CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 280

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Uncertainties associated with digital elevation models for hydrologic applications: a review

Wechsler, S. P.·2007·Hydrology and Earth System Sciences
DOI 10.5194/hess-11-1481-2007

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abstract. Digital elevation models (DEMs) represent the topography that drives surface flow and are arguably one of the more important data sources for deriving variables used by numerous hydrologic models. A considerable amount of research has been conducted to address uncertainty associated with error in digital elevation models (DEMs) and the propagation of error to derived terrain parameters. This review brings together a discussion of research in fundamental topical areas related to DEM uncertainty that affect the use of DEMs for hydrologic applications. These areas include: (a) DEM error; (b) topographic parameters frequently derived from DEMs and the associated algorithms used to derive these parameters; (c) the influence of DEM scale as imposed by grid cell resolution; (d) DEM interpolation; and (e) terrain surface modification used to generate hydrologically-viable DEM surfaces. Each of these topical areas contributes to DEM uncertainty and may potentially influence results of distributed parameter hydrologic models that rely on DEMs for the derivation of input parameters. The current state of research on methods developed to quantify DEM uncertainty is reviewed. Based on this review, implications of DEM uncertainty and suggestions for the GIS research and user communities are offered.

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 · 10.5194/hess-11-1481-2007

Cites

1 of 1 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?

  • The reduced error distribution for ANADEM could lead to more accurate predictions of hydrological processes, which are particularly sensitive to topographic variations.

    “The reduced error distribution shown in Figure 3 for ANADEM could lead to more accurate predictions of hydrological processes, which are particularly sensitive to topographic variations [55,56].”

    From ANADEM: A Digital Terrain Model for South America (2024) · cites this paper as [56]

  • DEM inaccuracies can significantly influence derived information such as watershed delineation, slope, aspect, and drainage network.

    “DEM inaccuracies can significantly influence the information derived, such as watershed delineation, slope, aspect, and drainage network [56,58].”

    From ANADEM: A Digital Terrain Model for South America (2024) · cites this paper as [56]

  • The unreliability of DEMs in non-mountainous regions is likely to remain a problem.

    “Although efforts have been made to address uncertainty associated with error (e.g. by quantifying DEM accuracy using the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) statistic (Wechsler 2007: 1483)), the unreliability of DEMs in non-mountainous regions is likely to remain a problem.”

    From ‘Benefit Maximizing Routes’: Development and Evaluation Using the Historical Roads of Korea’s Joseon Dynasty (1392–1910) (2022) · cites this paper as Wechsler 2007: 1483

  • DEMs contain inherent errors, particularly in areas of low slope gradient or areas which lack topographic obstacles.

    “As digital representations of topography, DEMs contain inherent errors (i.e. errors in data acquisition subsystems and errors generated during interpolation or aggregation techniques (Wechsler 2007: 1482)), particularly in areas of low slope gradient or areas which lack topographic obstacles.”

    From ‘Benefit Maximizing Routes’: Development and Evaluation Using the Historical Roads of Korea’s Joseon Dynasty (1392–1910) (2022) · cites this paper as Wechsler 2007: 1482

  • The unreliability of both HPMS-based routes and slope gradient-based LCPs in non-mountainous regions stems from problems associated with DEMs, which contain inherent errors particularly in areas of low slope gradient or areas lacking topographic obstacles.

    “Firstly, the unreliability of both HPMS-based routes and slope gradient-based LCPs in non-mountainous regions stem from the problems associated with DEMs, which are used to construct cost surfaces. As digital representations of topography, DEMs contain inherent errors (i.e. errors in data acquisition subsystems and errors generated during interpolation or aggregation techniques (Wechsler 2007: 148”

    From ‘Benefit Maximizing Routes’: Development and Evaluation Using the Historical Roads of Korea’s Joseon Dynasty (1392–1910) (2022) · cites this paper as Wechsler 2007: 1482

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: 138

  1. Aerts, J., Goodchild, M., and Heuvelink, G. B. M.: Accounting for spatial uncertainty in optimization with spatial decision support systems, Transactions in GIS, 7, 211–230, 2003. · DOI
  2. Albani, M., Klinkenberg, B., Andison, D. W., and Kkimmins, J. P.: The choice of window size in approximating topographic surfaces from Digital Elevation Models, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci, 18, 577–593, 2004. · DOI
  3. Armstrong, R. N. and Martz, L. W.: Topographic Parameterization in continental hydrology: a study in scale, Hydrol. Processes, 17, 3763–3781, 2003. · DOI
  4. Ascough, J. C., Rector, H. D., Hoag, D. L., McMaster, G. S., Vandenberg, B. C., Shaffer, M. J., Weltz, M. A., and Ahjua, L. R.: Multicriteria Spatial Decision Support Systems: Overview, Applications, and Future Research Directions. Integrated Assessment and Decision Support Proceedings of the 1st Biennial Meeting of the IEMSs, Lugano, Switzerland 3, 175–180, 2002.
  5. Bachmann, A. and Allgower, B.: Uncertainty propagation in wildland fire behaviour modelling, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci, 16, 115–127, 2002. · DOI
  6. Band, L. and Moore, I.: Scale: Landscape Attributes And Geographical Information Systems, Hydrol. Processes, 9, 401–422, 1995. · DOI
  7. Berry, P. A. M., Hoogerboord, A. M., and Pinnock, R. A.: Identification of Common Error Signatures in Global Digital Elevation Models Based on Satellite Altimeter Reference Data, Phys. Chem. Earth (A), 25, 95–99, 2000. · DOI
  8. Beven, K.: A manifesto for the equifinality thesis, J. Hydrol., 320, 18–36, 2006. · DOI
  9. Beven, K.: Towards integrated environmental models of everywhere: uncertainty, data and modelling as a learning process, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 460–467, 2007. · DOI
  10. Beven, K. and Binley, A.: The Future of Distributed Modeling: Model Calibration and Uncertainty Prediction, Hydrol. Processes, 6, 255–264, 1992. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Brasington, K. and Richards, K.: Interactions Between Model Predictions, Parameters and DTM Scales for TopModel, Comput. Geosci., 24, 299–314, 1998. · DOI
  12. Brunsdon, C. and Openshaw, S.: Chapter 7: Simulating the effects of error in GIS, in: Geographical Information Handling – Research and Applications, edited by: Mather, P., John Wiley and Sons, New York, 47–61, 1993.
  13. Burrough, P. and McDonnell, R.: Principles of Geographic Information Systems, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 333~p., 1998.
  14. Burrough, P. A.: Principles of Geographical Information Systems for Land Resources Assessment, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 194~p., 1986. · DOI
  15. Canters, F., DeGenst, W., and Dufourmont, H.: Assessing effects of input uncertainty in structural landscape classification, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci, 16, 129–149, 2002. · DOI
  16. Chang, K.-T. and Tsai, B.-W.: The effect of DEM Resolution on Slope and Aspect Mapping, Cartography and GIS, 18, 67–99, 1991. · DOI
  17. Chaplot, V.: Impact of DEM mesh size and soil map scale on SWAT runoff, sediment, and NO3-N loads predictions, J. Hydrol., 312, 207–222, 2005. · DOI
  18. Chaubey, I., Cotter, A. S., Costello, T. A., and Soerens, T. S.: Effect of DEM data resolution on SWAT output uncertainty, Hydrol. Processes, 19, 621–628, 2005. · DOI
  19. Chochrane, T. A. and Flanagan, D. C.: Effect of DEM Resolutions in the runoff and soil loss predictions of the WEPP watershed model, Transactions of the ASAE, 48, 109–120, 2005. · DOI
  20. Chrisman, N.: Error in Categorical Maps: Testing versus Simulation. Auto-Carto 9: Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Computer-Assisted Cartography, ASPRS/ACSM, Baltimore, Maryland, 521–529, 1989.
  21. Claessens, L., Heuvelink, G. B. M., Schoorl, J. M., and Veldkamp, A.: DEM resolution effects on shallow landslide hazard and soil redistribution modelling, Earth Surf. Proc. Land., 30, 461–477, 2005. · DOI
  22. Costa-Cabral, M. and Burgess, S.: Digital Elevation Model Networks (DEMON): A model of flow over hillslopes for computation of contributing and dispersal areas, Water Resour. Res., 30, 681–1692, 1994. · DOI
  23. Cowell, P. and Zeng, T.: Integrating uncertainty theories with GIS for modeling coastal hazards of climate change, Mar. Geod., 26, 5–18, 2003. · DOI
  24. Crosetto, M. and Tarantola, S.: Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis: tools for GIS-based model implementation, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci, 15, 415–437, 2001. · DOI
  25. Davis, T. J. and Keller, C. P.: Modeling and Visualizing Multiple Spatial Uncertainties, Comput. Geosci., 23, 397–408, 1997. · DOI
  26. deBruin, S. and deWit, A. J. W.: Stochastic simulation of large grids using free and public domain software, Comput. Geosci., 31, 828–836, 2005. · DOI
  27. Desmet, P. and Govers, G.: Comparison of routing algorithms for digital elevation models and their implications for predicting ephemeral gullies, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Syst., 10, 311–331, 1996. · DOI
  28. Desmet, P. J. J.: Effects of Interpolation Errors on the Analysis of DEMs, Earth Surf. Proc. Land., 22, 563–580, 1997. · DOI
  29. Deutsch, C. and Journel, A.: GSLIB Geostatistical Software Library and User's Guide, Oxford University Press, New York, 369 p., 1998.
  30. Dubois, G., Malczewski, J., and Cort, M. D.: Spatial Interpolation Comparison 97: Special Issue, Journal of Geographic Information and Decision Analysis, 2, Special Issue, 1998.
  31. Dunn, M. and Hickey, R.: The effect of slope algorithms on slope estimates within a GIS, Cartography, 27, 9–15, 1998. · DOI
  32. Durañona, G. and López, C.: DM4DEM: a GRASS-compatible tool for blunder detection of DEM, 4th International Symposium on Spatial Accuracy Assessment in Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 191–194, 2000.
  33. Ehlschlaeger, C.: The Stochastic Simulation Approach: Tools for Representing Spatial Application Uncertainty, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, Ph.D. Dissertation, 1998.
  34. Ehlschlaeger, C. and Shortridge, A.: Modeling Elevation Uncertainty in Geographical Analyses, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling, Delft, Netherlands, 9B.15–19B.25, 1996.
  35. Ehlschlaeger, C. R.: Representing multiple spatial statistics in generalized elevation uncertainty models: moving beyond the variogram, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci, 16, 259–285, 2002. · DOI
  36. Ehlschlaeger, C. R., Shortridge, A. M., and Goodchild, M. F.: Visualizing Spatial Data Uncertainty Using Animation, Comput. Geosci., 23, 387–395, 1997. · DOI
  37. Endreny, T. A. and Wood, E. F.: Representing elevation uncertainty in runoff modelling and flowpath mapping, Hydrol. Processes, 15, 2223–2236, 2001. · DOI
  38. Englund, E.: Spatial Simulation: Environmental Applications, Chapter 43, in: Environmental Modeling with GIS, edited by: Goodchild, M., Parks, B., and Steyaert, L., Oxford University Press, New York, 432–446, 1993.
  39. Erxleben, J., Elder, K., and Davis, R.: Comparison of spatial interpolation methods for estimating snow distribution in the Colorado Rocky Mountains, Hydrol. Processes, 16, 3627–3649, 2002. · DOI
  40. Evans, I.: What Do Terrain Statistics Really Mean?, in: Landform Monitoring, Modelling and Analysis, edited by: Lane, S. N., Richards, K. S., and Chandler, J. H., John Wiley and Sons, New York, 300~p., 1998.
  41. Fisher, P.: Algorithm and Implementation Uncertainty in Viewshed Analysis, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., 7, 331–347, 1993. · DOI · Paper page
  42. Fisher, P.: Animation and Sound For the Visualization of Uncertain Spatial Information, Chapter 19, in: Visualization In Geographical Information Systems, edited by: Hearnshaw, H. and Unwin, D., John Wiley and Sons, 181–185, 1994.
  43. Fisher, P.: Sorites paradox and vague geographies, Fuzzy Set Syst., 113, 7–18, 2000. · DOI
  44. Fisher, P. F.: Improved Modeling of Elevation Error with Geostatistics, GeoInformatica, 2, 215–233, 1998. · DOI · Paper page
  45. Freer, J., Beven, K., and Ambroise, B.: Bayesian estimation of uncertainty in runoff prediction and the value of data: An application of the GLUE approach, Water Resour. Res., 32, 2161–2174 1996. · DOI
  46. Gao, J.: Resolution and Accuracy of Terrain Representation by Grid DEMs at a micro-scale, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci, 11, 199–212, 1997. · DOI
  47. Garbrecht, J. and Martz, L.: Grid Size Dependency Of Parameters Extracted From Digital Elevation Models, Comput. Geosci., 20, 85–87, 1994. · DOI
  48. Goodchild, M.: Algorthm 9: Simulation of autocorrelation for aggregate data, Environ. Plann. A., 12, 1073–1081, 1980. · DOI
  49. Goodchild, M., Shortridge, A., and Fohl, P.: Encapsulating Simulation Models with Geospatial Data Sets, in: Spatial Accuracy Assessment: Land Information Uncertainty in Natural Resources, edited by: Lowell, K. and Jaton, A., Ann Arbor Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1999.
  50. Goodchild, M., Sun, G., and Yang, S.: Development and Test of an Error Model for Categorical Data, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Syst., 6, 87–104, 1992. · DOI
  51. Gunther, A.: SLOPEMAP: programs for automated mapping of geometrical and kinematical properties of hard rock hill slopes, Comput. Geosci., 29, 865–875, 2003. · DOI
  52. Hancock, G. R.: The use of digital elevation models in the identification and characterization of catchments over different grid scales, Hydrol. Processes, 19, 1727–1749, 2005. · DOI
  53. Hengl, T., Gruber, S., and Shrestha, D. P.: Reduction of errors in digital terrain parameters used in soil-landscape modelling, Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinfo., 5, 97–112, 2004. · DOI
  54. Heuvelink, G., Burrough, P., and Stein, A.: Propagation of errors in spatial modeling with GIS, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., 3, 303–322, 1989. · DOI
  55. Heuvelink, G., Burrough, P., and Stein, A.: Developments in Analysis of Spatial Data Uncertainty Since 1989, in: Classics from IJGIS: twenty years of the International Journal of Geographical Information Science and Systems, edited by: Fisher, P., Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton, FL, 91–95, 2007.
  56. Heuvelink, G. B. M.: Error Propagation in Environmental Modelling with GIS, Taylor & Francis Ltd, London, England, 127~p., 1998. · DOI · Paper page
  57. Heuvelink, G. B. M.: Analysing Uncertainty Propagation in GIS: Why is it not that simple?, in: Uncertainty in Remote Sensing and GIS, edited by: Foody, G. M. and Atkinson, P. M., John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, England, 155–165, 2002. · DOI
  58. Hickey, R.: Slope Angle and Slope Length Solutions for GIS, Cartography, 29, 1–8, 2001. · DOI
  59. Holmes, K. W., Chadwick, O. A., and Kyriakidis, P. C.: Error in a USGS 30-meter digital elevation model and its impact on terrain modeling, J. Hydrol., 233, 154–173, 2000. · DOI
  60. Horn, B.: Hill Shading and the Reflectance Map, Proceedings of the IEEE, 69, 14–47, 1981. · DOI
  61. Hunter, G. and Goodchild, M.: Modeling the Uncertainty of Slope and Aspect Estimates Derived From Spatial Databases, Geogr. Anal., 29, 35–49, 1997. · DOI
  62. Hutchinson, M. F.: A New Procedure for Gridding Elevation and Stream Line Data with Automatic Removal of Spurious Pits, J. Hydrol., 106, 211–232, 1989. · DOI
  63. Hwang, D., Karmi, H. A., and Byun, D. W.: Uncertainty Analysis of Environmental Models Within GIS Environments, Comput. Geosci., 24, 119–130, 1998. · DOI
  64. Jankowski, P., Andrienko, N., and Andrienko, G.: Map-centered exploratory approach to multiple criteria spatial decision making, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci, 15, 101–127, 2001. · DOI
  65. Jenson, S.: Applications of Hydrologic Information Automatically Extracted from Digital Elevation Models, Hydrol. Processes, 5, 31–44, 1991. · DOI
  66. Johnson, D. L. and Miller, A. C.: A Spatially Distributed Hydrologic Model Utilizing Raster Data Structures, Comput. Geosci., 23, 267–272, 1997. · DOI
  67. Journel, A.: Modelling uncertainty and spatial dependence: stochastic imaging, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Syst., 10, 517–22, 1996. · DOI
  68. Karssenberg, D. and Jong, K. D.: Dynamic environmental modelling in GIS: 2. Modelling error propagation, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci, 19, 623–637, 2005. · DOI
  69. Kenward, T., Lettenmaier, D. P., Wood, E. F., and Fielding, E.: Effects of Digital Elevation Model Accuracy on Hydrologic Predictions, Remote Sens. Env., 74, 432–444, 2000. · DOI · Paper page
  70. Kienzle, S.: The effect of DEM Resolution on First Order, Second Order and Compound Terrain Derivatives, Transactions in GIS, 8, 83–111, 2004. · DOI
  71. Kuo, W., Steenhuis, T., McCulloch, C., Mohler, C., Weinstein, D., DeGloria, S., and Swaney, D.: Effect of grid size on runoff and soil moisture for a variable-source-area hydrology model, Water Resour. Res., 35, 3419–3428, 1999. · DOI
  72. Kyriakidis, P. C., Shortridge, A. M., and Goodchild, M. F.: Geostatistics for conflation and accuracy assessment of digital elevation models. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci, 13, 677–707, 1999. · DOI
  73. Lacroix, M. P., Martz, L. W., Kite, G. W., and Garbrecht, J.: Using digital terrain analysis modeling techniques for the parameterization of a hydrologic model, Environ. Modell. Software, 17, 127–136, 2002. · DOI
  74. Li, Z.: Variation of the Accuracy of Digital Terrain Models With Sampling Interval, Photogramm. Rec., 14, 113–128, 1992. · DOI
  75. Li, Z.: A comparative study of the accuracy of digital terrain models (DTMs) based on various data models, ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 49, 2–11, 1994. · DOI
  76. Lindsay, J. B.: Sensitivity of channel mapping techniques to uncertainty in digital elevation data, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci, 20, 669–692, 2006. · DOI
  77. Lindsay, J. B. and Creed, I. F.: Removal of artifact depressions from digital elevation models: towards a minimum impact approach, Hydrol. Processes, 19, 3113–3126, 2005a. · DOI
  78. Lindsay, J. B. and Creed, I. F.: Sensitivity of Digital Landscapes to Artifact Depressions in Remotely-sensed DEMs, Photogramm. Eng. Rem. S., 71, 1029–1036, 2005b. · DOI
  79. Lindsay, J. B. and Creed, I. F.: Distinguishing actual and artefact depressions in digital elevation data, Comput. Geosci., 32, 1192–1204, 2006. · DOI
  80. Liu, R. and Herrington, L.: The Effects of Spatial Data Error on Forest Management Decisions. Proceedings of the GIS 1993 Symposium, Vancouver, British Columbia, 1–8, 1993.
  81. Lopez, C.: An experiment on the elevation accuracy improvement of photogrammetrically derived DEM, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci, 16, 361–375, 2002. · DOI
  82. Mark, D.: Network Models In Geomorphology, Modeling in Geomorphological Systems, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1988.
  83. Martz, L. W. and Garbrecht, J.: An outlet breaching algorithm for the treatment of closed depressions in a raster DEM, Comput. Geosci., 25, 835–844, 1999. · DOI
  84. Miliaresis, G. C. and Paraschou, C. V. E.: Vertical accuracy of the SRTM DTED level 1 of Crete, Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinfo., 7, 49–59, 2005. · DOI
  85. Monckton, C.: An Investigation into the spatial structure of error in digital elevation data, Chapter 14, in: Innovations in GIS, edited by: Worboys, M., Taylor and Francis, Bristol, PA, 201–210, 1994. · DOI
  86. Murillo, M. L. and Hunter, G. J.: Assessing uncertainty due to elevation error in a landslide susceptibility model Transactions in GIS, 2, 289–298, 1997. · DOI
  87. O'Callaghan, J. F. and Mark, D. M.: The extraction of drainage networks from digital elevation data. Computer Visualization Graph, Image Proceedings of GIS/LIS, 28, 323–344, 1984. · DOI
  88. Oksanen, J. and Sarjakoski, T.: Error Propagation analysis of DEM-based drainage basin delineation, Int. J. Rem. Sens., 26, 3085–3102, 2005a. · DOI
  89. Oksanen, J. and Sarjakoski, T.: Error propagation of DEM-based surface derivatives, Comput. Geosci., 31, 1015–1027, 2005b. · DOI
  90. Oksanen, J. and Sarjakoski, T.: Uncovering the statistical and spatial characteristics of fine toposcale DEM error, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci, 20, 345–369, 2006. · DOI
  91. Openshaw, S., Charlton, M., and Carver, S.: Error Propagation: A Monte Carlo Simulation, in: Handling Geographical Information – Methodology and Potential Applications, edited by: Masser, I. and Blakemore, M., John Wiley and Sons, 1991.
  92. Pike, R.: A Bibliography of Terrain Modeling (Geomorphometry), the Quantitative Representation of Topography-Supplement 4.0, USGS, 158~pp., 2002. · DOI
  93. Quattrochi, D. and Goodchild, M.: Scale in Remote Sensing and GIS, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 406~p., 1997.
  94. Quinn, P., Beven, K., Chevallier, P., and Planchon, O.: The Prediction of Hillslope Flow Paths For Distributed Hydrological Modelling Using Digital Terrain Models, Hydrol. Processes, 5, 59–79, 1991. · DOI
  95. Quinn, P., Beven, K., and Lamb, R.: The ln(a/TanB) index: how to calculate it and how to use it within the TOPMODEL framework, Hydrol. Processes, 9, 161–182, 1995. · DOI
  96. Reitsma, F. and Albrecht, J.: Implementing a new data model for simulating processes, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci, 19, 1073–1090, 2005. · DOI
  97. Rieger, W.: A phenomenon-based approach to upslope contributing area and depressions in DEMs, Hydrol. Processes, 12, 857–872, 1998. · DOI
  98. Rodhe, A. and Seibert, J.: Wetland occurrence in relation to topography: a test of topographic indices as moisture indicators, Agric. For. Meteorol., 98–99, 325–340, 1999. · DOI
  99. Saghafian, B., Lieshout, A. M. v., and Rajaei, H.: Distributed Catchment Simulation using a raster GIS, JAG, 2, 199–203, 2000. · DOI
  100. Saulnier, G.-M., Obled, C., and Beven, K.: Analytical Compensation between DTM Grid Resolution and Effective Values of Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Within the TopModel Framework, Hydrol. Processes, 11, 1331–1346, 1997. · DOI
  101. Schoorl, J. M., Sonneveld, M. P. W., and Veldkamp, A.: Three-Dimensional landscape process modelling: The Effect of DEM Resolution, Earth Surf. Proc. Land., 25, 1025–1034, 2000. · DOI
  102. Shan, J., Zaheer, M., and Hussain, E.: Study on Accuracy of 1-Degree DEM Versus Topographic Complexity Using GIS Zonal Analysis, J. Surv. Eng. ASCE, 129, 85–89, 2003. · DOI
  103. Skidmore, A.: A Comparison of techniques for Calculating Gradient and Aspect From A Gridded Digital Elevation Model, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci, 3, 323–334, 1989. · DOI
  104. Spear, M., Hall J., and Wadsworth, R.: Communication of Uncertainty in Spatial Data to Policy makers. Spatial Accuracy Assessment in Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences: Second International Symposium, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO, Report RM-GTR-277, 199–207, 1996.
  105. Srivasta, R.: An Overview of Stochastic Spatial Simulation, Spatial Accuracy Assessment in Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences: Second International Symposium, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiement Station, Fort Collins, CO, 13–29, 1996.
  106. Tang, G.-A., Hui, Y.-H., Strobl, J., and Lui, W.-Q.: The impact of resolution accuracy of hydrologic data derived from DEMs, J. Geogr. Sci., 11, 393–401, 2001. · DOI
  107. Tarboton, D.: A new method for the determination of flow directions and upslope areas in grid digital elevation models, Water Resour. Res., 33, 309–319, 1997. · DOI · Paper page
  108. Tarboton, D., Bras, R., and Rodriguez-Iturbe, I.: On the extraction of channel networks from digital elevation data, in: Terrain Analysis and Distributed Modeling In Hydrology, edited by: Beven, K. and Moore, I. D., John Wiley and Sons, New York, 85–104, 1993.
  109. Theobald, D.: Accuracy and Bias Issues in surface representation, Chapter 9, in: The Accuracy of Spatial Databases, edited by: Goodchild, M. F. and Gopal, S., Taylor and Francis, Bristol, PA, 99–106, 1989.
  110. Thompson, J. A., Bell, J. C., and Butler, C. A.: Digital elevation model resolution: effects on terrain attribute calculation and quantitative soil-landscape modeling, Geoderma, 100, 67–89, 2001. · DOI
  111. Tobler, W. R.: A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region, Econ. Geogr., 46, 234–240, 1970. · DOI
  112. Toutin, T.: Impact of terrain slope and aspect on radargrammetric DEM accuracy, ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 57, 228–240, 2002. · DOI
  113. Valeo, C. and Moin, S.: Grid-resolution effects on a model for integrating urban and rural areas, Hydrol. Processes, 14, 2505–2525, 2000. · DOI
  114. Van Niel, K., Laffan, S., and Lees, B.: Effect of error in the DEM on environmental variables for predictive vegetation modeling, J. Veg. Sci., 15, 747–756, 2004. · DOI
  115. Veregin, H.: The effects of vertical error in Digital Elevation Models on the determination of flowpath direction, Cartography and GIS, 24, 67–79, 1997. · DOI
  116. Vieux, B. and Needham, H.: Nonpoint Pollution Model Sensitivity To Grid Cell Size, J. Water Res. Pl. ASCE, 119, 141–157, 1993. · DOI
  117. Vogt, J. V., Colombo, R., and Bertolo, F.: Deriving drainage networks and catchment boundaries: a new methodology combining digital elevation data and environmental characteristics, Geomorphology, 53, 281–298, 2003. · DOI
  118. Wang, L.-W. and Trinder, J.: Analysis and evaluation of the DEM derived from TOPSAR Airborne Interferometric SAR System, The Australian Surveyor, 44, 174–182, 1999. · DOI
  119. Wang, X. and Yin, Z.-Y.: A comparison of drainage networks derived from digital elevation models at two scales, J. Hydrol., 210, 221–241, 1998. · DOI
  120. Wechsler, S. P.: Effect of DEM Uncertainty on Topographic Parameters, DEM Scale and Terrain Evaluation, State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY, Ph.D. Dissertation, 380~p., 2000.
  121. Wechsler, S. P.: Perceptions of Digital Elevation Model Uncertainty by DEM Users, URISA Journal, 15, 57-64, 2003.
  122. Wechsler, S. P. and Kroll, C.: Quantifying DEM Uncertainty and its Effect on Topographic Parameters, Photogramm. Eng. Rem. S., 72, 1081–1090, 2006. · DOI · Paper page
  123. Wilson, J. P. and Gallant, J. C.: Terrain Analysis Principles and Applications, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 479~p., 2000.
  124. Wise, S.: The Effect of GIS Interpolation Errors on the Use of Digital Elevation Models in Geomorphology, in: Landform Monitoring, Modelling and Analysis, edited by: Lane, S. N., Richards, K. S., and Chandler, J. H., John Wiley and Sons, 300~p., 1998.
  125. Wise, S.: Assessing the quality for hydrological applications of digital elevation models derived from contours, Hydrol. Processes, 14, 1909–1929, 2000. · DOI
  126. Wise, S., Haining, R., and Ma, J.: Providing spatial statistical data analysis functionality for the GIS user: the SAGE project, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci, 15, 239–254, 2001. · DOI
  127. Wolock, D. and McCabe, G.: Comparison of single and multiple flow direction algorithms for computing topographic parameters, Water Resour. Res., 31, 1315–1324, 1995. · DOI
  128. Wolock, D. and Price, C.: Effects of digital elevation model map scale and data resolution on a topography-based watershed model, Water Resour. Res., 30, 3041–3052, 1994. · DOI
  129. Wood, J. D. and Fisher, P. F.: Assessing Interpolation Accuracy in Elevation Models, IEEE Comput Graph, 13, 48–56, 1993. · DOI
  130. Worboys, M. F.: Nearness relations in environmental space, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci, 15, 633–651, 2001. · DOI
  131. Yilmaz, M., Usul, N., and Akyurek, Z.: Modeling the Propagation of DEM Uncertainty in Flood Inundation, ESRI User Conference 2004, San Diego, CA, 2004.
  132. Yin, Z.-Y. and Wang, X.: Technical Communication: A Cross-Scale Comparison of Drainage Basin Characteristics Derived from Digital Elevation Models Earth Planet Sc. Lett., 24, 557–567, 1999. · DOI
  133. Zerger, A.: Examining GIS decision utility for natural hazard risk modelling, Environmental Modeling & Software, 17, 287–294, 2002. · DOI
  134. Zevenbergen, L. and Thorne, C.: Quantitative Analysis of Land Surface Topography, Earth Surf. Proc. Land., 12, 47–56, 1987. · DOI
  135. Zhang, J. and Stuart, N.: Fuzzy methods for categorical mapping with image-based land cover data, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci, 15, 175–195, 2001. · DOI
  136. Zhang, W. and Montgomery, D.: Digital elevation model grid size, landscape representation and hydrologic simulations, Water Resour. Res., 30, 1019–1028, 1994. · DOI
  137. Zhou, Q. and Liu, X.: Error assessment of grid-based flow routing algorithms used in hydrological models, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci, 16, 819–842, 2002. · DOI
  138. Zhou, Q. and Liu, X.: Analysis of errors of derived slope and aspect related to DEM data properties, Comput. Geosci., 30, 369–378, 2004. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Wechsler, S. P.
Venue
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Published
2007-08-03
Volume
11
Issue
4
Pages
1481-1500
ISSN
1607-7938
DOI
10.5194/hess-11-1481-2007
Cited by
280
References
1
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ (vor)

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