
html?type=Water+Levels (accessed on 1 July 2015).
47. Zhu, Z.; Woodcock, C.E. Object-based cloud and cloud shadow detection in Landsat imagery. Remote Sens.
Environ. 2012, 118, 83–94. [CrossRef]
Atmosphere 2018, 9, 107 19 of 20
48. Cui, B.L.; Li, X.Y. Coastline change of the Yellow River estuary and its response to the sediment and runoff
(1976–2005). Geomorphology 2011, 127, 32–40. [CrossRef]
49. Li, Y.; Gong, X.; Guo, Z.; Xu, K.; Hu, D.; Zhou, H. An index and approach for water extraction using
Landsat-OLI data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2016, 37, 3611–3635. [CrossRef]
50. Kelly, J.T.; Gontz, A.M. Using GPS-surveyed intertidal zones to determine the validity of shorelines
automatically mapped by Landsat water indices. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2018, 65, 92–104. [CrossRef]
51. Xu, H. Modification of Normalised Difference Water Index (NDWI) to enhance open water features in
remotely sensed imagery. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2006, 27, 3025–3033. [CrossRef]
52. Sagin, J.; Sizo, A.; Wheater, H.; Jardine, T.D.; Lindenschmidt, K.E. A water coverage extraction approach to
track inundation in the Saskatchewan River Delta, Canada. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2015, 36, 764–781. [CrossRef]
53. Acharya, T.; Yang, I.T.; Subedi, A.; Lee, D.H. Change detection of Lakes in Pokhara, Nepal using Landsat
Data. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Electronic Conference on Sensors and Applications, online,
15–30 November 2016.
54. Fisher, A.; Flood, N.; Danaher, T. Comparing Landsat water index methods for automated water classification
in Eastern Australia. Remote Sens. Environ. 2016, 175, 167–182. [CrossRef]
55. Sagar, S.; Roberts, D.; Bala, B.; Lymburner, L. Extracting the intertidal extent and topography of the Australian
coastline from a 28 year time series of Landsat observations. Remote Sens. Environ. 2017, 195, 153–169.
[CrossRef]
56. Romine, B.M.; Fletcher, C.H.; Frazer, L.N.; Genz, A.S.; Barbee, M.M.; Lim, S.C. Historical shoreline change,
southeast Oahu, Hawaii; applying polynomial models to calculate shoreline change rates. J. Coast. Res. 2009,
25, 1236–1253. [CrossRef]
57. Houser, C.; Hapke, C.; Hamilton, S. Controls on coastal dune morphology, shoreline erosion and barrier
island response to extreme storms. Geomorphology 2008, 100, 223–240. [CrossRef]
58. Ozturk, D.; Beyazit, I.; Kilic, F. Spatiotemporal analysis of shoreline changes of the Kizilirmak Delta.
J. Coast. Res. 2014, 31, 1389–1402. [CrossRef]
59. Filho, P.W.M.S.; Martins, E.D.S.F.; Costa, F.R.D. Using mangroves as a geological indicator of coastal changes
in the Bragança macrotidal flat, Brazilian Amazon: A remote sensing data approach. Ocean Coast. Manag.
2006, 49, 462–475. [CrossRef]
60. Chu, Z.X.; Sun, X.G.; Zhai, S.K.; Xu, K.H. Changing pattern of accretion/erosion of the modern Yellow River
(Huanghe) subaerial delta, China: Based on remote sensing images. Mar. Geol. 2006, 227, 13–30. [CrossRef]
61. El-Raey, M.; Sharaf El-Din, S.H.; Khafagy, A.A.; Abo Zed, A.I. Remote sensing of beach erosion/accretion
patterns along Damietta-port said shoreline, Egypt. Int. J. Remote Sens. 1999, 20, 1087–1106. [CrossRef]
62. Liao, E.; Lu, W.; Yan, X.H.; Jiang, Y.; Kidwell, A. The coastal ocean response to the global warming acceleration
and hiatus. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 16630. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
63. Puig, M.; del Rio, L.; Plomaritis, T.A.; Benavente, J. Influence of storms on coastal retreat in SW Spain.
J. Coast. Res. 2014, 70, 193–198. [CrossRef]
64. Anderson, T.R.; Frazer, L.N.; Fletcher, C.H. Transient and persistent shoreline change from a storm. Geophys.
Res. Lett. 2010, 37, 162–169. [CrossRef]
65. Nebel, S.H.; Trembanis, A.C.; Barber, D.C. Tropical cyclone frequency and barrier island erosion rates,
Cedar Island, Virginia. J. Coast. Res. 2013, 286, 133–144. [CrossRef]
66. Bruun, P. The Bruun rule of erosion by sea-level rise: A discussion on large-scale two-and three-dimensional
usages. J. Coast. Res. 1988, 4, 627–648.
67. Splinter, K.D.; Turner, I.L.; Davidson, M.A. How much data is enough? The importance of morphological
sampling interval and duration for calibration of empirical shoreline models. Coast. Eng. 2013, 77, 14–27.
[CrossRef]
68. Reif, M.K.; Macon, C.L.; Wozencraft, J.M. Post-Katrina land-cover, elevation, and volume change assessment
along the south shore of lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, U.S.A. J. Coast. Res. 2011, 62, 30–39. [CrossRef]
69. Paine, J.G.; Caudle, T.L.; Andrews, J.L. Shoreline Movement along the Texas Gulf Coast, 1930’s to 2012; Final
Report to the Texas General Land Office, Bureau of Economic Geology; the University of Texas: Austin, TX,
USA, 2014.
70. Paine, J.G.; Mathew, S.; Caudle, T. Historical shoreline change through 2007, Texas Gulf Coast: Rates,
contributing causes, and Holocene context. Gcags J. 2012, 1, 13–26.
Atmosphere 2018, 9, 107 20 of 20
71. Morton, R.A.; Miller, T.L.; Moore, L.J. National Assessment of Shoreline Change: Part 1 Historical Shoreline
Changes and Associated Coastal Land Loss along the U.S. Gulf of Mexico; USGS—U.S. Geological Survey, Center
for Coastal & Regional Marine Studies: Reston, VA, USA, 2004.
72. Morton, R.A. Stages and durations of post-storm beach recovery, Southeastern Texas Coast, U.S.A.
J. Coast. Res. 1994, 10, 884–908.
73. Frazer, L.N.; Anderson, T.R.; Fletcher, C.H. Modeling storms improves estimates of long-term shoreline
change. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2009, 37, 1437–1454. [CrossRef]
74. Coco, G.; Senechal, N.; Rejas, A.; Bryan, K.R.; Capo, S.; Parisot, J.P.; Brown, J.A.; MacMahan, J.H.M.
Beach response to a sequence of extreme storms. Geomorphology 2014, 204, 493–501. [CrossRef]
75. Óscar, F. Storm groups versus extreme single storms: Predicted erosion and management consequences.
J. Coast. Res. 2005, 21, 221–227.
76. Mulcahy, N.; Kennedy, D.M.; Blanchon, P. Hurricane-induced shoreline change and post-storm recovery:
Northeastern Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. J. Coast. Res. 2016, 2, 1192–1196. [CrossRef]
77. Leatherman, S.P.; Zhang, K.; Douglas, B.C. Sea level rise shown to drive coastal erosion. Eos Trans. Am.
Geophys. Union 2000, 81, 55–57. [CrossRef]
78. Bullard, F.M. Source of beach and river sands on gulf coast of Texas. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 1942, 53, 1021–1043.
[CrossRef]
79. Ells, K.D. Convexity, Concavity, and Human Agency in Large-Scale Coastline Evolution. Ph.D. Thesis,
Duke University, Durham, NC, USA, 2014.
80. Phillips, J.D. Erosion and Planform Irregularity of an Estuarine Shoreline. Zeitschrift fiir Geomorphologie; Gerbruder
Borntr: Berlin, Germany, 1989; pp. 59–71.
81. Letetrel, C.; Karpytchev, M.; Bouin, M.N.; Marcos, M.; Santamaríagómez, A.; Wöppelmann, G. Estimation of
vertical land movement rates along the coasts of the Gulf of Mexico over the past decades. Cont. Shelf Res.
2015, 111, 42–51. [CrossRef]
© 2018 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Atmosphere 09 00107

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Atmosphere 09 00107

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

atmosphere

Received: 6 December 2017; Accepted: 6 March 2018; Published: 14 March 2018

Atmosphere 2018, 9, 107; doi:10.3390/atmos9030107 www.mdpi.com/journal/atmosphere

2.1. Study Area

Scene Amount per Sensor

Figure 3. Observed annual sea level at Rockport station.

Hurricane Frequency Index n (3)

3.6. Coastline Morphology Anlysis

3.7. Effect of Observation Frequency on Estimation of Coastline Change Rate

4.1. Spatial Pattern Analysis of Coastline Change

Figure 11. (a) Relationship

Figure 12. Relationship

Figure 13. Comparison

The The coastline

5.1. Influencing Factors of Coastline Change

5.1. Influencing Factors of Coastline Change

5.2. Effect of Observation Frequency on Estimation of Coastline Change Rate

Figure 16. Impact

You might also like