Comparative evaluation of horizontal accuracy of elevations of selected ground control points from ASTER and SRTM DEM with respect to CARTOSAT-1 DEM: a case study of Shahjahanpur district, Uttar Pradesh, India

Rawat, Kishan Singh; Mishra, Anil Kumar; Sehgal, Vinay Kumar; Ahmed, Nayan; Tripathi, Vinod Kumar

doi:10.1080/10106049.2012.724453

Cited by 44 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the finer spatial resolution with respect to SRTM, ASTER also exhibits relatively higher RMSE (24.09 m). Various studies (e.g., Kaab 2005;Huggel et al 2008;Jing et al 2013;Li et al 2013;Rawat et al 2013) support the present observation that SRTM data, although of coarser spatial resolution, has proven to represent the actual topography more reliably than ASTER DEM. 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.…”

Section: Assessment Of Dem Accuracysupporting

confidence: 77%

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

Section: Assessment Of Dem Accuracysupporting

confidence: 77%

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

show abstract

“…that RMSE is 0.505mm d -1 and R-RMSE=0.188 mm d -1 because R-RMSE standardizes the RMSE to the unperturbed derivative value for each pixel location (Rawat et al, 2013;Kroll and Stedinger, 1996). The resulting R-RMSE value is a percentage and represents the standard variation of the derivative.…”

Section: Rmse and R-rems Results From Accuracy Analysis Point Of Viewsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Assessment and validation of evapotranspiration using SEBAL algorithm and Lysimeter data of IARI agricultural farm, India

Bala

Rawat

Misra

et al. 2015

Geocarto International

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evapotranspiration (ET) is vital process in land surface atmosphere research.In the present study, Surface Energy Balance Algorithm for Land,(SEBAL)for assessment of ET (for ) from LANDSAT7-ETM+ and validation with Lysimeter data set, is illustrated. It is based on the evaporative fraction concept, and it has been applied to LANDSAT7-ETM+ (30 meter resolution) data acquired over the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) agricultural farm land. The ET from SEBAL comparison with Lysimeter ET by using 4 statistical tests (Root mean square error (RMSE), Relative Root Mean Square Error (R-RMSE), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), and Normalized Root Mean Square Error (NRMSE)) and each test shows good correlation between predicted and observed ET values. Results from present study revealed that the RMSE of crop growing period was 0.51 mm d -1 for ET SEBAL i.e. ET SEBAL having good accuracy with respect to observed ET Lysimeter . Results are also Downloaded by [New York University] at 21:38 31 July 2015 2 validated by using R-RMSE test. Which also proves that ET SEBAL data is having good accuracy with respect to observed ET Lysimeter as R-RMSE of crop growing period is 0.19mm d -1 . MAE (0.19), NRMSE (0.21) and r 2 (0.91) test indicates model prediction is significant and model can be effectively use for estimation of ET from SEBAL as input of remote sensing (RS) data sets. Finally, the SEBAL has been use full to remote agricultural land where ground based data (Lysimeter data) is not available for daily ET (ET 24h ) estimation. The temporal study of the ET 24h values analyzed have revealed that the highest ET 24h values are owing to the higher development (high greenness) of crops, whereas the lower values are related with lower development (low greenness) or null crop.

show abstract

“…Many other studies and validations of SRTM GDEM have been published (Hilton et al 2003;Smith and Sandwell 2003;Rodriguez et al 2005;Kiamehr and Sjöberg 2005;Denker 2005;Carabajal and Harding 2006;Gorokhovich and Voustianiouk 2006;Nikolakopoulos, Kamaratakis, and Chrysoulakis 2006;Rodríguez, Morris, and Belz 2006;Bhang, Schwartz, and Braun 2007;Passini and Jacobsen 2007;Racoviteanu et al 2007;Zieliński and Chmiel 2007;Hayakawa, Oguchi, and Lin 2008;Fujita et al 2008;Huggel et al 2008;Hirt, Filmer, and Featherstone 2010;Mouratidis, Briole, and Katsambalos 2010;Forkuor and Maathuis 2012;Gómez et al 2012;Li et al 2012;Rao and Al Jassar 2012;Wang, Yang, and Yao 2012;Amans, Beiping, and Ziggah 2013;Kolecka and Kozak 2014;Li et al 2013;Mukherjee et al 2013;Rawat et al 2013;Athmania and Achour 2014;Becek 2014;Rexer and Hirt 2014;Thomas et al 2014). Most authors found that the vertical accuracy of SRTM GDEM is better than the declared (Tachikawa, Kaku, and Iwasaki 2011), but there have been many other authors who investigated ASTER GDEM accuracy (Hirano, Welch, and Lang 2003;Fujisada et al 2005;Nikolakopoulos, Kamaratakis, and Chrysoulakis 2006;Racoviteanu et al 2007;…”

Section: Background and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Accuracy validation and comparison of global digital elevation models over Croatia

Varga

Bašić

2015

International Journal of Remote Sensing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accuracy assessment of digital elevation models (DEMs) plays an important role in facing their use in geoscience applications. This study investigates the vertical accuracy of most recently published versions of global DEMs over Croatia: 1 arc-minute global relief model (ETOPO1), Global 30 Arc-Second Elevation (GTOPO30), SRTM30+, Global Multi-resolution Terrain Elevation Data 2010 (GMTED2010), Altimeter Corrected Elevations 2 DEM (ACE2 DEM), Shuttle Radar Topography Mission GDEM (SRTM GDEM), and Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection GDEM (ASTER GDEM). Geodetic ground control points (benchmarks) allowed the comparison in terms of vertical accuracy. Additionally, the differences between models in the identical points were determined and analysed after adjusting the models to the same resolution. The results have yielded information about the overall accuracy of models; the accuracy depending on height, land cover, and slope; presence of large and systematic errors; and mutual agreement between the models.Overall vertical accuracies according to the root mean square error over Croatia are: ETOPO1 27.6 m, GTOPO30 21.6 m, SRTM30+ 21.3 m, GMTED2010 7.4 m, ACE2 DEM 4.5 m, SRTM GDEM 3.8 m, and ASTER GDEM 7.1 m. The highest accuracy was shown by SRTM GDEM version 3, which is far better than the previously released versions. All models have proved to be worse in the rough and forest areas, whereas in flat and barelands, new-generation global DEMs SRTM GDEM, and ASTER GDEM are highly accurate. IntroductionIn the past decade, global digital elevation models (global DEMs) have become invaluable sources of information in geosciences (e.g. Raaflaub and Collins 2006;Toutin 2008). Global DEMs have been significantly improved in comparison with those first released in the mid1990s, Global 30 Arc-Second Elevation (GTOPO30) and 1 arc-minute global relief model (ETOPO1), with the new-generation model releases, the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission GDEM (SRTM GDEM) in 2007, with a resolution of 3 arc seconds, and the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection GDEM (ASTER GDEM) in 2009, with a resolution of 1 arc second. As all models deviate from reality, global DEMs are usually used without an estimation of their accuracy and reliability and without considering errors that can affect results (Wechsler 2003). The goals of this work were to quantify and compare vertical accuracy, assess dependence between vertical accuracy and topographic characteristics (land cover and slope), and assess the differences between all global DEMs that were published from the mid-90s over Croatia. Testing of global DEMs was done for most recent versions of

show abstract

Comparative evaluation of horizontal accuracy of elevations of selected ground control points from ASTER and SRTM DEM with respect to CARTOSAT-1 DEM: a case study of Shahjahanpur district, Uttar Pradesh, India

Cited by 44 publications

References 18 publications

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

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

Assessment and validation of evapotranspiration using SEBAL algorithm and Lysimeter data of IARI agricultural farm, India

Accuracy validation and comparison of global digital elevation models over Croatia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About