Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Environ. Sci.

Sec. Environmental Informatics and Remote Sensing

This article is part of the Research TopicEmerging Techniques in Satellite-Derived ShorelineView all articles

Optimizing Shoreline Suitability Models Framework: Integrating Advanced GIS Methodologies at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland

Provisionally accepted
  • 1University of Missouri-St Louis, St. Louis, United States
  • 2University of Florida, Gainesville, United States

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Coastal shorelines are experiencing increased vulnerability from sea-level rise, erosion, and stronger storm activity, highlighting the critical need for adaptive and evidence-based shoreline management approaches that evaluate the site suitability of living shoreline interventions. Traditional hard-armoring solutions, such as seawalls and bulkheads, while protective, often degrade habitats and disrupt natural coastal processes. This study advances a standardized, GIS-based framework for shoreline suitability modeling to support the adoption of living shorelines (LS) and hybrid solutions (HS) as nature-based alternatives. Focusing on Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), Maryland, a low-lying coastal military installation along the Chesapeake Bay, we used ArcGIS Pro's Suitability Modeler (SM) to integrate thirteen physical and ecological variables derived from site assessments and prior studies. The model classified shoreline segments as suitable for LS, HS, or not suitable for living shoreline (NLS) using both weighted and unweighted multi-criteria approaches. Results indicate that the weighted SM classified 30.4% of the shoreline as suitable for LS and 69.5% as suitable for HS, while the unweighted SM increased LS suitability to 33.5% and identified 66.4% as HS, with <1% categorized as NLS in both cases. Weighting increased HS classification by 3.1%, whereas it decreased LS classification by 3.1%. A three-step validation using a confusion matrix, the Living Shoreline Feasibility Model (LSFM), and sensitivity analysis was performed. The weighted model demonstrated stronger agreement beyond chance (Cohen's Kappa = 0.71) compared to the unweighted model (0.53), indicating improved classification consistency. Introducing weight also improved alignment with LSFM classifications and enhanced differentiation among suitability categories. Sensitivity analysis indicates that classification outcomes are robust to reasonable variations in weights, supporting confidence in the observed LS/HS pattern. This study addresses major gaps in prior modeling efforts, specifically the lack of variable standardization, weighting transparency, and multi-step model validation, by offering a transferable, replicable, and data-driven framework. The proposed approach strengthens decision-support capabilities for coastal planners, providing a scientifically robust tool for scaling nature-based shoreline and hybrid protection and advancing coastal resilience.

Keywords: Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), Coastal resilience, Living shorelines, Nature-based solutions, Suitability analysis, Suitability Modeler in GIS

Received: 13 Nov 2025; Accepted: 16 Jan 2026.

Copyright: © 2026 Sadaf and Bruck. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Afsheen Sadaf

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.