remote sensing

Article
Historical Trend Analysis and Forecasting of Shoreline Change
at the Nile Delta Using RS Data and GIS with the DSAS Tool
Hany F. Abd-Elhamid 1,2 , Martina Zeleňáková 3 , Jacek Barańczuk 4, * , Marcela Bindzarova Gergelova 5
and Mohamed Mahdy 6

1 Department of Water and Water Structures Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Zagazig University,
Zagazig 44519, Egypt
2 Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Technical University of Kosice,
040 01 Košice, Slovakia
3 Institute of Sustainable and Circular Construction, Faculty of Civil Engineering,
Technical University of Kosice, 040 01 Košice, Slovakia
4 Coastal City Living Lab, University of Gdansk, 80-204 Gdansk, Poland
5 Institute of Geodesy, Cartography and Geographical Information Systems, Faculty of Mining, Ecology,
Process Control and Geotechnology, Technical University of Kosice, 042 00 Košice, Slovakia
6 Department of Geography, Faculty of Art, Zagazig University, Zagazig 44519, Egypt
* Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected]

Abstract: Coastal areas are increasingly endangered by climate change and associated sea level rise,
which could have serious consequences, such as shoreline erosion and coastal city submergence. The
current study aims to conduct a historical trend analysis (HTA) and predict the shoreline changes
of the Nile Delta coasts. The Digital Shoreline Analysis System (DSAS) software, with the GIS
environment, is used for monitoring the shoreline changes using a number of statistical methods
(SCE, NSM, EPR, WLR and LRR). Satellite images from 1974 to 2022 were collected and geometrically
corrected using supervised classification to detect the shoreline change of the Nile Delta. The GIS
was used for detecting and monitoring changes in the shoreline, as well as forecasting future changes
in the shoreline for the next 10 and 20 years (2033–2043). The critical sections of the Nile Delta were
Citation: Abd-Elhamid, H.F.; identified, and a time series analysis of shoreline changes was conducted. For each section, linear
Zeleňáková, M.; Barańczuk, J.; equations were established to predict probable changes in the shoreline. Between 1974 and 2022, the
Gergelova, M.B.; Mahdy, M. shoreline of the Nile Delta moved inland in different directions due to coastal erosion, and predictions
Historical Trend Analysis and indicate that this erosion will continue until both 2033 and 2043, particularly affecting the Rosetta
Forecasting of Shoreline Change at and Damietta sections. The erosion rate ranged between 30–60 and 10–25 m/year at Rosetta and
the Nile Delta Using RS Data and GIS Damietta, respectively, but at Manzala, it ranged between 8–15 m/year. Continued erosion of the
with the DSAS Tool. Remote Sens. Nile Delta shoreline could have severe consequences that could affect the inhabitants, economy,
2023, 15, 1737. https://doi.org/
buildings, roads, railways, and ports. These areas need an integrated coastal management strategy
10.3390/rs15071737
which incorporates increasing consciousness, urban development, and the implementation of rules
Academic Editor: Ashraf Dewan and adaptation plans. The results of the current study and forecasting the shoreline change could
help in protecting such areas.
Received: 23 February 2023
Revised: 18 March 2023
Accepted: 22 March 2023
Keywords: historical trend analysis; shoreline; Nile Delta; climate change; SLR; DSAS
Published: 23 March 2023

1. Introduction
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Residents in coastal areas may experience a number of challenges as a result of climate
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
change and accompanying sea level rise (SLR). Within the 20th century, the mean sea
This article is an open access article
level has risen by 0.10–0.20 m [1] and is expected to reach 0.20–0.88 m by the end of the
distributed under the terms and
21st century [2]. These changes may have several negative effects on coastal zones, such
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
as flooding, erosion, loss of wetlands, saltwater intrusion, and damage to agricultural
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
lands. The Mediterranean basin is considered to be among the most sensitive areas to
4.0/).
climate change. Nicholls and Hoozemans (1996) [3] reported that the Mediterranean basin’s

Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 1737. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15071737 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing

Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 1737 2 of 21

southern regions face more threats than its northern regions. Monitoring and predicting
changes occurring in the coastline of these areas is very important in coastal area planning
and management [4].
Egypt is among the top ten countries that may be extremely affected by changes in
climate and the Mediterranean water levels [5]. Egypt is located on the southern shore
of the Mediterranean Sea and is characterized by its low elevation, which increases the
possibility of risks to sea level rise. Climate change and SLR effects have been considered
in several studies worldwide [6–8], which have shown the impact of climate change on
different locations throughout the world. Further, some research has been carried out in
Egypt on maintaining the coasts [9–11], and they have presented the impacts on costs and
how the coasts can be protected from imminent climate change. The results of these studies
showed that some areas in Egypt have been listed as high-risk areas, including the Nile
Delta, Alexandria, Port Said, Rosetta, and Damietta.
The Nile Delta, with its lowlands, is considered the most significant Egyptian area on
the Mediterranean coast that will be extremely affected by coastal erosion. Some studies
evaluated the effects of rising sea levels on Egypt’s northern coasts [12–15] and revealed
that Egypt will face a number of effects, including the loss of agricultural and fishing land,
the inundation and flooding of beaches, and a decline in tourism. Additionally, seawater
intrusion causes losses in agricultural output and freshwater aquifer contamination, as
well as soil salinity and water logging. Chen et al. (1992) [16] simulated the sea level
and climatic oscillation effects on the Delta shoreline modifications over time. Basiouny
et al. (2017) [17] used satellite imagery to analyze the shoreline change at Ras El-Hekma
in Northwest Egypt that occurred between 1973 and 2015. Abdel Hamid et al. (1992) [18]
employed satellite data to track the Nile Delta’s response to climate change.
In addition to climate change impacts on coastal areas, other factors could have
apparent effects, including tides, waves, man-made infrastructures, and the construction
of dams, which prevent sediment from flowing into the sea and thus protecting such
areas. All these parameters should be assessed for monitoring and predicting the changes
occurring in the coast. Seasonal waves create longshore currents with speeds of 0.9 m/s
and a sediment flux along the shoreline of the Nile Delta, with large storm waves in the
winter [19]. During spring and summer, swells could cause sediment transport, depending
on the local shoreline orientation [9]. Frihy and Deabes, 2011 [20], collected and analyzed
weave climatology data from 1985 to 1990 at Alexandria and Ras El-Bar. The results showed
that the wave height was 0.75 m, the wave period was 7 to 8 s during winter and decreased
to 5 s in summer. The Nile Delta coasts have a low tidal range, with a mean tidal range
at Lake Burullus of 14 cm over the last 20 years [21], with a 60 cm variation in the daily
mean sea level at Port Said for the period 1980–1986 [22]. Semi-diurnal tidal waves with a
range of less than 30 cm are present along the Egyptian Mediterranean coast. Iskander et al.
(2007) [23] observed that the shoreline may have been affected by the increasing trend in
sea wave height from 2.6 to 2.9 cm/year along the Nile Delta coasts from 1985 to 2010.
Aside from the natural factors that affect the shoreline, such as waves, tides, and
winds, man-made structures also contribute to affecting coasts. Seawalls and breakwaters,
among other coastal protection structures, have been created along the Nile Delta beaches
to prevent beach erosion and decrease inlet siltation at Rosetta, Damietta, and Ras El Bar
Resort [24]. These defense measures assisted in halting coastline erosion and creating
sedimentation forms in this region. They also assisted in slowing down the migration of
beach sediments, which accelerated erosion in other coastal areas.
The High Dam project is another man-made problem that has a significant impact on
the Nile Delta’s shoreline. The yearly discharge of sediment from the Nile River at Aswan
was estimated to be 160 × 1012 and m3 /year [25]. The Aswan High Dam was completed
in 1964 to regulate the Nile’s flow, produce energy, and supply water for irrigation. The
amount of sediment transported at the river mouths at Damietta and Rosetta ranges
between (100–115) × 106 m3 /year [24,26]; however, the dam has affected the sediment flux,
making it insufficient to nourish the Nile Delta shoreline and stop coastal erosion [27–30].
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 1737 3 of 21

As a result, much effort has gone into constructing coastal defense systems to safeguard
portions of the coast that are particularly important from a socio-economic standpoint,
such as public beaches [31]. Current coastal erosion poses a significant environmental risk
because there is currently no comprehensive plan to protect the entire Nile Delta coast [32].
Monitoring shoreline changes due to the above natural and man-made aspects could
be aided by RS and GIS. Satellite data are useful in affording an indication on broad
and regional scales. RS and satellite images data can be used in risk monitoring and
management [33]. GIS makes it possible to handle, store, analyze, and produce output
data that can be saved in a database. GIS can help in processing huge amounts of spatial
data and information obtained from measurements and observations. Gergelova et al.
(2014) [34] presented a study for building accurate representations of historical locations
utilizing cutting-edge methodologies for gathering and processing spatial data in GIS. The
integration of GIS in terms of hydrodynamic simulation modeling is resolved for the subject
area of interest, providing real beneficial information. The process of modeling floods in
urban areas is a priority for hydrodynamic modeling using GIS tools [34]. A combined
RS and GIS approach was developed for mapping the historical Rin Mining landscapes in
Northwest Iberia [35]. Gergelova et al. (2013) [36] presented the capability of hydrological
models with GIS tools for delineating flood events that threaten urbanized areas. Under the
assumption of unidentified sources of blurring, a method based on the local binary pattern
was created to obtain clear remote sensing images [37]. Tang et al. (2022) [38] employed the
capsule-encoder-decoder approach to recover buildings from remote sensing images for
the Yellow River, Massachusetts, China.
Satellite data is a powerful tool for providing an indication of large and small scales
data. Satellite data were employed for monitoring shoreline changes in the Mediterranean
basin [39]. Shoreline change can be tracked using ArcGIS and the Digital Shoreline Analysis
System (DSAS) software. A number of researchers employed DSAS as a geoprocessing tool
integrated within ArcGIS environment to measure, quantify, compute, and monitor shore-
line changes. DSAS is a freely available extension linked to the ArcGIS environment [39]. It
has been updated over time, and multiple versions exist, allowing its use with the ArcGIS
environment. DSAS is an effective tool that can be utilized in a variety of investigations,
including [40]:
- Monitoring the shoreline changes;
- Mapping historic changes of shoreline position over a period of time;
- Assessing the trends of a shoreline;
- Evaluating coastal behavior and shoreline dynamics;
- Evaluating time-series of changes at certain places of a shoreline;
- Historical trend analysis, coastal system dynamics, and cliff geometry modeling;
- Forecasting the behavior of shorelines utilizing previous rate-of-change trends as an
indicator of future trends while assuming consistency in the physical, natural, or
human-caused forces that have led to the changes that have been detected at the site.
Based on the measured differences in the shoreline positions associated with different
time periods, DSAS can be used to determine how a shoreline has changed. DSAS can
provide a variety of statistical measures, including [39]:
• SCE: Shoreline change envelope, which represents the total change in shoreline (m);
• NSM: Net shoreline movement, which represents the distance between the oldest and
youngest shorelines (m);
• EPR: End-point rate, which is determined by dividing the distance between the oldest
and youngest coastline points using the time elapsed between them (m/year);
• LRR: Linear regression rate, which determines the rate of change statistically by fitting
a least square regression to all shorelines at specific transects (m/year);
• WLR: Weighted linear regression.
DSAS has been used in numerous studies for monitoring coastal behavior, shoreline
changes, historical trend analysis, coastal system dynamics and cliff geometry estimations.
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 1737 4 of 21

DSAS was used for a historical record of coastline dynamics by a number of researchers
[41–44]. However, DSAS was also applied for shoreline variation, shoreline erosion, and
short-time coastal changes [45–51], and was further used for gully development and
evolution by the authors of [52–57]. DSAS was used for cliff retreat and erosion, but [58,59]
used DSAS for shoreline/cliff measurement and modeling. A number of researchers have
used DSAS for monitoring shoreline changes. Gonçalves et al. (2019) [60] used digital
surface models (DSM) resulting from airborne LiDAR and low cost UAS (unmanned
aerial systems) to monitor shoreline changes from 2011 to 2015 on Furadouro beach in
the northern part of Portugal. Shenbagaraj et al. (2021) [61] used an unmanned aerial
vehicle (UAV) remote sensing to monitor shoreline changes between 1989 and 2017 for the
Cuddalore District, Tamil Nadu, India. Amodio et al. (2022) [62] established a method
for using DEMs based on UAV-derived data for assessing the short-term morphological-
topographic changes of a coastal system along a stretch of beach affected by erosion, located
along the Central Adriatic coast during the summers of 2019 and 2020. Abd-Elhamid et al.
(2022) [63] presented a study to assess the impact of climate change and associated SLR on
the shoreline of Alexandria using DSAS tool for the period 1985–2021. The study showed
that the Alexandria shoreline has been affected by SLR especially in its eastern parts, at
Abo Qir Bay.
Only a few studies have been conducted to evaluate the changes in the Nile Delta
shoreline, taking natural and man-made aspects into consideration, and focusing on small
sites along the shoreline. In this study, RS and GIS with the DSAS tool are used for historical
trend analysis (HTA) of the Nile Delta shoreline based on historical data from satellite
images collected for 49 years, from 1974 to 2022. In addition, DSAS is used to predict future
changes in the shoreline for the next 10 and 20 years (2033 and 2043). Monitoring and
forecasting the shoreline change could help in coastal area planning and management.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area
Long parts of the Egyptian Mediterranean coast are exposed to submergence hazards
due to its low levels [13]. The Egyptian Mediterranean coastal zone includes several
important cities, such as Alexandria, Port Said, Rosetta, and Damietta, that may be affected
by climate change and SLR. The Nile Delta is among the largest deltas in the world. It is
located in Northern Egypt on the Mediterranean Sea, where the Nile River branches and
drains out into the sea (Figure 1). The length of the Delta shoreline on the Mediterranean is
240 km. The Delta begins slightly below Cairo in the south and extends for approximately
160 km to the north, expanding over an area of about 22,000 km2 . The Nile Delta is bounded
by the Western Desert from the west and the Eastern Desert and Suez Canal from the east. It
is located between latitudes 30◦ 250 and 31◦ 300 North, and longitudes 29◦ 500 and 30◦ 150 East.
The population in the Delta region is 39 million. The main activity in the Delta is agriculture,
with some industries that are located in the northern cities.
The Nile Delta climate is characterized by hot summers and mild winters. The tem-
perature in winter ranges between 18 and 19 ◦ C, and 33 ◦ C in the summer. January is the
coldest month and August is the hottest month. Precipitation is rare excluding along the
Mediterranean shores, where the annual rainfall is about 200 mm. The very low precipita-
tion in the inland areas is only 22 mm/year at Cairo. The mean potential evapotranspiration
is 570–1140 mm/year in the north and exceeds 1140 mm/year in the south. The Nile Delta
belongs to the hyper-aridic climate region [64]. The difference in elevation between Cairo’s
and the northern coasts is around 18 m. However, there are coastal strips of lowlands on
the western side of the Nile Delta in addition to Mariut and Idku Lakes that are located in
low-elevation areas. Manzala Lake and Burullus Lake are also located in the Nile Delta.
These areas have been extremely affected by sea level rise.
Remote Sens.
Remote 2023,15,
2023,
Sens. 14,1737
x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 21 5 of 21

Figure 1. Location map of the study area.

The Nile Delta climate is characterized by hot summers and mild winters. The tem-
perature in winter ranges between 18 and 19 °C, and 33 °C in the summer. January is the
coldest month and August is the hottest month. Precipitation is rare excluding along the
Mediterranean shores, where the annual rainfall is about 200 mm. The very low precipi-
tation in the inland areas is only 22 mm/year at Cairo. The mean potential evapotranspi-
ration is 570–1140 mm/year in the north and exceeds 1140 mm/year in the south. The Nile
Delta belongs to the hyper-aridic climate region [64]. The difference in elevation between
Cairo’s and the northern coasts is around 18 m. However, there are coastal strips of low-
lands on the western side of the Nile Delta in addition to Mariut and Idku Lakes that are
located
Figure 1. in low-elevation areas. Manzala Lake and Burullus Lake are also located in the
Figure 1. Location
Locationmap mapofofthe
thestudy
studyarea.
area.
Nile Delta. These areas have been extremely affected by sea level rise.
TheNile
The
The NileDelta
Nile Deltaclimate
Delta includes
includes extensive agricultural
isextensive
characterizedagricultural areas
areas which
by hot summers andrepresent
which the
mild winters.
represent themain
The source
main tem-
source of
of agricultural
perature in winterproduction
ranges in
betweenEgypt 18 (see
and Figure
19 °C, 2).
and In addition,
33 °C in the some important
summer.
agricultural production in Egypt (see Figure 2). In addition, some important industrial Januaryindustrial
is the and
and commercial
coldest month and cities are is
August located
the on themonth.
hottest northern coast (e.g., is
Precipitation Alexandria,
rare Port Said,
excluding along Dam-
the
commercial cities are located on the northern coast (e.g., Alexandria, Port Said, Damietta,
ietta, and Rosetta).
Mediterranean shores,Recently,
where dueannual
to climate change and SLR, theseThecities on the coasts and
and Rosetta). Recently, due tothe rainfall
climate change is about
and SLR, 200
thesemm.cities on very
thelow precipi-
coasts and some
some other
tationcities cities
in theininland in the Delta
areasare are
is facing facing
only 22the the
mm/year danger of subsidence which requires extensive
other the Delta dangerat ofCairo. The mean
subsidence which potential
requiresevapotranspi-
extensive studies
studies
ration is for monitoring
570–1140 mm/year andinforecasting
the north theexceeds
and shoreline dynamics
1140 mm/year andin assessing
the south. the appro-
for monitoring and forecasting the shoreline dynamics and assessing theThe Nile
appropriate
priate methods of protection.
Delta belongs to the hyper-aridic climate region [64]. The difference in elevation between
methods of protection.
Cairo’s and the northern coasts is around 18 m. However, there are coastal strips of low-
lands on the western side of the Nile Delta in addition to Mariut and Idku Lakes that are
located in low-elevation areas. Manzala Lake and Burullus Lake are also located in the
Nile Delta. These areas have been extremely affected by sea level rise.
The Nile Delta includes extensive agricultural areas which represent the main source
of agricultural production in Egypt (see Figure 2). In addition, some important industrial
and commercial cities are located on the northern coast (e.g., Alexandria, Port Said, Dam-
ietta, and Rosetta). Recently, due to climate change and SLR, these cities on the coasts and
some other cities in the Delta are facing the danger of subsidence which requires extensive
studies for monitoring and forecasting the shoreline dynamics and assessing the appro-
priate methods of protection.

Figure2.2.Land
Figure Landuse
useof
ofthe
the study area.
study area.

2.2. Methodology
RS and GIS are among the advanced tools that link climate data with its spatial-
temporal framework to demonstrate changes that may occur due to climate change. DSAS
is an important tool that can be used for monitoring and forecasting shoreline changes. In
this study, RS and GIS with the DSAS tool are used to monitor changes in the Nile Delta
shoreline during the period 1974–2022. Figure 3 shows a flow chart that illustrates the
methodology used in this study. The work was completed in the following four key steps:
1. Data collection represents the assembly of satellite images for the Nile Delta from
1974 to 2022 for six periods (1974–1980–1990–2000–2015–2022). LANDSAT satellite
Figureimages
2. Land with
use ofathe
resolution of 30 and 60 m were downloaded from USGS using Landsat
study area.
Collection 2 Level-1 (C2L1), (http://www.earthexplorer.usgs.gov, 23 September 2022).
Table 1 presents the specification of the satellite data.
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 1737 6 of 21

2. Data processing represents mosaicking that involves combining multiple images into
a single composite image for each period to cover the study area. The geometric and
radiometric corrections were then conducted. Radiometric correction was important
to reduce atmospheric effects. Short-wave infrared (SWIR) light was applied to
delineate the shoreline boundary. The ENVI 5.3 software provided the color slice
algorithms that were applied to differentiate between land and water surfaces. The
export color slice to shapefile and the shoreline changes were examined using ArcGIS
by creating an overlap of the shoreline layers. A baseline was then created from an
offset baseline continued from the existing shoreline by buffering; the polygon buffer
was converted to a polyline, and the unwanted segments were split and removed.
One of the most crucial steps in the shoreline change analysis was the baseline, which
served as the starting point for all transects.
3. Mapping and forecasting of the shoreline change represents mapping the shoreline
change from numerous historical shoreline positions and using it to forecast future
shoreline features. DSAS is a free ArcGIS tool created by the USGS that can be applied
Remote Sens. 2023, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
for mapping and forecasting a shoreline in the long-term of 10 and 20 years.7 of 21
4. Data presentation is when the database is represented and given to decision-makers
in the form of maps, tables, graphs, photographs, and reports.

Satellite images collection

Landsat 1 Landsat 2 Landsat 5 Landsat 5 Landsat 8 Landsat 8

(MSS) (MSS) (TM) (TM) (OLI/TIRS) (OLI/TIRS)
1974 1980 1990 2000 2015 2022

Image processing using EMVI 5.3

Image Mosaic Atmospheric Correction (FLAASH)

Shoreline change extraction using Arc GIS 10.8

Baseline (Buffering) Methods

Layers  SCE
 Shoreline  NSM
Mapping the shoreline change by DSAS tool
 Baseline  EPR
 Transect  WLR
 LRR
Forecasting shoreline for 10 and 20 years

Analysis and presentation of results

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Methodological
Methodological flow
flowchart
chartofofsatellite image
satellite collection
image andand
collection processing.
processing.

3. Results
3.1. Historical Trend Analysis of the Nile Delta Shoreline for the Period 1974–2022
GIS with DSAS was used to inspect the historical trend of the Nile Delta shoreline
from 1974 to 2022. DSAS was used to digitize the shoreline changes from the historical
maps that were accessible as georeferenced GeoTiffs from Digimap. DSAS is a tool used
for monitoring the shoreline changes using a number of statistical methods that were cal-
culated to determine the oldest (1974) and the latest (2022) shorelines to show the overall
change in shoreline position for the 49-year period.
Figure 4a–f show the historical trend of the shoreline in the Nile Delta for the evalu-
ated six periods (1974–1980–1990–2000–2015–2022). The use of using six historical maps
in the case study emphasizes the importance of the archival datasets accessibility for his-
torical trend analysis (HTA). The maps utilized in this study are the six historical datasets
available at the Ordnance Survey. The Nile Delta shoreline was divided by DSAS into 8382
transects from Alexandria to Port Said. For a HTA of the Nile Delta shoreline, 11 transects
were selected at critical sites: 1 at Alexandria (ID:1100), Idku (ID:1800), Lake Burullus
(ID:3000), Baltim (ID:3800), Gamasa (ID:4745), Lake Manzala (ID:6000), and Port Said
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 1737 7 of 21

Table 1. The specification of the satellite data.

Spatial Resolution
Satellite/Sensor Date Path Row Satellite/Sensor
Pixel Size (m)
Landsat-1/MSS 09/05/1974 189 38 60 Landsat-1/MSS
Landsat-1/MSS 15/05/1974 190 38 60 Landsat-1/MSS
Landsat-1/MSS 22/07/1974 191 38 60 Landsat-1/MSS
Landsat-2/MSS 28/07/1980 189 38 60 Landsat-2/MSS
Landsat-2/MSS 29/07/1980 190 38 60 Landsat-2/MSS
Landsat-3/MSS 03/07/1980 191 38 60 Landsat-3/MSS
Landsat-5/TM 03/07/1990 176 38 30 Landsat-5/TM
Landsat-5/TM 08/06/1990 177 38 30 Landsat-5/TM
Landsat-7/ETM+ 06/07/2000 176 38 30 Landsat-7/ETM+
Landsat-7/ETM+ 13/07/2000 177 38 30 Landsat-7/ETM+
Landsat-8/OLI/TIRS 24/07/2015 176 38 30 Landsat-8/OLI/TIRS
Landsat-8/OLI/TIRS 15/07/2015 177 38 30 Landsat-8/OLI/TIRS
Landsat-9/OLI/TIRS 19/07/2022 176 38 30 Landsat-9/OLI/TIRS
Landsat-8/OLI/TIRS 18/07/2022 177 38 30 Landsat-8/OLI/TIRS

3. Results
3.1. Historical Trend Analysis of the Nile Delta Shoreline for the Period 1974–2022
GIS with DSAS was used to inspect the historical trend of the Nile Delta shoreline
from 1974 to 2022. DSAS was used to digitize the shoreline changes from the historical
maps that were accessible as georeferenced GeoTiffs from Digimap. DSAS is a tool used
for monitoring the shoreline changes using a number of statistical methods that were
calculated to determine the oldest (1974) and the latest (2022) shorelines to show the overall
change in shoreline position for the 49-year period.
Figure 4a–f show the historical trend of the shoreline in the Nile Delta for the evaluated
six periods (1974–1980–1990–2000–2015–2022). The use of using six historical maps in the
case study emphasizes the importance of the archival datasets accessibility for historical
trend analysis (HTA). The maps utilized in this study are the six historical datasets available
at the Ordnance Survey. The Nile Delta shoreline was divided by DSAS into 8382 transects
from Alexandria to Port Said. For a HTA of the Nile Delta shoreline, 11 transects were
selected at critical sites: 1 at Alexandria (ID:1100), Idku (ID:1800), Lake Burullus (ID:3000),
Baltim (ID:3800), Gamasa (ID:4745), Lake Manzala (ID:6000), and Port Said (ID:6400), and
2 sections at Rosetta (ID:2360, 2400) and Damietta (ID:5400, 5450). It was observed that
the shoreline along the Nile Delta coasts has changed, but three areas have been extremely
affected by the coastal erosion, and the shoreline has further moved inland at Rosetta,
Damietta, and Lake Manzala. The maximum net shoreline movement (NSM) is 4941.95 m,
in addition to the maximum erosion rate (end-point rate, EPR), which is 106.96 m/year.
Specific sections are selected and will be discussed in more detail in Section 3.4.
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 1737 8 of 21
Remote Sens. 2023, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 21

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)
Figure
Figure4.4.The
Thehistorical trend
historical trend of of
thethe
Nile Delta
Nile shoreline
Delta for the
shoreline forperiod 1974–2022:
the period (a) 1974,
1974–2022: (a) (b) 1980,
1974, (b) 1980,
(c) 1990, (d) 2000, (e) 2015, (f) 2022.
(c) 1990, (d) 2000, (e) 2015, (f) 2022.
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 1737 9 of 21
Remote Sens. 2023, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 21

3.2. Prediction of Shoreline Changes in the Nile Delta for 10 and 20 Years
3.2. Prediction of Shoreline Changes in the Nile Delta for 10 and 20 Years
After the analysis of the historical trend of the Nile Delta shoreline, DSAS and GIS were
After the analysis of the historical trend of the Nile Delta shoreline, DSAS and GIS
used to forecast shoreline changes in the Nile Delta after 10 and 20 years. DSAS includes
were used to forecast shoreline changes in the Nile Delta after 10 and 20 years. DSAS in-
Kalman filtering-based approach that can be employed for shoreline prediction. Based on
cludes Kalman filtering-based approach that can be employed for shoreline prediction.
the historical
Based shoreline
on the historical location
shoreline data, data,
location this tool enables
this tool future
enables estimates
future estimatestotobebecreated
cre- for
the next 10 and 20 years. This process was thus carried out using the
ated for the next 10 and 20 years. This process was thus carried out using the Kalman filter Kalman filter [65]
developed
[65] developed byby Long
Longand
andPlant (2012)[66].
Plant (2012) [66].TheThe Kalman
Kalman filter
filter is a is a filter
filter that makes
that makes futurefuture
predictions based on historical data from a modeled system. Instead
predictions based on historical data from a modeled system. Instead of being referred of being referred
to to
asasaafilter,
filter,this
thisapproach
approach might
might be be thought
thought of asofaas a prediction
prediction tool. tool. The forecasting
The forecasting of the of the
NileDelta
Nile Delta shoreline
shoreline after
after 10 and
10 and 20 years
20 years is shownis shown in 5a,b.
in Figure FigureThe5a,b. The
results results
showed showed
that
that maximum
maximum shorelineshoreline
movementmovement
will occurwill
at occur
Damiettaat Damietta
for 891.65 for
m and891.65 m and
455.93 m in455.93
2033 m in
2033
and andrespectively.
2043, 2043, respectively. More details
More details for the selected
for the selected specific specific
sections sections will be discussed
will be discussed in
in Section
Section 3.4. 3.4.

(a)

(b)
Figure
Figure5.5.The
Thepredicted shoreline
predicted at the
shoreline NileNile
at the Delta for the
Delta foryears (a) 2033
the years (a) and
2033(b)
and2043.
(b) 2043.

3.3.Statistical
3.3. Statistical Analysis
Analysis of Parameters
of Parameters Using
Using DSAS
DSAS fromfrom
19741974 to 2043
to 2043
Oneofofthe
One thecommonly
commonlyused used methods
methods forfor detecting
detecting shoreline
shoreline changes
changes is DSAS,
is DSAS, where the
where
shoreline
the shoreline changes
changes can bebe
can investigated
investigatedusing
usingstatistical
statisticalmethods.
methods. In In the
the current
current study, DSAS
DSAS withArcGIS
with the the ArcGIS environment
environment are applied
are applied for monitoring
for monitoring shoreline
shoreline changes
changes using
using a
a number
number of statistical methods, including (SCE, NSM, EPR, WLR and
of statistical methods, including (SCE, NSM, EPR, WLR and LRR). DSAS can explore LRR). DSAS can ex-
plore the temporal
the temporal andand spatial
spatial dynamics
dynamics ofofshoreline
shorelinechange
change and
and thethe geomorphic
geomorphicvaria- variability
bility along the coast due to its capacity to utilize all shoreline
along the coast due to its capacity to utilize all shoreline positions positions (SCE), cumulative
(SCE), cumulative
shoreline
shorelinemovement
movement(NSM),(NSM),and andtime
timevariations
variations (EPR),
(EPR),which
whichcapture
capture thethe
rate-range
rate-rangeof of the
the historical dataset.
historical dataset.
The
Theshoreline
shorelinechanges
changesstatistics (SCE,
statistics (SCE, NSMNSM EPR,
EPR, WLR
WLRandandLRR)LRR)cancanshow
show thethe
pat-
patterns
terns of the Nile Delta shorelines. The pattern of spatial and temporal
of the Nile Delta shorelines. The pattern of spatial and temporal movements can movements can alsoalso be
be determinedusing
determined usingother
otherstatistical
statisticalmethods.
methods. However,
However, SCESCE isis the
the only
only measure
measure that
that takes
takes into account all shorelines, and it was thus chosen because it has the capacity to
into account all shorelines, and it was thus chosen because it has the capacity to provide
provide a wide range of variability. The difference between the earliest and most recent
a wide range of variability. The difference between the earliest and most recent surveys
surveys is reflected by NSM and EPR. The distance between the earliest shorelines (1974)
is reflected by NSM and EPR. The distance between the earliest shorelines (1974) and the
and the recent shorelines (2022) is described by NSM, which shows the general change in
recent shorelines (2022) is described by NSM, which shows the general change in shoreline
shoreline position over the study period from 1974 to 2022 (49 years). EPR converts this
position over the study period from 1974 to 2022 (49 years). EPR converts this net shoreline
net shoreline movement into an annual rate of shoreline change by dividing the distance
movement into an annual rate of shoreline change by dividing the distance of the shoreline
movement from the earliest to the most recent shorelines by the time period passed.
Table 2 shows the different statistics calculated at the selected 11 transects. The
shoreline of the Nile Delta was analyzed and predicted using SCE, NSM, EPR, LRR, and
 Remote Sens. 2023, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 21

Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 1737 10 of 21

of the shoreline movement from the earliest to the most recent shorelines by the time pe-
riod passed.
WLR methodologies.
Table 2 shows the differentIn the statistics
EPR approach,
calculateda at
shoreline of two
the selected periods The
11 transects. is sufficient
shore- for
a shoreline change study, whereas the LRR and WLR methods
line of the Nile Delta was analyzed and predicted using SCE, NSM, EPR, LRR, and WLR require a shoreline of at
least three periods for the shoreline change analysis. In shoreline prediction,
methodologies. In the EPR approach, a shoreline of two periods is sufficient for a shoreline at least four
coastline
change periods
study, are used
whereas (DSAS,
the LRR andKalman filter-based
WLR methods prediction
require method).
a shoreline One three
of at least of the most
periods for the shoreline change analysis. In shoreline prediction, at least four coastline of the
popular techniques in shoreline change analysis studies conducted in various parts
world are
periods is EPR.
usedIn this method,
(DSAS, the distance
Kalman filter-based of shoreline
prediction movement
method). is divided
One of the by the time
most popular
that has passed
techniques between
in shoreline the oldest
change analysis and most conducted
studies recent shorelines [67].
in various Theofobtained
parts the worldresults
is for
the Nile
EPR. Delta
In this are shown
method, in Table
the distance of2.shoreline
Furthermore, 10 and
movement 20 yearsby
is divided projections werehas
the time that made in
the analyses
passed between forthe
theoldest
studyand area.
most recent shorelines [67]. The obtained results for the
Nile Delta are shown in Table 2. Furthermore, 10 and 20 years projections were made in
Table 2. The results of statistical measures in the Nile Delta.
the analyses for the study area.
Transect SCE NSM EPR LRR WLR
ID LocationTable 2. The results
(m)
of statistical measures in the Nile Delta.
(m) (m/Year) (m/Year) (m/Year)
1100 TransectAlexandria SCE
585.21 NSM
495.96 EPR10.33 LRR 5.98 WLR 5.98
ID
1800 Location
Idko (m)
125.07 (m)
125.07 (m/Year)
2.61 (m/Year)2.7 (m/Year) 2.7
1100 Alexandria 585.21 495.96 10.33 5.98 5.98
2360 2655.25 −2625.25 −54.69 −51.68 −51.68
1800 Rosseta
Idko 125.07 125.07 2.61 2.7−31.67 2.7 −31.67
2400 1585.48 −1585.48 −33.03
2360 2655.25 −2625.25 −54.69 −51.68 −51.68
3000 Rosseta
Lake Burullus 260.34 −260.34 −5.42 −4 −4
2400 1585.48 −1585.48 −33.03 −31.67 −31.67
3800
3000 Baltim
Lake Burullus 365.18
260.34 105.69
−260.34 −5.422.2 −4 5.42 −4 5.42
4745
3800 Gamasa
Baltim 145.93
365.18 145.93
105.69 2.2 3.04 5.42 3.08 5.42 3.08
4745
5400 Gamasa 145.93
1172.52 145.93
−1142.07 3.04
−23.79 3.08−22.56 3.08 −22.56
Damietta
5400
5450 1172.52
1311.5 −1311.5
−1142.07 −27.32
−23.79 −29.14
−22.56 −22.56−29.14
Damietta
5450
6000 Lake Manzala 1311.5
436.77 −1311.5
−431.76 −27.32
−8.99 −29.14−8.64 −29.14−8.64
6000 Lake Manzala 436.77 −431.76 −8.99 −8.64 −8.64
6400 Port Said 225.62 225.62 4.7 3.43 3.43
6400 Port Said 225.62 225.62 4.7 3.43 3.43

Figure6 shows
Figure 6 shows thethe scales
scales andand rates
rates of shoreline
of shoreline change
change at theatNile
the Delta
Nile Delta
for thefor the period
period
1974–2043. The results of the SCE with NSM show major changes in
1974–2043. The results of the SCE with NSM show major changes in the shoreline between the shoreline between
the earliest (1974) and most recent (2022) shorelines.
the earliest (1974) and most recent (2022) shorelines. The maximumThe maximum SCE is 4941.95
4941.95 m, which
m,
which receded at Damietta for the period 1974–2043, followed by Rosetta and LakeManzala.
receded at Damietta for the period 1974–2043, followed by Rosetta and Lake Man- At
LakeAtBurullus,
zala. the change
Lake Burullus, in the
the change shoreline
in the shorelineisisminor
minor because
because the thelake
lakeis is very
very close to
close
tothe
thesea
seaand
and the
the water
water level
levelisisthe
thesame.
same.However,
However, some transects,
some such such
transects, as Alexandria,
as Alexandria,
Idko,
Idko,Baltim,
Baltim,Gamasa,
Gamasa, and Port
and Said,
Port recorded
Said, minor
recorded changes
minor in theinshoreline
changes due todue
the shoreline the to the
level
leveland
andprotection
protection measures
measures implemented
implemented by the government.
by the government. The maximum
The maximum EPR ofEPR of
102.96
102.96m/year
m/year is observed
is observed at Damietta.
at Damietta. Analysis of the
Analysis ofcritical sections
the critical is presented
sections in the in the
is presented
following
followingsection.
section.

(a)

Figure 6. Cont.
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 1737 11 of 21
Remote Sens. 2023, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 21

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)
Figure
Figure6.6.The
Theresults of of
results SCE, NSM,
SCE, EPR,
NSM, LRR,
EPR, andand
LRR, WLRWLR
at theatNile
the Delta for thefor
Nile Delta period 1974–2043:
the period 1974–2043:
(a) SCE, (b) NSM, (c) EPR, (d) LRR, (e) WLR.
(a) SCE, (b) NSM, (c) EPR, (d) LRR, (e) WLR.

3.4.
3.4.Analysis
Analysisof of
Shoreline Changes
Shoreline in the
Changes NileNile
in the Delta at Critical
Delta Sections
at Critical from 1974
Sections to 2043
from 1974 to 2043
Sites
Sitesofofcritical changes
critical changes in the shoreline
in the shorelinecan can
be discovered
be discoveredin more detaildetail
in more through the the
through
investigation of separate transect data. A comparison of changing shoreline
investigation of separate transect data. A comparison of changing shoreline position time position time
series
seriesdemonstrates
demonstrates thethe
importance
importance of considering
of considering the envelope
bothboth of variability
the envelope (SCE) (SCE)
of variability
and
and the net change (NSM and EPR). Figure 7 shows the projected shoreline atNile
the net change (NSM and EPR). Figure 7 shows the projected shoreline at the the Nile
Delta
Deltafrom
fromAlexandria
AlexandriatotoPort PortSaid
Saidfor
forthe
the7070years
yearsfrom
from1974
1974 toto
2043. The
2043. Thefigure shows
figure shows the
the shoreline change at the selected 11 transects. The maximum shoreline shift 4941.95 m
shoreline change at the selected 11 transects. The maximum shoreline shift 4941.95 m has
has occurred at Damietta and the maximum EPR is 102.96 m/year.
occurred at Damietta and the maximum EPR is 102.96 m/year.
Remote
RemoteSens.
Sens.2023,
2023,14,
15,x1737
FOR PEER REVIEW 1212 of 21
of 21

Figure 7. The projected

Figure projected shoreline
shorelineatatdifferent
differenttransects inin
transects the Nile
the Delta
Nile forfor
Delta thethe
period 1974–2043.
period 1974–2043.

Transects at
Transects at Alexandria,
Alexandria,Idku,Idku,Lake
LakeBurullus,
Burullus,Baltim,
Baltim,Gamasa,
Gamasa, and
andPort
Port Said show
Said show
steadiness in the shoreline positions because they represent high levels of land. Further-
steadiness in the shoreline positions because they represent high levels of land. Further-
more, the government has implemented some protection in these areas. These transects
more, the government has implemented some protection in these areas. These transects
show a minimum change in the shoreline. However, the shoreline has advanced substan-
show a minimum change in the shoreline. However, the shoreline has advanced substan-
tially during the whole period (70 years). During the late 20th century, the results revealed
tially during the whole period (70 years). During the late 20th century, the results revealed
an increased erosion. In most cases, changes between 1974 and 2000 is greater than changes
an increased
at any erosion.
other time. It hasIn most
been cases, that
observed changes betweenchanged
the shoreline 1974 and 2000
along the is
Nilegreater than
Delta in
changes
the period at 1974–2022,
any other time. It has
but three beenincluding
areas, observedRosetta,
that theDamietta,
shorelineandchanged along theare
Lake Manzala, Nile
Delta in the period 1974–2022, but three areas, including Rosetta, Damietta,
extremely affected by coastal erosion where the shoreline has shifted more inland. Five and Lake Man-
zala, are extremely
transects affected
at these three by coastal
areas have erosion where
been analyzed the shoreline
in the following has shifted
subsections: more in-
at Rosetta
land. Five2400),
(ID:2360, transects at these
Damietta three areas
(ID:5400, 5450),have beenManzala
and Lake analyzed(ID:6000).
in the following subsections:
at Rosetta (ID:2360, 2400), Damietta (ID:5400, 5450), and Lake Manzala (ID:6000).
3.4.1. Rosetta
3.4.1.AtRosetta
Rosetta, two profiles (2360 and 2400) were selected to highlight the rate of change
in theAtshoreline, as shown
Rosetta, two in Figure
profiles 8a. The
(2360 and 2400)time series
were of changing
selected the shoreline
to highlight the rateposition
of change
at Rosetta measured from the baseline for the two transects 2360 and 2400
in the shoreline, as shown in Figure 8a. The time series of changing the shoreline position is shown in
Figure 8b,c. The figure shows the shoreline for six time periods between
at Rosetta measured from the baseline for the two transects 2360 and 2400 is shown in 1974 and 2022, as
well as the estimated shoreline after ten and twenty years (2033 and 2043).
Figure 8b,c. The figure shows the shoreline for six time periods between 1974 and 2022, as
well as the estimated shoreline after ten and twenty years (2033 and 2043).
At the first transect (2360), the shoreline has moved inland by 2625.25 m in the period
1974–2022, and the forecast by DSAS showed that the shoreline will shift inland by 891.65
m by 2033 and 455.93 m by 2043. The time series shown in Figure 8b resulted in Equation
(1), which can be used to predict the shoreline position at any time with (R2 = 0.9018).
y = 49.429x − 89,033 (1)
where, y is the shoreline change (m) and x is the time (year).
At the second transect (2400), the shoreline has moved inland by 1585.48 m in the
period 1974–2022, and the forecast by DSAS showed that it will move inland by 537.61 m
by 2033 and 283.35 m by 2043. The time series shown in Figure 8b resulted in Equation
(2), which can be used to predict the shoreline position at any year with (R2 = 0.9125).
 Remote Sens. 2023, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 21

Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 1737 13 of 21

y = 30.428x – 51,164 (2)

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure
Figure8.8.Shoreline
Shorelinechanges
changesover
overtime
timeatatRosetta
Rosetta(1974–2043):
(1974–2043):(a)(a)shoreline
shorelinechange atatRosetta,
change Rosetta,(b)(b) time
time series of changing the shoreline position at transect 2360, (c) time series of changing the shore-
series of changing the shoreline position at transect 2360, (c) time series of changing the shoreline
line position at transect 2400.
position at transect 2400.
3.4.2. Damietta
At the first transect (2360), the shoreline has moved inland by 2625.25 m in the period
Two profiles
1974–2022, and the(5400 and 5450)
forecast were selected
by DSAS showed at Damietta
that to highlight
the shoreline the rate
will shift of change
inland by 891.65 m
in
by 2033 and 455.93 m by 2043. The time series shown in Figure 8b resulted inatEquation
the shoreline (see Figure 9a). The time series of the changing shoreline position Dam- (1),
ietta measured from the baseline for the two transects 5400 and 5450 is shown 2 in Figure
which can be used to predict the shoreline position at any time with (R = 0.9018).
9b,c. The figure shows the shoreline for six time periods between 1974 and 2022, as well
as the estimated shoreline after ten and y =twenty
49.429x years (2033 and 2043).
− 89,033 (1)
At transect 5400, the shoreline has moved inland by 1142.07 m in the period 1974–
2022,
where,andy the forecast
is the by DSAS
shoreline changeshowed thatxitiswill
(m) and the shift
timeinland
(year).by 395.01 m by 2033 and
198.69Atby the
2043. The time series shown in Figure 9b resulted
second transect (2400), the shoreline has moved in Equation
inland(3),
bywhich can m
1585.48 be in the
used to predict the shoreline position at any year with (R 2 = 0.9017).
period 1974–2022, and the forecast by DSAS showed that it will move inland by 537.61 m
by 2033 and 283.35 m by 2043. They time series− 33,473
= 21.566x shown in Figure 8b resulted in Equation
(3) (2),
which can be used to predict the shoreline position at any year with (R2 = 0.9125).

y = 30.428x − 51,164 (2)

Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 1737 14 of 21
Remote Sens. 2023, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 21

3.4.2.AtDamietta
transect 5450, the shoreline has moved inland by 1311.50 m in the period 1974–
2022, Two profiles
and the (5400
forecast by and
DSAS 5450) werethat
showed selected
it willat Damietta
shift to highlight
inland another themrate
454.79 of change
by 2033
in the
and shoreline
284.66 (seeThe
m by 2043. Figure
time9a).
seriesThe timeinseries
shown Figureof9bthe changing
resulted shoreline
in Equation position at
(4), which
Damietta
can be usedmeasured from
to predict the the baseline
shoreline positionforatthe
anytwo
yeartransects
with (R2 =5400 and 5450 is shown in
0.9814).
Figure 9b,c. The figure shows the shoreline for six time periods between 1974 and 2022, as
y = 28.856x – 48,316 (4)
well as the estimated shoreline after ten and twenty years (2033 and 2043).

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure
Figure9.9.Shoreline changes
Shoreline changesoverover
timetime
at Damietta (1974–2043):
at Damietta (a) shoreline
(1974–2043): change atchange
(a) shoreline Damietta, (b)
at Damietta,
time series of changing the shoreline position at transect 5400, (c) time series of changing the shore-
(b) time series of changing the shoreline position at transect 5400, (c) time series of changing the
line position at transect 5450.
shoreline position at transect 5450.
3.4.3. Lake Manzala
At transect 5400, the shoreline has moved inland by 1142.07 m in the period 1974–2022,
and One profile (ID:
the forecast by 6000)
DSASwas chosen
showed to demonstrate
that the rateby
it will shift inland of395.01
changeminbythe2033
shoreline
and 198.69
at
by 2043. The time series shown in Figure 9b resulted in Equation (3), which can bethe
Lake Manzala, as seen in Figure 10a. Figure 10b depicts the relationship between used to
predicted
predict thecoastline after
shoreline 10 and 20
position atyears (2033with
any year and 2043)
(R2 = and the shoreline change assessed
0.9017).
from the baseline during six time periods from 1974 to 2022. At transect (6000), the shore-
line has moved inland by 431.76 m in y =the period−1974–2022,
21.566x 33,473 and the forecast by DSAS (3)
showed that it will shift inland by 120.34 m by 2033 and 80.52 m by 2043. The time series
shown Figure 10b
Atintransect resulted
5450, in Equation
the shoreline (5), which
has moved canby
inland be1311.50
used to m
predict
in thethe shoreline
period 1974–2022,
position at any year with (R 2 = 0.9767).
and the forecast by DSAS showed that it will shift inland another 454.79 m by 2033 and
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 1737 15 of 21

284.66 m by 2043. The time series shown in Figure 9b resulted in Equation (4), which can
be used to predict the shoreline position at any year with (R2 = 0.9814).

y = 28.856x − 48,316 (4)

3.4.3. Lake Manzala

One profile (ID: 6000) was chosen to demonstrate the rate of change in the shoreline
at Lake Manzala, as seen in Figure 10a. Figure 10b depicts the relationship between the
predicted coastline after 10 and 20 years (2033 and 2043) and the shoreline change assessed
from the baseline during six time periods from 1974 to 2022. At transect (6000), the shoreline
has moved inland by 431.76 m in the period 1974–2022, and the forecast by15 DSAS
Remote Sens. 2023, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW of 21 showed
that it will shift inland by 120.34 m by 2033 and 80.52 m by 2043. The time series shown in
Figure 10b resulted in Equation (5), which can be used to predict the shoreline position at
any year with (R2 = 0.9767).
y = 8.42x − 1425.7 (5)
y = 8.42x − 1425.7 (5)

(a)

(b)
Figure
Figure10.
10.Shoreline
Shoreline changes overover
changes timetime
at Lake Manzala
at Lake (1974–2043):
Manzala (a) shoreline
(1974–2043): change at change
(a) shoreline Lake at Lake
Manzala, (b) time series of changing the shoreline position at transect 6000.
Manzala, (b) time series of changing the shoreline position at transect 6000.
4.
4. Discussion
Discussion
The DSAS tool with GIS is used to investigate the historical trend and the changes in
The DSAS tool with GIS is used to investigate the historical trend and the changes in
the Nile Delta shoreline based on historical data from 1974 to 2022. Then, DSAS is used to
the Nile Delta shoreline based on historical data from 1974 to 2022. Then, DSAS is used to
predict the shoreline for 10 and 20 years (2033 and 2043). The incorporation of DSAS into
predict
the ArcGIStheenvironment
shoreline fornot10 and
only 20 yearsthe
improves (2033 and 2043).
software’s The incorporation
functionality, but also makes of itDSAS into
the ArcGIS environment not only improves the software’s functionality,
possible to compute scales and rates of change statistics using a variety of historical shore-but also makes
line positions and sources. The DSAS tool is effective in mapping and identifying coastline historical
it possible to compute scales and rates of change statistics using a variety of
shoreline
erosion andpositions
accretion onand
thesources. The DSAS tool
coastal environment, is effective
as well in mapping
as measuring historicaland identifying
shore-
coastline
line erosion
geometry and accretion
movement. The DSAS onextension
the coastal environment,
in the as wellmakes
ArcGIS environment as measuring
it simple historical
and easy togeometry
shoreline measure changes in the coastal
movement. environment
The DSAS extensionon yearly, decadal, environment
in the ArcGIS and historical makes it
time
simple and easy to measure changes in the coastal environment on yearly,infor-
scales. The case study presented here shows how DSAS can offer insightful decadal, and
mation on the
historical time scales. The caseshoreline
morphodynamical behavior,here
study presented including
shows shifting the position
how DSAS andinsightful
can offer
changes in geometry, the detection of erosion and deposition areas, and variation in pla-
information on the morphodynamical shoreline behavior, including shifting the position
nimetric properties of the coastal environment.
The profiles at five critical sections were analyzed, and linear equations were devel-
oped for each profile that can be used to calculate the shoreline position in the future. The
shoreline movement for 70 years from 1974 to 2043 is plotted in Figure 11. The figure
shows a comparison between the results for the shoreline at five critical sections at Rosetta
and Damietta. As shown in the figure, the maximum inland movement was observed at
transect 2360 at Rosetta and the minimum was observed at transect 6000 at Lake Manzala.
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 1737 16 of 21

and changes in geometry, the detection of erosion and deposition areas, and variation in
planimetric properties of the coastal environment.
The profiles at five critical sections were analyzed, and linear equations were devel-
oped for each profile that can be used to calculate the shoreline position in the future. The
shoreline movement for 70 years from 1974 to 2043 is plotted in Figure 11. The figure
shows a comparison between the results for the shoreline at five critical sections at Rosetta
and Damietta. As shown in the figure, the maximum inland movement was
Remote Sens. 2023, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 ofobserved
21 at
Remote Sens. 2023, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
transect 2360 at Rosetta and the minimum was observed at transect 6000 at16Lake of 21Manzala.

Figure 11. Comparison between shoreline changes at critical sections in the period 1974–2043.
Figure 11. Comparison between shoreline changes at critical sections in the period 1974–2043.
Figure 11. Comparison between shoreline changes at critical sections in the period 1974–2043.
The results showed that Rosseta and Damietta are the areas most affected by changes
The results showed that Rosseta and Damietta are the areas most affected by changes
in theThe results showed
shoreline. Figure 12that Rosseta
shows and Damietta
the shoreline are in
change thethe
areas
Nilemost affected
Delta from 1974by changes
to 2022
in
inthe
the shoreline.
shoreline. Figure
Figure 1212 shows
shows the the shoreline
shoreline change
change in the in theDelta
Nile Nilefrom
Delta from
1974 1974 to 2022
to 2022
(six periods) in addition to two forecasted years in 2033 and 2043, focusing on Rosetta and
(six periods)
(six periods)
Damietta. in addition
in addition
In general, theto to two forecasted
two forecasted
results years
of shoreline years in
in 2033
change 2033
forand and 2043,
2043,reveal
70 years focusingfocusing
thatonthe on
Rosetta Rosetta and
and
shoreline
Damietta.
Damietta.
has changed Ingeneral,
In general,the
the
dramatically results
results
in of shoreline
theofstudy
shoreline atchange
change
period for 70for
Rosetta 70
years
and years that
reveal
Damietta, revealthethat
which the shoreline
shoreline
requires
has
has changed
more changed dramatically
dramatically
assessment in in
and protection thethe study
study
measures. period
period at Rosetta
at Rosetta and Damietta,
and Damietta, which requires
which requires
more
more assessment
assessment andandprotection
protection measures.
measures.

Figure 12. Shoreline changes at Rosetta and Damietta in the period 1974–2043.
Figure 12. Shoreline changes at Rosetta and Damietta in the period 1974–2043.
Figure 12. Shoreline changes at Rosetta and Damietta in the period 1974–2043.
Limited studies have been conducted on the shoreline change in the Nile Delta. The
Limited
shoreline studies have
kinematics been due
response conducted on the shoreline
to the existence changemeasures
of protection in the NileatDelta. The
Damietta
shoreline
using kinematics
satellite imagesresponse due to
was assessed bythe existence
Esmail et al., of protection
(2019) measures
[68]. Their studyat Damietta
focused on
using
the satellitechange
shoreline imagesduring
was assessed byfrom
the period Esmail
1990et to
al.,2015
(2019) [68]. Their
(25 years) basedstudy focused
on four on
Landsat
the shoreline change during the period from 1990 to 2015 (25 years) based on four Landsat
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 1737 17 of 21

Limited studies have been conducted on the shoreline change in the Nile Delta. The
shoreline kinematics response due to the existence of protection measures at Damietta
using satellite images was assessed by Esmail et al. (2019) [68]. Their study focused on
the shoreline change during the period from 1990 to 2015 (25 years) based on four Landsat
images from 1990, 1999, 2003, and 2015. They focused on three zones in the western,
central and eastern portions of Damietta. The first zone is at Damietta port, where the
results showed that the shoreline has advanced west of the port with an average rate
of +10.87 m/year and an erosion of the shoreline has occurred east of the port, with an
average rate of −4.80 m/year. The second zone is Ras El Bar resort beach, which was
protected, and the results showed that the shoreline behind the structure has progressed
with an average rate of +7.0 m/year. A highly affected zone was the third zone is the
eastern part of Damietta promontory, where the results showed that the erosion rate
was assessed to be from −45.60 to −61.10 m/year during the period 1990 to 1999 and
from −31.6 to −77.0 m/year during the period from 1999 to 2015, with an average rate of
−45.3 to −70.5 m/year.
The coastal area at Rosetta was assessed by Balbaa et al. (2020) [69], who analyzed
the shoreline change pattern from 1985 to 2015 to estimate the relation between the coastal
changes and the physical properties of the coastal sediments using remote sensing imagery
by the MNDWI index. The results revealed that Rosetta suffered from erosion during the
study period (30 years). On the eastern side of Rosetta, the average erosion rate reached
−50 m/year and on the western side, the average erosion rate reached −15.5 m/year
during the whole period (30 years). GIS was applied by Deabes (2017) [70] to assess the
shoreline change rates due to constructing marine structures, including a seawall and
detached breakwaters and groins. The analysis was based on the beach-nearshore profile
surveys between 1970 and 2010. The results showed that main erosion occurred along the
Delta promontories. The shoreline of Rosetta retreated (1.6 km) with an average rate of
60 m/year. The coastline of Burullus bulge recessed with average rate of 6 m/year, and
at Damietta (Ras El-Bar), the shoreline receded (6 m/year). El-Quilish et al. (2022) [71]
built a model using GIS and a local digital elevation model (LDEM) to find the low-lying
areas sensitive to inundation from future SLR in 2050 and to find the land-use types and
percentages that were affected in the Nile Delta; they also produced a hazard index map
(HIM). The results showed that the area inundated due to SLR in 2050 totals to about
50 km2 , and the flooded areas represent 38.40 km2 for urban areas, 3.80 km2 for agricultural
lands, 5.20 km2 for fishing farms, and 2.60 km2 for bare areas.
The three abovementioned studies [68–70] used different tools for assessing the shore-
line change in the Nile Delta for different periods and, to some extent, provided different
results due to the application of different methods for different periods. Esmail et al.’s
(2019) [68] study focused on Damietta for 25 years (1990–2015); the Balbaa et al. (2020) [69]
study focused on Rosetta for 30 years (1985–2015), and Deabes (2017) [70] used data from
beach-nearshore profile surveys for 40 years (1970–2010).
The current study results are similar to the results of the above studies, but the results
of the current study are slightly different from other studies because the transect are not
exactly in the same places as those from previous studies. This means that the study
confirms the erosion hotspots identified in previous works and complements those studies
by assessing areas not previously assessed. Furthermore, the differences in shoreline trends
observed from those studies may be justified by the fact that the current study used different
methods and a different shoreline time series, as ours was a longer time series. In addition,
the results showed that the erosion rate ranged between 30–60 and 10–25 m/year at Rosetta
and Damietta, respectively. The current study used a DSAS based on data for 49 years
(1974–2022), which is more recent and up to date. Then, DSAS is used to forecast the change
in the shoreline after 10 and 20 years (2033 and 2043), which thus resulted in a longer
period of 70 years (1974–2043) that was used for the time series of changing the shoreline at
different transects and for extracting a linear equation for each transect, which can help in
predicting the shoreline change.
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 1737 18 of 21

This methodology can be applied in different areas, as mentioned in the review, but
the application of this methodology has some limitations, such as predicting the pattern of
coastline behavior based on the historical rate of change trends as an indicator of future
trends by DSAS, assuming the steadiness in physical, natural, or anthropogenic forces that
caused the detected changes. We also recommend conducting a deep study that depends
on field measurements in order to include the effect of instantaneous water levels on
monitoring the shoreline position, which was provided by Castelle et al. (2022) [72] to
assess the shoreline change in Truc Vert, France.

5. Conclusions
Coastal areas are among those most impacted by sea level rise and climate change.
Egypt’s coastal regions are anticipated to have large direct impacts due to the expected sea
level rise (0.20–0.88 m) by the end of the 21st century. Egypt’s Mediterranean coastline,
especially the Nile Delta, is below the mean sea level that will be most affected by sea level
rise. In this study, the change in the shoreline of the Nile Delta was investigated for the
period 1974–2022 using the Digital Shoreline Analysis System (DSAS) with the ArcGIS
environment. Then, GIS was utilized to identify changes in the shoreline and forecast future
changes for the next 10 and 20 years (2033 and 2043). The results revealed that the shoreline
of the Nile Delta was extremely affected and the predictions showed continuous erosion in
2033 and 2043, especially at the Rosetta and Damietta sites. In this study, the most critical
sections were selected and more focus was placed on these sections. Five critical sections
were selected and analyzed at Rosetta, Damietta, and Lake Manzala, and linear equations
were developed for each profile that can be used to calculate the shoreline change. The
calculated erosion rate ranged from 30–60 m/year at Rosetta, 10–25 m/year at Damietta and
8–15 m/year at Lake Manzala. Continued erosion of the Nile Delta shoreline could have
severe consequences on different segments, including ports, buildings, roads, railways,
and inhabitants, which in turn affects the economy. The findings of this study may aid
in protecting the Nile Delta from SLR using appropriate strategies to stop coastal erosion.
The results of this research could be used by decision-makers to implement strategies for
integrated coastal zone management that incorporates an increased awareness and urban
growth management to protect the affected areas.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.F.A.-E., M.M. and M.Z.; methodology, H.F.A.-E. and
M.M.; software, M.Z.; validation, J.B. and M.B.G.; formal analysis, H.F.A.-E.; investigation, M.Z.;
resources, M.M.; data curation, M.B.G.; writing—original draft preparation, H.F.A.-E. and M.M.;
writing—review and editing, M.Z., J.B. and M.B.G.; visualization, M.B.G. and J.B.; supervision,
H.F.A.-E. and M.Z.; project administration, H.F.A.-E. and M.Z.; funding acquisition, J.B. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: This work was supported by the SCORE (Smart Control of the Climate Resilience
in European Coastal Cities) project, funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and
innovation program under grant agreement No. 101003534.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or
in the decision to publish the results.

References
1. IPCC. Climate Change: The Science of Climate Change: Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Houghton, J.T., Meira Fihlo, L.G., Callander, B.A., Harris, N., Kattenberg, A., Maskell,
K., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 1996.
2. IPCC. Climate Change Impacts, Adaptations, and Vulnerability: Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; McCarthy, J.J., Canziani, O.F., Leary, N.A., Dokken, D.J., White, K.S., Eds.; Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2001.
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 1737 19 of 21

3. Nicholls, R.J.; Hoozemans, F.M.J. The Mediterranean: Vulnerability to coastal implications of climate change. J. Ocean Coast.
Manag. 1996, 31, 105–132. [CrossRef]
4. Ciritci, D.; Türk, T. Assessment of the Kalman filter-based future shoreline prediction method. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020,
17, 3801–3816. [CrossRef]
5. Dasgupta, S.; Laplante, B.; Meisner, C.; Wheeler, D.; Yan, J. The impact of sea level rise on developing countries: A comparative
analysis. J. Clim. Chang. 2009, 93, 379–388. [CrossRef]
6. Baric, A.; Grbec, B.; Bogner, D. Potential Implications of Sea-Level Rise for Croatia. J. Coast. Res. 2008, 24, 299–305. [CrossRef]
7. Fenger, J.; Buch, E.; Jakobsen, P.R.; Vestergaard, P. Danish Attitudes and Reactions to the Threat of Sea-Level Rise. J. Coast. Res.
2008, 24, 394–402. [CrossRef]
8. Taormina, R.; Chau, K. Neural Network River Forecasting with Multi-Objective Fully Informed Particle Swarm Optimization. J.
Hydroinform. 2015, 17, 99–113. [CrossRef]
9. Fanos, A.M.; Khafagy, A.A.; Dean, R.G. Protective works on the Nile Delta. J. Coast. Res. 1995, 11, 516–528.
10. El-Raey, M.; Dewidar, K.; El Hattab, M. Adaptation to the impact of sea level rise in Egypt. J. Clim. Res. 1999, 12, 117–128.
[CrossRef]
11. Heikal, E.M.; Koraim, A.S.; Abozaid, A.A. Protecting coasts from probable sea level rise by using porous vertical seawall. Egypt.
Int. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2012, 15, 1233–1243.
12. El-Raey, M.; Nasr, S.; Frihy, O.; Desouk, S.; Dowidar, K. Potential impacts of accelerated sea-level rise on Alexandria Governorate,
Egypt. J. Coast. Res. 1995, 51, 190–204.
13. El-Raey, M. Impacts and Implications of Climate Change for the Coastal Zones of Egypt. Coast. Zones Clim. Chang. 2010, 7, 31–50.
14. Frihy, O.F.; Deabes, M.; Shereet, S.M.; Abdalla, F.A. Alexandria-Nile Delta coast, Egypt: Update and future projection of relative
sea-level rise. Environ. Earth Sci. 2010, 61, 253–273. [CrossRef]
15. Abou-Mahmoud, M.M.E. Assessing coastal susceptibility to sea-level rise in Alexandria, Egypt. Egypt. J. Aquat. Res. 2021, 47,
133–141. [CrossRef]
16. Chen, Z.; Warne, A.G.; Stanley, D.J. Late Quaternary evolution of the Northern Nile Delta between Rosetta Promontory and
Alexandria, Egypt. J. Coast. Res. 1992, 3, 527–561.
17. Basiouny, M.E.; El Kafrawy, S.B.; Ghanem, E.A.; Taha, A. Shoreline change rate detection and future prediction using remote
sensing and GIS techniques: A case study of Ras EL-Hekma, Northwestern Coast, Egypt. J. Geogr. Environ. Earth Sci. Int. 2017, 9,
1–14.
18. Abdel Hamid, M.A.; Shreshta, D.; Valenzuela, C. Delineating, mapping and monitoring of soil salinity in the Northern Nile Delta
(Egypt) using Landsat data and a geographic information system. Egypt. J. Soil Sci. 1992, 32, 463–481.
19. Tetra, T. Shoreline Master Plan for the Nile Delta Coast: Progress Report 1; Tetra Tech: Pasadena, CA, USA, 1984.
20. Frihy, O.E.; Deabes, E.A. Beach and nearshore morpho dynamics of the central bulge of the Nile Delta Coast, Egypt. Int. J. Environ.
Prot. 2011, 1, 33–46.
21. El-Fishawi, N. Relative changes in sea level from tide gauge records at Burrulus, central part of the Nile Delta coast. INQUA
MBSS Newsl. 1994, 16, 53–61.
22. Eid, F.M.; Sharaf El-Din, S.H.; El-Din, K.A.A. Sea level variation along the Suez Canal. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 1997, 44, 613–619.
[CrossRef]
23. Iskander, M.M.; Frihy, O.E.; El Ansary, A.E.; Abd El Mooty, M.M.; Nagy, H.M. Beach impacts of shore parallel breakwaters
backing ofshore submerged ridges, western Mediterranean coast of Egypt. J. Environ. Manag. 2007, 85, 1109–1119. [CrossRef]
24. Frihy, O.E.; Lawrence, D. Evolution of the modern Nile Delta promontories: Development of accretional features during shoreline
retreat. Environ. Geol. 2004, 46, 914–931. [CrossRef]
25. Sestini, G. Nile Delta: A review of depositional environments and geological history. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 2007, 41, 99–127.
[CrossRef]
26. El-Dardir, M. Sedimentation in Nile High Dam reservoir, 1987–1992, and sedimentary futurologic aspects. Sediment. Egypt 1994, 2,
23–39.
27. Orlova, G.; Zenkovich, V. Erosion of the shores of the Nile Delta. Geoforum 1974, 18, 68–72. [CrossRef]
28. Smith, S.E.; Abdel-Kader, A. Coastal erosion along the Egyptian delta. J. Coast. Res. 1988, 4, 245–255.
29. Lotfy, M.F.; Frihy, O.E. Sediment balance in the nearshore zone of the Nile Delta coast. Egypt. J. Coast. Res. 1993, 9, 654–662.
30. Stanley, D.J. Nile delta: Extreme case of sediment entrapment on a delta plain and consequent coastal land loss. Mar. Geol. 1996,
129, 189–195. [CrossRef]
31. El-Asmar, H.; Ehite, K. Changes in coastal sediment transport processes due to construction of New Damietta Harbour, Nile
Delta. Egypt Coast. Eng. 2002, 46, 127–138. [CrossRef]
32. White, K.; El-Asmar, H.M. Monitoring changing position of coastlines using thematic mapper imagery, an example from the nile
delta. Geomorphology 1999, 29, 93–105. [CrossRef]
33. Kafrawy, S.; Ahmed, M. Monitoring and protection of Egyptian Northern Lakes using remote sensing technology, environmental
remote sensing in Egypt. In Environmental Remote Sensing in Egypt; Springer Geophysics; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany,
2020; pp. 231–284.
34. Gergelova, M.; Kuzevicová, Ž.; Kovanic, L.; Kuzevic, Š. Automation of spatial model creation in GIS environment. J. Pol. Miner.
Eng. Soc. 2014, 15, 15–22.
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 1737 20 of 21

35. Fonte, J.; Meunier, E.; Gonçalves, J.; Dias, F.; Lima, A.; Gonçalves-Seco, L.; Figueiredo, E. An Integrated Remote-Sensing and GIS
Approach for Mapping Past Tin Mining Landscapes in Northwest Iberia. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 3434. [CrossRef]
36. Gergelova, M.; Kuzevičová, Ž.; Kuzevič, Š.; Sabolová, J. Hydrodynamic modeling and GIS tools applied in urban areas. Acta
Montan. Slovaca 2013, 18, 226–233.
37. Zhang, Z.; Zheng, L.; Piao, Y.; Tao, S.; Xu, W.; Gao, T.; Wu, X. Blind Remote Sensing Image Deblurring Using Local Binary Pattern
Prior. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1276. [CrossRef]
38. Tang, Z.; Chen, C.; Jiang, C.; Zhang, D.; Luo, W.; Hong, Z.; Sun, H. Capsule–Encoder–Decoder: A Method for Generalizable
Building Extraction from Remote Sensing Images. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1235. [CrossRef]
39. 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; Open-File Report; US Geological Survey Report No. 2008-1278; USGS: Reston, VA, USA,
2009.
40. Temitope, D.; Oyedotun, T. Shoreline Geometry: DSAS as a Tool for Historical Trend Analysis, British Society for Geomorphology.
Geomorph. Techn. 2014, 3, 12.
41. Carrasco, A.R.; Ferreira, Ó.; Matias, A.; Freire, P. Natural and human-induced coastal dynamics at a back-barrier beach.
Geomorphology 2012, 159, 30–36. [CrossRef]
42. Montreuil, A.-L.; Bullard, J.E. A 150-year record of coastline dynamics within a sediment cell: Eastern England. Geomorphology
2012, 179, 168–185. [CrossRef]
43. González-Villanueva, R.; Costas, S.; PérezArlucea, M.; Jerez, S.; Trigo, R.M. Impact of atmospheric circulation patterns on coastal
dune dynamics, NW Spain. Geomorphology 2013, 185, 96–109. [CrossRef]
44. Jabaloy-Sánchez, A.; Lobo, F.J.; Azor, A.; Martín, R.W.; Pérez-Peña, J.V.; Bárcenas, P.; Macías, J.M.; Fernández-Salas, L.M.; Vázquez
Vílchez, M. Six thousand years of coastline evolution in the Guadalfeo deltaic system (southern Iberian Peninsula). Geomorphology
2014, 206, 374–391. [CrossRef]
45. 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]
46. Houser, C.; Mathew, S. Alongshore variation in foredune height in response to transport potential and sediment supply: South
Padre Island, Texas. Geomorphology 2011, 125, 62–72. [CrossRef]
47. Brooks, S.M.; Spencer, T. Temporal and spatial variation in recession rates and sediment release from soft rock cliffs, Suffolk coast,
UK. Geomorphology 2010, 124, 26–41. [CrossRef]
48. Restrepo, A.J.D. Assessing the effect of sea-level and human activities on a major delta on the Pacific coast of northern South
America: The Patía River. Geomorphology 2012, 151, 207–223. [CrossRef]
49. Beetham, E.P.; Kench, P.S. Wave energy gradients and shoreline change on Vabbinfaru platform, Maldives. Geomorphology 2014,
209, 98–110. [CrossRef]
50. Hapke, C.J.; Kratzmann, M.G.; Himmelstoss, E.A. Geomorphic and human influence on large-scale coastal change. Geomorphology
2013, 199, 160–170. [CrossRef]
51. Rio, L.D.; Gracia, J.F. Erosion risk assessment of active coastal cliffs in temperate environments. Geomorphology 2009, 112, 82–95.
52. Leyland, J.; Darby, S.E. An empirical conceptual gully evolution model for channelled sea cliffs. Geomorphology 2008, 102, 419–434.
[CrossRef]
53. Draut, A.E.; Logan, J.B.; Mastin, M.C. Channel evolution on the dammed Elwha River, Washington, USA. Geomorphology 2011,
127, 71–87. [CrossRef]
54. Rio, L.D.; Gracia, J.F.; Benavente, J. Shoreline change patterns in sandy coasts. A case study in SW Spain. Geomorphology 2013, 196,
252–266.
55. Brooks, S.M.; Spencer, T.; Boreham, S. Deriving mechanisms and thresholds for cliff retreat in soft-rock cliffs under changing
climates: Rapidly retreating cliffs of the Suffolk coast, UK. Geomorphology 2012, 153, 48–60. [CrossRef]
56. Katz, O.; Mushkin, A. Characteristics of sea-cliff erosion induced by a strong winter storm in the eastern Mediterranean. Quat.
Res. 2013, 80, 20–32. [CrossRef]
57. Young, A.P.; Flick, R.E.; O’Reilly, W.C.; Chadwicj, D.B.; Crampton, W.C.; Helly, J.J. Estimating cliff retreat in southern California
considering sea level rise using a sand balance approach. Mar. Geol. 2014, 348, 15–26. [CrossRef]
58. Hackney, C.; Darby, S.E.; Leyland, J. Modelling the response of soft cliffs to climate change: A statistical, process-response model
using accumulated excess energy. Geomorphology 2013, 187, 108–121. [CrossRef]
59. Thébaudeau, B.; Trenhaile, A.S.; Edwards, R.J. Modelling the development of rocky shoreline profiles along the northern coast of
Ireland. Geomorphology 2013, 203, 66–78. [CrossRef]
60. Gonçalves, G.; Santos, S.; Duarte, D.; Gomes, J. Monitoring Local Shoreline Changes by Integrating UASs, Airborne LiDAR,
Historical Images and Orthophotos. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Geographical Information Systems
Theory, Applications and Management GISTAM, Heraklion, Greece, 3–5 May 2019.
61. Shenbagaraj, N.; Senthil, K.; Mohamed, R.A.; Leostalin, J.; Naresh, K.M. Mapping and Electronic Publishing of Shoreline Changes
using UAV Remote Sensing and GIS. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens. 2021, 49, 1769–1777. [CrossRef]
62. Amodio, A.M.; Paola, G.D.; Rosskopf, C.M. Monitoring Coastal Vulnerability by Using DEMs Based on UAV Spatial Data. ISPRS
Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2022, 11, 155. [CrossRef]
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 1737 21 of 21

63. Abd-Elhamid, H.F.; Zeleňáková, M.; Mahdy, M. Assessing the impact of climate change and sea level rise on the shoreline of
Alexandria city—Recreation area. In Proceedings of the Public Recreation and Landscape Protection-with the Environment Hand
in Hand, Brno, Czech Republic, 9–11 May 2022.
64. Stanley, D.; Warne, A. Nile Delta: Recent geological evolution and human impact. Science 1993, 260, 628–634. [CrossRef]
65. Kalman, R.E. A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems. J. Fluids Eng. 1960, 82, 35–45. [CrossRef]
66. Long, J.W.; Plant, N.G. Extended Kalman Filter framework for forecasting shoreline evolution. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2012, 39, 13.
[CrossRef]
67. Himmelstoss, E.A.; Farris, A.S.; Henderson, R.E.; Kratzmann, M.G.; Ergul, A.; Zhang, O.; Zichichi, J.L.; Thieler, E.R. Digital
Shoreline Analysis System, Version 5.0; USGS: Reston, VA, USA, 2018.
68. Esmail, M.; Mahmod, W.E.; Fath, H. Assessment and prediction of shoreline change using multi-temporal satellite images and
statistics: Case study of Damietta coast, Egypt. Appl. Ocean Res. 2019, 82, 274–282. [CrossRef]
69. Balbaa, S.H.; El-Gamal, A.A.; Mansour, A.S.; Rashed, M.A. Mapping and Monitoring of Rosetta Promontory Shoreline Pattern
Change, Egypt. J. Oceanogr. Mar. Environ. Syst. 2020, 4, 29–42.
70. Deabes, E.A.M. Applying ArcGIS to Estimate the Rates of Shoreline and Back-Shore Area Changes along the Nile Delta Coast,
Egypt. Int. J. Geosci. 2017, 8, 332–348. [CrossRef]
71. El-Quilish, M.; El-Ashquer, M.; Dawod, G.; El Fiky, G. Development of an Inundation Model for the Northern Coastal Zone of the
Nile Delta Region, Egypt Using High-Resolution DEM. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2023, 48, 601–614. [CrossRef]
72. Castelle, B.; Masselink, G.; Scott, T.; Stokes, C.; Konstantinou, A.; Marieu, V.; Bujan, S. Satellite-derived shoreline detection at a
high-energy meso-macrotidal beach. Geomorphology 2021, 383, 107707. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.