The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Global DEMs vary from one to another: an evaluation of newly released Copernicus, NASA and AW3D30 DEM on selected terrains of China using ICESat-2 altimetry data
Abstract
A good understanding of the quality of digital elevation model (DEM) is a perquisite for various applications. This study investigates the accuracy of three most recently released 1-arcsec global DEMs (GDEMs, Copernicus, NASA and AW3D30) in five selected terrains of China, using more than 240,000 high-quality ICESat-2 (Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite) ALT08 points. The results indicate the three GDEMs have similar overall vertical accuracy, with RMSE of 6.73 (Copernicus), 6.59 (NASA) and 6.63 m (AW3D30). While the accuracy varies considerably over study areas and among GDEMs. The results show a clear correlation between the accuracy and terrain slopes, and some relationship between the accuracy and land covers. Our analysis reveals the land cover exerts a greater impact on the accuracy than that of the terrain slope for the study area. Visual inspections of terrain representation indicate Copernicus DEM exhibits the greatest detail of terrain, followed by AW3D30, and then by NASADEM. This study has demonstrated that ICESat-2 altimetry offers an important tool for DEM assessment. The findings provide a timely and comprehensive understanding of the quality of newly released GDEMs, which are informative for the selection of suitable DEMs, and for the improvement of GDEM in future studies.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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 [49]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 54
- 10.3390/rs6054600 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.rse.2006.07.011 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.rse.2006.11.017 · DOI
- 10.1109/tgrs.2006.885401 · DOI
- 10.5194/isprs-archives-XLIII-B3-2020-1299-2020 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.rse.2021.112474 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2014.09.002 · DOI
- 10.5194/isprsarchives-XLI-B4-125-2016 · DOI
- 10.1029/2005rg000183 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.rse.2019.111509 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.rse.2006.05.012 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.rse.2018.04.043 · DOI
- 10.14358/pers.72.3.269 · DOI
- 10.1111/tgis.12825 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3389/feart.2018.00233 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.rse.2019.111319 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.14358/PERS.78.7.757 · DOI
- 10.14358/pers.71.7.817 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2009.02.003 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/igarss.2009.5418204 · DOI
- 10.21046/2070-7401-2017-14-2-98-109 · DOI
- 10.1007/s12583-010-0147-4 · DOI
- 10.1109/TGRS.2017.2731048 · DOI
- 10.1007/s12583-012-0290-1 · DOI
- 10.1109/JSTARS.2018.2874361 · DOI
- 10.1177/0309133308089496 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.geomorph.2019.04.012 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.rse.2021.112621 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3390/rs12162630 · DOI
- 10.1038/srep41672 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.rse.2020.112110 · DOI
- 10.3390/rs11141721 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.rse.2018.11.005 · DOI
- 10.1080/22797254.2020.1774424 · DOI
- 10.3390/rs12213522 · DOI
- 10.5194/esurf-5-211-2017 · DOI
- 10.3389/feart.2021.758606 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2017.08.008 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.09.069 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2016.09.003 · DOI
- 10.1515/geo-2019-0066 · DOI
- 10.1109/igarss.2011.6050017 · DOI
- 10.5194/isprsarchives-XLI-B4-157-2016 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/igarss.2015.7326657 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.03.008 · DOI
- 10.1177/030913259501900408 · DOI
- 10.3390/rs12213482 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2019.11.015 · DOI
- 10.1007/s12665-014-3823-3 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.rse.2006.09.007 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2018.02.017 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126312 · DOI
- 10.1109/igarss.2015.7326958 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0264-3707(02)00042-X · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
ANADEM: A Digital Terrain Model for South America
Laipelt, L., Comini de Andrade, B., Collischonn, W., de Amorim Teixeira, A., Paiva, R. C. D. D., & Ruhoff, A. (2024) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs16132321 · Cited by 79
Metadata
- Authors
- Li, H., Zhao, J., Yan, B., Yue, L., & Wang, L.
- Affiliations
- China University of Geosciences
- ORCID
- Venue
- International Journal of Digital Earth
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2022-06-30
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1149-1168
- ISSN
- 1753-8947
- 1753-8955
- Cited by
- 126
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (41201429, 42171375)
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
