Multidecadal (1960–2011) shoreline changes in Isbjørnhamna (Hornsund, Svalbard)

Abstract

A section of a gravel−dominated coast in Isbjørnhamna (Hornsund, Svalbard) was analysed to calculate the rate of shoreline changes and explain processes controlling coastal zone development over last 50 years. Between 1960 and 2011, coastal landscape of Isbjørn− hamna experienced a significant shift from dominated by influence of tide−water glacier and protected by prolonged sea−ice conditions towards storm−affected and rapidly changing coast. Information derived from analyses of aerial images and geomorphological mapping shows that the Isbjørnhamna coastal zone is dominated by coastal erosion resulting in a shore area reduc− tion of more than 31,600 m 2 . With~3,500 m 2 of local aggradation, the general balance of changes in the study area of the shore is negative, and amounts to a loss of more than 28,000 m ). Erosional processes threaten the Polish Polar Station infrastructure and may damage of one of the storage buildings in nearby future.

High Arctic coasts at risk—the case study of coastal zone development and degradation associated with climate changes and multidirectional human impacts in Longyearbyen (Adventfjorden, Svalbard)

“…For instance, intensified erosion of shores has led to destruction of settlement infrastructure and has compromised community safety in dozens of Alaskan settlements (Gibbs, Harden, Richmond, & Erikson, ; Smith & Sattineni, ), for example, Shishmaref, Kivalina, and Unalakleet forcing unwanted relocation. Severe coastal erosion threatens also Tuktoyaktuk, Canada (Andrachuk & Pearce, )—the main port of western Canadian Arctic; oil storage facilities at Varandei, Pechora Sea coast (Guégan, Sinitsyn, Kokin, & Ogorodov, ); or infrastructure of Polish Polar Station in Hornsund, Svalbard (Zagórski et al, ). Arctic coastal settings are threatened not only by erosion.…”

Coastal Erosion Affecting Cultural Heritage in Svalbard. A Case Study in Hiorthhamn (Adventfjorden)—An Abandoned Mining Settlement

“…The highest erosion rate in the Arctic was registered on Alaskan coast (Drew Point) with a value of −8.4 m/year, while the lowest erosion rate was reported in Svalbard. Other reported erosion rates in Svalbard range from −0.5 to −4.5 m/year for Longyearbyen [21], −0.26 m/year for Isbjørnhamna [48], −0.34 m/year and −0.47 m/year for ice-poor cliffs and ice-rich cliffs, respectively [32]. With a value of EPR of −0.21 m/year, our study area can be framed in around the average erosion rate previously reported in Svalbard.…”

Modeling the Controls on the Front Position of a Tidewater Glacier in Svalbard

“…Terminus positions were mapped by tracing the waterline along the terminus in each image, then projecting those pixel coordinates onto a horizontal plane at an altitude of 0 m (tidal heights were not available) to convert them to world coordinates. Standard errors of 0.47 m in water level due to tides (Zagórski et al, 2015;Michał Ciepły, personal communication, 2012), 0.68 pixels due to uncertainties in terminus tracing, and 3.23, 5.70, and 10.53 pixels for each of the three cameras due to uncertainties in camera calibration and orientation result in standard errors for width-averaged glacier length of 3.79, 3.37, and 14.54 m, respectively.…”