Open Access

Analysis of the dynamics of coastal landform change based on the integration of remote sensing and gis techniques: Implications for tidal flooding impact in pekalongan, central java, Indonesia

Fajar Yulianto
Fajar Yulianto
, 
Suwarsono
Suwarsono
, 
Taufik Maulana
Taufik Maulana
 and 
Muhammad Rokhis Khomarudin
Muhammad Rokhis Khomarudin
   | Sep 10, 2019
Quaestiones Geographicae's Cover Image
About this article
Previous Article
Next Article
Cite
Published Online: Sep 10, 2019
Page range: 17 - 29
Received: Mar 15, 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/quageo-2019-0025
© 2019 Fajar Yulianto , Suwarsono , Taufik Maulana, Muhammad Rokhis Khomarudin, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Fig. 1

Environmental conditions in one of the locations affected by tidal flooding in Mulyorejo Village, Tirto District, Pekalongan Regency. (Photos and drone mapping by Yulianto, 2017).A. Tidal flooding seen from a height of 50 m using drone mapping; B. Non-functioning road infrastructure and inundated houses; C. Community adaptation efforts in dealing with the impact of tidal floods by piling up soil, sand and stone in the yard of a house.
Environmental conditions in one of the locations affected by tidal flooding in Mulyorejo Village, Tirto District, Pekalongan Regency. (Photos and drone mapping by Yulianto, 2017).A. Tidal flooding seen from a height of 50 m using drone mapping; B. Non-functioning road infrastructure and inundated houses; C. Community adaptation efforts in dealing with the impact of tidal floods by piling up soil, sand and stone in the yard of a house.

Fig. 2

Landsat images were used to perform coastal landform mapping, consisting of analysis of multi-temporal changes in morphology for 1978 to 2017 in the study area.A. Landsat MSS 1978; B. Landsat 5 TM 1988; C. Landsat 7 ETM+ 2000; D. Landsat 5 TM 2007; E. Landsat 5 TM 2011; F. Landsat 8 OLI/TIR 2017.
Landsat images were used to perform coastal landform mapping, consisting of analysis of multi-temporal changes in morphology for 1978 to 2017 in the study area.A. Landsat MSS 1978; B. Landsat 5 TM 1988; C. Landsat 7 ETM+ 2000; D. Landsat 5 TM 2007; E. Landsat 5 TM 2011; F. Landsat 8 OLI/TIR 2017.

Fig. 3

The rate of subsidence (3 cm yr−1 on average) was obtained based on research by Nashrrullah et al. (2013). Inset are locations for Fig. 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12.
The rate of subsidence (3 cm yr−1 on average) was obtained based on research by Nashrrullah et al. (2013). Inset are locations for Fig. 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12.

Fig. 4

The results of the dynamics of coastal topographical mapping and modelling for 1978 to 2017 in the study area.
The results of the dynamics of coastal topographical mapping and modelling for 1978 to 2017 in the study area.

Fig. 5

The results of coastal landform mapping and change from 1978 to 2017 in the study area.
The results of coastal landform mapping and change from 1978 to 2017 in the study area.

Fig. 6

The relationship between coastal landform profile and land use in the study area.
The relationship between coastal landform profile and land use in the study area.

Fig. 7

Landform coastal conditions in 2017 in the study area. The beach ridge, which has an important role as a natural embankment in coastal areas, has been changed into a flat area and is used by local people for ponds (Photo: F. Yulianto 2017).
Landform coastal conditions in 2017 in the study area. The beach ridge, which has an important role as a natural embankment in coastal areas, has been changed into a flat area and is used by local people for ponds (Photo: F. Yulianto 2017).

Fig. 8

Comparison results for morphological and topographic condition change from DEM modelling between 1978 and 2017 on cross-profile 1 (P1–P1’) and their implications for vertical tidal flood distribution in coastal landform areas.A. DEM cross-profile 1 in 1978; B. DEM cross-profile 1 in 2017.
Comparison results for morphological and topographic condition change from DEM modelling between 1978 and 2017 on cross-profile 1 (P1–P1’) and their implications for vertical tidal flood distribution in coastal landform areas.A. DEM cross-profile 1 in 1978; B. DEM cross-profile 1 in 2017.

Fig. 9

Comparison results for morphological and topographic condition change from DEM modelling for 1978 and 2017 for cross-profile 2 (P2-P2’) and their implications for vertical tidal flood distribution in coastal landform areas.A. DEM cross-profile 2 in 1978; B. DEM cross-profile 2 in 2017.
Comparison results for morphological and topographic condition change from DEM modelling for 1978 and 2017 for cross-profile 2 (P2-P2’) and their implications for vertical tidal flood distribution in coastal landform areas.A. DEM cross-profile 2 in 1978; B. DEM cross-profile 2 in 2017.

Fig. 10

Comparison results for morphological and topographic condition change from DEM modelling between 1978 and 2017 on cross-profile 3 (P3-P3’) and their implications for vertical tidal flood distribution in coastal landform areas.A. DEM cross-profile 3 in 1978; B. DEM cross-profile 3 in 2017.
Comparison results for morphological and topographic condition change from DEM modelling between 1978 and 2017 on cross-profile 3 (P3-P3’) and their implications for vertical tidal flood distribution in coastal landform areas.A. DEM cross-profile 3 in 1978; B. DEM cross-profile 3 in 2017.

Fig. 11

Comparison results for morphological and topographic condition change from DEM modelling between 1978 and 2017 on cross-profile 4 (P4-P4’) and their implications for vertical tidal flood distribution in coastal landform areas.A. DEM cross-profile 4 in 1978; B. DEM cross-profile 4 in 2017.
Comparison results for morphological and topographic condition change from DEM modelling between 1978 and 2017 on cross-profile 4 (P4-P4’) and their implications for vertical tidal flood distribution in coastal landform areas.A. DEM cross-profile 4 in 1978; B. DEM cross-profile 4 in 2017.

Fig. 12

Areas affected by flooding, such as agricultural land, residential areas and road networks in Jeruksari Village, Tirto District, Pekalongan Regency. (Source: Google Earth; CNES (the French space agency)).A. Environmental conditions pre-tidal flood, 22 October 2006; B. Flooded conditions during/post-tidal flood, 28 April 2017.
Areas affected by flooding, such as agricultural land, residential areas and road networks in Jeruksari Village, Tirto District, Pekalongan Regency. (Source: Google Earth; CNES (the French space agency)).A. Environmental conditions pre-tidal flood, 22 October 2006; B. Flooded conditions during/post-tidal flood, 28 April 2017.

Fig. 13

Comparison of settlement distribution located on coastal landform between 1978 and 2017 in the study area.(A) Settlement on coastal landforms in 1978; (B) Settlement on coastal landforms in 2017.
Comparison of settlement distribution located on coastal landform between 1978 and 2017 in the study area.(A) Settlement on coastal landforms in 1978; (B) Settlement on coastal landforms in 2017.

The estimated area of coastal landform change for 1978 to 2017 in the study area.

Coastal landformYear
1978 (ha)1988 (ha)2000 (ha)2007 (ha)2011 (ha)2017 (ha)
Beach91521251714
Beach ridge727713642584578465
Backswamp232423332336235923642379
Alluvial plain776376407495728672607151

Elements of coastal landform classification in the study area.

Coastal landformElements of the coastal landform classification
ColourTextureSizeShapeReliefSiteSlopeLand useAssociation of features
Beachbright whitesmoothnarrowelongatedflat/gently shelvingbordering the sea0–3%bare landbeach, beach ridge and back swamps associate to form a major landscape in the coastal region
Beach ridgebright greenroughnarrowelongatedundulatingparallel to the beach3–8%shrubs, bushes, croplands
Backswampbluesmoothextensiveelongated/ longflatbehind the beach ridges0% (flat)water
Alluvial plainbright green, blue, redroughvery extensiveelongated/ wide and longflat/gently slopingbehind the back swamps0–3%various, dominated by settlements and paddy fieldsthe main depositional landforms bordering the coastal region

The estimate of the average rate area of coastal landform change for the year 1978 to 2017 in study area.

Coastal landformChange area (ha)Average change area (ha yr−1) 1978–2017
1978–19881988–20002000–20072007–20112011–2017
Beach+6+6+4−8−3+0.38
Beach ridge−14−71−58−6−113−6.72
Backswamp+9+3+23+5+15+1.41
Alluvial plain−123−145−209−26−109−15.69

Settlements and average area comparisons for coastal landforms for 1978 and 2017 in the study area.

Coastal landformYearAverage area of increase (ha yr−1) 1978 to 2017
1978 area (ha)2017 area (ha)
Beach0.086.360.16
Beach ridge25.2466.111.05
Backswamp99.54396.907.63
Alluvial plain1388.753962.7666.01
eISSN:
2081-6383
Language:
English
Publication timeframe:
4 times per year
Journal Subjects:
Geosciences, Geography
Journal RSS Feed