Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Assessment and comparison of Digital Elevation Model (DEM) products in varying topographic, land cover regions and its attribute: a case study in Shikoku Island Japan

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Digital Elevation Model (DEM) is the model of Earth’s surface and is significantly variable for science application. The DEMs based on free provided are the 10 m DEM produced by the Geographical Survey Institute of Japan (GSI-DEM), Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) Global DEM, Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM), Global Multi-resolution Terrain Elevation Data 2010 (GMTED2010), Hydrological data and maps based on Shuttle Elevation Derivatives at multiple Scales (HydroSHEDS), and Global 30 Arc-Second Elevation (GTOPO30) that are normally used in scientific researches. These terrain data have been generated by different methods, such as Stereoscopic Photogrammetry, RADAR-SAR interferometry, LIDAR, and GPS. The generated data contain an error from collecting and processing methods that have related to morphology relief and land cover type. In this study, the six open-source DEMs and their attributes are evaluated by the referent elevation points observed by GPS, in Shikoku Island Japan. It was revealed that the error of DEMs is an effect on the terrain characteristic. Overall, the accuracy values of fine-resolution DEMs based on the RMSE value are 5.9 m, 9.9 m, and 10.1 m for GSI-DEM, ASTER, and SRTM, respectively. The coarse-resolution DEMs revealed the accuracy of RMSE as 18.2 m, 69.4 m, and 61.8 m for GMTED2010, HydroSHEDS, and GTOPO30, respectively. The accuracy of the slope and river network is also evaluated. This approach might be used to recommend for a new generation of DEM and revealed for the accuracy of the Earth’s surface.

Highlights

  • Accuracy of free open sources DEM was presented by using the statistical approach for Shikoku Island, Japan.

  • Accuracy assessment based on the topography, land cover, and river network estimated from DEMs was assessed.

  • These are the first investigations for Shikoku Island for revealing in DEM attribute.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ASTER GDEM Validation Team (2012) ASTER Global DEM Validation Summary Report. Available online https://www.ersdac.or.jp. Accessed on 19 Oct 2012.

  • Athmania D, Achour H (2014) External validation of the ASTER GDEM2, GMTED2010 and CGIAR-CSI-SRTM v4.1 free access digital elevation models (DEMs) in Tunisia and Algeria. Remote Sens 6:4600–4620. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs6054600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carabajal CC, Harding DJ, Jean-Paul B, Danielson JJ, Gesch DB, Suchdeo VP (2011) Evaluation of the global multi-resolution terrain elevation data 2010 (GMTED2010) using ICESat geodetic control. In: Proceedings of SPIE-The international society for optical engineering, Nanjing, China.

  • Chang KT (2006) Introduction to Geographic Information Systems, 3rd edn. McGrow-Hill, New York, pp 295–317 (ch. 15)

    Google Scholar 

  • Danielson JJ, Gesch DB (2011) Global Multi-Resolution Terrain Elevation Data 2010 (GMTED2010), US Geological Survey Open-File Report. US Geological Survey, Sioux Falls

    Google Scholar 

  • USGS Data sources of HydroSHEDS (2008) Available online https://hydrodheds.cr.usgs.gov/datasource. Accessed on 31 Jan 2008

  • Fisher PF, Tate NJ (2006) Causes and consequences of error in digital elevation models. Prog Phys Geogr 30:467–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forkuor G, Maathuis B (2012) Comparison of SRTM and ASTER derived digital elevation models over two regions in ghana implications for hydrological and environmental modeling. In: Piacentini T (ed) Studies on environmental and applied geomorphology. InTech, Rijeka, pp 219–240

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia MJL, Camarasa AM (1999) Use of geomorphological units to improve drainage network extraction from a DEM. JAG J 1(3/4):187–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonga-Saholiariliva N, Gunnell Y, Petit C, Mering C (2011) Techniques for quantifying the accuracy of gridded elevation models and for mapping uncertainty in digital terrain analysis. Prog Phys Geogr 35:739–764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guth PL (2006) Geomorphometry from SRTM-comparison to NED. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 72(3):269–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hebeler F, Purves RS (2009) The influence of elevation uncertainty on derivation of topographic indices. Geomorphology 111:4–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirt C, Filmer MS, Featherstone WE (2010) Comparison and validation of the recent freely available ASTER-GDEM ver1 SRTM Ver4.1 and GEODATA DEM-9s Ver3 Digital Elevation Models over Australia. Aust J Earth Sci 57:337–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes KW, Chadwick OA, Kyriankidis PC (2000) Error in USGS 30-meter digital elevation model and its impact on terrain modeling. J Hydrol 233:154–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis A, Rubiano J, Nelson A, Farrow A, Mulligan M (2004) Practical use of SRTM data in the tropics: comparisons with digital elevation models generated from cartographic data. International Centre for Tropical, Agriculture (CIAT), Cali, p 32

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis A, Reuter HI, Nelson A, Guevara E (2012) Hole-filled SRTM for the Globe Version 4. CGIAR-CSI SRTM 90 m Database 2008, Available online https://srtm.csi.cgiar.org. Accessed on 1 July 2012

  • Jenson SK, Domingue JO (1988) Extracting topographic structures from digital elevation data from geographic information system analysis. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 54(11):1593–1600

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolecka N, Kozak J (2013) Assessment of the accuracy of SRTM C- and X-Band high mountain elevation data: a case study of the Polish Tatra Mountains, Pure Appl. Geophys 171:897–912. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-013-0695-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyaw SO, Takagi M (2010) Establishment of validation field for satellite remote sensing in Shikoku, Japan, In: Proceedings of ISPRS 38th, Kyoto, Japan, 38(8)

  • Lee SJ, Komatitsch D, Huang B, Tromp J (2009) Effect of topography on seismic-wave propagation: an example from north Taiwan. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99:314–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee SH, Park SU (2007) A Vegetated urban canopy model for meteorological and environmental modelling. Bound Layer Meteorol 126(1):73–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehner B (2013) Quality assessment In HydroSHEDS Technical documentation, 1st edn. World Wildlife Fund US, Washington, p 1314

    Google Scholar 

  • Li J, Chapman MA, Sun X (2006) Validation of satellite-derived digital elevation model from in-track IKONOS stereo imagery. Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Li S, Sun D, Goldberg M, Stefanidis A (2013) Derivation of 30-m-resolution water maps from TERRA/MODIS and SRTM. Remote Sens Environ 134:417–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martz LW, Jong DE (1988) CATCH: a FORTRAN program for measuring catchment area from digital elevation models. Comput Geosci 25(7):835–844

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mukherjee S, Joshi PK, Mukherjee S, Ghosh A, Garg RD, Mukhopadhyay A (2013) Evaluation of vertical accuracy of open source Digital Elevation Model (DEM). Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 21:205–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2012.09.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nawarathna NMNSB, Ao TQ, Kazama S, Sawamoto M, Takeuchi K (2001) Influence of human activities on the BTOPMC model simulations in large-scale watersheds, In: XXIX LAHR Congress Proceeding, volume Theme A

  • Nikolakopoulos KG, Kamaratakis EK, Chrysoulakis N (2006) SRTM vs. ASTER elevation products comparison for two regions in Crete, Greece. Int J Remote Sens 27:4819–4838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Callaghan JF, Mark DM (1984) The extraction of drainage networks from digital elevation data. Comput Vis, Gr Image Process 28(3):323–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pakoksung K, Takagi M (2015) Remote sensing data application for flood modelling. JAST 26:115–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulighe G, Fava F (2013) DEM extraction from archive aerial photos: accuracy assessment in areas of complex topography. Eur J Remote Sens 46:363–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rexer M, Hirt C (2014) Comparison of free high resolution digital elevation data sets (ASTER GDEM2, SRTM v2.1/v4.1) and validation against accurate heights from the Australian National Gravity Database. Aust J Earth Sci 61:213–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suwandana E, Kawamura K, Sakuno Y, Kustiyanto E, Raharjo B (2010) Evaluation of ASTER GDEM2 in comparison with GDEM1, SRTM DEM and topographic-map-derived DEM using inundation area analysis and RTK-dGPS data. Remote Sens. 4:2419–2431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tachikawa T, Kaku M, Iwasaki A (2011) In ASTER GDEM Version 2 Validation Report, 2nd edn, Japan, pp A1A24

  • Uda K, Takagi M (2010) Suitable type of GCP for accuracy registration of high resolution satellite data. In: Proceedings of the 31th Asian Conference on Remote Sensing, Hanoi, Vietnam

  • USGS GTOPO30 (2008) Available online https://lta.cr.usgs.gov/GTOPO30, Accessed on Jan 2015.

  • Weibel R, Heller M (1990) A framework for digital terrain modeling, In: Forth International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling, Zurich, Switzerland, pp 219–229

  • Zhao G, Xue H, Ling F (2010). Assessment of ASTER GDEM performance by comparing with SRTM and ICESat/GLAS data in Central China. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Geoinformatics, Beijing, China.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors express their sincere gratitude to GSI Japan, NASA, NIMA, METI, USGS, and CGIAR for making this work possible by processing and distributing free DEMs data to the scientific community. The authors would like to thank the Kochi University of Technology that has been supported in part by the Takagi laboratory.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Research Institute of Disaster Science, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan

    Kwanchai Pakoksung

  2. Infrastructure Systems Engineering, Kochi University of Technology, Kochi, Japan

    Masataka Takagi

Authors
  1. Kwanchai Pakoksung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Masataka Takagi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kwanchai Pakoksung.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pakoksung, K., Takagi, M. Assessment and comparison of Digital Elevation Model (DEM) products in varying topographic, land cover regions and its attribute: a case study in Shikoku Island Japan. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 7, 465–484 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-020-00891-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-020-00891-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation