4.3 Article

Accuracy of airborne lidar-derived elevation: Empirical assessment and error budget

Journal

PHOTOGRAMMETRIC ENGINEERING AND REMOTE SENSING
Volume 70, Issue 3, Pages 331-339

Publisher

AMER SOC PHOTOGRAMMETRY
DOI: 10.14358/PERS.70.3.331

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

As part of a countywide large-scale mapping effort for Richland County, South Carolina, an accuracy assessment of a recently acquired lidar-derived data set was conducted. Airborne lidar (2-m nominal posting) was collected at a flying height of 1207 meters above ground level (AGL) using an Optech ALTM (Airborne Loser Terrain Mapper) 1210 system. Unique to this study are the reference point elevations. Rather than using an interpolation approach for gathering observed elevations at reference points, the x-y coordinates of lidar points were located in the field and these elevations were surveyed. Using both total-station-based and rapid-static GPS techniques, observed vertical heights were measured at each reference lidar posting, The variability of vertical accuracy was evaluated for six land-cover categories. Root-mean-squared error (RMSE) values ranged from a low of 17 to 19 cm (pavement, low grass, and evergreen forests) to a high of 26 cm (deciduous forests). The unique error assessment of lidar postings also allowed for the creation of an error budget model. The observed lidar elevation error was decomposed into errors from lidar system measurements, horizontal displacement, interpolation error, and surveyor error. A cross-validation approach was used to assess the observed interpolated lidar elevation error for each field-verified reference point. In order of decreasing importance, the lidar system measurements were the dominant source of error followed by interpolation error, horizontal displacement error, and surveyor error. Observed elevation error in steeper slopes (e.g., 25degrees) was estimated to be twice as large as those on low slopes (e.g., 1.5degrees).

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available