4.7 Article

Evaluation of Recently Released Open Global Digital Elevation Models of Hubei, China

Journal

REMOTE SENSING
Volume 9, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs9030262

Keywords

open DEM; global DEM; SRTM 1; SRTM 3; ASTER GDEM; AW3D30; accuracy

Funding

  1. National Basic Research Development Program of China [2012CB719904]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The recent release of worldwide SRTM 1 DEM and AW3D30 adds new members to the open global medium resolution (90-30 m ground spacing) digital elevation models. Together with the previously existing SRTM 3 and ASTER GDEM, their quality is of great interest to various scientific applications. This paper uses 1:50,000 DEM in Hubei Province of China as a reference to assess their vertical accuracy in terms of terrain types, slopes, and land cover. For ASTER GDEM and AW3D30, we further evaluate their accuracy in terms of the stack number, i.e., the number of scenes used to generate the DEM. It is found out that: (1) all of the DEMs have nearly the same horizontal offset due to the adoption of different datums; (2) the vertical accuracy varies in terms of terrain complexity, from similar to 5 m for plains, similar to 10 m for hills to similar to 20 m for mountains; (3) the vertical accuracy is negatively related to the tangent of terrain slope exponentially in forest areas and linearly in cultivated lands; (4) forest areas have the lowest vertical accuracy, comparing to built-up areas, wetland, and cultivate land areas while SRTM 1 and AW3D30 have the highest accuracy in all land cover classes; (5) the large elevation differences over forest areas are likely due to canopy coverage; and (6) for ASTER GDEM and AW3D30, their accuracy is in general positively related to the stack number. This study provides a practically useful quality specification and comprehensive understanding for these four global DEMs, especially the recently released worldwide SRTM 1 DEM and AW3D30.

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