Impacts of Anthropogenic Structures in Long- and Short-Term Shoreline Evolution of Santa Marta Bay (Colombian Caribbean)

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2821734/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Impacts of Anthropogenic Structures in Long- and Short-Term Shoreline Evolution of Santa Marta Bay (Colombian Caribbean)

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2821734/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 09 Apr, 2024

Read the published version in Geo-Marine Letters →

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Interaction of Anthropic interventions (rigid structures) with coasts is an essential aspect for understanding their geomorphic evolution and incorporating these data into adequate coastal management. This study analyses the short and long-term behavior (1985 to 2019) of shoreline at Santa Marta Bay (Caribbean - Colombia) and their relationship with coastal protection structures. The shoreline variations were analyzed through aerial photographs and satellite images using DSAS tools. The short-term assessment revealed initial intense 1985–1991 erosion, with an average retreat speed of − 1.6 m·y^− 1. It changed gradually since 2003, due to the construction of rigid structures and beach nourishment, decreasing shoreline retreat and even a progradation of 0.2 m·y^− 1 was observed. The 2009–2019 period, despite recording a positive average value, exhibited a high percentage of erosion profiles. Therefore, in a decadal or long-term analysis (1985–2019), despite engineering works present positive results in the short term, new interventions are required. The coastal erosion is not uniform along the shoreline, because the area is a closed bay with small sediment contribution, the variations in erosion and accretion rates change with human intervention and the installation of new structures. Therefore, quantifying the scale and rate of shoreline changes and correlating them with anthropogenic structures is an essential step in assessing shoreline vulnerability.

Coastal Infrastructures

Tourism

Coastal Management

Erosion

Accretion

DSAS

• Coastal change assessment through remote sensing techniques.

• Shoreline evolution assessed for the last 34 years.

• Short-term analysis identified cyclical erosion and accretion patterns.

• Medium-term analysis denoted short-period time of stability after installing rigid structures.

Beaches are natural spaces providing attractive resources and services for tourism as a means of economic development. In general, beaches receive millions of visitors around the world (Hall 2001; Marzetti et al. 2016). Tourists seek recreational activities. In turn, these recreational activities must be supported by adequate infrastructure and facilities to meet this growing demand (Orams 1999). As illustrated in several papers, natural coastal processes, coupled with the pressure applied by the increased demand from the tourism industry, generate a series of negative impacts (Alonso et al. 2002; Burak et al. 2004; Phillips and Jones 2006; Portz et al. 2007; Cristiano et al. 2018; Pathak et al. 2021). Therefore, some authors express concerns regarding the negative impacts exerted on beaches by rigid coastal protective infrastructures (Phillips and Jones 2006; Manno et al. 2016; Pranzini 2018; Villate et al. 2020a; Manzolli et al. 2022).

Tourism is emphasized as a vector for significant territorial transformations in a coastal area. In addition to the impacts generated by these activities, coastal tourist activities compete against other productive activities, such as industry, port activities, land and maritime transport, and the subsistence of local communities, thereby increasing their vulnerability (Barragán and de Andrés 2015; Cristiano et al. 2020). The most important environmental problems today include drastic physical and ecological changes caused by climate change, which poses a significant threat to the world’s coastal areas (Phillips and Jones 2006).

At a global level, all shoreline vulnerability factors are being treated as a prerequisite for zoning decisions, thus leading to the implementation of control strategies against threats such as erosion (Salman et al. 2004). The foregoing is added to the factors that foster sustainable tourist exploitation when improving the living conditions of the host communities, tourist satisfaction, and land care (Gauna Ruiz de Leon 2017). Nevertheless, effectively managing erosional processes remains one of the main challenges faced by coastal zone management authorities. In fact, mitigating erosional processes has become one of the main responsibilities for shoreline managers. As reasonably possible, these managers must preserve the quality of the landscape in its natural state while promoting an enjoyable environment for visitors (Phillips and Jones 2006; Gargiulo et al. 2020).

Coastal erosion can cause several consequences not only on beaches but also on other coastal ecosystems, as in the case of adjacent dune systems(Portz et al. 2021). Moreover, the loss of coastal areas due to erosional processes causes economic losses owing to the destruction of residences, a decrease in tourism, leisure, fishing, and aquaculture activities, as well as in port, business and industrial activities, and services related to all the afore-mentioned activities (Souza 2009; Portz et al. 2015, 2018). The development of erosion processes in coastal areas is generally fought by a progressive addition of engineering structures (Cooper et al. 2009). These structures can be, e.g., seawalls, breakwaters, and piers. In most coastal areas around the world, hard engineering structures are implemented to contain negative dynamics impacting sandy beaches in the face of an increasing risk of losing beach areas to rising sea levels (Nordstrom 2014). These structures may have as their objective the protection of urban constructions (piers), recovery of beach profiles (hydraulic nourishment), and consolidation of port infrastructures (starlings) (Airoldi et al. 2005).

Rigid structures exert variable impacts on coastal protection. Rigid structures such as groynes and rockfills occasionally stabilize coastal erosion but can significantly contribute to the disruption of coastal drift. These structures obstruct the longitudinal transport of sediments, which consequently results in an erosion risk for adjacent beaches. Moreover, seawalls secure the shoreline and prevent the sediments contained behind them from entering the beach (de Santiago et al. 2021). These structures also have an impact on biota and can act as physical barriers against the movement of mobile benthic animals and propagules along the coast (Dugan et al. 2012).

Several countries use rigid structures to combat erosion. According to (Pranzini 2018), Italy started containing erosion processes by implementing groynes and detached breakwaters, which triggered erosion in adjacent sectors, resulting in the implementation of new structures. In some locations, more than 200 groynes or detached breakwaters (or both) were installed along a few coastline miles. Subsequently, some beach feeding projects were conducted, but different factors that hindered positive results are leading to the implementation of new projects using submerged groynes and detached breakwaters.

In Colombia, coastal erosion at beaches is not different from most countries (Correa et al. 2005a; Posada and Henao 2008; Anfuso et al. 2015; Manzolli et al. 2020; Villate et al. 2020b). At several beaches, the process is quite severe and requires containment and/or emergency recovery measures. These issues and matters have only been slightly addressed because coastal development is regularly aligned to current needs with a particular economic focus fostered by a constant imbalance in policies, regulations, and institutions (Botero et al. 2016). Unfortunately, this hinders finding a true planning path for a sustainable approach that aligns with demographic growth at the coastal level, which, according to recent studies, has been on the rise since the last century (Small and Nicholls 2003; Neumann et al. 2015; Rangel-Buitrago et al. 2018).

Furthermore, we must also consider mitigating the erosion that affects most of the Caribbean coast of Colombia (Rangel Buitrago and Posada Posada 2016). The data collected in the Guajira Peninsula and coasts of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta Mountain range suggest a coastal retreat of 20 to 30 m in the last century, whereas for the southern Caribbean region, which spans from the Magdalena Delta to the Gulf of Urabá, a coastal retreat of up to 12 km and the maximum erosion rates up to 40 m.y^− 1 are reported in some areas (Correa et al. 2005b; Alcántara-Carrió et al. 2019). In response to these processes, implementing rigid works has been offered as a solution (Rangel-Buitrago et al. 2018) aimed at stopping material losses on private beaches or in beach areas with buildings constructed on lowlands, berms, or dunes, thus directly impacting the physical environment of the location. According to Rangel-Buitrago et al. (2018), approximately 90% of the total rigid structures on the Colombian Caribbean coast have not been successful or have failed to combat coastal erosion in the Colombian Caribbean.

Owing to the socioeconomic and ecological importance of the Colombian coast, especially in the Santa Marta region, coastal evolution must be reconstructed to evaluate the impact from the different rigid infrastructure installation stages. Consequently, coastal risks can be assessed and later avoided within a context of climate change, mainly marked by rising sea levels. The derivations from coastal dynamic changes continue to be poorly studied and have become groundwork for securing sustainable development in preserving coastal ecosystems and maintaining socio-economic activities along the Santa Marta shoreline.

Santa Marta bay has been moderately altered by humans, and it is characterized by significant tourist activities. Santa Marta offers port facilities, marinas, and intense infrastructures aimed at meeting tourist demands. Quantifying the scale and rate of shoreline changes and determining their relationship with anthropogenic structures is an essential step in assessing shoreline vulnerability. Therefore, this study assesses coastal change patterns and their relationship with the development of coastal and tourist infrastructure at Santa Marta Bay. Moreover, we explore the positive and negative aspects of the construction of anthropic structures along the coast while seeking an effective and sustainable management.

Despite being a case study, references to works and processes and their achievements are still scarce and are often geared toward a step-by-step description of the actions conducted, and the number of complete studies that effectively assess the medium- and long-term impacts from environmental changes is relatively small.

2.1. Study Area

The regional geology of the Colombian Caribbean coast is the result of the complex tectonic and strati-graphic environment that fostered the formation of isolated sedimentary basins, separated by the tall structures of ancient igneous and metamorphic rocks (Posada and Henao 2008). As a part of the Sierra Nevada foothills, schist metamorphic rock cliffs are formed in a local contact with the igneous rocks from the Santa Marta batholith.

The Bay of Santa Marta (Fig. 1) is in the narrowest section of the continental shelf of the Colombian Caribbean region, which is associated with the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta Mountain range. Its shape is semicircular and concave, extending for approximately 2.5 km toward the west. To the NE, the mountain range borders the Morro de Santa Marta and El Morrito, two islets that represent extensions from the Punta Betín rock mass. To the SW, the mountain range borders Punta Cuerno, which shelters the old town of Santa Marta and namesake port. This area features nearly vertical cliffs and a small abrasion platform, which are characteristic geomorphological features in rocky coasts with cliffs (Säenz-Reyes et al. 2017).

Along the coastal strip, we may find metamorphic rocks from the San Lorenzo Schist, Eocene igneous rocks from the Santa Marta Batholith, and recent Quaternary deposits. Beach deposits are stratified, and semi consolidated with the levels of fine-grain sand and clay. The age of these deposits has been dated as Holocene (Säenz-Reyes et al. 2017)

Manzanares River is the main water and sedimentary source flowing into the bay of Santa Marta. With a drainage area of 174.54 km², Manzanares River descends through the northeast slope of the Sierra Nevada from a height of 2,450 m (de Arco and León Pérez 2006). Its final section runs through the city of Santa Marta and flows into the middle section of the bay. Along its journey, this river drags and discharges several types of anthropogenic and natural waste. In fact, the clogging of its riverbed is perhaps an important cause of the flooding that constantly affects some city neighborhoods (Hernández 1996).

The climate of Colombian Caribbean region is modulated by the location of the Intertropical Convergence Zone and by the cycles of the American Monsoon System (Andrade-Amaya 2015). Its weather system is directly influenced by three dominant climatic seasons that make it especially hot and dry at an average temperature of 28°C. The dry season takes place from mid-December to the end of March. Here, trade winds prevail at speeds ranging from 4.5 to 6.0 m·s^− 1. This process inhibits vertical cloud development and the concentration of humidity in the environment. Between April and July, there is an atmospheric period of transition, with low to almost zero rainfall, wind speeds ranging between 1.5 and 3.0 m·s^− 1, and peaks reaching 4.0 m·s^− 1 (IDEAM 2022). The Santa Marta area reports less than 500 mm·y^− 1 in rainfall owing to the effect of dry and hot winds caused by divergences from differential frictions between the ocean and land (Guzmán et al. 2008).

Because the direction of waves is closely related to the direction of wind, the waves exhibit a predominant NE–SW direction between December and April and an ENE–WSW trend for the rest of the year (Thomas et al. 2012). The average of annual significant wave height (Hs) is equal to 1.0 m. At low wave heights, significant wave heights are associated to the orientation of the coastline and its sheltered condition. During extreme swell events, caused by either hurricanes or cold fronts coming in from the north, significant wave heights can reach 2.5 m, and their direction can change depending on wave train incidence.

The tidal regime is classified as mostly mixed diurnal with microtidal characteristics at the maximum ranges of 0.48–0.50 m. The Bay of Santa Marta currents exhibit a predominant pattern toward the west, except in the months of January, June, July, and August, where the predominant direction is S/SW at average speeds ranging between 2 and 6 cm·s^− 1, with peaks at 12 cm·s^− 1 (García et al. 2012).

From the social and economic aspect, the Bay of Santa Marta is highly dynamic. In this area, different activities are developed that affect the conditions of the marine environment, sometimes even reporting environmental emergencies related to mineral coal dispersion, hydrocarbon spills, or fish mortality. The nearest urban settlement is the city of Santa Marta, the capital of the Magdalena department, with an approximate population of 538,000 (DANE 2020). Because this area lacks widespread industrial development, its levels of poverty are higher than the national average.

As the city of Santa Marta offers attractive conditions, such as the port, its bay is frequently visited by deep-sea cargo ships, regular-line cruise ships, and recreational sailboats. The latter commonly use this bay for docking and shelter owing to the protection provided by its rocky ledge configuration.

Moreover, the promenade Rodrigo de Bastidas State Park is one of the most important tourist attractions in the area. To the south, this park connects to the International Marina of Santa Marta, and to the north, with the Port of Santa Marta. The International Marina of Santa Marta is an engineering intervention on part of the bay, located exactly in front of the structures that once delimited the northern area of the city beach located directly across from the promenade. Its construction began in early 2009 and took 18 months to complete.

2.2. Remote Sensing

Based on the criteria expressed by Pardo (1991), which focuses on the short- and long-term evolutionary processes and changes collected from a few weeks to decades, we conducted a diachronic assessment of the shoreline evolution experienced by the Bay of Santa Marta using the aerial photographs taken in 1985, 1991, and 2003 by the Agustín Codazzi Geographical Institute (IGAC) and Google Earth satellite images from 2006, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2016, and 2019 (Table 1). Using images from Google Earth is already an established technique employed in several papers (Lorenz et al. 2013; Portz et al. 2014; Revollo Sarmiento et al. 2015; Qi et al. 2016; Liang et al. 2018; Manzolli et al. 2020; Villate et al. 2020b; Warnasuriya et al. 2020). The IGAC images were georeferenced based on the Google Earth Pro images using the ArcGIS 10.8 software®, which allowed taking control points based on the Datum WGS84 UTM - Zone 18 projection reference system, and it positioned the images through a first-order polynomial trans-formation to obtain permissible planimetric errors. Image distortion errors were controlled using visual estimates that compared the georeferenced aerial photograph against the base map. Further, we used the root-mean square error calculated based on the different control points from each image (Anders and Byrnes 1991; Crowell et al. 1991). This error fluctuated depending on image scale and resolution.

To digitize shorelines for each year, the different coverage and characteristics of each raster image were considered. This analysis was supported by the Iso Cluster Unsupervised Classification (CNS) in ArcGIS (Dellepiane et al. 2004), which supported the definition of three surfaces (bodies of water, land, and clouds). This definition coupled with applying the “Modified Normalized Difference Water Index” (MNDWI) (Ghoneim et al. 2015) helped us interpret the different characteristics of each image assessed. Furthermore, we minimized topological, stochastic, and generalization errors using tools such as Stream and Point Mode.

Table 1

Images and photographs used to assess the shoreline evolution.
Sensor or Document	Image Date	Source
IGAC Aerial Image	1985	IGAC Flight C2228
IGAC Aerial Image	1987	IGAC Flight C2289
IGAC Aerial Image	1991	IGAC Flight C2451
IGAC Aerial Image	2003	IGAC Flight C2685
Satellite Image	06/22/2006	Google Earth Pro
Satellite Image	03/08/2009.	Google Earth Pro
Satellite Image	12/12/2009	Google Earth Pro
Satellite Image	03/07/2011	Google Earth Pro
Satellite Image	06/05/2013	Google Earth Pro
Satellite Image	07/11/2015	Google Earth Pro
Satellite Image	12/22/2016	Google Earth Pro
Satellite Image	01/01/2019	Google Earth Pro

2.3. Historical Shoreline Analysis – Digital Coast Analysis System (DSAS)

Shoreline change rates for the area of interest were generated in ArcMap 10. 8.1 using version 5.0 of the Digital Shoreline Analysis System (DSAS-USGS) (Thieler et al. 2009). This tool generates transects according to a baseline. These transects intercept the shorelines defined at a given separation, thereby calculating the change rates based on the spatial and time differences between successive lines.

Within this work, two assessments were used: the end point rate (EPR), calculated by dividing the distance between the most recent and oldest shorelines by the elapsed time (Manzolli et al. 2020; Villate et al. 2020), and the net shoreline movement (NSM), determined by the variation distance between the oldest and most recent shorelines.

Each transect was delimited to the fluctuation range evidenced and was subsequently defined using a control buffer that established a range of the dynamics from the shoreline retreat or accretion. These transects were perpendicular to the ocean and spaced at 5m intervals for a total of 438 transects.

Seeking to create a coastal evolution classification, the EPR value was subdivided into seven classes, as proposed by (Del Río et al. 2013; Natesan et al. 2015; Cifuentes-Ossa et al. 2017), using the EPR module interpretation ranges from Table 2 below.

Table 2

Classification of the shoreline erosion and accretion processes based on the EPR change rate statistics (Del Río et al. 2013; Natesan et al. 2015; Cifuentes-Ossa et al. 2017).
Class	EPR Range (m.y^− 1)	Shoreline Change Process Classification
C1	<-15	Very-High Erosion
C2	-15 to -5	High Erosion
C3	-5 to -2	Moderate Erosion
C4	-2 to 2	Stable
C5	2 to 5	Moderate Accretion
C6	5 to 15	High Accretion
C7	> 15	Very-High Accretion

Shorelines are constantly modified by natural processes and human activities. An accurate detection of shoreline changes in relation to coastal works provides information on coastal dynamics and is, therefore, it is very important for future planning.

3.1. Shoreline Hardening Evolution

The Santa Marta Bay beaches have been subjected to continuous intervention, mainly aimed at stopping erosional processes. For example, in the 1970s, the Puertos de Colombia Company conducted beach dredging and filling works. Subsequently, the Central French Laboratory of Hydraulics conducted the “Defending the Santa Marta Beach” study, who’s technical recommendations were not fully implemented. This gradually contributed to the continuous recession of the width of the beach and to losing its equilibrium profile, thus ultimately exposing the foundations of the pedestrian Rodrigo de Bastidas State Park in the northern sector of the study area (Sector 4). In 2000, a mitigation effort was conducted with implementing geotextile containers for straight circular trochoidal sediments, which were planned as containment breakwaters for the particulate material. However, this intervention was not successful due to construction implementation issues and poor filling material selection.

Furthermore, a beach nourishment was conducted from September 26, 2000, to September 4, 2001. This beach nourishment used properly classified quarry sand and concentrated mostly in Sector 4, with an average width of 35.0 m to the north and 17.0 m to the south. However, on more than one occasion, strong waves and breeze completely washed away all the nourishment material, transporting it along the shoreline, especially to the south. A second beach nourishment was conducted in Sectors 2 and 3 as a beach recovery measure. In these sectors, the beach no longer existed because the ocean had totally displaced the sedimentary material and constructions along the shoreline. Consequently, the beach area increased to an average width of 22.0 m. In both cases, the design elevation was controlled at 0.60 m during construction (CIOH, 2004).

Moreover, two rigid breakwaters were built in 2002 (Fig. 2, image from 2003). The first breakwater was placed in the northern area, and the second one was built in the center of the bay, approximately 30 m away from the promenade. These works were supplemented with nourishments using classified external material with similar granulometric characteristics to the sand found at this beach. However, in the same manner as with previous nourishment dredging operations, most of the material was transported south by currents, waves, and wind.

In the same year (2002), construction started for a pier in the southern portion of the Manzanares River mouth with a footbridge perpendicular to the shoreline and a “T” ending driven into piles (Fig. 2, image from 2003). The last construction, and perhaps the most important one, is the service infrastructure built during 2009–2012. This infrastructure contained two breakwaters and one seawall mainly comprising quarry rocks (limestone). These structures aimed at protecting and dissipating wave energy for docking boats (Fig. 2, image from 2011).

The total constructed length of these four structures is 2,693.55 m, whereas the maritime beach in Santa Marta Bay has a linear length of 2,322.32 m. The most outstanding structure is the international marina, with a service infrastructure of 2,201.16 m in length, followed by a 207.73 m pier, and finally the two breakwaters with a length of 147.19 and 137.74 m, respectively (Fig. 2, image from 2019).

Hard structures have been the first management strategy for coastal erosion issues along the Colombian Caribbean coast. In the first months of 2016, there were 1,484 hard structures, with the highest concentrations in tourist cities (Rangel-Buitrago et al., 2018). As a result of these works, Santa Marta Bay evidence irreversible shoreline modifications, with negative visual impacts and the loss of public access to the ocean water area, mainly in Sector 3.

3.2. Shoreline Erosion and Accretion Assessment

3.2.1. Long-Term Shoreline Evolution

The main historical shoreline changes along the Colombian Caribbean coast area reflect both erosional and accretion events, with the latter in highly localized areas (Correa et al. 2005a). The erosion of the Colombian Caribbean coast seems to have accelerated since the 70s and 80s as the size of coastal cities has also grown (Navarrete-Ramírez 2014).

Approximately 50% of this area is suffering erosional processes that cause receding coasts (Rangel-Buitrago et al. 2018). However, erosion rates in the Colombian Caribbean are very varied (Correa and Vernette 2004; Rangel-Buitrago and Posada 2005; Posada and Henao 2008; Manzolli et al. 2020; Villate et al. 2020b). In the Department of Magdalena, where this study is located, maximum rates of − 15 m.y^− 1 have been observed (Ciénaga- Tasajera Sector) (Ingeominas 2008).

The results from the Santa Marta Bay shoreline changes from 1985 to 2019 reveal a complex spatial evolution, where the periods of accretion and erosion are interspersed and correlated to the different phases of rigid structure installation. The results from our long-term shoreline change assessments (1985–2019) are presented in Table 3 and Fig. 3. The positive EPR and NSM values represent shoreline progradation, and the negative values indicate retrogradation, associated to erosion processes within the sector. The bay was subdivided into four sections depending on the anthropic interventions developed over time. Here, it was possible to detect significant changes along the shoreline. In fact, both in the different periods assessed and among the four sectors defined, accretion processes prevailed.

Table 3

Computed shoreline change rates using the NSM (m) and EPR (m.y^− 1) methods. Total period 1985–2019; period P1 1985–1991; period P2 1991–2005; period P3 2005–2009, subdivided into total area; Sector 1; Sector 2; Sector 3; and Sector 4. (see Fig. 1 for location of each sector).
		Total Period		P1 1985–1991		P2 1991–2009		P3 2009–2019
		NSM	EPR	NSM	EPR	NSM	EPR	NSM	EPR
Total Area	Maximum	89.4	2.6	45.9	8.7	30.3	1.6	70.3	7.8
	Minimum	-29.6	-0.9	-18.4	-3.1	-11.2	-2.6	-46.1	-5.9
	Median	10.7	0.4	0.1	0.0	3.4	0.2	0.0	0.0
	Average	15.1	0.5	5.3	0.9	6.6	0.3	3.9	0.4
Sector 1	Maximum	69.4	2.0	45.9	8.7	29.0	1.5	11.4	1.3
	Minimum	-14.8	-0.4	-6.5	-1.6	-10.1	-2.6	-11.9	-1.3
	Median	5.0	0.2	6.5	1.1	2.6	0.1	-0.6	-0.1
	Average	9.4	0.3	9.4	1.6	6.1	0.3	-0.3	0.0
Sector 2	Maximum	76.3	2.2	42.9	7.2	25.7	1.4	65.9	7.3
	Minimum	-13.4	-0.6	-9.3	-1.6	0.5	0.0	-46.1	-5.9
	Median	41.5	1.2	23.2	3.9	13.1	0.7	0.7	0.1
	Average	40.5	1.2	18.8	3.1	11.5	0.6	8.9	1.0
Sector 3	Maximum	28.3	1.1	7.1	1.2	30.3	1.6	0	0
	Minimum	-13.3	-0.6	-4.0	-0.7	0.8	0.0	0	0
	Median	11.3	0.5	2.3	0.4	11.0	0.6	0	0
	Average	11.3	0.5	1.6	0.3	13.7	0.7	0	0
Sector 4	Maximum	89.4	2.6	2.6	0.4	29.2	1.5	70.3	7.8
	Minimum	-29.6	-0.9	-18.4	-3.1	-11.2	-0.6	-11.9	-1.3
	Median	-5.1	-0.2	-10.6	-1.8	2.2	0.1	1.4	0.2
	Average	-2.9	-0.1	-9.8	-1.6	3.0	0.2	4.0	0.4

In general, Santa Marta Bay experienced shoreline progradation from 1985 to 2019 at an average range of 15.1 m of beach width (NSM) and an average progradation rate of 0.5 m.y^− 1, thereby being classified into the C4 class of coastal evolution, i.e., it is an area with stable shoreline variations (Del Río et al. 2013; Natesan et al. 2015). However, the maximum and minimum rates of 2.6 and − 0.9 m.y^− 1, respectively, reveal a moderate long-term accretion trend. Further, ap-proximately 70% of the transects along the shoreline revealed a wide beach width, whereas ap-proximately 29% of the transects experienced erosion, and 1% remained stable.

Spatially, long-term changes denote higher progradation values in the central area of the Santa Marta Bay, in Sector 3. This progradation has been mainly influenced by the disposition of the coastal works in relation to coastal dynamics. Conversely, a process of shoreline transgression was identified, mainly in Sector 4 and the external S of Sector 1 (Fig. 3). In general, in Sectors 1, 2, and 3, the end rate point denotes positive mean values (0.3, 1.2, and 0.5 m.y^− 1, respectively), and only Sector 4 reports average negative values, with a change rate of − 0.1 m.y^− 1 (Table 3 and Fig. 4).Taking the 1985 shoreline as a foundation, we can infer that Santa Marta Bay exhibits stable prograding behavior. However, the bay also evidences different manifestations of coastal movement. For example, Sector 4 reports a net loss of beach area, even with a constant intervention and the installation of rigid structures, whereas Sector 2 has gained area. The other two sectors (1 and 3) have remained more stable, mainly due to engineering works. Sector 2 progradation can be explained through sediment contributions from the Manzanares River, which also influences a part of Sector 1. Nevertheless, in Sector 4, as there is no significant sediment contribution, and due to marine hydrodynamic processes, sediments are distributed to the extremes of the sector adjacent to the rigid structures (Figs. 3 and 4).

The behavior of different sectors regarding accretion, erosion, or stability processes is basically influenced by how anthropic structures interact with local hydrodynamics. This influence has already been discussed in different studies, such as (Di Paola et al., 2020; Manno et al., 2016; Pranzini, 2018; Rangel-Buitrago et al., 2018).

In the past century, the Colombian Caribbean coast has experienced a population increase, with intense development and urbanization, in addition to the drastic increase in the number of tourists on vacation (Rangel-Buitrago et al. 2018). The increase in the use and occupation of these sectors has required a larger number of coastal protective measures to mitigate coastal hazards, such as erosion processes, and the construction of service structures to meet the ever-increasing demands.

In Santa Marta Bay, shoreline change trends have intensified since the port construction. Subsequently, several other works have been incorporated to mitigate erosional processes. Since then, the urban beach adjacent to the port structure has faced continuous erosion processes, up to the intervention from authorities through mitigation measures, such as building hard coastal protection structures throughout the affected area. These efforts were aimed at protecting beaches, stabilizing beach profiles, attenuating wave energy, and sustaining tourism structures.

3.2.2. Short-Term Shoreline Changes

Short-term shoreline movement data reveal significant mobility in the periods analyzed. The different sectors exhibit shoreline changes, both in the sense of beach area loss and expansion. The division of analysis periods is linked to anthropic interventions.

For each period, i.e., 1985–1991, 1991–2009, and 2009–2019, we identified shoreline variability averages for each transect with respect to their distance, observing that variations were closely related to the engineering works conducted in the three anthropic intervention cycles for rigid structures.

The NSM and EPR are expressed for each period assessed in Figs. 5 and 6. Table 3 provides detailed information about the mean, median, maximum, and minimum for each sector and period.

The 1985–1991 Period. In this first period, which represents a 6-year interval, the only rigid structure was the promenade Rodrigo de Bastidas State Park (Sector 4). In 1985, a part of its structure (south of Sector 4) became exposed without the presence of a beach area. The rest of the sector reported an average beach width of 17 m. In the following years (1987 to 1991), the shoreline experienced multiple transgressions, which reduced the sandy area in this sector. The mean EPR for this Sector was − 1.6 m.y^− 1 with a mean retrograde of − 9.8 m.

According to the statistical comparative analysis conducted based on the NSM values from 1985 to 1991, the shoreline exhibited stability with the mean NSM values of 5.3 m, an EPR value of 0.9 m.y^− 1, and the maximum and minimum rates of 8.7 (Sector 1) and − 3.1 (Sector 4) m.y^− 1. Sector 3 evidenced a slight predisposition to progradation with an average gain of 1.6 m. Even when the entire Sector 3 was evaluated (Fig. 6), we could detect small areas in which erosional processes were present. Moreover, in Sectors 1 and 2, shoreline progradation was clearly present, with an average shoreline progress rate of 1.6 and 3.1 m.y^− 1, respectively. Here, Sector 2 reports a larger shoreline progradation with an average gain of 18.8 m. These two sectors are directly influenced by the mouth of the Manzanares River, which is the only sediment source in the bay. However, small shoreline transgression segments are observed in the southern border of Sector 1 and in the northern area of Sector 2 (Fig. 6).

Unlike the other three sectors, Sector 4 evidenced an intense erosion from 1985 to 1991, with a maximum shoreline transgression rate of − 3.1 m.y^− 1. Here, 42% of the transects in this sector report shoreline dislocation rates exceeding − 2 m.y^− 1, which imply that this sector is classified as C3 (moderate erosion) in the coastal evolution for this period.

The 1991–2009 Period (Containment Work Construction Period). The second period is the longest as it spans 18 y. In this period, an average progradation rate of 0.3 m.y^− 1 was recorded, with the maximum and minimum rates of 1.6 and − 2.6 m.y^− 1, respectively. In general, it is more stable than the first period, evidencing variations among the different sectors assessed. In this period, Sector 1 reduced its progradation rates from 1.6 to 0.3 m.y^− 1 because of the installation of some structures in its northern area. For Sector 2, the trend of positive shoreline advancement was sustained, but at a lower average progradation rate (0.6 m.y^− 1), despite not presenting any transects with erosion. Sector 3 remained quite stable at an average progradation rate of 0.7 m.y^− 1. This shoreline gain rate occurred before anthropic interventions. However, as of the 2009 construction of the International Marina of Santa Marta, this bay sector has not experienced any further changes. In contrast to the first period, Sector 4 reversed the erosional trend and reported the largest number of shoreline gain transects (59%). The average progradation rate was 0.2 m.y^− 1. Figures 3 and 4 depict sectors with some erosional processes, mainly in the central portion, and progradation near coastal works. The construction of seawalls provided larger shoreline stability, with a higher tendency for erosion in the central part of the sector.

The 2009–2019 Period (Post Structure Construction Period). Average shoreline progradation rates increased with the completion of the coastal structures, remaining stable at 0.4 m.y^− 1 from 2009 to 2019, with the maximum and minimum rates of 7.8 and − 5.9 m.y^− 1, respectively. Furthermore, when the different sections are assessed individually, an increase may be observed in the number of erosion process profiles from the previous period. Although several profiles reported negative values, accretion rates remained stable (EPR = 0 m·y^− 1) for Sector 1. In this period, accretion rates are expected to increase again at a mean progradation rate of 1.0 m·y^− 1, which is higher than the previous period, owing to the installation of the marina structure. This mainly favored an accumulation of sediment next to the S structure (Figs. 5 and 6). The construction of the marina in Sector 3 eliminated this stretch of beach and became significant for the 0.4 m·y^− 1 accretion rates of Sector 4. The main accretion profiles were located next to the marina structure.

The main feature detected during these different coastal works construction phases was the maintenance of the beach area, reflected in the overall shoreline stability corresponding to Table 3. The results revealed a high shoreline variation and that the area had been highly vulnerable to coastal erosion before the different interventions.

In retrospect, the erosional or negative variability condition was mitigated with the construction of breakwaters and service infrastructure that generated an accretion condition that remained active until 2019, without ignoring the specific areas wherein a negative variability trend may still be observed. For example, we can mention the area next to the breakwater in Sector N (Sector 4), without affecting the width of the beach, which required 16 y to recover supported by sediment deposits between the protective and service structures erected.

The results obtained through the DSAS analysis reveal similar accretion and erosion patterns, as found in other studies that have also used this approach. A study conducted in Puducherry, India (Misra and Ramakrishnan 2020) assessed the coastal geomorphological impact of a beach restoration project to contain coastal erosion by constructing artificial reefs and beach nourishment. The results reveal the growth of a small stretch of beach, as well as the subsequent coastal stabilization, with approximately 76% of the coast in accretion. Similar to our study, this paper also observed accretion and erosion patterns, and considered this mitigation measure as beneficial for protecting this eroded shoreline.

(Zulfakar et al. 2020) also found similar results with accretion and erosion sectors in Kuala Nerus, Terengganu (Malaysia). In 2016, coastal protective structures were built after several erosion events had taken place. The results denoted that most of the shoreline eroded during preconstruction had been recovered after the structure had been constructed.

3.2.3. Coastal Zone Management

As the coastal population of the Colombian Caribbean increases and coastal erosion becomes more severe, more pressure is exerted on the Colombian government to solve this problem at all levels (Rangel-Buitrago et al. 2018).

As erosion is essentially generated by the conflict among natural processes, retreat of the shoreline, and human activities, and its solution necessarily involves a comprehensive management of the coastal zone. Attempts to stabilize the position of the shoreline through coastal works have proven to be ineffective to control the phenomenon and often generate negative long-term impacts. However, in some extreme cases, this is the fastest and most efficient way to defend public or private assets.

Although it is common for hard engineering structures, such as breakwaters and piers, to actually promote erosion (Phillips and Jones 2006; Rangel-Buitrago et al. 2018), in Santa Marta Bay, this was not the case because the assessments conducted in the last 34-year evidence a clear favoring of dynamics after the works had been completed.

Even considering the importance of structures in reducing erosion rates at a local scale, the impacts related to changes in beach dynamics with the installation of rigid structures must be assessed (Molina et al. 2019) observed erosion areas downstream ports and breakwaters and matching linings/seawalls, because of sediment interruptions caused by these structures. Consequently, rigid interventions have been conducted throughout Santa Marta Bay to contain the initial natural erosion of the northern sector and then reduce the effects from these structures. Commonly, the development of the erosion processes in adjacent areas (driftward) leads to the establishment of new structures (Cooper et al. 2009). This effect seems to be the best explanation for why a total of 1,484 hard structures were identified along the Colombian Caribbean coast in 2016, with the highest concentrations located in tourist cities (Rangel-Buitrago et al. 2018).

Another important factor that must be considered is the changes in the local wind dynamics. Large buildings, port structures, or engineering works, whether onshore or offshore, serve as a wind screen, thus changing current and wave train circulation (Posada and Henao 2008). This section of Santa Marta Bay is the most urbanized in the department and exhibits a large number of alterations resulting in a high shoreline hardening rate. Anthropic structures locally constrain sand circulation and limit contribution areas owing to the occupation of beaches and their surrounding areas, wherein sandbanks may often be found, such as the presence of boardwalks and seawalls.

Unfortunately, from a governance standpoint, coastal erosion management in Colombia fails due to a weak institutional framework coupled with diluted and compromised coastal erosion management regulations (Rangel-Buitrago et al. 2018). Finally, the literature agrees that shoreline intervention must be preceded by protocols that guarantee their effectiveness and longevity, requiring studies on their positive and negative impacts, duly measured both in magnitude and scope.

This study assessed the spatiotemporal behavior of the short and long-term characteristics of shoreline changes at Santa Marta Bay and their relationship with coastal protective structures for the past 34 year (1985–2019). Considering different interventions conducted to reduce shoreline erosional processes, the study observed a relatively stable coastal behavior throughout the study period (1985–2019).

The short-term assessment revealed that the intense erosion evidenced from 1985 to 1991, with an average retreat speed of − 1.6 m.y^− 1 in Sector 4 (north), changed gradually since 2003 with the construction of rigid structures and beach nourishment. Consequently, shoreline retreat decreased and a progradation of 0.2 m.y^− 1 was observed at the beach. In this study, a cyclical erosion and accretion behavior was identified throughout the period assessed as a response to anthropic interventions. Further, although the highest progradation rates are adjacent to these structures, a significant percentage of transects reported negative values during this period.

The 2009–2019 (most recent) period, despite recording a positive average value, exhibited a high percentage of erosion profiles, thus indicating that engineering works, in spite of presenting positive results in the short term, require new long-term interventions.

Within this context, the application of DSAS was deemed essential to support a monitoring system capable of providing predictions for the short and long-term evolution of these beach systems.

Finally, the study concludes that shoreline changes are influenced by anthropic interventions, which play an important role in landscape configuration and managing coastal hydrodynamics. Coastal erosion is not uniform along the coast, the anthropic structures also contribute to coastal erosion by altering natural sediment transport processes and changing the shape of the beach and nearshore environment. The use of rigid structures leads to the transfer of erosion from one location to another and cause long-term impacts on shoreline retreat and beach loss. These processes resulted in a recurrent intervention in the study area. Therefore, quantifying the scale and rate of shoreline changes and correlating them with anthropogenic structures is an essential step in assessing shoreline vulnerability.

Moreover, the study provides a solid foundation and results that help increase the knowledge and understanding of the coastal erosion issues observed throughout Santa Marta Bay and their interaction with hard structures.

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Author Contributions Statement: Conceptualization, R.P.M., D.V. and L.P.; methodology, D.V., R.P.M., and L.P.; software, R.P.M., D.V. and L.P.; formal analysis, R.P.M., D.V. and L.P.; investigation, R.P.M., L.P., A.F., D.V., H.J.B. and J.A.; writing—original draft preparation, R.P.M., L.P. and D.V.; writing—review and editing, R.P.M., L.P., A.F., D.V., H.J.B. and J.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.

Availability of data and material: The data to support this study are included within the article and can also be requested from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Code availability: Not applicable.

Ethics approval: Not applicable.

Consent to participate: Not applicable.

Consent for publication: Not applicable.

Airoldi L, Abbiati M, Beck MW, et al (2005) An ecological perspective on the deployment and design of low-crested and other hard coastal defence structures. Coastal Engineering 52:1073–1087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2005.09.007
Alcántara-Carrió J, Caicedo A, Hernández JC (2019) Sediment Bypassing from the New Human-Induced Lobe to the Ancient Lobe of the Turbo Delta (Gulf of Urabá, Southern Caribbean Sea). J Coast Res 35:196. https://doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-17-00221.1
Alonso I, Alcántara-Carrió J, Cabrera L (2002) Tourist Resorts and their Impact on Beach Erosion at Sotavento Beaches, Fuerteventura, Spain. J Coast Res 36:1–7. https://doi.org/10.2112/1551-5036-36.sp1.1
Anders FJ, Byrnes M (1991) Accuracy of shoreline change rates as determined from maps and aerial photographs. Shore and Beach 59:17–26
Andrade-Amaya CA (2015) Oceanografía Dinámica de la Cuenca de Colombia. Bogotá, Colombia
Anfuso G, Rangel-Buitrago N, Correa I (2015) Evolution of sandspits along the Caribbean Coast of Colombia: natural and human influences. In: Sand and Gravel Spits’. Springer, New York, pp 1-21.
Barragán JM, de Andrés M (2015) Analysis and trends of the world’s coastal cities and agglomerations. Ocean Coast Manag 114:11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.06.004
Botero CM, Fanning LM, Milanes C, Planas JA (2016) An indicator framework for assessing progress in land and marine planning in Colombia and Cuba. Ecol Indic 64:181–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.12.038
Burak S, Doǧan E, Gazioǧlu C (2004) Impact of urbanization and tourism on coastal environment. Ocean Coast Manag 47:515–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2004.07.007
Cifuentes-Ossa MA, Rosero-Henao L V., Josephraj-Selvaraj J (2017) Detection of shoreline changes in the northern District of Buenaventura using remote sensing. Boletín de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras - INVEMAR 46:137–152
Cooper JAG, Anfuso G, Rio L Del (2009) Bad beach management: European perspectives. In: America’s Most Vulnerable Coastal Communities. Geological Society of America
Correa ID, Alcántara-Carrió J, González DA (2005a) Historical and recent shore erosion along the Colombian Caribbean Coast. J Coast Res 52-57.
Correa ID, Alcántara-Carrió J, González R (2005b) Historical and recent shore erosion along the Colombian Caribbean Coast. J Coast Res SI 49:52–57
Correa ID, Vernette G (2004) INTRODUCCIÓN AL PROBLEMA DE LA EROSIÓN LITORAL EN URABÁ (SECTOR ARBOLETES- TURBO) COSTA CARIBE COLOMBIANA. Bulletin of Marine and Coastal Research 33:. https://doi.org/10.25268/bimc.invemar.2004.33.0.245
Cristiano S da C, Portz LC, Anfuso G, et al (2018) Coastal scenic evaluation at Santa Catarina (Brazil): Implications for coastal management. Ocean Coast Manag 160:146–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.04.004
Cristiano S da C, Rockett GC, Portz LC, Souza Filho JR de (2020) Beach landscape management as a sustainable tourism resource in Fernando de Noronha Island (Brazil). Mar Pollut Bull 150:110621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110621
Crowell M, Leatherman S, Buckley MK (1991) Historical shoreline change: error analysis and mapping accuracy. J Coast Res 7:839–852
DANE (2020) Demografía y población. In: https://www.dane.gov.co/index.php/estadisticas-por-tema/demografia-y-poblacion
de Santiago I, Camus P, González M, et al (2021) Impact of climate change on beach erosion in the Basque Coast (NE Spain). Coastal Engineering 167:103916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2021.103916
Del Río L, Gracia FJ, Benavente J (2013) Shoreline change patterns in sandy coasts. A case study in SW Spain. Geomorphology 196:252–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.07.027
Dellepiane S, De Laurentiis R, Giordano F (2004) Coastline extraction from SAR images and a method for the evaluation of the coastline precision. Pattern Recognit Lett 25:1461–1470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2004.05.022
Di Paola G, Rodríguez G, Rosskopf CM (2020) Short- to mid-term shoreline changes along the southeastern coast of Gran Canaria Island (Spain). Rendiconti Lincei 31:89–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12210-020-00872-3
Dugan JE, Airoldi L, Chapman MG, et al (2012) Estuarine and Coastal Structures: Environmental Effects, A Focus on Shore and Nearshore Structures. Elsevier Inc.
Edaimen de Arco Rodriguez, David de León Pérez (2006) Caracterización hidrológica de la cuenca del río Manzanares y evaluación de su disponibilidad hídrica. Tesis , Universidad de Magdalena
García FF, Chang G, Palacio CA (2012) Calibration and validation a 3D in the Santa Marta coastal area (Colombia). Rev Fac Ing Univ Antioquia 62:177–188
Gargiulo C, Battarra R, Tremiterra MR (2020) Coastal areas and climate change: A decision support tool for implementing adaptation measures. Land use policy 91:104413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104413
Gauna Ruiz de Leon C (2017) Percepción de la problemática asociada al turismo y el nterés por participar de la población: caso Puerto Vallarta. El periplo sustentable 33:251–290
Ghoneim E, Mashaly J, Gamble D, et al (2015) Nile Delta exhibited a spatial reversal in the rates of shoreline retreat on the Rosetta promontory comparing pre- and post-beach protection. Geomorphology 228:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.08.021
Guzmán G, Posada BO, Idárraga-García J, Henao W (2008) Evaluación preliminar de las amenazas naturales en la cuenca del rio Manzanares con énfasis en eventos fluviotorrenciales. Santa Marta, Colombia
Hall CM (2001) Trends in ocean and coastal tourism: the end of the last frontier? Ocean Coast Manag 44:601–618. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0964-5691(01)00071-0
Hernández M (1996) Geologia de las Planchas 11 Santa Martha y 18 Giénaga. Bucaramanga, Colombia
IDEAM - Instituto de Hidrología M y EA (2022) BOLETÍN CLIMATOLÓGICO MENSUAL. In: Instituto de Hidrología, Meteorología y Estudios Ambientales
Ingeominas E-II (2008) Evolución Geohistórica de la Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta. Santa Marta
Liang J, Gong J, Li W (2018) Applications and impacts of Google Earth: A decadal review (2006–2016). ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 146:91–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2018.08.019
Lorenz RD, Gasmi N, Radebaugh J, et al (2013) Dunes on planet Tatooine: Observation of barchan migration at the Star Wars film set in Tunisia. Geomorphology 201:264–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2013.06.026
Manno G, Anfuso G, Messina E, et al (2016) Decadal evolution of coastline armouring along the Mediterranean Andalusia littoral (South of Spain). Ocean Coast Manag 124:84–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.02.007
Manzolli RP, Blanco D, Portz L, et al (2022) Large Wood Debris Contributes to Beach Ecosystems but Colombian Beachgoer’s Do Not Recognize It. Sustainability (Switzerland) 14:. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14138140
Manzolli RP, Portz L, Villate Daza DA, et al (2020a) Magnitude and Causes of Beach Accretion on the Eastern Margin of the Tayrona National Natural Park (Colombian Caribbean). J Coast Res 95:299. https://doi.org/10.2112/SI95-058.1
Manzolli RP, Portz L, Villate Daza DA, et al (2020b) Magnitude and Causes of Beach Accretion on the Eastern Margin of the Tayrona National Natural Park (Colombian Caribbean). J Coast Res 95:299–303. https://doi.org/10.2112/SI95-058.1
Marzetti S, Disegna M, Koutrakis E, et al (2016) Visitors’ awareness of ICZM and WTP for beach preservation in four European Mediterranean regions. Mar Policy 63:100–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.10.005
Misra A, Ramakrishnan B (2020) Assessment of coastal geomorphological changes using multi-temporal Satellite-Derived Bathymetry. Cont Shelf Res 207:104213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2020.104213
Molina R, Anfuso G, Manno G, Prieto FJG (2019) The Mediterranean coast of Andalusia (Spain): Medium-term evolution and impacts of coastal structures. Sustainability (Switzerland) 11:17–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133539
Natesan U, Parthasarathy A, Vishnunath R, et al (2015) Monitoring Longterm Shoreline Changes along Tamil Nadu, India Using Geospatial Techniques. Aquat Procedia 4:325–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqpro.2015.02.044
Navarrete-Ramírez SM (2014) Protocolo indicador. Variación línea de costa: perfiles de playa. Indicadores de monitoreo biológico del subsistema de áreas marinas protegidas (SAMP). Santa Marta
Neumann B, Vafeidis AT, Zimmermann J, Nicholls RJ (2015) Future Coastal Population Growth and Exposure to Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Flooding - A Global Assessment. PLoS One 10:e0118571. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118571
Nordstrom KF (2014) Living with shore protection structures: A review. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 150:11–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2013.11.003
Orams M (1999) Marine Tourism. Development, Impacts and Management. Routledge, New Fetter, London
Pathak A, van Beynen PE, Akiwumi FA, Lindeman KC (2021) Impacts of climate change on the tourism sector of a Small Island Developing State: A case study for the Bahamas. Environ Dev 37:100556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2020.100556
Phillips MR, Jones AL (2006) Erosion and tourism infrastructure in the coastal zone: Problems, consequences and management. Tour Manag 27:517–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2005.10.019
Portz L, Jardim JPM, MAnzolli PM, Gruber NS (2007) Impacts on the dunes system: natural dynamic versus anthropogenic interference. Ambiente & Sociedade XXI:137–154
Portz L, Manzolli RP, Alcántara-Carrió J (2018) Dune system restoration in osório municipality (Rio grande do sul, Brazil): Good practices based on coastal management legislation
Portz L, Manzolli RP, Alcántara-Carrió J, et al (2021) Estuarine , Coastal and Shelf Science Degradation of a transgressive coastal Dunefield by pines plantation and strategies for recuperation ( Lagoa Do Peixe National Park , Southern Brazil ) ˜ es Barboza. 259:. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2021.107483
Portz L, Manzolli RP, Hermanns L, Alcántara Carrió J (2015) Evaluation of the efficiency of dune reconstruction techniques in Xangri-lá (Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil). Ocean Coast Manag 104:. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.12.005
Portz L, Rockett GC, Franchini RAL, et al (2014) Gestão de dunas costeiras: o uso de sistema de informações geográficas (SIG) na implantação de planos de gestão no litoral do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. Revista de Gestão Costeira Integrada 14:517–534. https://doi.org/10.5894/rgci445
Posada PBO, Henao PW (2008) Diagnóstico de la erosión en la zona costera del Caribe colombiano. INVEMAR, Serie Publicaciones Especiales No. 13, Santa Marta, Colombia
Pranzini E (2018) Shore protection in Italy: From hard to soft engineering … and back. Ocean Coast Manag 156:43–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.04.018
Qi F, Zhai JZ, Dang G (2016) Building height estimation using Google Earth. Energy Build 118:123–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.02.044
Rangel Buitrago NG, Posada Posada BO (2016) GEOMORFOLOGÍA Y PROCESOS EROSIVOS EN LA COSTA NORTE DEL DEPARTAMENTO DE CÓRDOBA, CARIBE COLOMBIANO (SECTOR PASO NUEVO-CRISTO REY). Bulletin of Marine and Coastal Research 34:. https://doi.org/10.25268/bimc.invemar.2005.34.0.236
Rangel-Buitrago N, Posada B (2005) Geomorphology and erosive processes in the north coast of Cordoba department, Colombian Caribbean (Sector Paso Nuevo-Cristo Rey). Boletín de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras - INVEMAR 34:101–119
Rangel-Buitrago N, Williams AT, Anfuso G (2018a) Hard protection structures as a principal coastal erosion management strategy along the Caribbean coast of Colombia. A chronicle of pitfalls. Ocean Coast Manag 156:58–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.04.006
Rangel-Buitrago N, Williams AT, Anfuso G (2018b) Hard protection structures as a principal coastal erosion management strategy along the Caribbean coast of Colombia. A chronicle of pitfalls. Ocean Coast Manag 156:58–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.04.006
Revollo Sarmiento G, Cipolletti M, Perillo M, et al (2015) Methodology for classification of geographical features with remote sensing images: Application to tidal flats. Geomorphology 257:. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.12.020
Säenz-Reyes JA, Ríos-Reyes CA, Castellanos-Alarcón OM (2017) Itinerario geológico de la franja costera entre el Aeropuerto Internacional Simón Bolívar y la Bahía de Taganga, Provincia Geotectónica de Santa Marta. Boletín de Ciencias de la Tierra 5–24. https://doi.org/10.15446/rbct.n42.44920
Salman A, Lombardo S, Doody P (2004) Vivir con la erosión costera en Europa: sedimentos y espacio para la sostenibilidad. Informes de proyectos de Eurosion. Comisión Europea
Small C, Nicholls RJ (2003) A Global Analysis of Human Settlement in Coastal Zones. J Coast Res 19:584–599
Souza CR de G (2009) Coastal Erosion and the Coastal Zone Management Challenges in Brazil. Journal of Integrated Coastal Zone Management 9:17–37
Thieler ER, Himmelstoss EA, Zichichi JL, Ayhan E (2009) Digital Shoreline Analysis System (DSAS) version 4.0-an ArcGIS extension for calculating shoreline change: U.S.
Thomas YA, Nicolae-Lerma A, Posada BO (2012) Atlas climatológico del mar Caribe colombiano., Convenio E. Santa Marta, Colombia
Villate DA, Portz L, Manzolli RP, Alcántara-Carrió J (2020a) Human Disturbances of Shoreline Morphodynamics and Dune Ecosystem at the Puerto Velero Spit (Colombian Caribbean). J Coast Res 95:711. https://doi.org/10.2112/SI95-138.1
Villate DA, Portz L, Manzolli RP, Alcántara-Carrió J (2020b) Human Disturbances of Shoreline Morphodynamics and Dune Ecosystem at the Puerto Velero Spit (Colombian Caribbean). J Coast Res 95:711. https://doi.org/10.2112/SI95-138.1
Warnasuriya TWS, Kumara MP, Gunasekara SS, et al (2020) An Improved Method to Detect Shoreline Changes in Small-Scale Beaches Using Google Earth Pro. Marine Geodesy 43:541–572. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490419.2020.1822478
Zulfakar MSZ, Akhir MF, Ariffin EH, et al (2020) The effect of coastal protections on the shoreline evolution at Kuala Nerus, Terengganu (Malaysia). J Sustain Sci Manag 15:71–85

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 09 Apr, 2024

Read the published version in Geo-Marine Letters →

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Impacts of Anthropogenic Structures in Long- and Short-Term Shoreline Evolution of Santa Marta Bay (Colombian Caribbean)

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Highlights

1. Introduction

2. Materials And Methods

2.1. Study Area

2.2. Remote Sensing

2.3. Historical Shoreline Analysis – Digital Coast Analysis System (DSAS)

3. Results And Discussion

3.1. Shoreline Hardening Evolution

3.2. Shoreline Erosion and Accretion Assessment

3.2.1. Long-Term Shoreline Evolution

3.2.2. Short-Term Shoreline Changes

3.2.3. Coastal Zone Management

4. Conclusions

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1