Journal of Coastal Research

28

14041417

Coconut Creek, Florida

November 2012

Longshore Sediment Transport on the Northern Coast of

the Yucatan Peninsula
Christian M. Appendini, Paulo Salles, E. Tonatiuh Mendoza, Jose Lopez, and
Alec Torres-Freyermuth

www.cerf-jcr.org

Laboratorio de Ingeniera y Procesos Costeros

Instituto de Ingeniera
Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
Puerto de Abrigo s/n
Sisal, Yucatan 92718, Mexico
cappendinia@iingen.unam.mx

ABSTRACT
Appendini, C.M.; Salles, P.; Mendoza, E.T.; Lopez, J., and Torres-Freyermuth, A., 2012. Longshore sediment transport
on the northern coast of the Yucatan Peninsula. Journal of Coastal Research, 28(6), 14041417. Coconut Creek (Florida),
ISSN 0749-0208.
This paper presents a qualitative assessment of coastal processes along the northern coast of the Yucatan Peninsula
based on a method used to estimate the potential longshore sediment transport. Despite the deep-water low-energy wave
conditions (Hs 5 1 m) in the study area, erosion is critical in many locations, including the urbanized stretches of coast.
The waves were characterized using a 12 y (19972009) deep-water wave hindcast data (WAVEWATCH III) as forcing for
a spectral wind-wave numerical model (MIKE 21 SW) used to propagate the waves to the coast. Simulated time series of
significant wave height, peak period, and direction are compared against in situ measurements at 10 m water depth.
Numerical results are further employed for estimation of the nearshore wave climate along the coast. Wave conditions
are strongly affected by the wide continental shelf in front of the northern Yucatan Peninsula, with an increase in wave
energy at the eastern part of the peninsula where the shelf narrows. The nearshore wave climate is employed for the
qualitative assessment of potential longshore sediment transport (LITDRIFT model) in the study area. The sediment
transport calculations are consistent with both volume impoundment estimations at a groin and dredging estimates at a
harbor (235,000 m3/y). A net westward potential longshore sediment transport is found along the entire coast, ranging
between 220,000 and 280,000 m3/y, except west of Holbox, where longshore transport direction is inverted. Based on
sediment transport gradients, potential erosion and deposition areas are identified. Erosion/accretion patterns at
nonurbanized areas are consistent with field observations. This dominant westward longshore transport suggests an
extremely sensitive shoreline to littoral barriers, as supported by observations in the most urbanized areas. These areas
show no gradients on longshore sediment transport, whereas beach erosion is a common feature enhanced by littoral
barriers. Shore protection should then be oriented toward sediment management strategies.
Gulf of Mexico, Yucatan, wave climate, longshore sediment transport, WAVEWATCH
III, MIKE 21 SW, LITDRIFT, beach erosion.

ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS:

INTRODUCTION
Population increases in coastal areas exceed any other area
in the world, with more than one-third of the population living
within 100 km from the shore (GESAMP, 2001), resulting in an
increased pressure to the fragile coastal systems. Unfortunately, anthropogenic interventions and poor management have
often produced increased levels of vulnerability and risk. The
Yucatan coast in Mexico is not an exception as an area exposed
to coastal hazards, increased population growth, and lack of
long-term monitoring programs and integrated management.
Indeed, this area has experienced severe coastal erosion in the
last decades (Figure 1a), and hence several actions, such as
hard protection and small-scale sand nourishments, have been
taken to mitigate the problem (Meyer-Arendt, 1991, 1993),

DOI: 10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-11-00162.1 received 30 August 2011;

accepted in revision 17 December 2011.
Published Pre-print online 15 May 2012.
Coastal Education & Research Foundation 2012

either by the government (Figures 1bd) or by local inhabitants (Figures 1ef) ,with limited success. However, one of the
major problems towards the implementation of integrated
programs in this area has been the lack of reliable information
on wave climate and sediment transport patterns.
In order to provide solutions to coastal erosion problems, both
reference conditions on wave climate and sediment transport
patterns are critical starting points. While wave conditions are
relatively easy to determine, either by wave hindcast/reanalysis or long-term measurements, sediment transport is a
complex process involving a vast quantity of parameters.
Mathematical models for determining sediment transport have
been developed to establish sediment transport rates based on
wave and current conditions, sediment properties, beach slope,
and other parameters. Despite the wide use of such models to
determine quantitative values of sediment transport rates,
these have been criticized due to the uncertainties involved in
describing a complex process involving a vast quantity of
variables that are not very well understood (Cooper and Pilkey,
2004a, 2004b; Pilkey and Cooper, 2007; Thieler et al., 2000).

Sediment Transport in Yucatan

1405

information here derived for driving the sediment transport

model, followed by the PLST estimates. The model results are
compared with observations, and a discussion of the discrepancies between both is also given, with emphasis on the
qualitative results. Finally, concluding remarks are presented.

STUDY AREA

Figure 1. Example of coastal erosion at the Yucatan coast (a); coastal

protection measures taken by the government: geotube (b), groins (c), and
sand replenishment (d); and espolones (e, f), a type of groin characteristically build independently by beachfront homeowners in Yucatan.

In addition, such authors emphasize the advantages of

performing qualitative assessment of longshore sediment
transport using mathematical models, in the sense that
controlling the number of constant and variable parameters
allows the understanding of the general patterns and dominant
mechanisms of coastal processes. Considering that the coast of
Yucatan has been seldom studied, this paper presents a first
approximation to qualitatively estimate gradients in potential
longshore sediment transport (PLST) along the coast. PLST is
defined in this paper as the expected sediment transport
considering an unlimited sediment supply, given the inherent
numerical model and data availability limitations.
Therefore, the aim of this paper is twofold: (i) to qualitatively
estimate the large-scale sediment transport along the northern
Yucatan coast, and (ii) to identify potential erosion and
accretion areas based on the PLST gradients. In this study,
we consider that, while extreme wave events result in beach
erosion with damaging consequences, it is the day to day
chronic erosion that undermines the buffer capacity of beaches
to protect themselves during storms (Appendini and Fischer,
1998; Fischer, 1985). As such, chronic erosion is a result of the
longshore sediment transport patterns, which are driven by the
mean wave climate, determined in the study.
The outline of this paper is the following. First, the available
data for the study area are briefly described. Next, a description
of the wave and sediment transport models employed is given.
The results and discussion section presents the nearshore wave

The study area encompasses the northern coast of the

Yucatan Peninsula (Figure 2) extending from Celestun (Yucatan) to north of Cancun (Quintana Roo). A wide continental
shelf is an important characteristic in the area, with an
approximate width of 245 km and a slope of 1/1000 (Enriquez,
Marino-Tapia, and Herrera-Silveira, 2010). The Yucatan coast
has been characterized as low-lying coastal area, where 57% is
composed by coastal lagoons with barrier islands and 43% is
ocean front, from which 85% is sandy coast (CINVESTAV,
2007). The tidal regime is mixed with a diurnal dominance, and
a tidal range of 0.1 m for neap tides and 0.8 m for spring tides
vila, 2009). Reported grain size
(Cuevas-Jimenez and Euan-A
values are only available for the Progreso beach area (see
Figure 2), ranging between 0.2 mm (at ,0.5 m depth) and
0.5 mm (at swash zone) with poorly sorted grains (Uc-Sanchez,
2009). The study area is subject to extreme wave events
throughout the year: high-pressure polar outbreak systems
called Nortes during winter, and tropical storms and hurricanes during summer. However, the latter has mainly an
impact at the coast fronting the Caribbean Sea (Quintana Roo),
not covered in this work, with few events affecting the study
area, such as Hurricane Gilbert in 1988. It is also worth
mentioning that on the Yucatan shelf, the dominant current in
the coastal region is from east to west, as is described in
Enriquez, Marino-Tapia, and Herrera-Silveira (2010). This
current has been registered with a magnitude in the order of
20 cm/s (Marino-Tapia, personal communication) using an
Acoustic Wave and Current Profiler (AWAC) moored at 10 m
water depth (Figure 2).

DATA
Waves
Considering the importance of the coastal zones and their
vulnerability, knowledge of the marine conditions is essential for
decision making in coastal zone management. This has motivated
many governments to create monitoring programs for measuring
marine conditions (waves, water levels, temperature, etc.), such
as the National Data Buoy Center (NDBC) from the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the United
States, Puertos del Estado in Spain, and the U.K. Met Office in
the U.K., among others. Unfortunately, in Mexico, there is a lack
of such an agency and a formal ocean monitoring network, while
most measurements are short termed and have been done for
specific projects by private companies, research institutes, or
government agencies. This has resulted in sparse data in time
and space and of difficult access, seldom available to third parties.
Therefore, when studying a coastal area in Mexico, a monitoring
program for the specific project is required, or synthetic
information may be used when long-term data are necessary,
such as the present study.

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 28, No. 6, 2012

1406

Figure 2.

Appendini et al.

Northern coast of the Yucatan Peninsula showing locations and data sites mentioned in the text.

While there are different sources of hindcast wave data in the

Gulf of Mexico, the only documented source in the public
domain, to the best of the authors knowledge, is from NOAAs
WAVEWATCH III model (Tolman, 2009). The calibration and
validation of the model can be found at http://polar.ncep.noaa.
gov/waves/validation.html. WAVEWATCH III (WW3) is a
third-generation wave model developed by the NOAA/National
Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) based in the
WAM model (Komen et al., 1994). The numerical model solves
the random-phase spectral action density balance equation for
wave numberdirection spectra. The model has been applied on
a global scale for wave prediction as well as in hindcast mode.
The model employs a 15 min grid resolution in the Gulf of
Mexico, including the Yucatan Peninsula area, with a finer grid
covering the U.S. coastal area (in 2007, the operational WW3
model increased grid resolution to a 10 min grid for the Gulf of
Mexico and 4 min grid covering the U.S. coastal area). Due to
the low grid resolution at the Yucatan coast, it is not adequate
to characterize the nearshore wave conditions based on these
model results. However, the model results can be employed as
the offshore wave boundary condition in wave propagation
models in order to estimate the nearshore wave conditions.

The available WW3 data used in this study encompass 12 y of

wave information, from February 1, 1997, through February
28, 2009. The locations of the data selected for creating
boundary conditions to the coastal wave model are listed in
Table 1 and shown in Figure 2.
The corresponding wave roses for the 12 y of data at each
location are presented in Figure 3. The wave roses show that
the dominant waves are from the northeastern sector, with
increased importance of the eastern and southeastern sectors
as the Caribbean Sea is approached. The highest waves are
from the northern sector, but again the eastern and southeastern waves become important as the Caribbean Sea is
approached. From the WW3 data, a frequency of approximately
Table 1.

Location of WAVEWATCH III data used as boundary conditions.

Name

Longitude (uW)

Latitude (uN)

WW3-01
WW3-02
WW3-03
WW3-04
WW3-05

91.25
90.00
88.75
87.5
86.25

21.00
22.00
22.00
22.00
21.00

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 28, No. 6, 2012

Sediment Transport in Yucatan

Figure 3.

1407

Wave roses from 12 y of WAVEWATCH III results, going from west (WW3-01) to east (WW3-05) as shown in Figure 2.

S) of
18 storms per year, with a mean significant wave height (H
2.5 m, was determined, from which less than 1 storm per year
corresponds to hurricane waves. A storm was defined as an
event with a significant wave height (Hs) exceeding 2 m
(approximately the long-term value plus two standard deviations) during a minimum period of 12 h.
Besides the long-term hindcast wave data, there are shortterm wave measurements in shallow waters (10 m) close to

Telchac, Yucatan (location marked as AWAC in Figure 2). The

data were gathered by the Group of Coastal Processes and
Management (GCPM) from the Marine Resources Department
(CINVESTAV IPN, Merida Unit), covering the period from
April 2008 through February 2009, with a gap of data between
July and October 2008. The wave rose from the measurements
is shown in Figure 4. Consistent with the deep-water wave
data, the wave rose indicates that the most frequent waves are

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 28, No. 6, 2012

1408

Appendini et al.

on the subaerial coastal profiles, so that the selected profile

(PROG06) was extended beyond the surf zone to a depth of 10 m
using a detailed bathymetry surveyed by the GCPM at
Progreso, Yucatan (Figure 5). The location of the beach profile
PROG06 and the area covered by the bathymetry used to
extend the profile are shown in Figure 2. While it could be
difficult to define this beach profile as representative for the
entire study area, this is the only available information. Also,
Figure 6b shows that the bathymetry contours are very
uniform along the coast, with the exception of some areas
where the slope from the shore to a 10 m depth is milder in
comparison to the location of the PROG06 profile (shown in
Figure 2). Thus, using the same beach profile to characterize
the longshore sediment transport in the entire study area will
provide a qualitative description of the dynamics in the study
area, which is considered more adequate in the sense that
reducing the number of variables allows for a better interpretation of the coastal processes under study (Cooper and Pilkey,
2004b).
Figure 4.

Wave rose from the wave measurements at Telchac.

NUMERICAL MODELS
Wave Modeling

from the north-east sector, while the highest waves are from
the north.

Bathymetry
The bathymetry data used for wave propagation correspond
to NOAAs 1 arc-minute global relief model of Earths surface
ETOPO1 (Amante and Eakins, 2009), which was considered to
be the best source available for the area of interest based on an
analysis of different data sets, such as GEBCO (2009) and
Smith and Sandwell (1997). On the other hand, the nearshore
bathymetry used for sediment transport calculations was
obtained from the Program for Beach Profile Monitoring
database, from the GCPM. These data provided information

The wave model used for wave propagation was the MIKE 21
SW (DHI, 2011c) developed by DHI Water & Environment.
This is a third-generation spectral wave model that simulates
the growth, decay, and transformation of wind-generated
waves and swells in coastal and offshore regions. MIKE 21
SW simulates wind waves by means of the wave action density
spectrum N(s,h), formulated in terms of wave direction, h, and
relative angular frequency, s, where the action density is
related to the energy density by:
N(s,h) ~

E(s,h)
s

The model is applied using the directional decoupled parametric formulation, which is based on a parameterization of the

Figure 5. Extended beach profile (PROG06) corresponding to the Progreso area as used in sediment transport modeling. (Note: Profile specification in
LITPACK requires offshore being located at x 5 0, as opposed to the usual beach profile presentation with the coast at the initial x position.)

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 28, No. 6, 2012

Sediment Transport in Yucatan

1409

Figure 6. Unstructured mesh showing location of boundary conditions used for wave modeling (a) and bathymetry used in wave modeling showing location
of extraction points and wave measurements from CINVESTAV (b).

wave action conservation equation (Komen et al., 1994; Young,

1999), made in the frequency domain by introducing the zeroth
and first moment of the wave action spectrum. The wave action
conservation equation is written in Cartesian coordinates as:
LN
Sin zSnl zSds zSbot zSsurf
z+:(nN) ~
Lt
s
where the action density is defined by N(x,s,h,t), where x
represents the Cartesian coordinates (x,y), t is time, and
(cx,cy,cs,ch) is the propagation velocity of a wave group in the
four-dimensional phase space x, s, and h. The wind input
source term, Sin, is based on the quasi-linear theory of windwave generation presented by Janssen (1989, 1991) and
Janssen, Lionello, and Zambresky (1989) as implemented in
WAM Cycle 4 (Komen et al., 1994). Snl represents the nonlinear
wave-energy transfer, as defined by Hasselmann and Hasselmann (1985) and Hasselmann et al. (1985) for quadruplet-wave
interactions and by Eldeberky and Battjes (1995, 1996) for
triad wave interaction. Sds represents the dissipation due to
whitecapping based on Komen and Hasselmann (1984), as
modified by Komen et al. (1994) based on the wind input
description by Janssen, Lionello, and Zambresky (1989). Sbot is
the energy dissipation due to bottom friction as described by
Johnson and Kofoed-Hansen (2000). Finally, Ssurf is the energy
dissipation due to depth-induced wave breaking as derived by
Battjes and Janssen (1978) and written by Eldeberky and
Battjes (1996).

The model domain was set up to cover the northern coast

of the Yucatan Peninsula with an unstructured mesh with a
resolution of approximately 3 km (see Figure 6a for the mesh
definition and Figure 6b for the final bathymetry showing
the locations of the boundary conditions from Figure 3). The
offshore limit is defined by the position of the WW3 data
used as offshore forcing boundary conditions for the model.
An interpolation of the wave conditions was done between
the five WW3 data points defining the boundary conditions
shown in Figure 6a. The directional discretization was done
in 10u bins. Varying water levels (tides) were not considered
due to the small tidal range and in order to avoid additional
complexity in the interpretation of the longshore sediment
transport calculations.

Longshore Sediment Transport Modeling

The annual sediment drift was calculated using the sediment
transport model LITDRIFT, which is a combination of a onedimensional surf-zone hydrodynamic and wave model with the
intrawave-period sediment transport model STP; STP is based
on the model for turbulent wave- current boundary layers
described by Fredsoe (1984). LITDRIFT has been applied in
many different areas of the world; some of the most recent
research studies using LITDRIFT are found in Elsayed and
Mahmoud (2007), Elsayed et al. (2005), Pandian et al. (2004),
Rao et al. (2009), and Troels (2011). Complete descriptions of

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 28, No. 6, 2012

1410

Appendini et al.

LITDRIFT and STP are found in DHI (2011a) and DHI (2011b),
respectively, while the basic equations are provided herein.
The total sediment transport (qt) is calculated as the sum of
bed-load sediment transport (qb) and suspended sediment
transport (qs). Bed-load transport is calculated as function of
the instantaneous dimensionless bed shear stress (Shields
parameter) as described by Engelund and Fredsoe (1976):
h0 ~

qb ~

u02f
(s{1)gd
1
T

f (h)dt

where h9 is the Shields parameter related to skin friction, u9f is

the friction velocity, s is the relative density of bed material, g
the acceleration of gravity, d is the median grain size, T is the
wave period, and t is time.
The distribution of suspended sediment concentration is
described by the vertical diffusion equation:
Lc
Lc
L
Lc
~ ws z (es )
Lt
Lz Lz Lz
where c is the instantaneous concentration by volume, ws is the
fall velocity of suspended sediment, z is the vertical coordinate,
and es is the instantaneous turbulent exchange factor for
suspended sediment. The suspended sediment transport, qs, is
then calculated as the product of the instantaneous flow
velocities and the instantaneous sediment concentration:

1 T D
qs ~
(cU)dzdt
T 0 0
where T is the mean wave period, D is water depth, and U is the
instantaneous velocity of combined wave-current motion.
The hydrodynamic and wave model in LITDRIFT includes a
description of the wave transformation (i.e., shoaling and
breaking), including the calculation of radiation stresses,
which are used to calculate the longshore current:
{

L(Sxy )
L
LV
~ tb { (rED
)
Lx
Lx
Lx

where Sxy is the shear component of the radiation stress tensor,

tb is the bed shear stress from the current, x is the coordinate
perpendicular to the coast, r is the seawater density, E is the
momentum exchange coefficient, and V is the current velocity.
The calculations were performed over a coastal profile on
every point from its toe to the shoreline, and results were used
as input to the LITDRIFT model in order to calculate the
sediment transport potential at each point according with the
prescribed sediment characteristics. The calculations of the
sediment transport were performed for each event in a wave
climate, obtaining the individual event sediment transport
rate, which was weighted with the wave-event occurrence in
order to calculate the transport contribution. Therefore, the
annual littoral transport for a determined beach profile and
wave climate is obtained from the summation of all the
sediment transport contributions for all the wave events. This
method allows the characterization of the littoral drift under a
mean wave climate based on the local conditions (nonuniform

bathymetric and sediment profile), giving a deterministic

description of the longshore sediment transport. For further
details, interested readers are referred to Deigaard, Fredsoe,
and Hedegaard (1986a, 1986b) and Fredsoe, Andersen, and
Silberg (1985), where a detailed description of the fundamentals of the sediment transport model is presented.
Considering the scarce data available in the area and the
qualitative aim of this study to determine sediment transport
rates, the model was simplified by varying the forcing agent
(hydrodynamics) and maintaining constant the receptor (beach
profile and sediment properties).
The latter allows for a better interpretation of PLST
gradients toward an assessment of potential erosion-deposition
areas, without the uncertainties introduced by varying parameters and their inherent uncertainties (e.g., grain size, sorting,
and profile geometry). The assessment of sediment transport
was only based on wave-generated currents, so that the varying
forcing agent was the wave conditions obtained from the MIKE
21 SW model results at 10 m depth. A Battjes-Janssen spectral
wave description was used for the boundary waves, with a
spreading factor of 0.35 representing a complex directional sea.
The receptor was then considered constant and characterized
by beach profile PROG06, with a 5 m spatial resolution, and a
sediment size (d50) of 0.35 mm, with a geometrical spreading of
1.2. Sediment characteristics were selected based on UcSanchez, (2009), who reported values between 0.2 mm to
0.5 mm from the beginning of the surf zone and the swash zone,
respectively. This value was confirmed by local samples taken
at the area of Progreso, which provided a mean diameter d50 of
0.35 mm for samples at different locations. For the sediment
calculation parameters, the Stokes first-order theory was used,
convective terms were included, and bed concentration was
determined by a deterministic approach. In summary, the
varying parameters are wave conditions (Hs, Tp, and mean
wave direction) and orientation of the coast, while the constant
parameters are bathymetry (beach profile), sediment size and
sorting, and water level. This allows us to evaluate longshore
sediment transport along the Yucatan coast in response to
varying wave conditions and shoreline orientation. Cross-shore
sediment transport is not part of this study, since our analysis
is oriented to understand longshore sediment transport and
potential erosion/deposition areas based on PLST gradients
only as a result of the mean wave climate.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Wave Modeling
The wave model was calibrated employing in situ wave
measurements from the buoy at Telchac during the two
measurement periods. Several tests were performed to calibrate
the model using the wave data. During the calibration phase, it
was found that the local winds and breeze system play an
important role over the wave pattern, so that winds from the
WW3 data were also included in the simulation. An assessment
of the accuracy of the simulations shows a bias of 0.18, a root
mean square of 0.32, and a correlation coefficient of 0.80. An
example of the measured and simulated wave parameters for an
interval of time in the simulation period is shown in Figure 7.
Once the model was calibrated with the wave measurements at

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 28, No. 6, 2012

Sediment Transport in Yucatan

Figure 7.

1411

Measured and simulated significant wave height (upper panel), peak wave period (middle panel), and wave direction (lower panel).

Telchac, the wave information at the 10 m isobath was extracted

at selected locations (P01P18 in Figure 6b) for its further
application on driving the sediment transport model. Figure 8
shows the significant wave height (maximum, minimum, and
mean values), peak wave period (Tp), and mean wave direction
for each selected point. Notice that the mean wave conditions
S ,1 m) along most of the Yucatan coast as a
remain low (H
S are
consequence of the wide continental shelf. The highest H
S .3 m), where the continental shelf
found from P15 to P18 (H
becomes narrower and the coast becomes exposed to the
influence of the swell waves approaching from the Caribbean
Sea. The latter is suggested by both the higher values of Tp and
the mean wave direction (MWD).

Potential Longshore Sediment Transport Characterization

While the wave results presented for points P01 through P18
provide an overall picture of the wave climate on the northern

part of the Yucatan Peninsula, only points P01 through P15

were used for the assessment of sediment transport. This was
done given that the aim of the study is to characterize
transport patterns in the northern coast of Yucatan, whereas
P16P18 are located in a region where much steeper profiles
are expected. The results from the sediment transport model
provided estimates of net and gross PLST. For instance,
Figure 9a, corresponding to the area of Progreso, shows the
accumulated net and gross PLST along PROG06 considering
an orthogonal shoreline orientation of 350u from north and the
wave conditions from P04. Westward and eastward PLST
values of 52,850 m3/y and 17,150 m3/y were established,
respectively. This yields a net PLST of approximately
35,700 m3/y moving westward and a gross PLST of approximately 70,000 m3/y for Progreso. To support the net PLST
calculation, an evaluation of sediment impoundment was
conducted using an aerial orthophotograph of the Chuburna

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 28, No. 6, 2012

1412

Appendini et al.

Figure 8. Variation of wave conditions along the northern coast of

Yucatan based on 12 y of simulated data.

harbor, located 20 km west of Progreso. The jetties were

completed in 1988, and the aerial orthophotograph corresponds to 1995. While the sediment impoundment calculation
corresponds to a yearly rate of approximately 20,000 m3/y, this
value is considered to underestimate the PLST, since it is
known that this area has been used for sand extraction.
Moreover, the governmental agency that operates sand
extraction in this area (Secretara de Comunicaciones y
Transportes), based on their yearly dredging programs,
estimates a longshore sediment transport rate of approximately 30,000 m3/y (Rubio-Cerna, personal communication). Therefore, the results of this study are in good agreement with both
estimates for longshore transport in the area. It should be
noted that the quantitative estimates of PLST rates might be
under- or overestimating real values owing to the uncertainties involved in sediment transport modeling assumptions and
available data. Therefore, the qualitative results obtained from
the modeling are emphasized, allowing for the interpretation
of potential erosion/deposition/stable areas. Figure 9b shows
the PLST distribution along the beach profile from a depth
of 4 m to the shore, suggesting that most of the sediment
transport occurs within the shoreline and a depth of 3 m (first

250 m from the shoreline), although there is still a significant

contribution up to a depth of 6 m (as shown in Figure 9a).
Furthermore, the PLST rates for different shoreline orientations and wave conditions along the coast were calculated and Qalpha curves were constructed for each area (points P01 through
P15). Q-alpha curves show the variation of the net PLST rates for
a given wave climate and beach profile as a function of shoreline
orientation. This provides information on the equilibrium
orientation (net PLST equals to zero) and the sensitivity of the
PLST to shoreline orientation. It has been established by Q-alpha
curves that a zero net PLST is obtained when the resulting wave
energy approaches normal to shore, and it is increased until a
peak in net PLST with waves approaching at an approximate
angle of 50u and then decreases until zero net PLST with waves
approaching with an angle of 90u or more (Mangor, 2004).
As an example, Figure 10 shows the net PLST rates as a
function of shoreline orientation (Q-alpha curve) for Progreso
(negative values represent westward transport and positive
values represent eastward transport). The figure shows that a
small variation in the shoreline orientation results in a steep
change in the PLST rate, indicating a very sensitive shoreline. At
the Progreso area, shoreline orientation is approximately 350u
from north, while the estimated equilibrium orientation is
approximately 1u from north, resulting in a strong and dominant
net PLST toward the west. Considering that Progreso is far from
an equilibrium orientation, the stability of the shoreline is
strongly dependent on a constant supply of sediment to feed the
sediment transport capacity. Figure 9b (showing the extent of
the PLST across the beach profile) and Figure 10 (showing the
net PLST for varying shoreline orientation) indicate that any
structure along the coast located between land and 3 m depth will
significantly interfere with the PLST path and create erosion
areas downdrift. This is supported with the existing evidence of
downdrift erosion created by structures in the area.
The spatial variation of equilibrium orientation is a valuable
parameter for the assessment of the potential erosion/accretion
along the coast. Applying the Q-alpha curves to the study area
and selecting the PLST rates according to the general shoreline
orientation in the different coast segments, the PLST gradients
were established, allowing the identification of areas of
expected erosion/deposition, as shown in Figure 11b. The
PLST shows a clear dominant westward direction ranging
between 220,000 and 280,000 m3/y, with a single nodal point,
location where sediment transport is inverted, east of Holbox.
We acknowledge that the complex two-dimensional circulations expected in areas such as Holbox and tidal inlets are not
incorporated with this analysis, although they certainly play
an important role in the local shore dynamics.

Sedimentary Processes
Based on the PLST results, a first regional-scale description
of the sedimentary process in the area can be provided. At the
most western part of the Yucatan coast, near Celestun, the
equilibrium orientation departs from the coast orientation,
which has an orthogonal orientation that ranges from NW
toward the W (moving N to S along the shore). At this area, the
waves approach the shore at more than 50u with respect to the
shoreline, so that the PLST gradient is reduced toward the

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 28, No. 6, 2012

Sediment Transport in Yucatan

1413

Figure 9. Accumulated wave-generated potential longshore sediment transport rates along beach profile PROG06 (a) and potential longshore sediment
transport rates at surf zone of beach profile PROG06 (b). Positive (negative) values represent eastward (westward) transport.

south, maintaining the accreting longshore spit at the Celestun

lagoon (Figure 12). From Celestun to Sisal, the area of El
Palmar is identified as a potential erosion area from the
resulting PLST gradients due to a change in shoreline
orientation (Figure 11). The area of El Palmar is a nonurbanized area where an erosion berm has been observed.
To the east, from Sisal to San Felipe, the shoreline
orientation varies from 30u to 10u west from the equilibrium
orientation (orthogonal shoreline orientation approximately
340u to 350u from N), resulting in high PLST rates, which
require a constant supply of sediment to maintain a stable
coastline. The area between Sisal and Chuburna shows an
important sediment transport gradient, resulting in a potential
erosion area (Figure 11b). The western part of this area is a

pristine area where dune erosion is a common feature, whereas

the east part is an urbanized area with severe erosion
problems.
The area starting east of Chuburna and west of Progreso
towards Telchac (Figure 11b) deserves special attention: here,
the PLST remains constant (thus no longshore gradient).
Based on the PLST gradients, this area is expected to be stable
as long as the sediment supply is enough to constantly fulfill
the sediment transport load. Nevertheless, this area is known
to be the most eroded coast in Yucatan (based on in situ
evidences, mainly damaged beach property as shown in
Figure 1a and water-line position relative to the construction
linehousesas shown in Figure 13). The reason for the
erosion in this area is that the potential stability of the coast is

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 28, No. 6, 2012

1414

Figure 10.

Appendini et al.

Q-alpha curve for Progreso, Yucatan.

Figure 12.

Longshore spit at Celestun, Yucatan. (Photo: Aerozoom).

Figure 11. Shoreline equilibrium orientation along the northern coast of the Yucatan Peninsula (a) and potential longshore sediment transport (in m3/y 3
1000) based on shoreline orientation for the northern coast of the Yucatan Peninsula (b). Hatched line in (a) represent the shoreline orientation for
equilibrium. Potential erosion, deposition, and stable areas are identified in (b).

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 28, No. 6, 2012

Sediment Transport in Yucatan

Figure 13.

Beach erosion in Chelem, Yucatan. (Photo: Aerozoom).

only achieved given a constant supply of sediment, with no

interference from any coastal barriers. On the contrary, this
stretch of coast is the most urbanized and thus has several
human interventions, such as harbors and houses. MeyerArendt (1993) provides a thorough description of settlement in
the area, where armoring of the coast typically followed the
construction of harbors, establishing erosion rates of 0.9 m/y,
for the period 19481978, downdrift of the Yucalpeten harbor
located immediately west of Progreso (Figure 11b). Based on
the established PLST rates, the construction of harbor
structures (groins and jetties) interrupted the sediment supply
into the area, thus leading to erosion and a response by
landowners of armoring the coast and building groins. The
increased blockage of sediment supply has exacerbated erosion
problems, leading to an armoring-erosion chain of events. This
has been reported by Meyer-Arendt (2001) based on an historic
review and observations, stating that the erosion-deposition
fluctuations are common in this area, but the inability to cope
with such phases has led to the chain of events mentioned
previously. This stretch of coast is an interesting example of a
coast with high PLST rates but no PLST gradients, so that
equilibrium would be achieved given a constant supply of sand
(e.g., natural conditions and sand bypassing).
From Telchac to Chabihau, beach erosion is expected due to
the increase in PLST gradients, whereas in the area towards
Dzilam de Bravo, deposition is expected (Figure 11b). It is
important to point out that despite the long stretches of coast
that are expected to be stable, this area is also affected by
harbor entrance structures, and thus exacerbated erosion
problems as mentioned by Meyer-Arendt (2001), in particular
from Sisal to Dzilam de Bravo.
From Dzilam de Bravo toward Cabo Catoche, the coast shows
quite different coastal orientations, some of which are close to
equilibrium orientation (east of Las Coloradas and east of
Holbox) and some others which show positive or negative PLST
gradients resulting in erosion or deposition. The areas of
expected erosion are west of Chisahcab, west and east of San
Felipe, east of Las Coloradas, from Holbox to the west, and east
of Cabo Catoche. The areas of expected deposition are east of El
Isolte San Felipe, El Cuyo, and east of Holbox; the last two
locations represent large stretches of depositional coasts

1415

(Figure 11b). It is known that Holbox has experienced erosion

problems as well as the salt flats at Las Coloradas.
Finally, as we approach the Caribbean Sea, there is more
influence from southeastern swells, so that the equilibrium
orientation varies greatly from the rest of the study area. This
area has a shoreline closer to equilibrium, and thus it is
expected to have fewer erosion problems, such as south of Cabo
Catoche, where a stable area is expected (Figure 11b).
The previous description is a qualitative characterization of
expected erosion/deposition areas based on PLST calculations
under the assumptions of a coastline characterized by a
constant sediment supply and a constant beach geometry and
composition. The Q-alpha curves could be used to analyze more
detailed areas, for instance, the areas of San Felipe, Holbox, or
Dzilam de Bravo, in order to identify erosion hotspots as a
result of PLST gradients given by shoreline orientation.
However, for a full interpretation of the coastal processes
involved, more detailed analyses considering the two- and
three-dimensional effects of the local features such as structures, harbors, coastal lagoon inlets, etc., have to be taken into
account.
Although the sediment transport description in this paper
is based on wave-driven transport, a sensitivity test was
performed to assess the effect of the coastal current registered
by Marino-Tapia over the PLST. The test was performed for the
Progreso area applying the LITDRIFT model using the
PROG06 profile described before, but adding a 20 cm/s
current at a depth of 10 m. The PLST was largely increased
at depths below 3 m, with no effect over the PLST at the surf
zone (where the PLST is given by wave-generated currents).
The effect of the current shows that although the wave
conditions in the study area generate PLST between 0 and
6 m depth, they do generate enough bottom shear in deeper
areas to enable the suspended sediment to be transported by
the coastal current. This should have special attention in
further investigations of coastal processes in the area since
it implies important processes not included in this study,
which may provide insight to the formation of submerged
sandbars and sand waves, which are visible in aerial photos
and satellite images (e.g., see Google Earth at lat 21.5952u
N, long 88.3067u W), and at depths deeper than the surf
zone and more than 5 km from the shore.

CONCLUSIONS
The results presented here are a first effort to characterize
wave conditions and PLST in the study area for coastal
management purposes. Wave climate was determined from
12 y of wave hindcast data propagated to the nearshore along
the northern coast of the Yucatan Peninsula. Based on the
nearshore wave information, a qualitative estimate of coastal
processes was performed employing a methodology to calculate
the PLST based on varying conditions for the forcing agent
(hydrodynamics) and maintaining the receptor variables
constant (bathymetry and sediments). This study then provides a qualitative overview of the coastal processes in an area
with limited data. Based on the numerical results, the main
conclusions are:

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 28, No. 6, 2012

1416

Appendini et al.

(1) The northern coast of the Yucatan Peninsula is subject to

a low-energy wave climate with predominant waves from
the NE sector. However, the eastern and western parts of
the northern coast of the Yucatan Peninsula still present
different wave climates: In the eastern end of the
northern peninsula, a more energetic SE component
becomes relevant due to the swell generated in the
Caribbean Sea, whereas the energy decreases toward the
west owing to the widening of the continental shelf and
the sheltering from Caribbean swell.
(2) The net PLST is from east to west as a result of wave
conditions and shoreline orientation, with a single nodal
point in the eastern part. Therefore, the depositional
features indicate a truly west-directed longshore sediment transport. Due to the wave characteristics, the
coastline orientation is far from equilibrium, such that
shoreline stability is only achieved if there is a constant
sediment supply along the coast. While shoreline orientation along the northern coast provides areas of
potential erosion and deposition just as a result of
morphology, potential erosional areas dominate, with a
coast highly sensitive to obstructions in sediment transport. As a result, structures in the area have enhanced
extreme erosion problems. This is more evident in highly
urbanized areas, where the shore encroachments and the
structures of the small fishing harbors have interrupted
sediment transport and supply, creating critical erosion
problems downdrift. Moreover, sediment transport associated with small changes of coastal orientation may play
a significant role in the critical areas heavily influenced
by man-made constructions.
(3) This study presents insight into the important phenomena in the area and identifies the relevant processes that
need to be studied in detail for assessing erosion/
deposition problems in local areas. It has been evident
in the study that more complex problems arise when
considering the two- and three-dimensional effects of
coastal lagoons and coastal currents. The Q-alpha curves
could be used to analyze more detailed areas, for instance,
the areas of San Felipe, Holbox, or Dzilam de Bravo, in
order to identify erosion hotspots as a result of PLST
gradients given by shoreline orientation. However, a
more detailed analysis would be required considering the
two- and three-dimensional effects present along the
whole stretch of coast under study. Such phenomena
should be analyzed to provide further insight in the
coastal processes of Yucatan.
(4) The northern coast of the Yucatan Peninsula is an
extremely sensitive shoreline, vulnerable to activities on
the coastal zone, in particular, construction of littoral
barriers (including groins and housing). The sediment
transport patterns established in this study suggest that
shore protection should be oriented toward soft solutions
seeking sediment management such as dune stabilization
and sand bypassing. Still, both soft and hard solutions
will require much more detailed studies for successful
shoreline management actions.
(5) For a better understanding of the coastal processes in the
study area, the effects of coastal currents on sediment

transport, the effects of coastal structures and natural

inlets on the sediment budget, and the sources and sinks
of sediment must be assessed.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The present study was supported by CONACYT FOMIXYUC project-106400 and PAPIIT IN 115411. We would like to
thank Ismael Marino-Tapia and Jorge Euan from the Center
for Research and Advanced Studies (CINVESTAV-IPN,
Merida Unit) for providing the wave and profile data, as well
as the orthophotograph. We also greatly appreciate the
valuable review of the manuscript done by Robert G. Dean
from the University of Florida. The authors would like to
thank Sergio Medellin and Rodrigo Medellin from Aerozoom
for the oblique aerial photographs and the Academia
Mexicana de las Ciencias for providing funding for the
organization of the First Workshop on Coastal Oceanography
of Yucatan, where this work was presented and discussed.

LITERATURE CITED
Amante, C. and Eakins, B.W., 2009. ETOPO1 1 Arc-Minute Global
Relief Model: Procedures, Data Sources and Analysis, NOAA
Technical Memorandum NESDIS NGDC-24, 19p.
Appendini, C.M. and Fischer, D.W., 1998. Hazard management
planning for severe storm erosion. Shore & Beach, 66(4), 58.
Battjes, J.A. and Janssen, J.P.F., 1978. Energy loss and set-up due to
breaking of random waves. In: Proceedings of the 16th International
Coastal Engineering (Hamburg, Germany, ASCE), pp. 569587.
CINVESTAV, 2007. Programa de Ordenamiento Ecologico del
Territorio Costero del Estado de Yucatan (POETCY). Merida,
Mexico: CINVESTAV.
Cooper, J.A.G. and Pilkey, O.H., 2004a. Alternatives to the mathematical modeling of beaches. Journal of Coastal Research, 20(3),
641644.
Cooper, J.A.G. and Pilkey, O.H., 2004b. Longshore drift: Trapped in an
expected universe. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 74(5), 599606.
vila, J., 2009. Morphodynamics of
Cuevas-Jimenez, A. and Euan-A
carbonate beaches in the Yucatan Peninsula. Ciencias Marinas, 35,
307320.
Deigaard, R.; Fredsoe, J., and Hedegaard, I.B., 1986a. Mathematical
model for littoral drift. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and
Ocean Engineering, 112(3), 351369.
Deigaard, R.; Fredsoe, J., and Hedegaard, I.B., 1986b. Suspended
sediment in surf zone. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and
Ocean Engineering, 112(1), 115127.
DHI, 2011a. LITDRIFT. Longshore Current and Littoral Drift.
LITDRIFT Users Guide. Hrsholm, Denmark: DHI Water &
Environment.
DHI, 2011b. LITSTP. Noncohesive Sediment Transport in Currents
and Waves. LITSTP Users Guide. Hrsholm, Denmark: DHI Water
& Environment.
DHI, 2011c. MIKE 21. Spectral Wave Module. Scientific Documentation. Hrsholm, Denmark: DHI Water & Environment.
Eldeberky, Y. and Battjes, J.A., 1995. Parameterisation of triad
interactions in wave energy models. In: Dally, W.R. and Zeidler, R.B.
(eds.), Coastal Dynamics 95. Gdansk, Poland: ASCE, pp. 140148.
Eldeberky, Y. and Battjes, J.A., 1996. Spectral modeling of wave
breaking: application to Boussinesq equations. Journal of Geophysical Research, 101(C1), 12531264.
Elsayed, M.A.K. and Mahmoud, S.M., 2007. Groins system for
shoreline stabilization on the east side of the Rosetta Promontory,
Nile Delta coast. Journal of Coastal Research, 21(2), 380387.
Elsayed, M.A.K.; Younan, N.A.; Fanos, A.M., and Baghdady, K.H.,
2005. Accretion and erosion patterns along Rosetta Promontory,
Nile Delta coast. Journal of Coastal Research, 21(3), 412420.

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 28, No. 6, 2012

Sediment Transport in Yucatan

Engelund, F. and Fredsoe, J., 1976. A sediment transport model for

straight alluvial channels. Nordic Hydrology, 7(5), 293306.
Enriquez, C.; Marino-Tapia, I.J., and Herrera-Silveira, J.A., 2010.
Dispersion in the Yucatan coastal zone: implications for red tide
events. Continental Shelf Research, 30(2), 127137.
Fischer, D.W., 1985. Shoreline erosion: a management framework.
Journal of Shoreline Management, 1(1), 3750.
Fredsoe, J., 1984. Turbulent boundary layer in wave-current motion.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 110(8), 11031120.
Fredsoe, J.; Andersen, O.H., and Silberg, S., 1985. Distribution of
suspended sediment in large waves. Journal of Waterway, Port,
Coastal and Ocean Engineering, 111(6), 10411059.
GEBCO (General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans). https://www.
bodc.ac.uk/data/online_delivery/gebco/documents/gebco_08.pdf.
GESAMP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP
Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine
Environmental Protections) and Advisory Committee on Protection
of the Sea, 2001. A Sea of Troubles. Arendal, Norway: Rep. Stud.
GESAMP No. 70, 35 p.
Hasselmann, S. and Hasselmann, K., 1985. Computations and
parameterizations of the nonlinear energy transfer in a gravitywave spectrum. Part I: A new method for efficient computations of
the exact nonlinear transfer integral. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 15(11), 13691377.
Hasselmann, S.; Hasselmann, K.; Allender, J.H., and Barnett, T.P.,
1985. Computations and parameterizations of the nonlinear energy
transfer in a gravity-wave spectrum. Part II: Parameterizations of
the nonlinear energy transfer for application in wave models.
Journal of Physical Oceanography, 15(11), 13781391.
Janssen, P.A.E.M., 1989. Wave-induced stress and the drag of air flow
over sea waves. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 19(6), 745754.
Janssen, P.A.E.M., 1991. Quasi-linear theory of wind-wave generation applied to wave forecasting. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 21(11), 16311642.
Janssen, P.A.E.M.; Lionello, P., and Zambresky, L., 1989. On the
interaction of wind and waves. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London A, 329(1604), 289301.
Johnson, H.K. and Kofoed-Hansen, H., 2000. Influence of bottom friction
on sea surface roughness and its impact on shallow water wind wave
modeling. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 30(7), 17431756.
Komen, G.J., Cavaleri, L.; Donelan, M.; Hasselmann, K.; Hasselmann,
S., and Janssen, P.A.E.M., 1994. Dynamics and Modelling of Ocean
Waves. UK, Cambridge University Press, 560 pp.
Komen, G.J. and Hasselmann, K., 1984. On the existence of a fully
developed wind-sea spectrum. Journal of Physical Oceanography,
14(8), 12711285.

1417

Mangor, K., 2004. Shoreline Management Guidelines. Hrsholm,

Denmark: DHI Water and Environment.
Meyer-Arendt, K.J., 1991. Tourism development on the north
Yucatan coast: human response to shoreline erosion and hurricanes. GeoJournal, 23(4), 327336.
Meyer-Arendt, K.J., 1993. Shoreline changes along the north
Yucatan coast. In: Laska, S. and Puffer, A. (eds.), Proceedings of
the 8th Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management (Coastal
Zone 93). Coastlines of the World. New Orleans: ASCE, pp. 103
117.
Meyer-Arendt, K.J., 2001. Recreational development and shoreline
modification along the north coast of Yucatan, Mexico. Tourism
Geographies, 3(1), 87104.
Pandian, P.K.; Ramesh, S.; Murthy, M.V.R.; Ramachandran, S., and
Thayumanavan, S., 2004. Shoreline changes and nearshore
processes along Ennore Coast, East Coast of South India. Journal
of Coastal Research, 20(3), 828845.
Pilkey, O.H. and Cooper, J.A.C., 2007. Lifting up the flap or why
quantitative beach behaviour predictive modelling cant work. In:
Proceedings of the 9th International Coastal Symposium, Journal of
Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 50. West Palm Beach (Floria),
pp. 585587.
Rao, V.R.; Murthy, M.V.R.; Bhat, M., and Reddy, N.T., 2009. Littoral
sediment transport and shoreline changes along Ennore on the
southeast coast of India: field observations and numerical modeling. Geomorphology, 112(12), 158166.
Smith, W.H.F. and Sandwell, D.T., 1997. Global seafloor topography
from satellite altimetry and ship depth soundings. Science, 277,
19571962.
Thieler, E.R.; Pilkey, O.H., Jr.; Young, R.S.; Bush, D.M., and Fei, C.,
2000. The use of mathematical models to predict beach behavior for
U.S. coastal engineering: a critical review. Journal of Coastal
Research, 16(1), 48.
Tolman, H.L., 2009. User Manual and System Documentation of
WAVEWATCH III Version 3.14. Technical Note 276, Camp Springs,
Maryland: NOAA/NWS/NCEP/MMAB, 194p.
Troels, A., 2011. Sediment transfer from beach to shoreface: the
sediment budget of an accreting beach on the Danish North Sea
coast. Geomorphology, 135(12), 143157.
Uc-Sanchez, E., 2009. Efectos de los cambios de la playa, sobre los
habitats bentonicos en el puerto de Progreso, Yucatan. Conkal,
Mexico: Instituto Tecnologico de Conkal, 72p.
Young, I.R., 1999. Wind-generated ocean waves. In: Bhattacharyya,
R. and McCormick, M.E. (eds.), Ocean Engineering Book Series.
Amsterdam: Elsevier.

% RESUMEN %
En este trabajo se presenta una evaluacion cualitativa de los procesos costeros a lo largo de la costa norte de Yucatan, en base a una metodologa para la estimacion
del transporte potencial de sedimentos. A pesar de las condiciones de baja energa de oleaje (Hs 5 1 m) en la zona, los problemas de erosion costera son crticos en
varias localidades, incluyendo zonas urbanizadas. Se utilizaron 12 anos de datos (19792009) de un retroanalisis de oleaje (WAVEWATCH III) como condiciones de
frontera para un modelo de oleaje en la zona costera (MIKE 21 SW). Las series de tiempo de altura significante, periodo pico y direccion de oleaje se compararon con
mediciones in situ a 10 m de profundidad. Las condiciones de oleaje son muy afectadas por la amplia plataforma continental frente a la costa de Yucatan, mostrando
una tendencia a incrementar al acercarnos a la parte este de la pennsula donde la plataforma es reducida. El clima de oleaje determinado a lo largo de la costa fue
utilizado para evaluar el transporte potencial de sedimentos (modelo LITDRIFT) en la zona de estudio. Los calculos de transporte son consistentes con las
estimaciones en la zona (235,000 m3/ano). Se determino una tendencia dominante hacia el oeste para el transporte potencial de sedimentos en practicamente toda la
costa, con valores entre 220,000 y 280,000 m3/ano, siendo que unicamente al oeste de Holbox hay una inversion en la direccion del transporte. Los patrones de
erosion/acumulacion en las zonas no urbanizadas son consistentes con observaciones de campo. La dominancia del transporte de sedimentos con direccion al oeste
indica que es una costa muy sensible a las barreras litorales, lo cual es sustentado por las observaciones en las zonas densamente urbanizadas. Estas zonas no
muestran gradientes en el transporte de sedimentos, sin embargo la erosion es una caracterstica comun como resultado de las barreras litorales. De esta manera, la
proteccion costera debera orientarse a estrategias de manejo de sedimento.

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 28, No. 6, 2012