An evaluation of digital elevation models (DEMs) for delineating land components

Mashimbye, Zama Eric; Clercq, Willem de; Niekerk, Adriaan van

doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2013.08.023

Cited by 48 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, differences between the ASTER and the SRTM DEMs are recognizable. Generally, a higher suitability of the SRTM dataset for landform classifications was postulated by several authors [52][53][54]. This can be confirmed here as the use of the SRTM DEM results into a more homogeneous landform classification.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Accuracy Assessment of Landform Classification Approaches on Different Spatial Scales for the Iranian Loess Plateau

Kramm

Hoffmeister

Curdt

et al. 2017

IJGI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An accurate geomorphometric description of the Iranian loess plateau landscape will further enhance our understanding of recent and past geomorphological processes in this strongly dissected landscape. Therefore, four different input datasets for four landform classification methods were used in order to derive the most accurate results in comparison to ground-truth data from a geomorphological field survey. The input datasets in 5 m and 10 m pixel resolution were derived from Pléiades stereo satellite imagery and the "Shuttle Radar Topography Mission" (SRTM), and "Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer" (ASTER GDEM) datasets with a spatial resolution of 30 m were additionally applied. The four classification approaches tested with this data include the stepwise approach after Dikau, the geomorphons, the topographical position index (TPI) and the object based approach. The results show that input datasets with higher spatial resolutions produced overall accuracies of greater than 70% for the TPI and geomorphons and greater than 60% for the other approaches. For the lower resolution datasets, only accuracies of about 40% were derived, 20-30% lower than for data derived from higher spatial resolutions. The results of the topographic position index and the geomorphons approach worked best for all selected input datasets.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Accuracy Assessment of Landform Classification Approaches on Different Spatial Scales for the Iranian Loess Plateau

Kramm

Hoffmeister

Curdt

et al. 2017

IJGI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Frey and Paul (2012) also suggested for SRTM data over ASTER in areas lacking high quality local DEM since radar systems have advantages over optical systems for DEM acquisition due to their ability to penetrate clouds and their independence from optical contrast. Very recently, Mashimbye et al (2014) also demonstrated the suitability of SRTM DEM for land applications compared to ASTER DEM. However, a study from the western part of the Shiwalik Himalaya by Mukherjee et al (2013) disagrees with the aforementioned observations and suggests relatively higher vertical accuracy for ASTER DEM (due to finer spatial resolution) compared to SRTM.…”

Section: Assessment Of Dem Accuracymentioning

confidence: 99%

Suitability of spaceborne digital elevation models of different scales in topographic analysis: an example from Kerala, India

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digital elevation model (DEM), deriving conventionally from contour data of topographic maps, provides sufficient information regarding the continuously varying topographic surface of the Earth. Though spaceborne DEMs are increasingly being used in earth-environmental-applications, suitability of various freely available spaceborne DEMs [e.g., advanced spaceborne thermal emission and reflection (ASTER), shuttle radar topography mapping mission (SRTM), global multi-resolution terrain elevation data (GMTED)] for topographic and geomorphometric analyzes in tropical regions is yet to be ascertained. In this paper, comparability of these spaceborne DEMs among themselves and also with the DEM (TOPO) prepared from digital contour data of topographic maps is assessed. Results show that various primary and secondary derivatives of ASTER and SRTM DEMs provide relatively better precision and substantial agreement with the corresponding parameters derived from TOPO. Among the spaceborne DEMs, SRTM has relatively higher vertical accuracy (root mean square error = 17.05 m), compared to ASTER (24.09 m) and GMTED (32.85 m). The vertical accuracy of all the spaceborne DEMs strongly depends on the relief and ruggedness of the terrain as well as the type of vegetation. It is proposed that in the absence of other available and acceptable elevation datasets, SRTM and ASTER are equally competent for geomorphometric analysis in tropical regions, while GMTED shows significant loss of terrain information due to coarser spatial resolution.

show abstract

“…Finally, the classified objects are merged and exported to vector polygons for further visually checking and manual edition on ArcMap, eliminating misclassified pro-glacial water, snow cover, and shadow areas by overlaying with DEM data and GoogleEarth images. The ASTER GDEM V2 was downloaded from Japan Space Systems [24], and had a 30-m spatial resolution with reported vertical accuracies of less than 17 m and horizontal accuracies of 71 m. It is suitable for the compilation of topographic parameters in a glacier inventory [25,26], and is used to establish the 3D model, delineate the glacier catchment, compute the slope, and classify the slope zones and elevation bands in this study. All Landsat and GeoEye images, CGI2 and the ASTER GDEM V2 data sets are reprojected to the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system, zone 44 before analysis.…”

Section: Data and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Large Differences between Glaciers 3D Surface Extents and 2D Planar Areas in Central Tianshan

Wang

Chen

2017

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most glaciers in China lie in high mountainous environments and have relatively large surface slopes. Common analyses consider glaciers' projected areas (2D Area) in a two-dimensional plane, which are much smaller than glacier's topographic surface extents (3D Area). The areal difference between 2D planar areas and 3D surface extents exceeds −5% when the glacier's surface slope is larger than 18 • . In this study, we establish a 3D model in the Muzart Glacier catchment using ASTER GDEM data. This model is used to quantify the areal difference between glaciers' 2D planar areas and their 3D surface extents in various slope zones and elevation bands by using the second Chinese Glacier Inventory (CGI2). Finally, we analyze the 2D and 3D area shrinking rate between 2007 and 2013 in Central Tianshan using glaciers derived from Landsat images by an object-based classification approach. This approach shows an accuracy of 89% when it validates by comparison of glaciers derived from Landsat and high spatial resolution GeoEye images. The extracted glaciers in 2007 also have an agreement of 89% with CGI2 data in the Muzart Glacier catchment. The glaciers' 3D area is 34.2% larger than their 2D area from CGI2 in the Muzart Glacier catchment and by 27.9% in the entire Central Tianshan. Most underestimation occurs in the elevation bands of 4000-5000 m above sea level (a.s.l.). The 3D glacier areas reduced by 30 and 115 km 2 between 2007 and 2013 in the Muzart Glacier catchment and Central Tianshan, being 37.0% and 27.6% larger than their 2D areas reduction, respectively. The shrinking rates decrease with elevation increase.

show abstract

An evaluation of digital elevation models (DEMs) for delineating land components

Cited by 48 publications

References 32 publications

Accuracy Assessment of Landform Classification Approaches on Different Spatial Scales for the Iranian Loess Plateau

Accuracy Assessment of Landform Classification Approaches on Different Spatial Scales for the Iranian Loess Plateau

Suitability of spaceborne digital elevation models of different scales in topographic analysis: an example from Kerala, India

Large Differences between Glaciers 3D Surface Extents and 2D Planar Areas in Central Tianshan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About