CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 151

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Accuracy assessment of the TanDEM-X 90 Digital Elevation Model for selected floodplain sites

Hawker, Laurence, Neal, Jeffrey, Bates, Paul·2019·Remote Sensing of Environment
DOI 10.1016/j.rse.2019.111319
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.rse.2019.111319

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Previous studies have identified a significant error discrepancy in global DEMs within densely forested areas, primarily due to sensor limitations when accurately capturing terrain elevation.

    “Previous studies have identified a significant error discrepancy in global DEMs within densely forested areas [49][50][51][52], primarily due to sensor limitations when accurately capturing terrain elevation.”

    From ANADEM: A Digital Terrain Model for South America (2024) · cites this paper as [52]

    Section 5.2 reports substantially higher error for TanDEM-X 90 than MERIT in tree-covered floodplain areas, and the Conclusions attribute this partly to X-band radar struggling to penetrate tree canopies. The study assesses selected floodplain sites, however, and notes that errors vary among tree-cover classes; it does not establish the same discrepancy for global DEMs generally across densely forested areas. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 66

  1. Albino, 2015, High-resolution TanDEM-X DEM: an accurate method to estimate lava flow volumes at Nyamulagira Volcano (D. R. Congo), Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 120, 4189, 10.1002/2015JB011988 · DOI
  2. Archer, 2018, Comparing TanDEM-X data with frequently used DEMs for flood inundation modelling, Water Resour. Res., 54, 10,205, 10.1029/2018WR023688 · DOI
  3. Athmania, 2014, External validation of the ASTER GDEM2, GMTED2010 and CGIAR-CSI-SRTM v4.1 free access Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) in Tunisia and Algeria, Remote Sens., 6, 4600, 10.3390/rs6054600 · DOI
  4. Baade, 2016, TanDEM-X IDEM precision and accuracy assessment based on a large assembly of differential GNSS measurements in Kruger National Park, South Africa, ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens., 119, 496, 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2016.05.005 · DOI
  5. Berthier, 2006, Biases of SRTM in high-mountain areas: implications for the monitoring of glacier volume changes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, 10.1029/2006GL025862 · DOI
  6. Borla-Tridon, 2013, TanDEM-X: DEM acquisition in the third year era, International Journal of Space Science and Engineering, 1
  7. Carlisle, 2005, Modelling the spatial distribution of DEM error, Trans. GIS, 9, 521, 10.1111/j.1467-9671.2005.00233.x · DOI
  8. Chen, 2018, Hydraulic correction method (HCM) to enhance the efficiency of SRTM DEM in flood modeling, J. Hydrol., 559, 56, 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.01.056 · DOI
  9. Crippen, 2016, Nasadem global elevation model: methods and progress, ISPRS - International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, XLI-B4, 125
  10. Curran, 1988, The semivariogram in remote sensing an introduction, Remote Sens. Environ., 24, 493, 10.1016/0034-4257(88)90021-1 · DOI
  11. Erasmi, 2014, Evaluating the quality and accuracy of TanDEM-X digital elevation models at archaeological sites in the Cilician Plain, Turkey, Remote Sens., 6, 9475, 10.3390/rs6109475 · DOI
  12. Erten, 2016, Retrieval of agricultural crop height from space: a comparison of SAR techniques, Remote Sens. Environ., 187, 130, 10.1016/j.rse.2016.10.007 · DOI
  13. Farr, 2007, The shuttle radar topography mission, Rev. Geophys., 45, 10.1029/2005RG000183 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Fisher, 2006, Causes and consequences of error in digital elevation models, Prog. Phys. Geogr., 30, 467, 10.1191/0309133306pp492ra · DOI · Paper page
  15. Gao, 1997, Resolution and accuracy of terrain representation by grid DEMs at a micro-scale, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., 11, 199, 10.1080/136588197242464 · DOI
  16. Gesch, 1999, New land surface digital elevation model covers the Earth, EOS Transactions American Geophysical Union, 80, 69, 10.1029/99EO00050 · DOI
  17. Gonzalez, 2015, Relative height accuracy estimation method for InSAR-based DEMs, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 8, 5352, 10.1109/JSTARS.2015.2474159 · DOI
  18. Gonzalez, 2018, Landcover-dependent assessment of the relative height accuracy in TanDEM-X DEM products, IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett., 1
  19. Gorokhovich, 2006, Accuracy assessment of the processed SRTM-based elevation data by CGIAR using field data from USA and Thailand and its relation to the terrain characteristics, Remote Sens. Environ., 104, 409, 10.1016/j.rse.2006.05.012 · DOI
  20. Grohmann, 2018, Evaluation of TanDEM-X DEMs on selected Brazilian sites: comparison with SRTM, ASTER GDEM and ALOS AW3D30, Remote Sens. Environ., 212, 121, 10.1016/j.rse.2018.04.043 · DOI
  21. Grosse, 2012, Systematic morphometric characterization of volcanic edifices using digital elevation models, Geomorphology, 136, 114, 10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.06.001 · DOI
  22. Gruber, 2016, The TanDEM-X DEM mosaicking: fusion of multiple acquisitions using InSAR quality parameters, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 9, 1047, 10.1109/JSTARS.2015.2421879 · DOI
  23. Hawker, 2018, Perspectives on digital elevation model (DEM) simulation for flood modeling in the absence of a high-accuracy open access global DEM, Front. Earth Sci., 6, 10.3389/feart.2018.00233 · DOI
  24. Hawker, 2018, Implications of simulating global digital elevation models for flood inundation studies, Water Resour. Res., 54, 7910, 10.1029/2018WR023279 · DOI
  25. Höhle, 2009, Accuracy assessment of digital elevation models by means of robust statistical methods, ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens., 64, 398, 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2009.02.003 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Holmes, 2000, Error in a USGS 30-meter digital elevation model and its impact on terrain modelling, J. Hydrol., 233, 154, 10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00229-8 · DOI
  27. Horritt, 2002, Evaluation of 1D and 2D numerical models for predicting river flood inundation, J. Hydrol., 268, 87, 10.1016/S0022-1694(02)00121-X · DOI
  28. Hunter, 1997, Modelling the uncertainty of slope and aspect derived from spatial databases, Geophysical Analysis, 29, 35
  29. Jongman, 2012, Global exposure to river and coastal flooding: long term trends and changes, Glob. Environ. Chang., 22, 823, 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.004 · DOI
  30. Kienzle, 2004, The effect of DEM raster resolution on first order, second order and compound terrain derivatives, Trans. GIS, 8, 83, 10.1111/j.1467-9671.2004.00169.x · DOI
  31. Krieger, 2007, TanDEM-X: a satellite formation for high-resolution SAR interferometry, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 45, 3317, 10.1109/TGRS.2007.900693 · DOI
  32. Kubanek, 2015, Volumetric change quantification of the 2010 Merapi eruption using TanDEM-X InSAR, Remote Sens. Environ., 164, 16, 10.1016/j.rse.2015.02.027 · DOI
  33. Kydriakidis, 1999, Geostatistics for conflation and accuracy assessment of digital elevation models, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., 13, 677, 10.1080/136588199241067 · DOI
  34. LaLonde, 2010, The influence of land cover on shuttle radar topography mission (SRTM) elevations in low-relief areas, Trans. GIS, 14, 461, 10.1111/j.1467-9671.2010.01217.x · DOI
  35. Malz, 2018, Elevation and mass changes of the southern Patagonia icefield derived from TanDEM-X and SRTM data, Remote Sens., 10, 10.3390/rs10020188 · DOI
  36. Martone, 2018, The global forest/non-forest map from TanDEM-X interferometric SAR data, Remote Sens. Environ., 205, 352, 10.1016/j.rse.2017.12.002 · DOI
  37. Mason, 2016, Improving the TanDEM-X Digital Elevation Model for flood modelling using flood extents from Synthetic Aperture Radar images, Remote Sens. Environ., 173, 15, 10.1016/j.rse.2015.11.018 · DOI
  38. Nardi, 2019, GFPLAIN250m, a global high-resolution dataset of Earth's floodplains, Sci Data, 6, 10.1038/sdata.2018.309 · DOI
  39. O’Loughlin, 2016, A multi-sensor approach towards a global vegetation corrected SRTM DEM product, Remote Sens. Environ., 182, 49, 10.1016/j.rse.2016.04.018 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Poland, 2014, Time-averaged discharge rate of subaerial lava at Kīlauea Volcano, Hawai’i, measured from TanDEM-X interferometry: implications for magma supply and storage during 2011–2013, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 119, 5464, 10.1002/2014JB011132 · DOI
  41. Rankl, 2016, Glacier elevation and mass changes over the central Karakoram region estimated from TanDEM-X and SRTM/X-SAR digital elevation models, Ann. Glaciol., 57, 273, 10.3189/2016AoG71A024 · DOI
  42. Rexer, 2014, Comparison of free high resolution digital elevation data sets (ASTER GDEM2, SRTM v2.1/v4.1) and validation against accurate heights from the Australian National Gravity Database, Aust. J. Earth Sci., 61, 213, 10.1080/08120099.2014.884983 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Rizzoli, 2017, Generation and performance assessment of the global TanDEM-X digital elevation model, ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens., 132, 119, 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2017.08.008 · DOI
  44. Robinson, 2014, EarthEnv-DEM90: a nearly-global, void-free, multi-scale smoothed, 90m digital elevation model from fused ASTER and SRTM data, ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens., 87, 57, 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2013.11.002 · DOI
  45. Rodriguez, 2006, A global assessment of the SRTM performance, Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens., 72, 249, 10.14358/PERS.72.3.249 · DOI · Paper page
  46. Rossi, 2013, Urban DEM generation, analysis and enhancements using TanDEM-X, ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens., 85, 120, 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2013.08.006 · DOI
  47. Rossi, 2016, Temporal monitoring of subglacial volcanoes with TanDEM-X — application to the 2014–2015 eruption within the Bárðarbunga volcanic system, Iceland, Remote Sens. Environ., 181, 186, 10.1016/j.rse.2016.04.003 · DOI
  48. Rott, 2014, Mass changes of outlet glaciers along the Nordensjköld Coast, northern Antarctic Peninsula, based on TanDEM-X satellite measurements, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 8123, 10.1002/2014GL061613 · DOI
  49. Sampson, 2015, A high-resolution global flood hazard model, Water Resour. Res., 51, 7358, 10.1002/2015WR016954 · DOI
  50. Schlund, 2014, Importance of bistatic SAR features from TanDEM-X for forest mapping and monitoring, Remote Sens. Environ., 151, 16, 10.1016/j.rse.2013.08.024 · DOI
  51. Shortridge, 2006, Shuttle radar topography mission elevation data error and its relationship to land cover, Cartogr. Geogr. Inf. Sci., 33, 65, 10.1559/152304006777323172 · DOI
  52. Shortridge, 2011, Spatial structure and landscape associations of SRTM error, Remote Sens. Environ., 115, 1576, 10.1016/j.rse.2011.02.017 · DOI
  53. Simard, 2011, Mapping forest canopy height globally with spaceborne lidar, J. Geophys. Res., 116
  54. Tadono, 2014, Precise global DEM generation by ALOS PRISM, ISPRS Annals of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, II-4, 71
  55. Tadono, 2016, Generation of the 30 M-mesh global digital surface model by Alos Prism, ISPRS - International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, XLI-B4, 157
  56. Takaku, 2016, Validation of “Aw3d” global Dsm generated from Alos Prism, ISPRS Annals of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, III-4, 25
  57. Tobler, 1970, A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit Region, Econ. Geogr., 46, 234, 10.2307/143141 · DOI
  58. Vaze, 2010, Impact of DEM accuracy and resolution on topographic indices, Environ. Model Softw., 25, 1086, 10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.03.014 · DOI
  59. Wechsler, 2007, Uncertainties associated with digital elevation models for hydrologic applications: a review, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 1481, 10.5194/hess-11-1481-2007 · DOI · Paper page
  60. Wechsler, 2006, Quantifying DEM uncertainty and its effect on topographic parameters, Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens., 9, 1081, 10.14358/PERS.72.9.1081 · DOI · Paper page
  61. Wendleder, 2013, TanDEM-X water indication mask: generation and first evaluation results, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 6, 171, 10.1109/JSTARS.2012.2210999 · DOI
  62. Wessel, 2018, Accuracy assessment of the global TanDEM-X digital elevation model with GPS data, ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens., 139, 171, 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2018.02.017 · DOI · Paper page
  63. Wing, 2018, Estimates of present and future flood risk in the conterminous United States, Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 10.1088/1748-9326/aaac65 · DOI
  64. Yamazaki, 2017, A high-accuracy map of global terrain elevations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 5844, 10.1002/2017GL072874 · DOI · Paper page
  65. Zhao, 2018, A global corrected SRTM DEM product for vegetated areas, Remote Sensing Letters, 9, 393, 10.1080/2150704X.2018.1425560 · DOI
  66. Zink, 2014, TanDEM-X: the new global DEM takes shape, IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine, 2, 8, 10.1109/MGRS.2014.2318895 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Hawker, L., Neal, J., & Bates, P.
ORCID
Hawker, Laurence
Venue
Remote Sensing of Environment
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-10
Volume
232
Pages
111319
ISSN
0034-4257
DOI
10.1016/j.rse.2019.111319
Cited by
151
References
0
Language
en
Licence
Funders
Natural Environment Research Council

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review