CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 668

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A 30 m global map of elevation with forests and buildings removed

Hawker, Laurence, Uhe, Peter, Paulo, Luntadila, Sosa, Jeison, Savage, James, Sampson, Christopher, Neal, Jeffrey·2022·Environmental Research Letters
DOI 10.1088/1748-9326/ac4d4f
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Elevation data are fundamental to many applications, especially in geosciences. The latest global elevation data contains forest and building artifacts that limit its usefulness for applications that require precise terrain heights, in particular flood simulation. Here, we use machine learning to remove buildings and forests from the Copernicus Digital Elevation Model to produce, for the first time, a global map of elevation with buildings and forests removed at 1 arc second (∼30 m) grid spacing. We train our correction algorithm on a unique set of reference elevation data from 12 countries, covering a wide range of climate zones and urban extents. Hence, this approach has much wider applicability compared to previous DEMs trained on data from a single country. Our method reduces mean absolute vertical error in built-up areas from 1.61 to 1.12 m, and in forests from 5.15 to 2.88 m. The new elevation map is more accurate than existing global elevation maps and will strengthen applications and models where high quality global terrain information is required.

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 · 10.1088/1748-9326/ac4d4f

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 64

  1. Zhang, 2018, Spatial distribution estimates of the urban population using DSM and DEM data in china, ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf., 7, 435, 10.3390/ijgi7110435 · DOI
  2. Moore, 1991, Digital terrain modelling: a review of hydrological, geomorphological and biological applications, Hydrol. Process., 5, 3, 10.1002/hyp.3360050103 · DOI
  3. Amatulli, 2018, A suite of global cross-scale topographic variables for environmental and biodiversity modeling, Sci. Data, 5, 10.1038/sdata.2018.40 · DOI
  4. Farahmand, 2013, A satellite-based global landslide model, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci, 13, 1259, 10.5194/nhess-13-1259-2013 · DOI
  5. Zhang, 2020, A geomorphological regionalization using the upscaled DEM: the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei area, China case study, Sci. Rep., 10, 10.1038/s41598-020-66993-9 · DOI
  6. Rentsch, 1990, Digital terrain models as a tool for glacier studies, J. Glaciol., 36, 273, 10.3189/002214390793701345 · DOI
  7. Wang, 2015, Modeling glacier elevation change from DEM time series, Remote Sens., 7, 10117, 10.3390/rs70810117 · DOI
  8. Sampson, 2015, A high-resolution global flood hazard model, Water Resour. Res., 51, 7358, 10.1002/2015WR016954 · DOI
  9. Yao, 2018, Lake storage variation on the endorheic Tibetan Plateau and its attribution to climate change since the new millennium, Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 10.1088/1748-9326/aab5d3 · DOI
  10. Hirabayashi, 2021, Global exposure to flooding from the new CMIP6 climate model projections, Sci. Rep., 11, 3740, 10.1038/s41598-021-83279-w · DOI
  11. Park, 2001, Identification of the spatial distribution of soils using a process-based terrain characterization, Geoderma, 103, 249, 10.1016/S0016-7061(01)00042-8 · DOI
  12. Grosse, 2012, Systematic morphometric characterization of volcanic edifices using digital elevation models, Geomorphology, 136, 114, 10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.06.001 · DOI
  13. Kubanek, 2021, Applications of bistatic radar to volcano topography—a review of ten years of TanDEM-X, IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens., 14, 3282, 10.1109/JSTARS.2021.3055653 · DOI
  14. Farr, 2007, The shuttle radar topography mission, Rev. Geophys., 45, RG2004, 10.1029/2005RG000183 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Yamazaki, 2017, A high-accuracy map of global terrain elevations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 5844, 10.1002/2017GL072874 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 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
  17. Zink, 2021, TanDEM-X: 10 years of formation flying bistatic SAR interferometry, IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens., 14, 3546, 10.1109/JSTARS.2021.3062286 · DOI
  18. Abrams, 2020, ASTER global digital elevation model (GDEM) and ASTER global water body dataset (ASTWBD), Remote Sens., 12, 1156, 10.3390/rs12071156 · DOI
  19. Tadono, 2016, Generation of the 30 m-mesh global digital surface model by ALOS prism, Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., XLI-B4, 157, 10.5194/isprs-archives-XLI-B4-157-2016 · DOI
  20. Crippen, 2016, NASADEM global elevation model: methods and progress, Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., XLI-B4, 125, 10.5194/isprs-archives-XLI-B4-125-2016 · DOI
  21. Guth, 2021, Digital elevation models: terminology and definitions, Remote Sens., 13, 3581, 10.3390/rs13183581 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Gesch, 2018, Best practices for elevation-based assessments of sea-level rise and coastal flooding exposure, Front. Earth Sci., 6, 230, 10.3389/feart.2018.00230 · DOI
  23. 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
  24. Guth, 2021, LiDAR point cloud and ICESat-2 evaluation of 1 second global digital elevation models: copernicus wins, Trans. GIS, 25, 2245, 10.1111/tgis.12825 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Polidori, 2020, Digital elevation model quality assessment methods: a critical review, Remote Sens., 12, 3522, 10.3390/rs12213522 · DOI
  26. Hawker, 2019, Accuracy assessment of the TanDEM-X 90 digital elevation model for selected floodplain sites, Remote Sens. Environ., 232, 10.1016/j.rse.2019.111319 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Gdulová, 2020, Accuracy assessment of the global TanDEM-X digital elevation model in a mountain environment, Remote Sens. Environ., 241, 10.1016/j.rse.2020.111724 · DOI · Paper page
  28. McClean, 2020, Implications of using global digital elevation models for flood risk analysis in cities, Water Resour. Res., 56, 10.1029/2020WR028241 · DOI
  29. Uuemaa, 2020, Vertical accuracy of freely available global digital elevation models (ASTER, AW3D30, MERIT, TanDEM-X, SRTM, and NASADEM), Remote Sens., 12, 3482, 10.3390/rs12213482 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Kulp, 2018, CoastalDEM: a global coastal digital elevation model improved from SRTM using a neural network, Remote Sens. Environ., 206, 231, 10.1016/j.rse.2017.12.026 · DOI
  31. 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
  32. Zhao, 2018, A global corrected SRTM DEM product for vegetated areas, Remote Sens. Lett., 9, 393, 10.1080/2150704X.2018.1425560 · DOI
  33. Magruder, 2021, Digital terrain model elevation corrections using space-based imagery and ICESat-2 laser altimetry, Remote Sens. Environ., 264, 10.1016/j.rse.2021.112621 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Liu, 2021, Bare-earth DEM generation in urban areas for flood inundation simulation using global digital elevation models, Water Resour. Res., 57, 10.1029/2020WR028516 · DOI
  35. Olajubu, 2021, Urban correction of global DEMs using building density for Nairobi, Kenya, Earth Sci. Inform., 14, 1383, 10.1007/s12145-021-00647-w · DOI
  36. Wendi, 2016, An innovative approach to improve SRTM DEM using multispectral imagery and artificial neural network, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 8, 691, 10.1002/2015MS000536 · DOI
  37. Kim, 2021, Satellite DEM improvement using multispectral imagery and an artificial neural network, Water, 13, 1551, 10.3390/w13111551 · DOI
  38. Meadows, 2021, A comparison of machine learning approaches to improve free topography data for flood modelling, Remote Sens., 13, 275, 10.3390/rs13020275 · DOI
  39. Lary, 2016, Machine learning in geosciences and remote sensing, Geosci. Front., 7, 3, 10.1016/j.gsf.2015.07.003 · DOI
  40. Belgiu, 2016, Random forest in remote sensing: a review of applications and future directions, ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens., 114, 24, 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2016.01.011 · DOI
  41. Yanjun, 2015, SRTM DEM correction in vegetated mountain areas through the integration of spaceborne LiDAR, airborne LiDAR and optical imagery, Remote Sens., 7, 11202, 10.3390/rs70911202 · DOI
  42. Biau, 2016, A random forest guided tour, Test, 25, 197, 10.1007/s11749-016-0481-7 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Raschka, 2020, Machine learning in python: main developments and technology trends in data science, machine learning and artificial intelligence, Information, 11, 193, 10.3390/info11040193 · DOI
  44. Baltzer, 2001, Forest mapping and monitoring with interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR), Prog. Phys. Geogr., 25, 159, 10.1177/030913330102500201 · DOI
  45. Solberg, 2010, Estimating spruce and pine biomass with interferometric X-band SAR, Remote Sens. Environ., 114, 2353, 10.1016/j.rse.2010.05.011 · DOI
  46. Potapov, 2021, Mapping global forest canopy height through integration of GEDI and Landsat data, Remote Sens. Environ., 253, 10.1016/j.rse.2020.112165 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Dubayah, 2020, The global ecosystem dynamics investigation: High-resolution laser ranging of the earth’s forests and topography, Sci. Remote Sens., 1, 10.1016/j.srs.2020.100002 · DOI · Paper page
  48. Potapov, 2020, Landsat analysis ready data for global land cover and land cover change mapping, Remote Sens., 12, 426, 10.3390/rs12030426 · DOI
  49. Neuenschwander, 2020, Validation of ICESat-2 terrain and canopy heights in boreal forests, Remote Sens. Environ., 251, 10.1016/j.rse.2020.112110 · DOI
  50. Malambo, 2021, Assessing the agreement of ICESat-2 terrain and canopy height with airborne lidar over us ecozones, Remote Sens. Environ., 266, 10.1016/j.rse.2021.112711 · DOI
  51. Lindsay, 2016, Whitebox GAT: a case study in geomorphometric analysis, Comput. Geosci., 95, 75, 10.1016/j.cageo.2016.07.003 · DOI
  52. Nelson, 2019, A suite of global accessibility indicators, Sci. Data, 6, 266, 10.1038/s41597-019-0265-5 · DOI
  53. Marconcini, 2020, Outlining where humans live, the world settlement footprint 2015, Sci. Data, 7, 242, 10.1038/s41597-020-00580-5 · DOI
  54. Brovelli, 2018, A new method for the assessment of spatial accuracy and completeness of openstreetmap building footprints, ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf., 7, 289, 10.3390/ijgi7080289 · DOI
  55. Gallant, 2011, Adaptive smoothing for noisy DEMs, Geomorphometry, 2011, 7
  56. Reuter, 2009, Preparation of DEMs for geomorphometric analysis, Dev. Soil Sci., 33, 87, 10.1016/S0166-2481(08)00004-4 · DOI
  57. Stevenson, 2010, Despeckling SRTM and other topographic data with a denoising algorithm, Geomorphology, 114, 238, 10.1016/j.geomorph.2009.07.006 · DOI
  58. Milledge, 2009, The potential of digital filtering of generic topographic data for geomorphological research, Earth Surf. Process. Landf., 34, 63, 10.1002/esp.1691 · DOI
  59. Lindsay, 2019, LiDAR DEM smoothing and the preservation of drainage features, Remote Sens., 11, 1926, 10.3390/rs11161926 · DOI
  60. Van Nieuwenhuizen, 2021, Smoothing of digital elevation models and the alteration of overland flow path length distributions, Hydrol. Process., 35, 10.1002/hyp.14271 · DOI
  61. Nardi, 2019, GFPLAIN250m, a global high-resolution dataset of earth’s floodplains, Sci. Data, 6, 10.1038/sdata.2018.309 · DOI
  62. Neuenschwander, 2019, The ATL08 land and vegetation product for the ICESat-2 mission, Remote Sens. Environ., 221, 247, 10.1016/j.rse.2018.11.005 · DOI
  63. Tian, 2021, Comprehensive evaluation of the ICESat-2 ATL08 terrain product, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 59, 8195, 10.1109/TGRS.2021.3051086 · DOI
  64. Liu, 2021, Performance evaluation of GEDI and ICESat-2 laser altimeter data for terrain and canopy height retrievals, Remote Sens. Environ., 264, 10.1016/j.rse.2021.112571 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Hawker, L., Uhe, P., Paulo, L., Sosa, J., Savage, J., Sampson, C., & Neal, J.
Venue
Environmental Research Letters
Publisher
IOP Publishing
Published
2022-02-01
Volume
17
Issue
2
Pages
024016
ISSN
1748-9326
DOI
10.1088/1748-9326/ac4d4f
Cited by
668
References
2
Licence
Funders
NERC (NE/S003061/1)

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