Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Accuracy of Cartosat-1 DEM and its derived attribute at multiple scale representation

  • Published:
Journal of Earth System Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Digital Elevation Model (DEM) provides basic information about terrain relief and is used for morphological characterisation, hydrological modelling and infrastructural studies. This paper investigates the accuracy of DEM and its derived attributes in multiple scales. This study was carried out for a part of Shiwalik Himalaya using Cartosat-1 stereo pair data. DEM at various cell sizes were generated and information content was compared using mean elevation, variance and entropy statistics. Various post-spacing DEMs were validated to understand variation in vertical accuracy along different scales. The vertical accuracy (3.14–7.24 m) is affected in larger spacing DEM and elevation is underestimated. Slope of terrain also has similar impacts. The DEM and slope accuracy are also affected by the terrain roughness while assessing coarser grid size.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baltsavias E, Kocaman S and Wolff K 2007 Geometric and radiometric investigations of Cartosat-1 data; ISPRS Hannover Workshop 2007, High Resolution Earth Imaging for Geospatial Information, Hannover, Germany, May 29–June 1.

  • Brasington J and Richards K 1998 Interactions between model predictions, parameters and DTM scales for topmodel; Comput. Geosci. 24 (4) 299–314.

  • Dragut L and Eisank C 2011 Object representations at multiple scales from digital elevation models; Geomorphology 129 183–189.

  • Favey E, Geiger A, Gudmundsson G H and Wehr A 2003 Evaluating the potential of an airborne laser-scanning system for measuring volume changes of glaciers; Geografiska Annaler: Series A Physical Geography 81 (4) 555–561.

  • Fraser C S, Dial G and Grodecki J 2006 Sensor orientation via RPCs; ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 60 182–194.

  • Fraser C S, Baltsavias E and Gruen A 2002 Processing of IKONOS imagery for submeter 3D positioning and building extraction; ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens 56 177–194.

  • Gallant J C and Wilson J P 1996 TAPES-G: A grid based terrain analysis program for the environmental sciences; Comput. Geosci. 22 (7) 713–722.

  • Gómez Gutiérrez A, Schnabel S, Lavado Contador F and García Marín R 2011 Testing the quality of open-access DEMs and their derived attributes in Spain: SRTM, GDEM and PNOA DEM; In: Geomorphometry (eds) Hengl T, Evans I S, Wilson J P and Gould M, Redlands CA 53–56.

  • Grodecki J and Gene D 2003 Block adjustment of high resolution satellite images described by rational polynomials; Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 69 (1) 59–68.

  • Guth P L 1995 Slope and aspect calculations on gridded digital elevation models: Examples from a geomorphometric toolbox for personal computers; Zeitschrift Geomorph. N.F. Suppl.-Bd. 101 31–52.

  • Guth P L 2006 Geomorphometry from SRTM – comparison to NED; Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 72 (3) 269–277.

  • Hohle J 2009 DEM generation using a digital large format frame camera; Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 75 (1) 87–93.

  • Holmes K W, Chadwick O A and Kyriankidis P C 2000 Error in USGS 30-meter digital elevation model and its impact on terrain modelling; J. Hydrol. 233 154–173.

  • Huggel C, Caplan-Auerbach J, Gruber S, Monia B and Wessels R 2008 The 2005 Mt. Steller, Alaska, rock-ice avalanche: Large slope failures in cold permafrost; In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Permafrost, 29 June–3 July 2008, Fairbanks, AK, pp. 747–752.

  • Iwahashi J, Watanabeb S and Furuyac T 2003 Mean slope-angle frequency distribution and size frequency distribution of landslide masses in Higashikubiki area, Japan; Geomorphology 50 (4) 349–364.

  • Jain S K and Singh V P 2003 Water Resources Systems Planning and Management 51, 858p.

  • Januchowski S R, Pressey R L, VanDerWal J and Edwards A 2010 Characterizing errors in digital elevation models and estimating the financial costs of accuracy; Int. J. Geogr. Info. Sci. 24 (9) 1327–1347.

  • Kervyn F 2001 Modelling topography with SAR interferometry: Illustrations of a favourable and less favourable environment; Comput. Geosci. 27 1039–1050.

  • Mukherjee S, Garg R D and Mukherjee S 2011 Effect of systematic error on DEM and its derived attributes: A case study on Dehradun area using Cartosat-1 stereo data; Ind. J. Landscape System and Ecological Studies 34 (1) 45–58.

  • Mukherjee S, Mukherjee S, Garg R D, Bhardwaj A and Raju P L N 2013a Evaluation of topographic index in relation to terrain roughness and DEM grid spacing; J. Earth Syst. Sci. 122 (3) 869–886.

  • Mukherjee S, Joshi P K, Mukherjee S, Ghosh A, Garg R D and Mukhopadhyay A 2013b Evaluation of vertical accuracy of open source Digital Elevation Model (DEM); Int. J. Appl. Earth Obser. Geoinfo. 21 205–217.

  • Raaflaub L D and Collins M J 2006 The effect of error in gridded digital elevation models on the estimation of topographic parameters; Environ. Modell. Software 21 710–732.

  • Rodgriguez E, Morris C and Belz J 2006 A global assessment of SRTM performance; Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 72 249–260.

  • San B T and Suzen M L 2005 Digital elevation model (DEM) generation and accuracy assessment from ASTER stereo data; Int. J. Remote Sens. 26 (22) 5013–5027.

  • Schenk T 1996 Digital aerial triangulation; Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 31 (B3) 735–745.

  • Shannon C E 1948 A mathematical theory of communication; Bell System Technical J. 27 379–443.

  • Taud H, Parrot J and Alvarez R 1999 DEM generation by contour line dilation; Comput. Geosci. 25 (7) 775–783.

  • Vassilopouloua S, Hurnia L, Dietrichb V, Baltsaviasc E, Paterakic M, Lagiosd E and Parcharidis L 2002 Orthophot generation using IKONOS imagery and high resolution DEM: A case study on volcanic hazard monitoring of Nisyros Island (Greece); ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 57 24–38.

  • Vieux B E 1993 DEM aggregation and smoothing effect on surface run-off modelling; J. Comput. Civil Eng.-ASCE 7 (3) 310–338.

  • Vieux B E and Farajalla N S 1994 Capturing the essential spatial variability in distributed hydrological modelling: Hydraulic roughness; Hydrol. Process. 8(3) 221–226.

  • Wilson J P and Gallant J C 2000a Digital terrain analysis; In: Terrain Analysis: Principles and Applications (eds) Wilson J P and Gallant J C, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 1–27.

  • Wilson J P and Gallant J C 2000b Terrain Analysis: Principles and Applications; New York: Wiley, 479p.

  • Wise S 2012 Information entropy as a measure of DEM quality; Comput. Geosci. 48 102–110.

  • Wolock D M and Price C V 1994 Effects of digital elevation model map scale and data resolution on a topography-based watershed model; Water Resour. Res. 30 (11) 3041–3052.

  • Wu S, Li J and Huang G H 2008 A study on DEM-derived primary topographic attributes for hydrological applications: Sensitivity to elevation data resolution; Appl. Geogr. 28 210–223.

  • Zhang W and Montgomery D R 1994 Digital elevation model grid size, landscape representation, and hydrologic simulation; Water Resour. Res. 30 (4) 1019–1028.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors are thankful to Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, Dehradun for providing the dataset for this study. Authors are also thankful to Dr P K Joshi for valuable comments to improve the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, Indian Space Research Organisation, Dehradun, 248 001, India

    Samadrita Mukherjee & A Bhardwaj

  2. Department of Natural Resources, TERI University, New Delhi, 110 070, India

    Sandip Mukherjee

  3. School of Oceanographic Studies, Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India

    Anirban Mukhopadhyay & S Hazra

  4. Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, 247 667, India

    R D Garg

Authors
  1. Samadrita Mukherjee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sandip Mukherjee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A Bhardwaj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anirban Mukhopadhyay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. R D Garg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. S Hazra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sandip Mukherjee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mukherjee, S., Mukherjee, S., Bhardwaj, A. et al. Accuracy of Cartosat-1 DEM and its derived attribute at multiple scale representation. J Earth Syst Sci 124, 487–495 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-015-0557-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-015-0557-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation