4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Lightweight UAV digital elevation models and orthoimagery for environmental applications: data accuracy evaluation and potential for river flood risk modelling

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING
Volume 38, Issue 8-10, Pages 3159-3180

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/01431161.2017.1292074

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. University of Glasgow

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Digital elevation models (DEMs) generated from unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) photogrammetry offer opportunities for on- demand DEM production in environmental modelling and flood risk prediction applications. The DEM and orthoimage accuracies that can be achieved using lightweight UAV on- board sensors only, are compared with cases where progressively higher numbers of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) referenced ground targets are utilized. Unacceptably large 95% planimetric orthoimage errors of 5.22 m (root mean square error (RMSE) 3.27 m), and DEM 95% elevation errors of 5.03 m (RMSE 2.2 m) are observed when using the on- board positioning and orientation sensors only. Introducing GNSS ground control points (GCPs) in increasing numbers progressively and substantially improves data accuracy. Remarkably small xy orthoimage errors of 0.076 m (RMS) and DEM elevation errors of 0.08 m (RMS) are achieved using 1 GCP for every 2 ha of ground area and utilizing more GCPs produced more or less identical results. These accuracies compare very favourably with the best commercial airborne survey DEMs, suggesting strong potential for the application of lightweight UAV photogrammetric DEMs in local environmental modelling and flood risk prediction applications. The potential of these DEMS for flood prediction is subsequently assessed and demonstrated by comparison with published flood risk maps and flood depth data, and by cross- comparing the outputs of the UAV DEM flood model predictions.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available