J Coast Conserv (2015) 19:241256
DOI 10.1007/s11852-015-0384-x
Coastal vulnerability assessment of Gujarat coast to sea level rise
using GIS techniques: a preliminary study
Manik Mahapatra 1,2 & Ratheesh Ramakrishnan 2 & A. S. Rajawat 2
Received: 30 May 2014 / Revised: 12 April 2015 / Accepted: 13 April 2015 / Published online: 26 April 2015
# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
Abstract Assessing the preparedness of the coastal region to
the anticipated sea level rise is a major task among the coastal
management authority, where identification of relative vulner-
able of coast is a prime concern. The present research work
has utilized Remote Sensing and GIS techniques for assessing
vulnerability of the Gujarat coast due to predicted sea level
rise. Synergetic use of satellite remote sensing, numerical sim-
ulations and filed observations has been done to generate
coastal thematic information followed by validation. Coastal
vulnerability assessment of the entire Gujarat coast on 1:50,
000 scale were carried out considering five physical parame-
ters. They are; coastal geomorphology, coastal slope, shore-
line change rate, mean spring tidal range, and significant wave
height. The rank values of all the five physical variables are
integrated through additive method to compute a Coastal
Vulnerability Index (CVI) where the relative ranking is
assigned to various coastal segments based on the vulnerabil-
ity level. The CVI values categorize Gujarat coast into four
risk level classes. The results show that 785 km (45.67 %) of
the Gujarat coast is under high to very high risk category and
934 km (54.33 %) of the Gujarat coast is under Moderate to
Low risk category due to an anticipated rise in sea level. The
coastal regions under very high risk category are along north-
western parts of the Gulf of Khambhat, the northernmost parts
of the Gulf of Kachchh and western parts of the Kachchh
coast. The southern parts of the Saurashtra coast and south-
western parts of the Kachchh coast is under the low risk cat-
egory along with isolated segments along the eastern parts of
* Manik Mahapatra
mahapatra.sac@gmail.com
1
National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management, Chennai, India
2
Space Applications Centre, Ahmedabad, India
the Gulf of Khambhat. The approach developed for assessing
vulnerability of the coast to predicted sea level rise using re-
mote sensing and GIS techniques can be used effectively by
coastal management authorities and decision makers to devise
better coastal zone management plans as well as to ensure
efficient mitigation measures to minimize the losses due to
possible impact of predicted sea level rise through which ap-
propriate measures to protect life, property and environment
can be timely planned.
Keywords Sea-level rise . Coastal vulnerability index .
Coastal risk assessment . Gujarat coast
Introduction
Climate change, associated sea level rise and impact on the
coastal zone are current issues of global magnitude and con-
cern. The increase in human population and the developmen-
tal activities of the modern era, such as industrial develop-
ment, urbanization, agricultural practices, destruction of for-
ests, fossil fuel burning, development of the transport system,
draining wetlands, the adoption of modern technology in
farming and livestock rearing etc. have put tremendous pres-
sure on the natural resources and led to the present degraded
state of the global environment. The global warming in the
past century was estimated to be 0.8 C; the rise in temperature
in the past three decades alone was 0.6 C at the rate of 0.2 C
per decade (Hansen et al. 2006; Wood 2008). Climate model
projections summarized in the IPCC 2013 report indicates that
the global surface temperature is likely to rise further from 1.1
to 6.4 C during the 21st century. The most commonly accept-
ed impact of global warming is the eustatic rise in sea level
(Allan and Komar 2006) due to thermal expansion of seawater
and the addition of ice-melt water (Meehl et al. 2005). It was
242
tide gauge data that provided the first evidence of an acceler-
ated rate of sea level rise for the twentieth century relative to
pre-industrial periods (Gehrels et al. 2006; Kemp et al. 2009).
The global sea level rise over the 20th century is 1.70.5 mm/
year (IPCC 2007). Using the Gravity Recovery and Climate
Experiment (GRACE) based estimation Cazenave et al.
(2009) observed an increase of ocean mass at an average rate
of 1.91 0.1 mm/year over the period of 20032008.
According to the recent IPCC (2013) report, the rise in the
global mean sea level towards the end of the century is likely
to be in the range between 26 and 82 cm (based on different
Representative Concentration Pathways scenarios). By AD
2100, the 2009 Antarctic Science Report anticipated up to
1.4 m rise in sea level (Turner et al. 2009), while the 2011
Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program estimated 0.9 to
1.6 m (AMAP 2012), the 2012 U.S.
The direct impact of sea level rise would be in the coastal
zone, which are low lying and are highly resourceful and
densely populated. The SLR will induce an accelerated ero-
sion and shoreline retreat due to increase wave strength as
water depth increases near the shore (Pye and Blott 2006),
besides leading to saltwater into coastal groundwater aquifer,
inundation of wetlands and estuaries, and threatening historic
and cultural resources as well as infrastructure (Pendleton
et al. 2004). According to the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) report, the average population density
in the coastal zone was 77 people/km2 in 1990 and 87 peo-
ple/km2 in 2000, and a projected 99 people/km2 in 2010
(UNEP 2007). About 35 % of Indians live within 100 km of
the countrys coastline measuring 7517 km (SAC 2012). Sea
level rise would increase the susceptibility of coastal popula-
tions and ecosystems through permanent inundation of low-
lying regions, amplification of episodic flooding events, and
increased beach erosion and saline intrusion (Mclean et al.
2001). The increased sea-surface temperature would also re-
sult in frequent and intensified cyclonic activity and associat-
ed storm surges affecting the coastal zones (Unnikrishnan
et al. 2006). The rising sea level endangers several smaller
island nations, such as Tuvalu, Maldives, etc., which are bare-
ly 2 m above the sea level (Brown 2001). Millions of people in
low lying regions of many other countries, including
Bangladesh, China (Strohecker 2008), and Vietnam (Hanh
and Furukawa 2007) face the danger of being displaced.
In light of this, vulnerability assessment of the coast due to
Sea Level Rise (SLR) is the primary aim of coastal zone man-
agement. Using a selection of parameters that indicate vulner-
ability (such as coastal landforms and coastal slope) is useful
in offering a quick and cost-effective means of assessing the
vulnerability. Generally, Vulnerability is defined as the poten-
tial for damage or harm during a given hazard event. The
IPCC-CZMS (1992), defines vulnerability of coastal zones
by their degree of incapability to cope with the impacts of
climate change and accelerated sea-level rise. Remote
M. Mahapatra et al.
Sensing (RS) and Geographical Information System (GIS)
techniques are highly utilized for vulnerability mapping and
assessment. Remotely sensed information, offers numerous
benefits, which have been utilized in a wide variety of coastal
and oceanographic applications. These benefits include a wide
range of spatial scale, unbiased content, repetitive coverage,
multi-spectral data from varied satellite platform, economy
and efficiency (ORegan 1996; Nayak 2002). GIS has
emerged as the spatial data handling tools of choice for solv-
ing complex geographical problems. The aim of the present
study is to develop an approach to assess vulnerability of
Gujarat coast, India due to predicted sea level rise using RS
and GIS techniques on regional scale. About 549 villages with
the total population of more than 30 million are situated along
the Gujarat coast (MoEF&CC 2009). The coastline of Gujarat
is dotted with a number of minor and major ports and indus-
trial establishments and also is bestowed with fragile marine
environments like coral reefs and mangroves. As huge infra-
structure is located close to the coastline, even if only a small
stretch of coastline is impacted due to predicted sea level rise,
it can have a significant effect on the region. Furthermore, it is
despite these facts, the coastal vulnerability of Gujarat coast
has not been carried out using in a systematic way which
involves remote sensing and GIS techniques.
Study area
The study area is Gujarat coast, (including Daman and Diu
UT) India and is located on the northwestern coast of the
Indian Peninsula (Fig. 1). The Gujarat state lies between 20
10 N to 24 50 N latitudes and 68 40 E to 74 40 E longi-
tudes. The Gujarat coast extends from the Western Ghats in
Valsad to Kori creek on the coast of Kachchh in the north.
Gujarat has the longest coastline (about 1617 km, nearly one
third of the countrys total coastline length) among the all
maritime states of India. Gujarat has two Gulfs namely the
Gulf of Kachchh and Gulf of Khambhat, out of three Gulfs
of the country. The Gulf of the Gujarat provides the natural
navigational and logical advantage to reach out to an enor-
mous hinterland. The tidal range at the Gulf of Khambhat is
the largest along the Indian coastline and the second largest in
the world after the Bay of Fundy. About 62.30 % (28,
500 km2) of the countrys total tidal influence area are located
in the Gujarat, which is the largest area among the maritime
states of India (Garg et al. 1998). Gujarat produces 70 % of the
countrys salt production (Census of India 2011). Mudflats,
mangroves, marsh vegetation, coral reefs and saltpans cover
a major part of the coastal wetland. Geo-morphological and
climatic variation is very high along the Gujarat Coast. The
study area, being located on the tropic of cancer, falls in the
sub-tropical climatic zone. A large portion of the state lies
between 35 and 45 C isotherms, the rainfall in the state is
Coastal vulnerability assessment of Gujarat coast
Fig. 1 Map showing the coastal
zone of Gujarat. The red line
indicates the coastal segments
under study
moderate. Rainfall varies from an average high of 2500 mm in
the south to only 300 mm in Kachchh.
Methodology
Parameters for regional coastal vulnerability assessment
and geospatial database creation
Regional coastal vulnerability along the coast of Gujarat has
been assessed by considering five physical parameters. They
are (1) coastal geomorphology, (2) coastal slope, (3) shoreline
243
change rate, (4) mean spring tidal range, and (5) significant
wave height. The schematics of remote sensing and GIS based
approach to carry out a regional coastal vulnerability assess-
ment due to predicted sea level rise on Gujarat coast is given in
Fig. 2. The Geo-spatial databases of five physical parameters
are prepared in GIS environment on 1:50,000 scale. Relative
ranking is assigned to various coastal segments based on the
vulnerability level in terms of each of the five parameters
considered in the study (Table 1). The entire Gujarat coast is
divided into five-vulnerability classes, i.e. (1) very low, (2)
low, (3) moderate, (4) high and (5) very high, based on the
salient characteristics of the Gujarat coast and while following
244 M. Mahapatra et al.

Fig. 2 Approach followed for

MODEL PREDICTED Mean spring de
coastal vulnerability assessment
DATA range
of Gujarat coast on regional scale

SATELLITE DATA Geomorphology

IRS P6 AWIFS,2005

HTL 1989-91 WEIGHTAGE

LANDSAT TM, 1989-91 Shoreline change COMPUTATION
IRS P6 Resourcesat-1
rate
AWiFS, 2005 HTL 2005
GIS ANALYSIS &
VULNERABILIT Y
INDEX
SRTM DEM, 90m Coastal slope

MODEL SIMULATED Mean signicant

DATA wave height

ranking system adopted in earlier studies (Diez et al. 2007;
Doukakis 2005; Gornitz 1991; Pendleton et al. 2004; Thieler
and Hammer-Klose 1999). Assignment of common scale pro-
vides the flexibility to bring diverse parameter/variables of
vulnerability to a comparable platform. Based on the
qualitative/quantitative measures of the parameters, every
variable/parameter has been rated in between 1 and 5.
Geomorphology
Among the five physical variables, the qualitative nature of
geomorphologic variable plays a very important role to assess
the impact of sea level rise. Geomorphology indicates the
relative erodibility of a section of shoreline. Landforms and
the material that compose them reflect their relative responses
to sea-level rise since every landform offers a certain degree of
resistance to erosion (Thieler and Hammer-Klose 1999).
Rocky cliffs and wave cut benches which offer maximum
resistance to erosion are very less vulnerable while soft sandy
and muddy forms such as dunes, mudflats, mangroves, etc.
offer least resistance are extremely vulnerable to sea-level rise.
The importance of coastal geomorphology in response of a
coastal zone to sea-level rise was thoroughly studied by
Chadha et al. 2005; Banerjee 2005; Rao et al. 2008, along
the east coast of India. According to Pethick and Crooks
(2000) coastal landforms act to attenuate wave and tidal ener-
gy and respond to changing energy conditions at a range of
spatial and temporal scales. Sea-level rise and changes in
wave conditions will likely bring changes in the dimension
and function of the coastal habitats as well as increased risk to
those living in the coastal areas (IPCC 2001). Rising sea level
will bring redistribution of coastal landforms comprising sub-
tidal landform, intertidal flats, salt marshes, shingle banks,
sand dunes, cliffs, and coastal lowlands (Pethick and Crooks
2000). Geologically and geomorphologically, the Gujarat
coast is quite distinct from the rest of the West coast of
India. Reflecting a strong structural control, the coastline
shows much variation in its trend, shoreline features and near
and offshore conditions (Nayak 1994). Gujarat coast shows
tide dominating and wave dominating coastal processes while
fluvio-marine processes are observed along creeks, estuary
and river mouths. Satellite imageries are helpful in identifying

Table 1 Scheme of coastal vulnerability ranking of physical variables

Parameter Coastal vulnerability rank

Very low Low Moderate High Very high

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Coastal High lands, rocky Coastal plain and paleo Supra and high tidal mud Waterlogged, low Beaches, mangroves,
geomorphology & cliffy coast mudflats, dune with flats, salt flats and salt depression, lagoon, coral reef, spit,
vegetation marsh, beach ridge, estuary creeks, intertidal and sub
sandy shores backed by tidal mudflats
artificial structure.
Coastal slope (%) Cliffy coast Steep slope Moderate slope Gentle Low plain
>1 10.5 0.50.1 0.10.05 <0.05
Shoreline change rate (m/year) <4 1 to 4 1 to +1 1 to 4 >4
Significant Wave height (m) <0.55 0.550.85 0.851.05 1.051.25 >1.25
Mean spring tide range (m) <1 12 24 46 >6
Coastal vulnerability assessment of Gujarat coast
the various coastal geomorphic features. Resourcesat-1
AWiFS images have been interpreted to demarcate various
coastal geomorphic features using keys of basic elements of
visual interpretation such as tone/colour, size, shape, texture,
pattern and association, developed by SAC (1991). On the
basis of vulnerability to sea level rise and possible inundation,
the coastline is divided into following vulnerable classes/
ranks, these are (1) very high (beaches, mangroves, coral
reefs, intertidal mudflat, sub-tidal mud flats, creeks, shoals),
(2) high (waterlogged low depressions, lagoon, estuaries), (3)
moderate (supra and high tidal mud flats, salt flat and salt
marsh), (4) low (coastal plain and paleo-mud flats), and (5)
very low (high lands and rocky coasts) (Fig. 3). Coastal vul-
nerability ranking layer (line) of geomorphology is prepared
based on a scheme of coastal vulnerability ranking.
Coastal slope
Klein et al. (2000) reported that the coastal locations having a
gentle land slope facilitate penetration of seawater compared
Fig. 3 Coastal vulnerability map on the basis of coastal geomorphology for the Gujarat coast
245
with locations which are steep, and resulting land loss from
inundation is simply a function of slope: the lower the slope,
the greater the land loss. According to Rao et al. (2008), coast-
al slope is the major factor to be considered along with the
coastal morphology in estimating the impact of sea-level rise
on a given coast. On a steep coast, the impact of sea-level rise
would be insignificant contrary to a gently sloping coast
where any rise in sea level would inundate large extents of
land. Due to lack of fine resolution contour maps of the
Gujarat coast, the present study adopted the methodology de-
veloped by Rao et al. (2008) for the Andhra Pradesh coast.
The Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission (SRTM) data based
Digital elevation models (DEM) was downloaded (www.srtm.
csi-cgiar.org) from which contours at 1 m interval are
interpolated using Arc GIS 10.0 software. This contour map
has been modified based on the coastal landforms, coastal
land use/land cover, tidal limits and bench mark height from
topographic maps. The refined contour data are used to gen-
erate coastal slope map and vulnerability map due to slope are
prepared. Considering slope values in % the coast has been
246
divided into (1) very high vulnerability as 0.05 (very gentle),
(2) high as 0.050.10 (gentle), (3) moderate as 0.100.50
(gentle to moderately sloping), (4) low as 0.501.0 (steep)
and (5) very low as >1 (cliffs) (Fig. 4).
Shoreline change rate
The physical interface of land and water is called shoreline
(Dolan et al. 1991). It is one of the most rapidly changing
landforms of the earth. The causes of shoreline changes are
mainly attributed to the physical and anthropogenic processes
(Chen et al. 2005). These changes occur over both long and
short periods of time and involve hydrodynamic, geomorphic,
tectonic and climatic forces (Scott 2005; Thom and Cowell
2005). The broad trends in shoreline behavior in the recent
and past are helpful to a certain extent in understanding the
coastal response to future sea-level rise (Rao et al. 2008).
From the coastal vulnerability point of view, coasts subjected
to accretion are considered as less vulnerable areas as they
move toward the ocean and result in the addition of land areas,
Fig. 4 Coastal vulnerability map on the basis of coastal slope for the Gujarat coast
M. Mahapatra et al.
whereas areas of coastal erosion are considered as more vul-
nerable because of the resultant loss of coastal land. It also
reduces the distance between coastal population and ocean,
thereby increasing the risk of exposure of population to coast-
al hazards (Kumar et al. 2010). There are many shoreline
indicators such as High Tide Line (HTL), Mean High Tide
Line (MHTL), Low Tide Line (LTL), and Mean Low Tide
Line (MLTL). The HTL is the preferred indicator for shoreline
delineation as it is easy for photo interpretation and field-
located (Crowell et al. 1991). HTL means the line on the land
up to which the high water line reaches during the spring tide
(CRZ Notification, 2011, Govt. of India).
Satellite data has been interpreted to demarcate HTL
based on various geomorphological and land use/land
cover features like landward berms/dune crest, seawalls
or embankment, permanent terrestrial vegetation line,
landward side of mangroves, beaches, salt pans, high-
tidal mud flats and salt marshes. HTL of 198991 are
prepared from Landsat TM and HTL of 2005 time frame
are prepared from Indian satellite of Resourcesat-1
Coastal vulnerability assessment of Gujarat coast
AWiFS. The horizontal displacement of shoreline which
indicates the zones of erosion and accretion was extracted
by overlaying technique in GIS, and the shift in shoreline
during the 16-year period from 198991 to 2005 is com-
puted. The annual shoreline change rate was calculated
and based on the rate of shoreline change vulnerability
map was generated (Fig. 5). Based on the erosion and
accretion pattern, the coastline is divided into five vulner-
ability classes/rank. There were very high (erosion>5 m/
year), high (erosion 5 m/year), moderate (no change/sta-
ble), low (accretion 5 m/year) and very low (accretion>
5 m/year).
Mean spring tide range
Tidal range affects both permanent and episodic inunda-
tion hazards. A coastal area is considered highly vulnera-
ble if it experiences high tidal range where large tidal
range is associated with strong tidal currents that influ-
ence coastal behavior (Gornitz 1991; Shaw et al. 1998;
Fig. 5 Coastal vulnerability map on the basis of shoreline change rate for the Gujarat coast
247
Diez et al. 2007; Rao et al. 2008; Kumar et al. 2010;
ManiMurali et al. 2013). In the present study, the predict-
ed mean spring tide range (the average of the spring high-
and low tides) is taken into consideration for vulnerability
assessment. Tide prediction tool of MIKE-CMAP is used
to obtain the predicted tidal elevation of the 24 tidal sta-
tions (Table 2) along the Gujarat coast in the year 2005.
The spring tide ranges are calculated for each station from
the predicted tide data. Based on the tidal ranges along 24
points, the entire coastline is segmented to assign the tidal
range value of the nearest tide station. For instance, the
coastline between Miyani (0.99 m) and Dwarka (1.71 m)
is segmented into two equal parts to represent 0.99 m near
Miyani and 1.71 m near Dwarka. The method has been
followed to segment the entire Gujarat coastline based on
the tidal stations. Subsequently, the vulnerability ranking is
given based on Table 1 where the coast is divided into five
vulnerability classes. These are (1) very high (>6 m), (2) high
(46 m), (3) moderate (24 m), (4) low (12 m) and (5) very
low (1 m) (Fig. 6).
248 M. Mahapatra et al.

Table 2 Tide station along with

mean spring tidal range in meters Sl. no. Location Longitude Latitude Mean spring
(MIKE-21 CMAP Module) tidal range

1 Ambheta 72.6 21.68 5.67

2 Bhavnagar 72.23 21.75 6.53
3 Dahanu 72.72 19.97 3.05
4 Dwarka 68.95 22.27 1.71
5 Godia creek 68.6 23.25 1.81
6 Hansthal creek 70.35 22.93 4.34
7 Kandla harbour 70.22 23.02 4.8
8 Kori creek entrance 68.45 23.5 2.06
9 Koteshwar 68.53 23.68 2.45
10 Lakhpat 68.8 23.83 2.76
11 Mandvi 69.35 22.83 2.6
12 Miyani 69.38 21.83 0.99
13 Navinal point 69.72 22.73 3.8
14 Navlakhi 70.45 22.97 5.17
15 Nawabandar 71.08 20.75 1.19
16 Okha 69.08 22.47 2.33
17 Pipavav bandar 71.57 20.97 1.94
18 Porbandar 69.6 21.63 1.38
19 Rozi 70.03 22.57 4.27
20 Salaya 69.62 22.37 3.39
21 Sikka 69.82 22.43 3.78
22 Sultanpur 72.13 21.28 4.19
23 Suvali 72.62 21.18 4.23
24 Valsad 72.88 20.63 3.89

Significant wave height (SWH)
Significant wave height is the average height (trough to crest) of
one-third of the highest waves for a given period of time.
Significant wave height (SWH) is used as an alternative to wave
energy and is important in studying the vulnerability of shoreline.
Wave energy is directly related to the square of wave height:
1
E pgH 2 1 entire Gujarat coast is segmented and the corresponding SWH
8 value is assigned to each section. Further, considering the SWH
where E is energy, H is SWH, is water density and g is the
acceleration due to gravity. The ability to mobilize and trans-
port coastal sediments is a function of wave height squared
(Pendleton et al. 2006; Thieler and Hammar-Klose 2000).
The wave energy increases with an increase in the wave height,
which results in loss of land area due to increased erosion and
inundation along shore, so those coastal areas of high wave
height are considered as more vulnerable coast and areas of
low wave height as less vulnerable coast.
In the absence of in situ wave data for the Gujarat coast,
results of wave simulation are used in the study. The wave sim-
ulations have been performed using Spectral Wave (SW) module
of MIKE-21. In order to assign the vulnerability rank based on
SWH values of 24 discrete locations (Table 3), the coastal seg-
ment between two consecutive wave stations is divided into two
equal parts and the SWH value of the nearest station is assigned
to each coastal division. For instance, the coastal sector between
Survalli and Valsad stations is divided into two equal parts and
the segment south of Survalli is assigned the SWH value of
0.72 m similar to that of the Survalli station and the coastal
segment north of Valsad is assigned with 1.79 m. Likewise, the
values of different coastal sections, the entire Gujarat coast is
classified into five vulnerability levels adopting the SWH
ranges. These are (1) very high (>1.25 m), (2) high (1.05
1.25 m), (3) moderate (0.851.05 m), (4) low (0.550.85 m)
and (5) very low (0.55 m) (Fig. 7). Summarizes the length of
shoreline in each of the vulnerability class of the five variables
covering the Gujarat coast is shown in Table 4.
Relative weightage computation and developing coastal
vulnerability index (CVI)
After parameters are ranked, they are compared by
assigning appropriate weightage according to their relative
Coastal vulnerability assessment of Gujarat coast
Fig. 6 Coastal vulnerability map on the basis of mean spring tidal range for the Gujarat coast
importance within the framework of vulnerability. In the
present study, the weightage has been given to each of the
coastal vulnerability-ranking layer based on their response
to sea level rise. The coastal vulnerability ranking layer of
geomorphology (G), has been assigned weightage 4. The
coastal vulnerability ranking layer of slope (S) has been
given weightage 4. Geomorphology and the slope of the
coast are the two major factors influencing the coastal re-
sponse to sea-level rise (Rao et al. 2008). Several studies
made along the east coast of India indicate the role of
geomorphology and the coastal slope in the tsunami impact
analysis. December, 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami has sig-
nificantly affected Nagapattinam area in the southern state
of Tamil Nadu along the east coast of India due to the
gentle slope of the coast (Ramanamurthy et al. 2005).
Banerjee (2005) observed that the landforms of the coastal
zone have relation with tsunami devastation. The low
swales behind shore parallel dune ridges claimed several
lives due to lateral flows from tidal inlets or breaches in
dune ridges which significantly affected the intensity of
249
tsunami devastation (Chadha et al. 2005). Therefore, geo-
morphology and slope is considered to have relatively
more significance over the rest of the three variables in
deciding the coastal response to sea-level rise and a
weightage of 4 is assigned to these two variables. The
coastal vulnerability ranking layer of shoreline change rate
(m/year) (C) has been given weightage 2. The rate of
shoreline change in the past cannot be taken as a constant
for predicting the future behavior of the coast but indicates
the general trend (Rao et al. 2008). The coastal vulnerabil-
ity ranking layer of mean spring tide range (T) has been
given weightage 4 due to the large tidal range in the
Gujarat coast. The coastal vulnerability ranking layer of
significant wave height (W) has been assigned weightage
3 as the spatial variation of significant wave height is high.
The rank values along with the weightage values of all the
five physical variables are integrated to develop a Coastal
Vulnerability Index through GIS techniques. The integra-
tion of the rank values along with the weightage values of
the parameters may be done either through multiplicative
250 M. Mahapatra et al.

Table 3 Tide station along with

significant wave height in meters Sl. no. Location Longitude Latitude Significant
(source: MIKE-21 SW model) wave height

1 Dahanu 72.72 19.97 2.48

2 Dahej Bandar 72.55 21.73 0.21
3 Dwarka 68.95 22.27 2.89
4 Godia creek 68.60 23.20 2.36
5 Gulf of Kambhat-north 72.55 22.20 0.01
6 Gulf of Kambhat-west 72.20 22.00 0.06
7 Hansthal 70.35 22.93 0.40
8 Jafarabad 71.38 20.87 2.51
9 Kori creek 68.45 23.50 0.36
10 Koteshwar 68.53 23.68 0.36
11 Mandvi 69.35 22.83 1.99
12 Miyani 69.38 21.83 3.00
13 Navinal 69.72 22.73 1.19
14 Navibandar 71.08 20.75 2.51
15 Okha 69.08 22.47 2.04
16 Pipavav 71.57 20.92 1.74
17 Salaya 69.62 22.37 1.04
18 Saurastra coast 69.90 21.35 2.99
19 Sikka 69.82 22.43 1.02
20 Sultanpur 72.23 21.28 1.02
21 Suvali 72.62 21.18 0.72
22 Tapi river (Hazira) 72.67 21.13 0.72
23 Valsad 72.88 20.63 1.79
24 Veraval 70.37 20.90 2.98

method or through an additive method. The present study
has used an additive method, where CVI is calculated as;
CV I 4  G 4  S 2  C 4  T 3  W 2
where G refers to the vulnerability ranking of geomorphol-
ogy, S refers to the coastal slope, C refers to the shoreline
change, T refers to the mean spring tide range and W refers
to the significant wave height. The factors 4, 3 and 2 used
in the formula represent theweighatge factors assigned to
the variables. The data are processed in Geographic
Information System software (ArcGIS 10.0). Each variable
in the form of a Shape File is taken into GIS and the
vulnerability ranks of all the coastal segments for the five
variables are entered into the corresponding attribute tables
against the unique ID of each coastal segment. Similarly,
the weighted values of each variable for each coastal seg-
ment are automatically generated as per the weightages
given in another column in the respective attribute tables
in the system. Shape files are then joined using the Spatial
Join option in Overlay module in Arc Tools menu in
Arc Map Software. Rao et al. (2008) considered coastline
as a line feature in GIS to integrate all the variables, where-
as, Pendleton et al. (2004) divided the coast into spatial
grids of 1-min interval, 15-min interval (Diez et al.
2007), or as closely spaced points along the coast
(Doukakis 2005). However, such grid cell, or point sam-
pling lead to some amount of generalization and affects the
accuracy of the final results (Rao et al. 2008). The present
study has taken the entire coast as a line feature in GIS in
which every point along the coast is considered for the
analysis. The final output map contains the attributes of
all the five variables. While combining all the variables
in the final map, the entire coast was divided into 1248
segments, each having a unique identity number in its cor-
responding attribute table (Fig. 8).
Result and discussions
Geomorphology
Gujarat coast has a wide variety of coastal features owing to its
varied physiography, geomorphology and coastal processes.
The Rann of Kachchh is a unique region along the northern
Gujarat, which comprise of the Great Rann and the Little
Rann. It remains as saline desert for most of the year and is
Coastal vulnerability assessment of Gujarat coast 251

Fig. 7 Coastal vulnerability map on the basis of significant wave height for the Gujarat coast

inundated during monsoons. The Great Rann and the Little
Rann though separated from each other by the highland of
Kachchh are interconnected through tidal creeks. The north-
western region of the Kachchh district is dominated by deltaic
plains and is characterized by tidal creeks (Kori creek), man-
groves and tidal flats with or without salt encrustations. The
shoreline of the Gulf of Kachchh comprises of extensive
mudflats and is highly intended with a number of Cliffy, rocky
islands fringed by coral reefs. On the other hand, Saurashtra
coast mainly comprises of cliffs, tidal flats, estuaries, dunes,
sandy beaches and bays with raised beach near Veraval and
Porbandar (Sood et al. 1982). The ancient shorelines
(strandlines) are observed along the Saurashtra coast. The
coast around the Gulf of Khambhat is indented by estuaries

Table 4 Length of the shoreline in each of the vulnerability class of the five variables

Variable Shoreline length in km (% share in bold) in each of the vulnerability class (rank)
Vulnerability rank

Very low (1) Low (2) Moderate (3) High (4) Very high (5)

Coastal geomorphology 467.68 (27.20) 101.48 (5.90) 619.74 (36.04) 70.02 (4.07) 460.80 (26.80)
Coastal slope (%) 843.04 (49.02) 152.80 (8.88) 196.36 (11.42) 252.25 (14.67) 275.29 (16.00)
Shoreline change rate (m/year) 203.71 (11.85) 198.65 (11.55) 698.59 (40.62) 178.33 (10.37) 440.48 (25.61)
Mean spring tide range (m) 48.84 (2.84) 487.33 (28.34) 549.58 (31.96) 517.17 (30.07) 116.81 (6.79)
Significant wave height (m) 120.22 (6.99) 483.78 (28.34) 370.06 (21.52) 248.28 (14.44) 497.41 (28.92)

The length is in km, and its percent share in parenthesis (in bold)
252
Fig. 8 Coastal vulnerability Index (CVI) map for the Gujarat coast
and consists of extensive mudflats, dunes, patch mangroves,
salt marsh, saltpan and patches of sandy beaches. All these
features are manifestation of high-tidal range in the gulf. The
south Gujarat coast is comparatively uniform and has few
indentations. The dominant coastal features of south Gujarat
coast are series of estuaries, creeks, mudflats, beaches and
marsh vegetation. Saurasthtra and Kachchh coast is
characterised by predominantly ephemeral drainage. The pe-
rennial prominent rivers forming estuaries along the Gulf of
Khambhat are the Shetrunji, Sabarmati, Mahi, Narmada, Tapi,
Damanganga, Par, Purna, Aurunga, Ambica and Mindhola.
The vulnerability rank based on geomorphology (Fig. 3)
shows that about 30.87 % of the Gujarat coast over a length
of 530.82 km is under high to very high vulnerability due to
low lying areas of tidal mudflats, mangroves and creeks. High
to very high vulnerable areas are along the northwest regions
of the Gulf of Khambhat, near Mundra, Jamnagar, Maliya and
to the northwest parts of the Kachchh district. About 36.04 %
(i.e. 619.74 km) of Gujarat coast are under moderate vulnera-
bility category and are observed along Jambusar to Valsad,
M. Mahapatra et al.
east of Kandla, Jodiya and Ghogha. Low to very low vulner-
able area is about 33.10 % of the coast (569.16 km) with the
presences of rocky/Cliffy. They are mainly observed along the
Saurashtra coast (i.e. Okha to Ghogha) and in south Gujarat
coast along Valsad to Umergaon, Mandvi to Jakhau coastal
segments.
Coastal slope
Coastal slope is the major factor to be considered along with
the coastal geomorphology in estimating the impacts of sea
level rise on a given coast. The lower slope values are ob-
served where contour spacing is larger and such areas have a
high chance of getting inundation if sea level rises, hence,
considered under high vulnerable category. The lower slopes
are observed to the northwest of Khambhat, east of Gulf of
Kachchh, north east of Kori creek. The higher slopes are ob-
served along the Saurashtra coast and south-west of Bhuj
around Mandvi-Jakhau coastal segment. Based on coastal
slope, about 527 km (30.67 %) shore length of Gujarat coast
Coastal vulnerability assessment of Gujarat coast
falls under high to very high vulnerability category, whereas
11.42 % (i.e. 196.36 km) of Gujarat coast are moderately
vulnerable and 57.9 % (i.e. 995.84 km) is observed under
low to very low vulnerable category (Fig. 4).
Shoreline change rate
The broad trends in shoreline behavior are helpful in under-
standing the coastal response to future sea level rise. The
shoreline change study (Fig. 5) reveals that about 35.98 %
of the Gujarat coast is eroding, (i.e. high to very high vulner-
able) whereas, about 40.62 % of coast is stable (i.e. moderate
vulnerable) and about 23.40 % of the coast is accreting in
nature (i.e. low to very low vulnerable). About 618.80 km
length of the Gujarat coast is eroding with a loss of about
1035.23 km2 areas. High erosions are observed along the
south Gujarat coast (144 km coastal stretch from Surat district
to Umargam in Valsad district), north east of Kori creeks and
near Godia creeks. The total land gained by accretion is about
651.04 km2 over a length of about 402.36 km. Accreting coast
Fig. 9 Risk levels map of Gujarat coast
253
is observed towards the northern parts of the Gulf of
Khambhat, southern side of Bharuch, east of Mundra and
along the west of Kachchh district. Stable shoreline is ob-
served mainly along Saurashtra coast and Mandvi to Jakhau,
where the coast is mainly. Rock/Cliffy. Coast along Jamnagar
and region to the west of the Gulf of Khambhat are also ob-
served to be stable due to large tidal flats backed by road,
permanent vegetation where the tidal energy is low to
moderate.
Mean spring tide range
Semi-diurnal tide with large diurnal inequality and varying
amplitude dominates all along the Gujarat coast. Very high
mean tide range is observed near Bhavnagar (6.53 m). The
vulnerability rank based on the mean spring tide range (Fig. 6)
indicates that about 37.86 % (i.e. 633.98 km) shore length of
Gujarat coast is under high to very high vulnerability category
and are observed mainly along the Gulf of Khambhat and
northern parts of the Gulf of Kachchh. Low to very low
254
Fig. 10 Percentage of shore
length for different risk levels of
the Gujarat coast
vulnerable class accounts for about 31.18 % (i.e. 536.17 km)
and are observed along the southern parts of the Saurashtra
coast and along the southwestern parts of the Gulf of
Kachchh. The remaining shore length is under a moderate
vulnerability category which is about 31.96 % (i.e.
549.58 km) of the total coastal length.
Significant wave height (SWH)
Very high spatial variation in the distribution of wave height is
observed along the Gujarat coast. Based on significant wave
height, about 43.36 % (i.e. 745.69 km) of shoreline comes
under high to very vulnerability category (Fig. 7). The high
vulnerable area is observed along the Saurashtra coast (i.e.
Okha to Mohuva), Mandvi to Jakhau in Kachchh district
and Navsari to Umergam in south Gujarat. Very low to low
vulnerable area is about 35.33 % of shoreline and is observed
along the northern region of the Gulf of Khambhat and the
north-eastern region of the Gulf of Kachchh. The moderate
vulnerable class accounts for about 21.52 % and is observed
along Jodiya to Okha in southern parts of the Gulf of Kachchh
coast and Ghogha to Gopnath in southwestern parts of the
Gulf of Khambhat.
Coastal vulnerability index (CVI) & risk level map
The rank values of all the five physical variables are integrated
to develop coastal vulnerability index (CVI) through GIS
techniques. The CVI map (Fig. 8) shows 1248 segments of
the Gujarat coast each having a unique identity number in its
corresponding attribute table. The CVI values obtained ranged
from 31 to 74. The entire range of CVI values is divided into
four equal parts, each indicating certain risk level of the coast-
line to sea-level rise (Fig. 9). It is inferred that the lower range
of CVI values indicates low-risk, followed by moderate-risk,
high-risk and finally the upper range of values indicates the
coast at very high-risk level. The risk Level map is prepared
from CVI and coastal length under different risk categories is
quantified (Fig. 10). About 9.90 % of the total coast are under
M. Mahapatra et al.
very high risk category mostly along the eastern parts of the
Khambhat i.e., from Bhavnagar to Khambhat. High risk re-
gions are also found along the western part of Kachchh and
northeastern part of Gulf of Kachchh. The main reasons for
the coast to be under very high risk is the presence of soft
substrate, high tidal range combined with a high rate of shore-
line change. The geomorphic features of the area are mainly
intertidal mudflat, high tidal mudflat, mangroves and salt
marsh.
About 35.74 % of the total coast are under the high risk
category and is mainly observed around the Gulf of Kachchh
and the Gulf of Khambhat. It is observed that a very small
portion of the south Gujarat coast is under high risk class.
About 28 % of the coastal segment of the Gujarat coast are
under the moderate risk category and is observed mostly along
the south of Gujarat coast and eastern region of the Gulf of
Khambhat. These coastal regions mainly comprise of rocky
area or have low to moderate slope where the shoreline chang-
es are low. The risk classification shows that about 26.34 % of
the Gujarat coasts are under the low risk category. The low
risk areas are observed along the Saurashtra coast, i.e. from
Dwarka to Diu, south of Kachchh and east of Khambhat coast.
Rocky coast, high slope, and stable shoreline, makes the re-
gion to get classified under low risk category. The CVI of
Gujarat coast shows the relative potential of coastal changes
due to future sea-level rise. Coastal geomorphology, coastal
slope and mean tide range are the most important variables in
determining the CVI for the Gujarat coast.
Conclusion
The eustatic sea level rise due to global warming is a major
concern, which makes the identification of the vulnerable
stretches of coast an important task. The work has demonstrat-
ed the capability of remote sensing and GIS techniques for
assessing vulnerability of the Gujarat coast due to predicted
sea level rise on 1:50,000 scale. Coastal Vulnerability Index
(CVI) has been computed for entire Gujarat coast based on
integration of five physical variables viz., coastal
Coastal vulnerability assessment of Gujarat coast
geomorphology, coastal slope, rate of shoreline change, mean
spring tide range and significant wave height in GIS environ-
ment. The CVI analysis resulted in a total of 1248 segments
for the Gujarat coast with CVI values ranging from 31 to 74,
indicating the vulnerability of the coast to predicted sea level
rise, where the lower value represents lower vulnerability and
higher value represents higher vulnerability. The results show
that 785 km (45.67 %) of the Gujarat coast is under high to
very high risk category and 934 km (54.33 %) of the Gujarat
coast is under moderate to low risk category to the threat of
predicted sea level rise. The approach developed, using re-
mote sensing and GIS techniques, to assess the vulnerability
of the coast to predicted sea level rise can be used effectively
by coastal managers and decision makers to assist in devising
better coastal zone management plans, as well as to ensure
development of appropriate mitigation measures to minimize
the losses due to possible impact of predicted sea level rise. A
range of measures to protect life, property and environment
can be more effectively planned.
Acknowledgments The authors express their sincere gratitude to Shri
A S Kiran Kumar, Director, SAC, Ahmedabad for providing required
data and support. The authors are thankful to Dr. Ramesh Ramachandran,
Director and Dr. Purvaja Ramachandran, Scientist-G, NCSCM, Chennai
for providing valuable guidance, support and constant encouragement.
The authors are also grateful to the reviewer for their valuable suggestion.
References
Allan JC, Komar PD (2006) Climate controls on US West Coast erosion
processes. J Coast Res 22:511529
AMAP (Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program) (2012) Arctic
Climate Issues 2011: Changes in Arctic Snow, Water, Ice and
Permafrost, Oslo, pp 197
Banerjee A (2005) Tsunami deaths. Curr Sci 88:1358
Brown LR (2001) Rising sea level forcing evacuation of island country.
Earth Policy Inst. Available via http://www.earth-policy.org/
Updates/Update2.htm. Accessed 2 Aug 2008
Cazenave A, Dominh K, Guinehut S, Berthier E, Llovel W, Ramillien G,
Larnicol G (2009) Sea level budget over 20032008: a reevalu-
ation from GRACE space gravimetry, satellite altimetry and Argo.
Glob Planet Chang 65(1):8388
Census of India (2011) (http://censusindia.gov.in/)
Chadha RK, Latha G, Yeh H et al (2005) The tsunami of the great
Sumatra earthquake of M.9.0 on 26 December 2004impact on
the east coast of India. Curr Sci 88:12971301
Chen SS, Chen LF, Liu QH, Li X, Tan Q (2005) Remote sensing and GIS-
based integrated analysis of coastal changes and their environmental
impacts in Lingding Bay, Pearl River Estuary, South China. Ocean
Coast Manag 48(1):6583
Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification 2011, Ministry of
Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Govt. of India. (http://
www.moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/CRZ-Notification-
2011.pdf). Accessed 15 Jan 2012
Crowell M, Leatherman SP, Buckley MK (1991) Historical shoreline
change: error analysis and mapping accuracy. J Coast Res 7:839
852
255
Diez PG, Perillo GME, Piccolo MC (2007) Vulnerability to sea-level rise
on the coast of Buenos Aires province. J Coast Res 23:119126
Dolan R, Fenster MS, Holme SJ (1991) Temporal analysis of shoreline
recession and accretion. J Coast Res 7:723744
Doukakis E (2005) Coastal vulnerability and risk parameters. Eur Water
11(12):37
Garg JK, Singh TS, Murthy TUR (1998) Wetland of India, Space
Application Centre (ISRO), Ahmedabad. Project Report on Nation
Wide Wetland
Gehrels W, Marshall W, Gehrels M, Larsen G, Kirby J, Eirksson J,
Heinemeier J, Shimmield T (2006) Rapid sea-level rise in the
North Atlantic Ocean since the first half of the nineteenth century.
The Holocene 16:949965
Gornitz V (1991) Global coastal hazards from future sea level rise. Glob
Planet Chang 3(4):379398
Hanh PTT, Furukawa M (2007) Impact of sea level rise on coastal zone of
Vietnam. Bull Coll Sci Univ Ryukyus 84:45
Hansen J, Sato M, Ruedy R, Lo K, Lea DW, Medina-Elizade M (2006)
Global temperature change. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103(39):14288
14293
IPCC (2001) Climate change 2001. Impacts, adaptration and vulnerabil-
ity. Contribution of working Group-II to the Third assessment report
of the Inter-government Panel on Climate Change. In: McCarthy JJ
et al (eds) Cambridge University Press, pp 11032
IPCC (2007) Summary for policymakers. In: Soloman SD, Manning QM,
Chen Z, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science
basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 118
IPCC (2013) Summary for policymakers. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner
G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V,
Midgley PM (eds) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge
IPCC-CZMS (1992) Global climate change and the rising challenge of
the sea. Report of the Coastal Zone Management Subgroup,
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Ministry of
Transport, Public Works and Water Management, The Hague
Kemp AC, Horton BP, Culver SJ, Corbett DR, van de Plassche O,
Gehrels WR, Parnell AC (2009) Timing and magnitude of recent
accelerated sea-level rise (North Carolina, United States). Geology
37(11):10351038.
Klein RJT, Reese S, Sterr H (2000) Climate change and coastal zones: an
overview of the state-of-the-art on regional and local vulnerability.
In: Giupponi CA, Shechther M (eds) Climate change in the
Mediterranean: socio-economic perspective of impacts, vulnerabili-
ty and adaptation. Edward Elgar Publishing, Camberley, pp 245
278
Kumar TS, Mahendra RS, Nayak S, Radhakrishnan K, Sahu KC (2010)
Coastal vulnerability assessment for Orissa State, East coast of
India. J Coast Res 26:523534
ManiMurali R, Ankita M, Amrita S, Vethamony P (2013) Coastal vul-
nerability assessment of Puducherry coast, India, using the analyti-
cal hierarchical process. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 13(12):3291
3311
McLean RF, Tsyban A, Burkett V, Codignotto JO, Forbes DL, Mimura N,
Ittekkot V (2001) Coastal zones and marine ecosystems. In:
McCarthy JJ et al (eds) Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation,
and vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 343
379
Meehl GA, Washington WM, Collins WD, Arblaster JM, Hu A, Buja LE,
Teng H (2005) How much more global warming and sea level
rise? Science 307(5716):17691772
MOEF (Ministry of Environment and Forests) Government of India
(2009) Draft summary report, Integrated Coastal Zone
256
Management Project-Assisted by World Bank: Environment and
Social Assessment Report, November 2009. (http://www.moef.nic.
in/downloads/public-information/Notice_ICZM.pdf)
Nayak S (1994) Application of remote sensing data for estimation of
impact of sea level rise along the Gujarat coast. Global Change
Studies: Scientific Results from ISRO Geosphere Biosphere
Programme
Nayak S (2002) Use of satellite data in coastal mapping. Indian Cartogr
22:147157
ORegan PR (1996) The use of contemporary information technologies
for coastal research and management: a review. J Coast Res 12:192
204
Pendleton EA, Thieler ER, Williams SJ (2004) Coastal vulnerability as-
sessment of Cape Hettaras National Seashore (CAHA) to sea level
rise. USGS Open File Report 2004, 1064
Pendleton EA, Thieler ER, Williams SJ (2006) Coastal vulnerability as-
sessment of Glacier Bay National Park to sea-level rise: U.S.
Geological Survey Open-File Report 2005-1248, Web Only.
Available online at URL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1248
Pethick JS, Crooks S (2000) Development of a coastal vulnerability in-
dex: a geomorphological perspective. Environ Conserv 27(4):359
367
Pye K, Blott SJ (2006) Coastal processes and morphological change in
the Dunwich-Sizewell area, Suffolk, UK. J Coast Res 22:453473
Ramanamurthy MV, Sundaramoorthy S, Pari Y et al (2005) Inundation of
seawater in Andaman and Nicobar islands and parts of Tamil Nadu
coast during 2004 Sumatra tsunami. Curr Sci 88:17361740
Rao N, Subraelu KP, Rao VT, Malini HB, Ratheesh R, Bhattacharya S,
Rajawat AS, Ajai (2008) Sea-level rise and coastal vulnerability: an
assessment of Andhra Pradesh coast, India through remote sensing
and GIS, J Coast Conserv 12:195207
SAC (1991) Manual for mapping of coastal wetlands/landform and
shoreline changes using satellite data. Space Applications Centre
(ISRO), Ahmedabad, India, No. IRS-UP/SAC/MCE/TN/32/91. pp
2838
SAC (2012) Coastal Zones of India, Space Applications Centre (ISRO),
pp 601, ISBN: 978-81-909978-9-8
M. Mahapatra et al.
Scott DB (2005) Coastal changes, rapid. In: Encyclopedia of coastal
science, pp 253255
Shaw J, Taylor RB, Forbes DL, Solomon S, Ruz MH (1998) Sensitivity
of the coasts of Canada to sea-level rise. Bull Geol Surv Can 505:1
79
Sood RK, Subramaniyam V, and Sahai B (1982) Quarternary geomor-
phology of Kathiawad coast. First National Seminar on
Quareternary Environment. Papers (Rd. S.S. Merh). Hindustan
Publishing Corp. (India). Delhi, pp 312
Strohecker K (2008) World sea levels to rise 1.5 m by 2100: scientists, an
Environmental News Network and Reuters publication. Available
via http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/34702. Accessed 24
July 2008
Thieler ER, Hammar-Klose ES (2000) National Assessment of Coastal
Vulnerability to Future Sea-Level Rise: Preliminary Results for the
U.S. Gulf of Mexico Coast. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File
Report 00-179, 1 sheet. Available online at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/
of/of00-179/
Thieler ER, Hammer-Klose ES (1999) National assessment of coastal
vulnerability to sea level rise: preliminary results for the U.S.
Atlanta coast. USGS, Open File Report 99, 593
Thom BG, Cowell PJ (2005) Coastal changes, gradual. In: Schwartz ML
(ed) Encyclopedia of coastal sciences. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 251
253
Turner JM, Bindschadler R, Convey P, di Prisco G, Fahrbach E, Gutt J,
Hodgson D, Mayewski P, Summerhayes C (2009) Antarctic climate
change and the environment. Scientific Committee on Antarctic
Research, Cambridge, p 526
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2007). hysical alter-
ation and destruction of habitats. www.unep.org. Accessed 27
Feb 2008
Unnikrishnan AS, Kumar KR, Fernandes SE, Michael GS, Patwardhan
SK (2006) Sea level changes along the Indian coast: observations
and projections. Curr Sci 90(3):362368
Wood R (2008) Climate change: natural ups and downs. Nature
453(7191):4345