The DOI matches its Crossref record.
STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF FITTING ACCURACY OF GLOBAL AND LOCAL DIGITAL ELEVATION MODELS IN IRAN
Open accessAbstract
Abstract. Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) are one of the most important data for various applications such as hydrological studies, topography mapping and ortho image generation. There are well-known DEMs of the whole world that represent the terrain's surface at variable resolution and they are also freely available for 99% of the globe. However, it is necessary to assess the quality of the global DEMs for the regional scale applications.These models are evaluated by differencing with other reference DEMs or ground control points (GCPs) in order to estimate the quality and accuracy parameters over different land cover types. In this paper, a comparison of ASTER GDEM ver2, SRTM DEM with more than 800 reference GCPs and also with a local elevation model over the area of Iran is presented. This study investigates DEM’s characteristics such as systematic error (bias), vertical accuracy and outliers for DEMs using both the usual (Mean error, Root Mean Square Error, Standard Deviation) and the robust (Median, Normalized Median Absolute Deviation, Sample Quantiles) descriptors. Also, the visual assessment tools are used to illustrate the quality of DEMs, such as normalized histograms and Q-Q plots. The results of the study confirmed that there is a negative elevation bias of approximately 5 meters of GDEM ver2. The measured RMSE and NMAD for elevation differences of GDEM-GCPs are 7.1 m and 3.2 m, respectively, while these values for SRTM and GCPs are 9.0 m and 4.4 m. On the other hand, in comparison with the local DEM, GDEM ver2 exhibits the RMSE of about 6.7 m, a little higher than the RMSE of SRTM (5.1 m).The results of height difference classification and other statistical analysis of GDEM ver2-local DEM and SRTM-local DEM reveal that SRTM is slightly more accurate than GDEM ver2. Accordingly, SRTM has no noticeable bias and shift from Local DEM and they have more consistency to each other, while GDEM ver2 has always a negative bias.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The Normalized Median Absolute Deviation (NMAD) is proportional to the median of the absolute differences between vertical errors and the median error.It can be considered as an estimate for the Standard Deviation (STD) more resilient to outliers in the dataset (Höhle and Höhle 2009;Alidoost and Samadzadegan 2013).”
From Vertical accuracy evaluation of freely available latest high-resolution (30 m) global digital elevation models over Cameroon (Central Africa) with GPS/leveling ground control points. (2019) · cites this paper as Alidoost and Samadzadegan 2013
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Previous studies reported an overall negative bias for ASTER GDEM 2 with respect to GCPs (Hirt, Filmer, and Featherstone 2010;Gesch et al. 2012;Alidoost and Samadzadegan 2013;Li et al. 2013Li et al. , 2016;;Athmania and Achour 2014;Jain et al. 2017).”
From Vertical accuracy evaluation of freely available latest high-resolution (30 m) global digital elevation models over Cameroon (Central Africa) with GPS/leveling ground control points. (2019) · cites this paper as Alidoost and Samadzadegan 2013
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Not all of the outliers can be detected in this way and the DEM accuracy measures (ME and RMS) will therefore be inaccurate (Höhle and Höhle 2009;Alidoost and Samadzadegan 2013).”
From Vertical accuracy evaluation of freely available latest high-resolution (30 m) global digital elevation models over Cameroon (Central Africa) with GPS/leveling ground control points. (2019) · cites this paper as Alidoost and Samadzadegan 2013
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: 6
- Li, P., Shia, C., Li, Z., 2012. Evaluation of ASTER GDEM Ver2 Using GPS Measurements and SRTM Ver4.1 in China. ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume I-4, 2012, XXII ISPRS Congress, 25 August -01 September 2012, Melbourne, Australia.
- Uysal, C., Maktav, D., 2011. Comparison of the Accuracies of DTM's obtained from SRTM, Topographic Maps and ALOS/PRISM. Istanbul Technical Univ., Geomatics Engineering Dept., Istanbul, Turkey. Submitted to 31st EARSeL Symposium and 35th General Assembly 2011.
- Daniel, C., K. Tennant, 2001. DEM quality assessment, Digital Elevation Model Technologies and Applications: The DEM User's Manual (D.F. Maune, editor), American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Bethesda, Maryland, pp. 395-440.
- Li, Z., Zhu, Q., Gold, C., 2004, Digital Terrain Modeling: Principles and Methodology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, eBook.
- Höhle, J., Höhle, M., 2009. Accuracy assessment of digital elevation models by means of robust statistical methods. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 64 (2009)
- Sánchez, E., P., Fernandez de Villarán, R., 2012. SRTM 3" comparison with local information: Two examples at national level in Peru. Journal of Applied Geodesy, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp. 75-81, ISSN 1862-9024.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Yap, L., Kandé, L. H., Nouayou, R., Kamguia, J., Ngouh, N. A., & Makuate, M. B. (2019) · International Journal of Digital Earth · doi:10.1080/17538947.2018.1458163 · Cited by 70
Metadata
- Authors
- Alidoost, F., & Samadzadegan, F.
- Affiliations
- University of Tehran (IR)
- Venue
- The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences
- Publisher
- Copernicus GmbH
- Published
- 2013-09-24
- Volume
- XL-1/W3
- Pages
- 19-24
- ISSN
- 1682-1750 (ISSN-L)
- 2194-9034
- OpenAlex
- W2141366915
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- The international archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences/International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Satellite Image Processing and Photogrammetry
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Geodetic Measurements and Engineering Structures
- Social Sciences › Geography, Planning and Development › Historical Geography and Cartography
- Keywords
- digital elevation model, SRTM, DEM accuracy assessment, elevation bias, vertical accuracy, ground control points, Iran
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
