4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Fusing interferometric radar and laser altimeter data to estimate surface topography and vegetation heights

Journal

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING
Volume 39, Issue 11, Pages 2470-2482

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/36.964984

Keywords

data fusion; interferometry; inverse problems; laser altimetry; multiscale estimation; scattering models; synthetic aperture radar (SAR)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Interferometric synthetic aperture radar (INSAR) and laser altimeter (LIDAR) systems are both widely used for mapping topography. INSAR can map extended areas but accuracies are limited over vegetated regions, primarily because the observations are not measurements of true surface topography. The measurements correspond to a height above the true surface that depends on both the sensor and the vegetation. Conversely, topography from LIDAR is very accurate, but coverage is limited to smaller regions. We demonstrate how these technologies can be used synergistically. First, we determine surface elevations and vegetation heights from dual-baseline INSAR data by inverting an INSAR scattering model. We then combine sparse LIDAR observations with the INSAR inversion results to improve the estimates of ground elevations and vegetation heights. This is accomplished via a multiresolution Kalman Filter that provides both the estimates and a measure of their uncertainty at each location. Combining data from the two sensors provides estimates that are more accurate than those obtained from INSAR alone yet have dense, extensive coverage, which is difficult to obtain with LIDAR. Contributions of this work include 1) combining physical modeling with multiscale estimation to accommodate nonlinear measurement-state relationships and 2) improving estimates of ground elevations and vegetation heights for remote sensing applications.

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