Advertisement

The Impact of DEM Error on Predictive Vegetation Mapping

  • Brian G. LEES
  • HUANG Zhi
  • Kimberley VAN NIEL
  • Shawn W. LAFFAN
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)

Abstract

Digital elevation models (DEM) are one of the most important data sources for Land Use-Land Cover (LULC) and Predictive Vegetation Mapping (PVM). A number of indices are derived from DEMs and their use depends on the nature of the classification problem and the tool being employed. In some cases it is the practice to pre-classify these prior to modelling. This chapter examines the impact of doing this on the production of a LULC classification, and on the production of a surface, or field, prediction of a single species. Secondly, the error in classification resulting from error in the original DEM is examined to give some comparison. We show that, contrary to widespread practice, leaving the input variables in an unprocessed form is clearly better than almost any of the ‘improvements’ usually made. This applied to both classification of LULC and to the prediction of a surface, or field, representing a single species. As expected, forest type mapping is likely to be quite sensitive to some level of DEM error. We can see that the DEM error has an uneven impact on the different forest types. Importantly, when increasing the level of DEM error, we found a non-linear decrease in classification performance.

Keywords

Forest Type Digital Elevation Model Generalize Additive Model Land Cover Classification Uncertainty Level 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brown, J.F., Loveland, T.R., Merchant, J.W., Reed, B.C. and Ohlen, D.O., (1993), Using multisource data in global land–cover characterization: concepts, requirements, and methods, Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, (59)6: 977–987.Google Scholar
  2. Canters, F.W., De Genst, W. and Dufourmont, H., (2002), Assessing effects of input uncertainty in structural landscape classification, International Journal of Geographical Information Science, (16): 129–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chapin, F.S. III, Zavaleta, E.S., Eviner, V.T., Naylor, R.L., Vitousek, P.M., Reynolds, H.L., Hooper, D.U., Lavorel, S., Sala, O.E., Hobbie, S.E., Mack, M.C. and Diaz, S., (2000), Consequences of changing biodiversity, Nature, 405: 234–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crosetto, M., Tarantola, S. and Saltelli, A., (2000), Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis in spatial modelling based on GIS, Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment, 81: 71–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crosetto, M., and Tarantola, S., (2001), Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis: tools for GIS–based model implementation, International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 15: 415–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis, T. and Keller, C.P., (1997), Modelling uncertainty in natural resource analysis using fuzzy sets and Monte Carlo simulation: slope stability prediction, International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 11: 409–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Defries, R.S. and Townshend, J.R.G., (1994), NDVI-derived land cover classifications at a global scale, International Journal of Remote Sensing, 15: 3567–3586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Franklin, J., (1995), Predictive vegetation mapping: Geographic modelling of biospatial patterns in relation to environmental gradients, Progress in Physical Geography, 19: 474–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goodchild, M.F., (1989), Modeling error in objects and fields, In Goodchild, M.F. and S. Gopal (eds.): .Accuracy of Spatial Databases, Chapter 10, New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  10. Guisan, A. and Zimmerman, N., (2000) Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology, Ecological Modelling, 135: 147–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hamby, D.M., (1994), A review of techniques for parameter sensitivity analysis of environmental models, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 32: 135–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heuvelink, G.B.M., (1998), Error Propagation in Environmental Modelling with GIS, London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  13. Holmes, K., Chadwick, O. and Kyriakidis, P., (2000), Error in a USGS 30-meter digital elevation model and its impact on terrain modelling, Journal of Hydrology, 233: 154–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huang, Z and Lees, B.G., (2005), Representing and reducing error in natural resource classification, International Journal of Geographic Information Science, (19)5: 603–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huang, Z and Lees, B.G., (2004), Combining Non–Parametric models for multisource predictive forest mapping, Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, (70)4: 415–427.Google Scholar
  16. Lees, B.G., (1996), Improving the spatial extension of point data by changing the data model, In Goodchild, M. et al., (eds): Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Integrating GIS and Environmental Modeling, (Santa Fe, New Mexico, National Centre for Geographic Information and Analysis, WWW;CD).Google Scholar
  17. Lees, B.G., (1999), ANU Kioloa/NASA Pathfinder GLCTS Site: Kioloa DTM, Available online at: http://sres–associated.anu.edu.au/pathfinder/dtm.htmlGoogle Scholar
  18. Lees, B. and Ritman, K., (1991), Decision-tree and rule-induction approach to integration of remotely sensed and GIS data in mapping vegetation in disturbed or hilly environments, Environmental Management, 15: 823–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Quinlan, J.R., (1986), Induction of Decision Trees, Machine Learning, 1:81–106.Google Scholar
  20. Quinlan, J.R., (1993), C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning, Morgan Kauffman.Google Scholar
  21. Richards, J.A., (1993) Remote Sensing Digital Image Analysis, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  22. Skole, D.L. (1994), Data on global land–cover change: acquisition, assessment and analysis, In Meyer, W.B. and Turner II, B.L. (eds.): Changes in land use and land cover: a global perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 437–471.Google Scholar
  23. Speight, A., (1984), Landform, In McDonald, R.C. et al. (eds): Australian Soil and Land Survey Field Handbook, Melbourne: Inkata Press.Google Scholar
  24. Unwin, D.J., (1995), Geographical Information Systems and the Problem of error and uncertainty, Progress in Human Geography, 19: 549–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Van Niel, K.P. and Laffan, S.W., (2003), Gambling with randomness: the use of pseudo-random number generators in GIS, International Journal of Geographical Science, 17: 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Van Niel, K., Laffan, S.W. and Lees, B.G., (2004), Error and uncertainty in environmental variables for ecological modelling: Sensitivity of variables to error in source elevation data, Journal of Vegetation Science, 15: 747–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wilson, M.F. and Henderson-Sellers, A., (1985), A global archive of land cover and soils data for use in general circulation climate models, Journal of Climatology, (5)22: 119–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zimmermann, N., (2000), Tools for analyzing, summarizing and mapping of biophysical variables, Available online at: http://www.wsl.ch/staff/ niklaus.zimmermann/progs.html (Accessed: 4/20/2001).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian G. LEES
  • HUANG Zhi
  • Kimberley VAN NIEL
  • Shawn W. LAFFAN

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations