Ocean & Coastal Management 69 (2012) 102e110

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

A comparison between three short-term shoreline prediction models

Rodrigo Mikosz Goncalves a, Joseph L. Awange b, *, Claudia Pereira Krueger c, Bernhard Heck d,
Leandro dos Santos Coelho e
a
Department of Cartography Engineering, Federal University of Pernambuco (UFPE), Geodetic Science and Technology of Geoinformation Post Graduation Program,
Recife 50670-901, PE, Brazil
b
Department of Spatial Sciences, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA 6845, Australia
c
Geodetic Science Post Graduation Program, Federal University of Parana (UFPR), Box 19.001, 81.531-990 Curitiba, PR, Brazil
d
Geodetic Institute, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Engler-Strasse 7, D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany
e
Pontifícal Catholic University of Parana, PUCPR Production and Systems Engineering Graduate Program, LAS/PPGEPS Imaculada Conceicao, 1155, 80215-901 Curitiba, PR, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Monitoring and management of shorelines along populated coastal areas is a very important task, but
Available online 23 August 2012 remains a difficult endeavor. The historical information used for short-term analysis and prediction are
always underpinned by uncertainties associated with old data. Predictions of shoreline positions nor-
mally depend on the accuracy of the input data as well as the validity of the mathematical models used.
With the requirement to study shoreline changes along the Parana (PR) coast in Brazil, it was necessary
to obtain related cartographic information, which included temporal shoreline data obtained from
orthophotos. In this contribution, photogrammetric together with GPS data are used to compare the
capability of three shoreline prediction models; linear regression, robust parameter estimation, and neural
network to predict the 2008 Parana shoreline position, which is then validated using the GPS measured
position of 2008. The results indicate a MAPE (Mean Absolute Percentage Error) of 0.61% for the linear
regression, 0.14% for the robust estimation, and 0.33% for the artificial neural network method. Although
the coefficient of determinant (R2) value for the neural network was the best, i.e., 0.997 compared to
0.994 for the robust model and 0.984 for the linear regression, its maximum deviation from the control
values (i.e., 16.46) was almost twice that of robust model (7.63). On the one hand, the robust estimation
model provides a more suitable approach for managing outliers in shoreline prediction, and also vali-
dating traditional methods such as linear regression. On the other hand, the neural network method
offers an alternative approach to the robust prediction model. The results of the study highlightthe
importance of a model choice for predicting the shoreline position.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction satellite images, aerial photography, profile surveys and bathy-

Most coastal areas are known to experience erosion. In Brazil,
for example, hundreds of beaches are known to suffer severe
erosion problems (e.g., Souza, 2009). Beaches are sources of
revenue for many countries through tourism, and as such, neces-
sitate proper management in coastal areas. For the efficient
management of beaches, however, one of the important tasks
remains that of accurately monitoring the coastal shorelines.
Gorman et al. (1998) presented an overview of the methods of data
collection for coastal monitoring and baseline studies using
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: rodrigo.mikosz@ufpe.br (R.M. Goncalves), J.Awange@
curtin.edu.au (J.L. Awange), ckrueger@ufpr.br (C.P. Krueger), heck@kit.edu
(B. Heck), leandro.coelho@pucpr.br (L.dosS. Coelho).
metric records. Remote sensing is important for creating base maps
able to interpret landform changes and quantify shoreline move-
ment. The hydrographic and also large-scale topographic maps are
considered the primary sources of information for shoreline posi-
tions and volumetric change computations. The use of profile
surveys can also contribute to evaluating shoreline changes and
computing beach volume changes along and across the shore.
The importance of coastal monitoring information, e.g., on the
state of the current erosion and the possible prediction of its impact
have been shown by Li et al. (1998) to be critical to decision-making
in coastal management. Li et al. (1998) point to the fact that coastal
monitoring information could be useful in land-use zoning,
construction setbacks, and relocation implementations. They give
a practical example of a digital topographical map that is overlaid
with a cadastral map and an erosion condition map, which is used to

0964-5691/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.07.024
 R.M. Goncalves et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 69 (2012) 102e110
find lots and parcels that are affected by coastal erosion. Another
area that requires shoreline monitoring is that of the integrated
coastal zone management (ICZM), where such information assist in
the process of coastal management and territorial planning/
decision-making by providing essential knowledge about coastal
processes and their dynamic evolution (e.g., Veloso-Gomes et al.,
2008). ICZM has been shown to be important for example in the
detection of landscape and vegetation changes, and to establish the
relations between human impact and vegetation in natural coastal
dune systems (see, e.g., Tzatzanis et al., 2003).
Monitoring of beach stability, therefore, is vital for environ-
mental as well as resource management, and is essential for
improving databases of information on shoreline evolution in an
area. The Metropolitan Borough of Sefton (2002) listed the benefits
of shoreline evolution information as; providing input to shoreline
review plans, planned maintenance of coastal defenses, achievement
of high government level targets, determination of appropriate design
criteria for coastal works, biodiversity action plans, implementation of
habitats directive, and leisure and amenity management of shoreline
areas. While shoreline monitoring, as discussed above is essential,
predicting its future position is equally vital to support coastal
management and impact assessment programs, e.g., predicting the
necessary future building setbacks from the shoreline to serve as
protection for a time comparable to the expected lifetime of new
coastal structures, usually 30 or 60 years (Hecky et al., 1984;
Crowell et al., 1997). Crowell et al. (1997) point out, however, that
determining adequate setbacks require estimating long-term
shoreline change trends from historical data. For historical data-
set, metric quality and aerial photographs are very important and
are some of the most reliable data sets available for coastal zones.
Crowell et al. (1997) and Douglas et al. (1998) reckon that often the
data used in such predictions are at times temporally poorly
sampled historical databases. They point out that short records are
not good predictors of shoreline location.
Fenster et al. (1993) developed a predictive method that detects
short-term changes in the long-term trend and identifies linear or
high-order polynomial models that best fit the data according to
the minimum description length (MDL) criterion. In this method,
only linear models are extrapolated. Predictions shaped or influ-
enced by higher-order polynomial schemes can sometimes be
superior to those obtained from linear regressions, but they can
also be extremely inaccurate (Crowell et al., 1997). Douglas et al.
(1998) stressed the need to incorporate long-term erosion trends
and historical record of storms, including their impacts on shore-
line positions and beach recovery in predictive models. Thieler et al.
(2000) tested the use of mathematical models to predict beach
behavior for U.S. and cited lack of hind-sighting and objective
evaluation of beach behavior predictions for engineering projects,
and incorrect use of model calibration as some of the motivation
behind their work.
Shorelines are known not to be stable and vary over time. Short-
term changes occur over decadal time scales, or less, and are related
to daily, monthly, and seasonal variations in tides, currents, wave
climate, episodic events and anthropogenic factors (e.g., Demarest
and Leatherman, 1985; Galgano et al., 1998; Galgano and Douglas,
2000). Fenster et al. (2000) describe shoreline movement as
a complex phenomenon and outline the difficulties involved in
distinguishing long-term shoreline movement (signal) from short-
term changes (noise).
Even with the presence of noise in the data, the use of modern
accurate surveying techniques has been shown to improve the
quality of forecasts. For example, Douglas and Crowell (2000)
demonstrated that meaningful deduction was achievable even if
the inherent variability of shoreline position indicators remained at
the level of many meters. Other than the surveying technique used
103
for observation, a challenge for detecting, monitoring, and pre-
dicting shoreline movement is to develop an effective mathematical
tool capable of identifying and mapping a feature set as “shoreline”
according to the data sources available (Boak and Turner, 2005). For
instance, exploiting the relationship between shoreline and sea
level changes (i.e., using series of sparsely sampled sea-level values
as surrogate data for shoreline change), Douglas et al. (1998)
developed an algorithm that evaluates some of the predictive
methods such as the end point method, linear regression, and
minimum description length criterion and established that linear
regression gave superior results. The need for an effective mathe-
matical tool is further emphasized by Li et al. (2001) who stress the
need to integrate specific coastal engineering and modeling soft-
ware packages in a GIS environment since they are usually not
provided by commercial GIS software system.
The problem with the linear regression models is that they work
well when the underlying linearity and normal distribution
assumptions are fulfilled. However, in some cases, where the data
maybe of poor quality, the linear regression assumptions may be
violated. Uncertainties in the extracted shoreline data need to be
appropriately addressed if they are to be used to predict future
shoreline positions to support sustainable coastal management
(see, e.g., Addo et al., 2008). Robust estimation models have been
proposed to deal with cases where data contains uncertainties (see,
e.g., Huber, 1964, 1981; and Hampel et al., 1986).
Using the positions of shorelines over time, inferred from
photogrammetric and GPS surveys for the years 2001, 2002, 2005
and 2008, this study discusses the possibility of developing a short-
term prediction model using different sources of temporal geodetic
data, with most of them having different accuracies. To achieve this,
a comparison and assessment of three different shoreline predic-
tion models; linear regression, robust parameter estimation, and
artificial neural network is undertaken.
The robust estimation model used in this work has been
successfully applied by Awange and Aduol (1999) to estimate
geodetic parameters in the case of contaminated observations. The
artificial neural network method tested in this paper is termed
Neural Network Multilayer Perception (MLP), and was imple-
mented using the training of LevenbergeMarquardt algorithm
(Hagan and Menhaj, 1994).
The study is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, the background,
study area, data, and the shoreline prediction models are discussed.
The results are then presented and discussed in Sect. 3, and the
study concluded in Sect. 4.
2. Data and methods
2.1. Background
Since 1996, the Spatial Geodesy Laboratory and Hydrography
(LAGEH) at the Federal University of Parana (UFPR) have been
collecting data using GPS surveys over the Parana State coast (see,
e.g. Krueger et al., 2009). The data are composed of digital carto-
graphic documents with reports showing the post-processing and
accuracy reached in a specific survey. With a proposal to study
shoreline changes along the Parana coast, some analog images/
photographs related to the years 1954, 1963, 1980, 1991 and 1997
were retrieved and used for shoreline extraction along a 6 km
coastal zone of the Matinhos beaches in the state of Parana, Brazil.
2.2. Study area
The study area is located in the Matinhos District along the coast
of Parana State, Brazil (Fig. 1), where the beaches (105 km long)
form the second smallest littoral along the Brazilian coast, located
104 R.M. Goncalves et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 69 (2012) 102e110

Fig. 1. Matinhos District at the coast of Parana State, Brazil.

between latitudes 25
S and 26
S and longitudes 48
W and 49
W.
In geological terms, Soares et al. (1995) describe the area as being
composed of Pre-Cambrian units of crystalline complexes of
igneous and metamorphic rocks. Pleistocene and Holocene sandy
sediments of marine origin from a terrace (beach ridges) are found
between the shoreline and the foot of the Serra do Mar Mountains.
The beaches of Matinhos are subject to both oceanic conditions and
ebb tidal delta influence from the neighboring Guaratuba Bay
(micro-tidal system). The district of Matinhos, with an area of
117 km2, comprised 29,172 habitants in 2010. Land use is mostly for
recreational purposes and in summer, the city becomes more
densely populated due to the influx of tourists.
The settlement in Matinhos is largely near the shore, where
settlements are characterized by constructions at backshore posi-
tions or over the beach leading to the destruction of dunes and
wetlands, thereby forcing rivers to change course. This was a result
of lack of urban planning and the fact that the morphology and
coastal dynamic environment was not considered during the
settlements. Fig. 2 shows the situation in 2007 and 2008 at the
study area, indicating the prevalence of the problems of coastal
erosion.
2.3. Data source
Monitoring of shoreline positions nowadays benefit from the
state of the art mapping techniques such as global navigation
satellite systems (GNSS, e.g., Goncalves, 2010; Awange, 2012),
remote sensing using satellite images, aerial photographs (e.g.
Mitishita and Kirchner, 2000), and LIDAR (Light Detection and
Ranging). For instance, Mitishita and Kirchner (2000) extracted
shoreline position from temporal vertical aerial photographs by the
monorestitution technique, which required altimetry information
and was dependent on the quality of the photos, the distribution
and number of control points, and photo-interpretation for shore-
line extraction.
In the present study, aerial photographs and GPS observations
collected for a 6 km part of the coastal zone were used, where the
photogrammetric data was converted to digital orthophotos using

Fig. 2. State of the Matinhos beach in 2007 and 2008 (Goncalves, 2010).
 R.M. Goncalves et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 69 (2012) 102e110 105

control points and digital terrain model (DTM). The shoreline where x and y are the linear regression vectors, while a and c are
positions were then obtained using the monorestitution technique the unknown linear regression coefficient and intercept respec-
based on photo interpretation. The GPS data was collected during tively, and 1 is a column vector consisting of “1” numbers. Equation
a series of geodetic surveys of the shoreline in Matinhos using the (1) can be expressed in terms of the observations and unknowns as
kinematic relative positioning method (see, e.g., Awange, 2012).
The GPS survey was undertaken by LAGEH (Laboratory of Space y ¼ Ab þ ε; (2)
Geodesy and Hydrography) in UFPR (Federal University of Parana)
using dual frequency GPS receivers. The base station was installed with y being an n  1 column vector of observations, A is an n  m
at Pedra located at 25
490 5.779900 S; 48
310 49.136400 W in design matrix (here m ¼ 2), b is the m  1 vector of unknown linear
Matinhos. regression parameters, and ℇ is the n  1 vector of observational
All temporal vectors of shorelines from photogrammetry for the errors. Equation (2) can now be expressed in the form of the
years 1954, 1963, 1980, 1991 and 1997 (Fig. 3a) and from GPS for the GausseMarkov estimation model as:
years 2001, 2002, 2005 and 2008 (see Fig. 3b) were placed in layers

and processed in the same geodetic reference frame (World y ¼ Ab þ ε; εw 0; s20 W 1 ; (3)
Geodetic System; WGS-84). For distance computations, planar
coordinates (UTM) were used. The shoreline positions obtained whose solution (linear regression) is given by
from photogrammetric data did not always begin and end at the

1
same location, and also had gaps, and as such did not cover all the b
b ¼ AT WA AT Wy; (4)
information at the study site.

with the dispersion Df b

bg ¼ bs 20 ðAT WAÞ1 and
2.4. Shoreline prediction models sb 20 ¼ ðεT W ε Þ=ðn  mÞ. Here, bs 20 is the variance of unit weight and
W is the n  n positive-definite weight matrix.
In what follows, brief discussions of the linear regression, robust First, we define a reference line from which cross-sections are
estimation, and artificial neural network models are presented. taken at intervals of 100 m. The temporal positions of shorelines are
then obtained from their intersection with the cross-sections.
2.4.1. Linear regression model These positions are then used to calculate the shoreline distances
The linear regression model commonly used in shoreline xn, related to time tn, which forms the elements of the observation
prediction is expressed as vector y in equation (1). The temporal information, i.e. years, are
used in the design matrix A.
The linear regression solution (4) holds when there are no gross
y ¼ ax þ c1; (1) errors and b b becomes an unbiased estimator of b since the

Fig. 3. Temporal resolution of the photogrammetric and GPS data.

106 R.M. Goncalves et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 69 (2012) 102e110

expectation Ef b
bg ¼ b. With gross errors in the observations,
however, we have
y ¼ Efyg þ 2 þ ε;
where2 is the n  1 bias vector on the observational vector y.
Considering y ¼ y þ dy, the solution of (5) from (4) leads to:

1
1
b
b ¼ AT WA AT Wy þ AT WA AT W dy;
with the expectation
 
1
1
E b
b ¼ AT WA AT Wy þ AT WA A T W 2 ¼ b þ g ¼ b0 ;
and y ¼ Efyg; dy ¼ 2 þ ε: It becomes evident then that b b is
a biased estimator of b with the termðAT WAÞ1 AT W 2. Setting
g ¼ db, equation (7) leads to
b ¼ b0 þ db:
2.4.2. Robust estimation model
The robust estimation model is defined as follows: Consider
x1,x2,.,xn as being randomly independent variables assumed to
have a normal distribution described by the probability density
function F0(x). If a fraction k(0 < k < 1) of the observations are
contaminated by gross errors, then the new distribution will be
represented by Huber (1964):
FðxÞ ¼ ð1  kÞF0 ðxÞ þ kHðxÞ;
where H(x) is the unknown contaminating distribution. The robust
estimation procedure estimates parameters from this setup in such
a way that the influences of the gross errors in the final estimated
parameters are significantly reduced.
In adopting a robust estimation procedure, we seek a rigorous
adjustment method that will solve equation (6) and give the results
that are as close as possible to those of equation (4). One advantage
of using robust estimation methods is that they do not immediately
delete outlying observations from a given set, rather, they isolate
their effects through, e.g., down-weighting. The iterative weighting
approach proposed by Aduol (1994), for instance, provides a means
of down-weighting bad observations.
In this approach, the weights of observations are considered as
functions of both the observational variances and the observational
residuals. In equation (3), the weight matrix is defined as
v ¼ y  Ab
b: (13)
The values of v obtained from equation (13) are re-introduced
(5) into equation (11) to obtain a new weight matrix W. The proce-
dure for the estimation of b
b is then repeated until a sufficient level
of convergence is attained. In this iterative approach, the starting
initial values of the weight matrix W are those obtained from the
linear regression solution in equation (4).
(6) This method makes use of the fact that any gross error in the
observation will manifest itself in the estimated residuals, which
will tend to be larger compared to the others due to the effect of the
gross errors. In the re-estimation of the elements of the weight
matrix W, a relatively large residual will result in a relatively low
weight for the respective observation. The procedure therefore
down-weights the influence of outlying observations and in so
(7)
doing, reduces the effect of bad observations on the estimated
quantities.
2.4.3. Neural network
In beach morphodynamics applications, Álvarez-Ellacuría et al.
(8) (2011) have shown using an example that artificial neural
networks can be used to obtain shoreline positions from daily raw
video images where the spatial and temporal variability of the
beach are split by Empirical Orhthogonal Function (EOF) decom-
position. For the setup and development of the artificial neural
network (NN), the characteristics of neurons, topology, and training
rules must be specified. The adaptation of the initial weights and
learning of their behaviour are specified by the rules of training.
The algorithms of training of a NN have the feature of adjusting
iteratively the weights of connections between neurons until the
(9) pair of inputs and expected outputs are obtained, and consequently
the relations of cause and effect established. When the setting of
a particular problem presented to NNs changes, and the perfor-
mance model does not fit the situation anymore, it is possible to
train the NN with new conditions of input and output to improve
the performance (Kröse and Smagt, 1996; Haykin, 1999).
The schematic model of an artificial neuron considered as the
processor of a neural network was proposed by McCullochePitts,
where three basic elements can be identified (see, e.g. Kröse and
Smagt, 1996; Haykin, 1999; Arbib, 2003). The first element is a set
of synapses or connecting links, each characterized by a weight wkj.
The second element relates to a sum of the input signals, weighted
by the synapses of the neuron (linear combination) as
X
m
vk wkj $xj : (14)
j¼0

W ¼ S1 ; (10) The third element is a transfer function which limits the output
amplitude of a neuron to a finite value, given by
with S being the covariance matrix of the observations. This weight
is modified in the robust iterative weighting approach such that yk ¼ 4ðnk Þ: (15)
equation (10) takes into consideration the residuals. Equation (10)
is thus re-written as A neuron can be described mathematically using equations (14)
and (15), where 4 represents the transfer function of the artificial

1
W ¼ R2 þ S ; (11) neuron, which processes the set of inputs received, while changes
in the activation state are required to obtain a good fit or model for
the problem at hand. The log-sigmoid transfer function (Equation
where
(16)) can take values between 0 and 1, where a is the slope
2 3 parameter of the sigmoid function and n is the activation of the
n1 0 : 0
60 n2 : 07 neuron.
R ¼ 6
4 :
7; (12)
: : : 5 1
0 0 : nn f ðnÞ ¼ (16)
1 þ eðanÞ
and n1, n2,., nn are the observational residuals from equation (3) Equation (17) is the hyperbolic tangent function, which takes
expressed as values between 1 and 1, where a is the slope parameter of the
 R.M. Goncalves et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 69 (2012) 102e110 107

curve; b is the lower and higher limiting values and n is the value of Table 1 show the setting used to perform the neural network. It is
activation. important to report that we tried many more neural network
configurations with different input and hidden layers (or neurons)
eðbnÞ  eðbnÞ to check the performance of each model, with the best one selected
f ð nÞ ¼ a (17)
eðbnÞ þ eðbnÞ and compared to the other methods.
The linear activation function is defined by Equation (18) where
2.5. Evaluation criteria
a is a real number that defines the linear output to the input values,
y is the output and x is the input.
Three experiments were performed; the first with the linear
y ¼ ax (18) regression model (equation (4)), the second with the robust esti-
mation model (equations (10)e(13)), and the third with the neural
An important concept of a NN is the definition of the architec- network (Table 1). To assess the efficiency of the three methods, we
ture, or the way in which neurons in a network may be arranged, computed the following:
which is an important parameter that restricts the type of problem
that can be treated in a specific network. Networks with a single (1) The mean of the deviation from the GPS 2008 derived shore-
layer of nodes, for example, can only solve linearly separable line, which we used as a control. This is computed using
problems. Recurrent networks, in turn, are more appropriate to
solve problems that involve temporal processing (Haykin, 1999).
1X n
The Multilayer Feed-Forward Network was used with the x ¼ ðGPS 2008i  Prediction 2008i Þ; (19)
LevenbergeMarquardt (LM) algorithm for training in this work.
n i¼1
This type of architecture is composed of an input layer of source,
one or more layers of hidden neurons and another layer of output where (GPS 2008i  Prediction 2008i) denotes the distance
neurons. There are several types of methods for training networks between the predicted shoreline and the control shoreline at the
that are grouped into two categories: supervised learning and cross-section, while i and n are the number of sections.
unsupervised learning. The case of supervised learning or learning
with a teacher has a set of inputeoutput examples. However in the (2) The standard deviation is then obtained from the square root of
case of learning without a teacher (unsupervised learning), there is the average variance of the estimated shoreline position, i.e.,
neither teacher to oversee the learning process nor are there
labeled examples of the function to be learned by the network (see, vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u
e.g., Haykin, 1999). u 1 X n
The most popular algorithm of error management is the back s¼ t ðGPS 2008i  Prediction 2008i  xÞ2 (20)
n  1 i¼1
propagation, were the idea is to correct the errors according to
a learning rule. The learning consists of two steps through the
different layers of the net according to their direction; one step (3) The root mean square (RMS) of the shoreline deviation is
forward, the propagation, and one step backward, the back prop- computed to gain a measure of the corresponding effectiveness
agation (e.g. Kröse and Smagt, 1996; Haykin, 1999; Arbib, 2003). of the method, i.e.,
In the forward step, one vector of input is applied to the
sensorial nodes and it in effect propagates through the net, layer by
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
layer. This results in one set of output to be produced with a real u
u 1 X n
answer or estimate by the net. During the propagation through the RMS ¼ t ðGPS 2008i  Prediction 2008i Þ2 : (21)
net, all weights are fixed. During the backward step, all weights are n  1 i¼1
adjusted according to a rule of correction of errors (see, e.g. Kröse
and Smagt, 1996; Haykin, 1999; Arbib, 2003). Specifically, the
answer of the net is subtracted from that desired to produce the (4) The coefficient of determinant R2 was computed to assess the
error signal. This signal is propagated back through the net, hence fit of the predicted value to the true shoreline position using
the name back propagation. The weights are adjusted to make the (see, e.g., Schaible and Lee, 1996).
answer of the real net closer to the desired output (see, e.g. Kröse
and Smagt, 1996; Haykin, 1999; Arbib, 2003). Pn
In practice, the use of the back propagation algorithm tends to ðGPS 2008i  Predictioni Þ2
R2 ¼ 1  Pn i ¼ 1 2
(22)
converge very slowly, requiring a great computational effort. To
i ¼ 1 ðGPS 2008i  Mean GPS 2008Þ
solve this problem, several techniques have been incorporated to
improve the performance in order to reduce the convergence time
(5) Finally, we determine the mean absolute percentage error
and the computational effort required. Such techniques include,
(MAPE), which measures the accuracy of a fitted time series
e.g., the LevenbergeMarquardt algorithm (see, e.g. Hagan and
and usually expresses accuracy as a percentage (see, e.g., Hayati
Menhaj, 1994; Lera and Pinzolas, 2002).
and Shirvany, 2007).
A test using neural networks is done with the characteristic of
non-supervised training. The inputs are the vectors of observations Table 1
y described in equation (2). The network learns the relationships Artificial neural network settings.
provided by the input information and finds out what the output Architecture e Multilayer Feed-Forward Networks e Structure
for the forward step representing the 2008 predictions are. The
Artificial neural network MLP
data for the year 2008 does not participate in the training. Similarly Training method LevenbergeMarquardt(LM)
to the linear regression and robust estimation methods, the 2008 Number of hidden neuron 1
data serves only as a control to verify the answers found by the Number of hidden layer 4
Activation function used in hidden layer Hyperbolic tangent
respective predictive model. It is emphasized that any kind of
Activation function used in output layer Linear
weight is selected as the input data for the neural network case.
108 R.M. Goncalves et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 69 (2012) 102e110

n  
Table 2 100 X 
GPS 2008i  Prediction 2008i 
MAPE ¼ (23)
Cross-sections characteristics.
n i ¼ 1 GPS 2008i 
Cross-sections Temporal data belonging to the set Degrees of
freedom
10 1963 2001 2002 2005 2
15 1963 1980 2001 2002 2005 3
10 1954 1963 1980 2001 2002 2005 4 2.6. The 2008 predictions
7 1954 1963 1980 1991 2001 2002 2005 5
9 1954 1963 1980 1991 1997 2001 2002 2005 6
All historical data are placed in layers and once this is done, one
1 1963 1980 1997 2001 2002 2005 4
5 1963 1980 1997 2001 2002 3 is chosen as a shoreline reference upon which the cross-sections
Total ¼ 57 are drawn. In this case, the first line obtained by GPS (2001) was
selected as a reference, since it comprised the limits of extension of

Table 3
Results of the prediction models for the 2008 shoreline position compared to that of the GPS survey in 2008 (GPS 2008-model results).

Sample number Number of iteration for Robust (GPS2008  Prediction) Linear regression (GPS2008  Prediction) Artificial neural network
robust best solution (GPS2008  Prediction)

Absolute value (m) Absolute value (m) Absolute value (m)

1 12 0.85 14.35 3.54
2 13 1.36 14.54 3.89
3 28 1.01 8.94 2.06
4 1 1.31 1.31 2.33
5 14 0.9 5.29 1.48
6 3 0.93 6.48 1.35
7 1 0.29 0.29 0.19
8 20 0.47 7.58 0.03
9 2 2.13 2.20 4.62
10 2 0.45 4.75 3.30
11 27 2.24 12.84 4.94
12 2 0.68 6.54 0.34
13 2 0.81 6.62 0.31
14 2 1.58 3.97 0.88
15 2 0.23 5.23 1.05
16 2 1.76 4.04 0.68
17 2 0.23 5.35 1.41
18 1 1.61 1.61 0.73
19 1 0.79 0.79 1.29
20 1 1.60 1.60 0.12
21 1 0.78 0.78 0.79
22 1 1.24 1.24 1.04
23 1 0.32 0.32 0.91
24 1 1.29 1.29 1.96
25 1 1.24 1.24 1.78
26 2 0.06 3.12 7.86
27 21 0.50 1.85 3.98
28 4 0.45 3.08 3.84
29 4 0.70 3.28 2.66
30 3 0.12 0.36 4.28
31 3 0.69 1.44 5.38
32 2 1.18 3.70 0.54
33 2 3.01 8.57 2.61
34 2 2.15 9.22 0.25
35 5 0.30 28.74 2.62
36 7 6.00 57.29 12.09
37 19 0.36 47.36 14.15
38 3 0.36 13.68 16.46
39 1 1.57 1.57 2.32
40 3 0.07 5.37 1.88
41 1 4.21 4.21 2.83
42 3 1.46 4.51 2.30
43 1 4.77 4.77 4.96
44 5 0.01 1.99 1.26
45 1 6.73 6.73 11.81
46 1 6.21 6.21 11.96
47 1 0.73 0.73 3.43
48 3 0.28 3.23 1.18
49 2 1.97 2.10 3.14
50 2 0.28 1.36 2.35
51 2 0.68 3.28 3.05
52 1 7.63 7.63 13.57
53 2 2.36 2.62 12.51
54 1 0.27 0.27 4.35
55 3 0.04 1.77 2.45
56 1 1.20 1.20 1.52
57 7 6.20 7.00 3.33
 R.M. Goncalves et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 69 (2012) 102e110
the coastline studied. From it, cross-sections with a distance of
100 m were drawn.
In practice there are 57 transverse lines and Table 2 presents the
respective information; number of cross-sections, temporal infor-
mation of the data, and the degrees of freedom relative to the linear
mathematical model, i.e., the difference between variables and the
number of independent equations.
For the weight matrix in equation (10), the photogrammetry
data are assigned a standard error of 16 m, i.e. 2s following Crowell
et al. (1991) who suggests an error of about s ¼ 8 m. GPS measuring
accuracy of 2 cm is adopted for the kinematic relative GPS data (see,
e.g., Awange, 2012). With this information, the vector of the
unknowns comprising the linear regression parameters a and c is
estimated. The established linear regression models are then used
to predict the shoreline position for the year 2008. This procedure is
repeated with the robust estimation and the neural network
methods. The results of the predicted shoreline for 2008 from all
the three methods under study are compared with that of the 2008
GPS survey.
3. Results and discussion
Table 3 shows the results for the three prediction methods:
linear regression, robust estimation and neural networks,
compared with the true values based on the 2008 GPS survey used
as the control for the set of 57 samples used in the study. The
second column of Table 3 shows the number of iterations per-
formed to obtain the best solution of the robust estimation. When
the number of iterations is 1, the solution found by the robust
estimation method is essentially the same as that of the linear
regression. As can be seen from the results of Table 3, Robust
estimation method has the smallest values of the absolute errors,
i.e., GPS position of 2008 e the predicted model positions. This is
visible in Fig. 4, which presents the deviation of the predicted 2008
shoreline position from the GPS control data of 2008 constructed
from the data in Table 3. The absolute errors are indicated in y-axis
(m) and the samples appear on the x-axis.
In Fig. 4, the results of the 37th sample are seen to have the
largest absolute error as clearly depicted by the results of the
Robust estimation method. This sample could possibly be an outlier
due to the uncertainty in its data. The advantage of the Robust
estimation method is that despite this uncertainty in the data (i.e.,
outlier), it simply isolates the influence of this particular
Absolute Errors (GPS2008 - Prediction2008)
60
Robust Model
50 Linear Regression
Artificial Neural
40 Network
Errors (m)
30
20
10
0 than 8 m. The results of the linear regression model in some cases
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57
Samples
Fig. 4. Deviations of the predicted 2008 shoreline positions from the actual measured
GPS position in 2008.
109
Table 4
Statistical data.
Statistics results Robust Linear Neural
model (m) regression (m) network (m)
Maximum 7.63 57.29 16.46
Minimum 0.01 0.27 0.03
Mean 1.56 6.45 3.69
Standard 1.83 10.1 4.03
deviation
RMS 2.39 11.9 5.36
R2
0.994 0.984 0.997
MAPE 0.14 0.61 0.33
observation from the rest of the sample used in the estimation. This
way, it avoids the trap of falls rejection and falls retention (see
Hampel et al. 1986).
For the artificial neural network, the choice of the architecture of
the training method and the neurons in the hidden layers are
important factors influencing the response of the predictive model.
In this regard, the results of artificial neural network in Table 3 and
Fig. 4 show significant variations when the neurons in the hidden
layer are modified. For example, performing a test with 2 and 10
neurons, maximum deviations of 126.04 m and 242.08 m were
obtained, respectively, and with 4 neurons in the hidden layers, the
result was 16.4 m.
The values listed in Table 4 were calculated using equations
(19)e(23), and include the minimum and maximum values for the
data. The results are (arithmetic mean, standard deviation, RMS, R2
and MAPE) 6.45 m, 10.10 m, 11.90 m, 98.44% and 0.61% for linear
regression; 1.56 m, 1.83 m, 2.39 m, 99.94% and 0.14% for the robust
estimation; and 3.69 m, 4.03 m, 5.36 m, 99.68% and 0.33% for the
neural networks.
The linear regression results were more than 8 m in comparison
to the control shoreline position in 10 test cases, where the
maximum deviation was 57.29 m. The best statistic result was
presented by the robust estimation model with the largest devia-
tion from the control shoreline being 7.63 m. The artificial neural
network results had a mean value of 3.69 m with the best coeffi-
cient of determinant R2 value but a maximum deviation of 16.46 m.
4. Conclusion
In this work, historical photogrammetric data describing the
positional variation of the shoreline in the municipality of Matinhos
in Brazil was combined with GPS-based observations to compare
the predictive capability of three models; linear regression, robust
estimation, and artificial neural network. This was achieved by
comparing the short-term model predicted shoreline position for
the year 2008 to the GPS measured position for the same period. In
so doing, temporal and prediction analysis of shoreline was used to
generate digital maps of shoreline and critical erosion sites, thus
providing scientific data, thereby integrating coastal spatial infor-
mation that have been used to support decision making processes.
The results indicate the importance of continuous monitoring, thus
the Federal University of Paraná must keep monitoring the area.
One of the difficulties that deserve a special mention, however, is
the recovery of historical data series. The preparation phase of such
data in practice takes a great deal of effort.
On the one hand, the result of this comparison demonstrated
the efficiency of the robust estimation model, with residuals of less
were unexpected and completely misrepresent reality, showing
residuals of more than 10 m in seven cases. The artificial neural
network provides an attractive alternative model for prediction to
the robust estimation model with residuals less than 16.5 m. On the
other hand, this study demonstrated that, despite the uncertainties
110 R.M. Goncalves et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 69 (2012) 102e110
in the data, as often the case for shoreline predictions; the robust
estimation method offers the possibility of appropriately dealing
with such uncertainties. Its attractive feature is that users do not
need to delete any portion of the data that appears to be outliers.
Robust procedures are, therefore, capable of the following;
1 providing a method of managing outliers in shoreline predic-
tion data, and
2 providing a diagnosis and control tool that may be used to
check the efficiency of traditional shoreline prediction
methods, such as the linear regression.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the three anonymous reviewers and
the Editor-in-Chief Prof. Victor N de Jonge for their comments,
which helped to improve the quality of this manuscript. RMG and
CPK acknowledge the support of PROBRAL (CAPES/DAAD) and
CNPq; while JLA acknowledges the financial support of the Alex-
ander von Humboldt (Ludwig Leichhardt Memorial Fellowship)
and Curtin Research Fellowship. RMG, JLA, and CPK would also like
to thank their host Prof. Bernhard Heck and his team at the
Geodetic Institute, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, for providing
a conducive working atmosphere. The authors thank K. Fleming of
GfZ for assistance with the English but take full responsibility. This
is a TiGER Publication No. 422.
References
Addo, K.A., Walkden, M., Mills, J.P., 2008. Detection, measurement and prediction of
shoreline recession in Accra, Ghana. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry &
Remote Sensing 63, 543e558.
Aduol, F.W.O., 1994. Robust geodetic parameter estimation through iterative
weighting. Survey Review 32 (252), 359e367.
Álvarez-Ellacuría, A., Orfila, L., Gómez-Pujol, G., Simarro, N. Obregon, 2011. Decou-
pling spatial and temporal patterns in short-term beach shoreline response to
wave climate. Geomorphology 128 (3e4), 199e208.
Arbib, M.A., 2003. The Handbook of Brain Theory and Neural Networks. Massa-
chusetts Institute of Technology.
Awange, J.L., Aduol, F.W.O., 1999. An evaluation of some robust estimation techniques
in the estimation of geodetic parameters. Survey Review 35 (273), 146e162.
Awange, J.L., 2012. Environmental Monitoring Using GNSS. Springer,
Berlin-New York.
Boak, E.H., Turner, I.L., 2005. Shoreline definition and detection: a Review. Journal of
Coastal Research 21 (4), 688e703.
Crowell, M., Letherman, S.P., Buckley, M.K., 1991. Historical shoreline change: error
analysis and mapping accuracy. Journal of Coastal Research 7 (3), 839e852.
Crowell, M., Douglas, B.C., Leatherman, S.P., 1997. On forecasting future U.S. shore-
line positions: a test of algorithms. Journal of Coastal Research 13 (4), 1245e
1255.
Demarest, J.M., Leatherman, S.P., 1985. Mainland influence on coastal transgression:
Delmarva Peninsula. Marine Geology 63, 19e33.
Douglas, B.C., Crowell, M., Leatherman, S.P., 1998. Considerations for shoreline
position prediction. Journal of Coastal Research 14 (3), 1025e1033.
Douglas, B.C., Crowell, M., 2000. Long-term shoreline position prediction and error
propagation. Journal of Coastal Research 16 (1), 145e152.
Fenster, M.S., Dolan, R., Elder, J.F., 1993. New method for predicting shoreline
positions from historical data. Journal of Coastal Research 9 (1), 147e171.
Fenster, M.S., Dolan, R., Morton, R.A., 2000. Coastal storms and shoreline change:
signal or noise? Journal of Coastal Research 17 (3), 714e720.
Galgano, F.A., Douglas, B.C., Leatherman, S.P., 1998. Trends and variability of
shoreline position. Journal of Coastal Research 26, 282e291.
Galgano, F.A., Douglas, B.C., 2000. Shoreline position prediction: methods and
errors. Environmental Geosciences 7 (1), 1e10.
Goncalves, R.M. Short-term trend modeling of the shoreline through geodetic data
using linear regression, robust estimation and artificial neural networks, 2010.
Ph.D. thesis. Geodetic Sciences Post-graduate Program, Federal University of
Parana (UFPR), Curitiba, Brazil, p. 152.
Gorman, L., Morang, A., Larson, R., 1998. Monitoring the coastal environment; part
IV: mapping, shoreline changes, and bathymetric analysis. Journal of Coastal
Research 14 (1), 61e92.
Hagan, M.T., Menhaj, M.B., 1994. Training feedforward networks with the Mar-
quardt algorithm. IEE Transactions on Neural Networks 5 (6), 989e993.
Hampel, F.R., Ronchetti, E.M., Rousseeuw, P.J., Stahel, W.A., 1986. Robust Statistics:
the Approach Based on Influence Functions. Wiley, New York.
Hayati, M., Shirvany, Y., 2007. Artificial neural network approach for short term load
forecasting for Illam region. World Academy of Science. Engineering and
Technology 28, 280e284.
Haykin, S., 1999. Neural Networks e A Comprehensive Foundation. McMaster
University Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, Pearson Education.
Hecky, R.E., Newbury, R.W., Bodaly, R.A., Patalas, K., Rosenberg, D.M., 1984.
Environmental impact prediction and assessment: the southern Indian lake
experience. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 41 (4),
720e732.
Huber, P.J., 1964. Robust estimation of a location parameter. Annals of Mahtematical
Statistics 35, 73e101.
Huber, P.J., 1981. Robust Statistics. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Kröse, B., Smagt, P.V.D., 1996. An Introduction to Neural Networks, eighth ed. The
University of Amsterddam.
Krueger, C.P., Goncalves, R.M., Heck, B., 2009. Surveys at the coast of Parana, Brazil,
to determinate the temporal coastal changes. Journal of Coastal Research 1,
632e635.
Lera, G., Pinzolas, M., 2002. Neighborhood based Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm
for neural network training. IEE Transactions on Neural Networks 13 (5), 1200e
1203.
Li, R., Di, K., Ma, R., 2001. A comparative study of shoreline mapping techniques. In:
The 4th International Symposium on Computer Mapping and GIS for Coastal
Zone Management, Nova Scotia.
Li, R., Keong, C.W., Ramcharan, E., Kjerfve, B., Willis, D., 1998. A costal GIS for
shoreline monitoring and management e case study in Malaysia. Surveying and
Land Information Systems 58 (3), 157e166.
Metropolitan Borough of Sefton, 2002. Shoreline monitoring annual report 2001/
2002. http://www.sefton.gov.uk/pdf/TS_cdef_monitor_20012.pdf (accessed
14.11.08.).
Mitishita, E.A., Kirchner F.F. Digital mono-diferential restitution of airphotos applied
to planimetric mapping. In: International Archieves of Photogrammetry and
Remote Sensing, vol. XXXIII, Part B4. Amsterdam 2000, pp. 655e662.
Schaible, B., Lee, Y.C., 1996. Fuzzy logic models with improved accuracy and
continuous differentiability. IEEE Transactions on Components, Packaging, and
Manufacturing Technology 19 (1), 37e47.
Soares, C.R., Vobel, I., Paranhos Filho, A.C. 1995. The marine erosion problem in
Matinhos municipality. In: Land Ocean Interactions on the Coastal Zone, 1995,
São Paulo, pp. 48e50.
Souza, C.R.G., 2009. Coastal erosion and the coastal zone management challenges in
Brazil. Journal of Integrated Coastal Zone Management 9 (1), 17e37.
Thieler, E.R., Pilkey Jr., O.H., Young, R.S., Bush, D.M., Chai, F., 2000. Behavior for
U.S. coastal engineering: a critical review. Journal of Coastal Research 16 (1),
48e70.
Tzatzanis, M., Wrbka, T., Sauberer, N., 2003. Landscape and vegetation responses to
human impact in sandy coasts of Western Crete, Greece. Journal for Nature
Conservation 11 (3), 187e195.
Veloso-Gomes, A., Barroco, A.R., Pereira, C.S., Reis, H., Calado, J.G., Ferreira, M.D.C.,
Freitas, M. Biscoito, 2008. Basis for a national strategy for integrated coastal
zone management e in Portugal. Jornal of Coast Conservatin 12, 3e9.