Received: 13 May 2017 Accepted: 25 September 2017
DOI: 10.1111/nrm.12146
Assessment of vulnerability for coastal erosion with
GIS and AHP techniques case study: Southern
coastline of Sri Lanka
Li Lin1,2,3 Pgrni Pussella1,2,3,4
1 School of Resources and Environmental
Science, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
2 Collaborative Innovation Center of Geo Spa-
tial Technology, Wuhan University, Wuhan,
China
3 The Key Laboratory of Geographical Infor-
mation System, Ministry of Education, Wuhan
University, Wuhan, China
4 Department of Remote Sensing & GIS, Fac-
ulty of Geomatics, Sbaragamuwa University,
Belihuloya, Sri Lanka
Correspondence
Pgrni Pussella, School of Resources and Envi-
ronmental Science, Wuhan University, 129
Luoyu Road, Wuhan 430079, China.
Email: indikapussella@yahoo.com; indikapus-
sella@gmail.com
Senior Lecturer, Department of Remote Sens-
ing & GIS, Faculty of Geomatics, Sbaraga-
muwa University, PO Box 02, Belihuloya,
Sri Lanka.
Email: pgrnip@geo.sab.ac.lk
Natural Resource Modeling. 2017;30:e12146. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/nrm
https://doi.org/10.1111/nrm.12146
Abstract
Coastal Vulnerability Index for erosion was introduced for
southwestern coast of Sri Lanka in this study. Slope, geo-
morphology, erosion rate, dune width, tide direction, tidal
range, wave height, protection methods and adjacent land
use type were used as variables. Existing maps, Google
Earth images, field observations, and questionnaire surveys
were used as data sources and decision model was prepared
using GIS technique. Weights for the model were deter-
mined through questionnaire surveys and analytical hier-
archical process technique. It was revealed that 7.5% and
23.7% of coastline are very highly and highly vulnerable
for coastal erosion, respectively. A total of 27.11% of study
area was classified as moderately and 29.4% as lower vul-
nerable. Only 12.25% of the line is very low vulnerable for
coastal erosion. Two hot spots were identified to be given
immediate attention. Coastal slope was recognized as most
influential factor for high vulnerability using Pearson prod-
uct moment correlation coefficient values.
Summary for Managers
• It can be concluded that the southern coastline of Sri
Lanka is in risk and immediate attention of policy makers
for mitigation process is highly recommended. It is rec-
ommended to construct artificial barriers after analyzing
the characteristics and the profile of the coast.
• Special attention is highly required for hot spot areas in
Kahawa and Hikkaduwa coastal areas.
Copyright © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 1 of 12
2 of 12 Natural Resource Modeling L IN AND PUSSELLA

• Furthermore, study recommends to introduce different

buffer zones for various purposes and uses.

KEYWORDS
AHP, coast, erosion, GIS, vulnerability

1 I N T RO D U C T I O N

In both global and local contexts, coastal area is very important for general human settlements and eco-
nomic aspects. Approximately one-third of the world population is settled in coastal areas (Martins,
Pires, & Cabral, 2012) and most of the big cities in the world are situated within close proximity of
coastline. Most of the coastal public around the world derive and depend, generally, on natural resources
present in coastal areas in their economic activities such as fishing and tourism. Inherently, coast is a
dynamic physical feature with seasonal, short- and long-term patterns. Though it is easy to define the
coastline as the line in contact between land and water body, it is very difficult to identify or capture
because of this dynamic nature (Mujabar & Chandrasekar, 2011). Currently, coastline is severely threat-
ened by natural events and man-made activities and pressures such as coastline changes, sea erosion,
sea water intrusion, and sea level rise (SLR; Martins et al., 2012; Mujabar & Chandrasekar, 2011).
Bird (2008) identified 21 possible factors for coastline change and listed reduction of fluvial sediment
supply, increased wave energy, increased intensity and frequency of storms and diminished tidal range
as major factors. Masselink and Hughes (2003) and Bird (2008) divided natural factors responsible for
coastline change into two types: hydrodynamics such as waves, tides, and currents and aerodynamics
such as wind. Zhang, Douglas, and Leatherman (2000) listed three causes for continuous beach erosion:
SLR, change of storm climate and human interference. Furthermore, Zhang, Douglas, and Leatherman
(2004) justified SLR as the most influential factor since there is no significant increase in storm climate
in this century and human interference is not uniform worldwide and proved the inter-relationship
between rate of coastline retreat and SLR by using long time data of coastline position and sea level data
along the east coast of the United States. However, List, Sallenger, Hansen, and Jaffee (1997) reported
that there is no correlation between coastline retreat and SLR after analyzing data from Louisiana coast
of the United States. Thampanya, Vermaat, Sinsakul, and Panapitukkul (2006) and Nguyen, McAlpine,
Pullar, Leisz, and Gallina (2015) stated that coastline changes have accelerated due to human-induced
land use changes with coastal developments. Giri et al. (2008) and Nguyen et al. (2015) interpreted
that coastline change in the South-East Asia has been driven by a rapid growth of human population,
industrial development, and expansion of industries such as tourism.
Bryan, Harvey, Belperio, and Bourman (2001) identified elevation, exposure, aspect, and slope as
factors for erosion and concluded that all factors responsible together for erosion with same manner
and magnitude. Parthasarathy and Natesan (2015) used nine parameters: the rate of coastline change,
rate of sea level change, elevation, slope, bathymetry, mean tidal range, significant wave height, beach
width, and geomorphology, to determine the vulnerability of coastal area of Indian coastline. Abuodha,
Colin, and Woodroffe (2010) used six structural variables: rock type, coastal slope, geomorphology,
barrier type, coastline exposure, and coastline change and three process variables: relative SLR, mean
wave height, and mean tide range to assess the vulnerability to SLR using a coastal sensitivity index
for southeast coastline of Australia. Rao et al. (2008) used five physical variables: geomorphology,
slope, coastline change, mean spring tide range, and significant wave height to assess the vulnerability
of Andhra Pradesh coast of India for SLR without including relative SLR and rate of subsidence due
to unavailability of data.
L IN AND PUSSELLA Natural Resource Modeling 3 of 12

Coastal area of Sri Lanka receives two monsoons: southwest and northeast. Since the southwest
waves are coming from the bare sea, they bring heavy energy and hit the southern and western coast-
lines. Therefore, net annual sediment transportation rate is very high (105 m3 ) during monsoon seasons
(Ansaf, 2011). In the case of coastline of Sri Lanka, which is about 1600 km in length, erosion was the
main disaster long time ago even in 1920s (Swan, 1984). But the bad effects of rate of erosion were
compensated by the continuous sediment supply from rivers. However, currently, erosion has become
a severe threat due to limited sediment supply as a result of irregular sand mining processes in major
and minor river network. Samaranayake (2003) identified three main reasons for coastal erosion of Sri
Lanka: continuous destruction of mangrove land cover due to human settlement, fuel wood cutting,
and shrimp farming. According to Samaranayake (2003), mangrove forest cover area in Sri Lanka
has decreased dramatically, approximately, from 120 km2 in 1986 to 60 km2 in 2000. Wickramaratne
(1985) and Wickramarachchi (2000) identified three factors for coastal erosion of Sri Lanka: coastline
geometry, sediment instability, and wave incident angle. Wickramarachchi (2000), furthermore, justi-
fied coastline geometry as the key factor for erosion. As a result of present human activities, coastal
erosion has dramatically increased, specially, in the southern, western, northwestern, and southwestern
coasts of Sri Lanka (Table 1).
TABLE 1 Coastal erosion scenario of Sri Lanka
Coastline Erosion % of Erosion Level
District (km) Coastline (m/year)
Colombo 40 40–50 0.0–0.1
Kalutara 40 70–80 0.1–0.5
Galle 75 70–80 0.3
Matara 55 80 0.9–1.0
Hambantota 135 40–50 0.2
Jaffna 275 60–70 0.3
Mullaitivu 50 20–30 0.2
Source: Master Plan–1985 of the Coast Conservation Department.

GIS provides a very good scientific platform with a wide range of tools for visualization, analysis,
and integration of spatial and nonspatial data to support in decision-making processes of spatially ref-
erenced problems. Recent developments in decision support systems integrated with GIS and remote
sensing provide a number of interacted methods to solve problems, specially, in risk assessment pro-
cesses (Kaliraj, Chandrasekar, & Magesh, 2013; Lawal, Matori, Hashim, Yusof, & Chandio, 2012). In
solving problems, GIS gives a good opportunity to identify and work with a number of predetermined
set of criteria which is considered as most important and crucial work (Ho, Ghazali, & Chong, 2002).
Process of multicriteria decision analysis evaluates problems spatially and gives alternative solutions
(Collins, Steiner, & Rushman, 2001). Furthermore, it is very important to recognize the individual
influences of different criteria. Many studies use analytical hierarchical process (AHP) technique that
was introduced by Saaty (1980) to determine the individual influences or weights for different GIS lay-
ers (Li, Zhou, Tian, Kuang, & Wang, 2015). AHP technique uses the involvement of experts through
questionnaire surveys or discussions to determine the weights by comparing relative importance of
each pair of factors which is called as the pairwise comparison method of AHP.
The main objective of the study was to assess the vulnerability of the southwestern coastal area
for coastal erosion. Study selected the coastline from Ambalangoda to Habaraduwa located in Galle
district, southern province of Sri Lanka (Figure 1). Geographically, this area is very vulnerable to
coastal disasters as it directly faces Indian Ocean. Southern coastal area was severely damaged from
4 of 12 Natural Resource Modeling L IN AND PUSSELLA

Indian
Ocean

FIGURE 1 Case study area: A part of southern coastline of Sri Lanka

the Tsunami disaster in 2005, reporting around 30,000 deaths and around 1,00,000 loss of houses
(Asian Development Bank, Japan Bank for International Cooperation and World Bank, 2005). It was
reported that the value of loss of property was estimated in billions approximately and the loss of
ecosystem could not be assessed (Asian Development Bank, Japan Bank for International Cooperation
and World Bank, 2005). And also, this area is very important for the economic development of the
country. Generally, the coastal area is covered by sandy and rocky beaches. Unfortunately, it can be
seen that the southern coastal belt is severely threatened by erosion and inundation due to various
types of human activities and natural disasters. Therefore, knowing the degree of erosion hazard is
very important for mitigation and adaptation, aiming to reduce losses.

2 METHODOLOGY

The objectives of the study were achieved by following several steps. As the first step, data requirements
on the factors to be considered to assess the vulnerability for erosion were determined using literature
survey and by the preliminary investigation of the study area using existing 1:10,000 scaled topo-
graphic maps of Sri Lanka, which were produced in 2000 and revised in 2015 by Survey Department
of Sri Lanka, National Mapping Agency, and Google Earth images. According to data availability, nine
factors were selected: geomorphology, width of the sand dune, coastal slope, rate of coastline change,
average tidal range, direction of tides, mean wave height, availability of coastal protection measures and
vegetation cover of the adjacent land to the coast (Table 2). Since relative sea level change is, mostly,
common for the whole study area, it was not taken into account. Data were collected at approximately
1 km regular intervals along the coastline of the study area and they were verified using Google Earth
images. Spatial interpolation technique in GIS was used to prepare the continuous feature layers by
considering the raster cell size as 100 m. For each and every factor, subcriteria were determined using
the semistructured questionnaire survey in which 20 experts (5 higher-ranking officers from coastal
conservation department of Sri Lanka, 10 academics who are currently engaged in coastal environ-
ment researches, and 5 prominent government officers who are working in the study area) participated
and reviewed literature to demarcate the vulnerability rank.
The weights required for GIS analysis were collected using a semistructured questionnaire from
the experts in the coastal research field in step 3. The relative influences of each subcriteria and the
main factors for assessing the vulnerability were determined through the AHP method. AHP method
followed three steps: analysis in which the hierarchical tree structure for criteria was developed, com-
parison judgment in which the nine degree scale (Table 3) was used for evaluations, and priority
L IN AND PUSSELLA Natural Resource Modeling 5 of 12

TABLE 2 Factors considered in vulnerability assessment and their initial weights

Initial Ranking of Coastal Vulnerability Factors
Factor Very Low Low Moderate High Very High
High hard rock Medium Estuaries/
Geomorphology cliffs cliffs lagoons Muddy Sandy coasts
Sand dune width (m) >50 30–50 10–30 3–10 <3
Coastal slope (%) >2.0 1–2 0.5–1 0.1–0.5 <0.1
Rate of coastline erosion ≤0 0–0.2 0.2–0.5 0.5–1 >1
(m/year)
Average tidal range (m) <0.5 0.5–1 1–1.5 1.5–2 >2
Direction of tides >800 700 –800 600 –700 450 –600 <450
Mean wave height (m) <0.2 0.2–0.5 0.5–1 1–2 >2
Protection measures Natural barriers – Man-made – Open
barriers
Adjacent land use Forest Shrubs Agriculture Marshy/ Built up
water
TABLE 3 Nine degree scale
Degree Description of Pairwise Comparison Judgment
1 Criteria i is equally important as Criteria j
3 Criteria i is moderately more important as Criteria j
5 Criteria i is strongly more important as Criteria j
7 Criteria i is very strongly more important as Criteria j
9 Criteria i is extremely more important as Criteria j
2, 4, 6, 8 The importance in between two degrees
Note: i and j are the criteria.

composition in which the pairwise matrix was developed using the experts’ opinions (Nonis, Varghese,
& Suresh, 2007).
Under the fourth step, the data were processed to input into the GIS model and the analysis was
undertaken. The present and past coastlines of the study area were extracted from different topographic
map series which were published by the Survey Department of Sri Lanka, which is the National Map-
ping Agency of Sri Lanka and those maps were updated using Google Earth images. The coastline was
classified according to the subcriteria in the GIS environment and separate maps were prepared for
each factor. The GIS model to determine the coastal vulnerability was built to overlay the shape files
and the relative weights were introduced to the model. Finally, the coastal vulnerability index (CVI)
values were categorized as very low, low, moderate, high, and very high vulnerable areas. Additionally,
the study identified the hot spots with higher CVI values to be given more attention.

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In the process of determining the weights for the GIS layers, the values in the cells of pairwise matrix
were determined using “the minority should obey to the majority” theory in which the opinion of the
majority would be considered as the cell value. It was used “1” as the value for the diagonals of the
matrix and the reciprocal scores were assigned for the cell values in the lower left triangle below
the diagonal of the pairwise comparison matrix (Table 4).
6 of 12 Natural Resource Modeling L IN AND PUSSELLA

TABLE 4 Pairwise comparison matrix

A B C D E F G H I
A 1 2 4 5 5 7 6 4 9
B 1/2 1 1 3 3 4 4 2 3
C 1/4 1 1 3 4 6 5 6 9
D 1/5 1/3 1/3 1 3 4 4 4 7
E 1/5 1/3 1/4 1/3 1 9 8 5 5
F 1/7 1/4 1/6 1/4 1/9 1 1 8 4
G 1/6 1/4 1/5 1/4 1/8 1 1 2 3
H 1/4 1/2 1/6 1/4 1/5 1/8 1/2 1 1
I 1/9 1/3 1/9 1/7 1/5 1/4 1/3 1 1
Sum 2.821 6.000 7.228 13.226 16.636 32.375 29.833 33.000 42.000
Note: A- coastal slope, B- geomorphology, C- rate of erosion, D- dune width, E- direction of tides, F- average tidal range, G- mean wave
height, H- protection measures, I- adjacent land use.

TABLE 5 Normalized matrix

Final
A B C D E F G H I Influence
A 0.355 0.333 0.553 0.378 0.301 0.216 0.201 0.121 0.214 2.673
B 0.177 0.167 0.138 0.227 0.180 0.124 0.134 0.061 0.071 1.279
C 0.089 0.167 0.138 0.227 0.240 0.185 0.168 0.182 0.214 1.610
D 0.071 0.056 0.046 0.076 0.180 0.124 0.134 0.121 0.167 0.974
E 0.071 0.056 0.035 0.025 0.060 0.278 0.268 0.152 0.119 1.063
F 0.051 0.042 0.023 0.019 0.007 0.031 0.034 0.242 0.095 0.543
G 0.059 0.042 0.028 0.019 0.008 0.031 0.034 0.061 0.071 0.351
H 0.089 0.083 0.023 0.019 0.012 0.004 0.017 0.030 0.024 0.301
I 0.039 0.056 0.015 0.011 0.012 0.008 0.011 0.030 0.024 0.206
Sum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9

TABLE 6 Final weights for GIS model

Factor A B C D E F G H I
Percentage weight 29.71 14.21 17.89 10.82 11.81 6.03 3.90 3.34 2.29

TABLE 7 Classification ranges of CVI values

Vulnerability Status Very Low Low Moderate High Very High
CVI value range 148–211 212–248 249–282 283–328 329–411

The normalized matrix was defined by dividing all the cell values from the sum of the respective
columns in the pairwise comparison matrix (Table 5). The sum of the rows was taken as the final
influence of the factors and the percentage values of these were used in the GIS model as final weights
(Table 6).
The CVI values for each pixel were determined by multiplying the pixel value and the respective
weights using the weighted overlay technique in GIS modeling. After that, final CVI value map of the
coastline was classified as very low, low, moderate, high, and very high vulnerable areas (Table 7)
using the opinions of the experts.
L IN AND PUSSELLA Natural Resource Modeling 7 of 12

FINAL VULNERABILITY CLASSIFIED MAP

PART I

PART II

PART III

PART IV
PART V

Scale 1:200,000 PART VI

FIGURE 2 Final map that was classified on level of vulnerability

Figure 2 (Figs. 3a–f with larger scales) shows the degree of vulnerability of the study area for coastal
erosion. The resultant maps clearly show that the area is, presently, under threat for erosion-based
disasters.
According to Table 8, it can be identified that 7.50% of the study area is in very high risk and 23.74%
and 27.11% of the study area are highly and moderately vulnerable consecutively. Only 12.25% of the
area is very low vulnerable and 29.40% is in the position of lower vulnerable. Furthermore, the hot
spots for coastal erosion disaster along the study area were identified on which the immediate attention
of the officials of the coastal conservation bodies is required. Two locations: lengths of 4.3 km line
segment in Kahawa area and 2.3 km line segment in Hikkaduwa area were recognized as hot spots for
erosion as shown in Figure 4. And also, the correlation between the CVI values and different factors
were determined using the Pearson coefficient method for both line segments. In this, adjacent land
use factor was not taken into account for Kahawa hot spot, since there were no differences in between
the values. According to Table 10, it can be noticed that the higher CVI values have been recorded due
to the risk values associated with slope, dune width, tide direction, tidal range, and protection type.
The scenario of the vulnerability was further analyzed using the relevant values of different factors
which were considered in the study. The variability of the CVI values was matched with the values
of the individual factors to ascertain the most influential factor/factors for the calculated CVI values
using the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient in the Microsoft Excel environment by taking
CVI as the dependent variable and other factor values as independent variables (Table 9). In this, it
can be noticed that the correlation between CVI and the coastal slope is higher which further proves
the experts’ opinion of the slope on vulnerability for erosion, since it was recorded the highest weight
for GIS layers in the AHP process. Additionally, the medium coefficient values that were obtained for
the factors such as erosion rate, dune height, tidal direction, and adjacent land use indicate that there
is a medium correlation between them and CVI values. There is a contradiction between the experts’
opinions and the correlation coefficient on adjacent land use factor, since the experts say it as a low
weighted factor and, at the same time, Pearson value indicates that CVI and adjacent land use has
a medium correlation. Furthermore, in the case of the relationship between the geomorphology and
8 of 12 Natural Resource Modeling L IN AND PUSSELLA

FINAL CVI MAP FINAL CVI MAP

AREA PART I AREA PART II

Scale 1:30,000 Scale 1:30,000

(a) (b)

FINAL CVI MAP FINAL CVI MAP

AREA PART III AREA PART IV

Scale 1:40,000 Scale 1:40,000

(c) (d)

FINAL CVI MAP FINAL CVI MAP

AREA PART V AREA PART VI

Scale 1:50,000
Scale 1:20,000

(e) (f)

FIGURE 3 Final CVI maps with larger scales (a) part I (b) part II (c) part III (d) part IV (e) part V (f) part VI

CVI, though the experts have given their opinion that geomorphology is a medium influencing factor in
deciding vulnerability, Pearson coefficient value shows that the correlation is very low between them.
For the factors such as tidal range, wave height, and protection type, the Pearson coefficient is low and
indicates the low correlation between those factors and the vulnerability.
L IN AND PUSSELLA Natural Resource Modeling 9 of 12

TABLE 8 CVI percentages

Vulnerability Status Very Low Low Moderate High Very High
No. of pixels covered 80 192 177 155 49
Percentage covered (%) 12.25 29.40 27.11 23.74 7.50

TABLE 9 Pearson product moment correlation coefficients (r) of the total line segment
Erosion Dune Tide Tidal Wave Prot. Adj. Land
Factor Slope Geo. Rate Width Dire. Range Height Type Use
r 0.7392 0.1810 0.3152 −0.2590 −0.3775 −0.0161 −0.1427 −0.1046 −0.2558
Correlation High Low Medium Medium Medium Low Low Low Medium
category

FIGURE 4 Hot spot areas with higher CVI values

TABLE 10 Pearson product moment correlation coefficients (r) of Kahawa hot spot segment
Erosion Dune Tide Tidal Wave Prot.
Factor Slope Geo. Rate Width Dire. Range Height Type
r −0.8797 −0.2359 −0.0285 −0.7302 −0.6141 −0.7405 −0.4842 0.5820
Correlation high medium low high high high medium high

TABLE 11 Pearson product moment correlation coefficients (r) of Hikkaduwa hot spot segment
Erosion Tide Tidal Wave Prot. Adj. Land
Factor Slope Geo. Rate Dire. Range Height Type Use
r 0.3567 −0.0016 0.4319 −0.7100 −0.4488 −0.4290 0.1183 0.3795
Correlation Medium Low Medium High Medium Medium Low Medium

In analyzing the scenario of hot spot in Hikkaduwa, dune width was not considered due to same
values recorded and determined the Pearson correlation coefficient (Table 11). Tide direction can be
identified as the main responsible factor for the higher CVI values and the factors such as geomorphol-
ogy and protection type can be recognized as least responsible factors for higher CVI values. Slope,
10 of 12 Natural Resource Modeling L IN AND PUSSELLA

erosion rate, tidal range, wave height, and adjacent land use are medium influencing factors for the
vulnerability in this area.

4 CONC LU SI ON S

The study has thoroughly identified the concern of the vulnerability of the southwestern coast of Sri
Lanka for erosion. The reason for the higher risk is attached with the open areas to the sea and the
low coastal slope. According to different scenarios in the relationship between CVI and factor values,
which were considered in the study, it can be concluded that vulnerability is a cumulative effect of
several coastal features and their different types. Furthermore, it was identified that different variables
act in a different way at different locations. For example, though geomorphology was considered as a
very influencing factor to decide the vulnerability by the experts, the study proved that it does not act
in the same manner in some areas. The study suggests to conduct more studies to identify the impacts
of different features with microlevel data sets.
Study has identified several locations with higher values of CVI. It suggests that immediate attention
is much needed for these areas by the coastal conservation department. In this, it is not enough to
construct man-made barriers with hard stones. Field observations have identified that the rate of erosion
has increased severely in some areas after constructing these stone barriers. Therefore, the systematic
analysis of the profile of the coastline is a must before initiating any type of mitigation process.

ORC ID
Pgrni Pussella http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6293-8251

REFERENCES
Abuodha, P., Colin, D., & Woodroffe, C. (2010). Assessing vulnerability to sea-level rise using a coastal sensitivity
index: A case study from southeast Australia. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 14, 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11852-010-0097-0
Ansaf, K. (2011). Investigations on coastal sediment transport and shoreline behavior, A Master of Science The-
sis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Moratuwa. Retrieved from https://dl.lib.mrt.ac.lk/bitstream/
handle/123/2049/Pre-text.pdf?sequence=9.
Asian Development Bank, Japan Bank for International Cooperation and World Bank (2005). Post-tsunami recovery
program preliminary damage and needs assessment, Sri Lanka Report. Retrieved from https://www.gfdrr.org/sites/
default/files/publication/pda-2005-srilanka.pdf.
Bird, E. (2008). Coastal geomorphology: An introduction. New York: Wiley.
Bryan, B., Harvey, N., Belperio, T., & Bourman, B. (2001). Distributed process modeling for regional assessment of
coastal vulnerability to sea-level rise. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 6, 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1023/
A:1011515213106
Collins, M., Steiner, F., & Rushman, M. (2001). Land-use suitability analysis in the United States: Historical develop-
ment and promising technological achievements. Environmental Management, 28, 611–621. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s002670010247
Giri, C., Zhu, Z., Tieszen, L., Singh, A., Gillette, S., & Kelmelis, J. (2008). Mangrove forest distributions and dynamics
(1975–2005) of the tsunami-affected region of Asia. Journal of Biogeography, 35, 519–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1365-2699.2007.01806.x
Ho, K., Ghazali, A., & Chong, S. (2002). Calibration and evaluation of modified tank model (flood forecasting model) for
Kelantan river basin Malaysia. Proceeding of the Water Engineering Conference Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, 231–245.
L IN AND PUSSELLA Natural Resource Modeling 11 of 12

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2013). Climate change 2013. The Physical Science Basis. Working
Group 1 Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved
from https://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Frontmatter_FINAL.pdf.
Kaliraj, S., Chandrasekar, N., & Magesh, N. (2013). Evaluation of coastal erosion and accretion processes along the
southwest coast of Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu using geospatial techniques, Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 8(1),
239–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-013-1216-7
Lawal, D., Matori, A., Hashim, A., Yusof, K., & Chandio, I. (2012). Detecting flood susceptible areas using GIS-based
analytic hierarchy process, Singapore: International Conference on Future Environment and Energy IPCBEE Vol.28.
IACSIT Press.
Li, X., Zhou, Y., Tian, B., Kuang, R., & Wang, L. (2015). GIS-based methodology for erosion risk assessment of
the muddy coast in the Yangtze Delta. Ocean and Coastal Management, 108, 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ocecoaman.2014.09.028
List, J., Sallenger, A., Hansen, M., & Jaffee, B. (1997). Accelerated relative sea-level rise and rapid coastal erosion:
Testing a causal relationship for the Louisiana barrier islands. Marine Geology, 140, 347–363. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0025-3227(97)00035-2
Martins, V., Pires, R., & Cabral, P. (2012). Modelling of coastal vulnerability in the stretch between the beaches
of Porto de Mós and Falésia, Algarve (Portugal). Journal of Coastal Conservation, 16, 503–510. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11852-012-0191-6
Masselink, G., & Hughes, M. (2003). Introduction to coastal processes and geomorphology, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Mujabar, P., & Chandrasekar, N. (2011). Shoreline change analysis along the coast between Kanyakumari and Tuti-
corin of India using remote sensing and GIS. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 6, 647–664. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12517-013-1216-7
Nguyen, H., McAlpine, C., Pullar, D., Leisz, S., & Gallina, G. (2015). Drivers of coastal shoreline change: Case
study of Hon Dat coast, Kien Giang, Vietnam. Environmental Management, 55, 1093–1108. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00267-015-0455-7
Nonis, C., Varghese, K., & Suresh, K. (2007). Investigation of an AHP based multi criteria weighting scheme for GIS
routing of cross country pipe line projects, Madras: 24th International Symposium on Automation & Robotics in
Construction (ISARC 2007).
Parthasarathy, A., & Natesan, U. (2015). Coastal vulnerability assessment: A case study on erosion and coastal change
along Tuticorin, Gulf of Mannar. Natural Hazards, 75, 1713–1729. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1394-y
Rao, K., Subraelu, P., Rao, T., Malini, B., Ratheesh, R., Bhattacharya, S., … Ajai (2008). Sea-level rise and coastal
vulnerability: An assessment of Andhra Pradesh Coast, India through remote sensing and GIS. Journal of Coastal
Conservation, 12, 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-009-0042-2
Saaty, T. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process (pp. 20–25). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Samaranayake, R. (2003). Review of national fisheries situation in Sri Lanka. In G. Silvestre, L. Garces, I. Stobutzki,
M. Ahmed, R. Valmonte-Santos, C. Luna, L. LachicaAliño, P. Munro, V. Christensen, & D. Pauly (Eds.), Assess-
ment, management and future directions of coastal fisheries in Asian countries (pp. 987–1012). WorldFish Center
Conference Proceedings. 67:1 120.
Swan, S. (1984). The coastal geomorphology of Sri Lanka. New England Research in Applied Geography, 40, 125.
Thampanya, U., Vermaat, J., Sinsakul, S., & Panapitukkul, P. (2006). Coastal erosion and mangrove propagation
of Southern Thailand. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 68, 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2006.01.
011
Wickramarachchi, B. (2000). Risk profiling for sea level rise in South-West coast, Sri Lanka. Retrieved from
http://www.coastal.gov.lk
Wickramaratne, H. (1985). Coastal zone problems of Sri Lanka: A historical perspective. Economic Review, 11(2), 7–15.
Zhang, K., Douglas, B., & Leatherman, S. (2000). Twentieth century storm activity along the U.S. East Coast. Journal
of Climate, 13, 1748–1761.
12 of 12 Natural Resource Modeling L IN AND PUSSELLA

Zhang, K., Douglas, B., & Leatherman, S. (2004). Global warning and coastal erosion. Climate Change, 64(1), 41–58.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CLIM.0000024690.32682.48

How to cite this article: Lin L, Pussella P. Assessment of vulnerability for coastal erosion
with GIS and AHP techniques case study: Southern coastline of Sri Lanka. Natural Resource
Modeling. 2017;30:e12146. https://doi.org/10.1111/nrm.12146