4.7 Article

Comparison of Digital Building Height Models Extracted from AW3D, TanDEM-X, ASTER, and SRTM Digital Surface Models over Yangon City

Journal

REMOTE SENSING
Volume 10, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs10122008

Keywords

digital building height; 3D urban expansion; land-use; DTM extraction; open data; developing city; accuracy analysis

Funding

  1. Science and Technology Research Partnership for Sustainable Development (SATREPS), Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST)
  2. Science and Technology Research Partnership for Sustainable Development (SATREPS), Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)
  3. DLR through DLR scientific projects [avtar_XTI_VEGE6813]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Vertical urban growth in the form of urban volume or building height is increasingly being seen as a significant indicator and constituent of the urban environment. Although high-resolution digital surface models can provide valuable information, various places lack access to such resources. The objective of this study is to explore the feasibility of using open digital surface models (DSMs), such as the AW3D30, ASTER, and SRTM datasets, for extracting digital building height models (DBHs) and comparing their accuracy. A multidirectional processing and slope-dependent filtering approach for DBH extraction was used. Yangon was chosen as the study location since it represents a rapidly developing Asian city where urban changes can be observed during the acquisition period of the aforementioned open DSM datasets (2001-2011). The effect of resolution degradation on the accuracy of the coarse AW3D30 DBH with respect to the high-resolution AW3D5 DBH was also examined. It is concluded that AW3D30 is the most suitable open DSM for DBH generation and for observing buildings taller than 9 m. Furthermore, the AW3D30 DBH, ASTER DBH, and SRTM DBH are suitable for observing vertical changes in urban structures.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available