A Comparison of Interpolation Techniques in Producing a DEM from the 5 m National Geospatial Institute (NGI) Contours

被引:1
作者
Chetty, Prevlan [1 ]
Tesfamichael, Solomon [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Johannesburg, Dept Geog Environm Management & Energy Studies, Johannesburg, South Africa
来源
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 7TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS THEORY, APPLICATIONS AND MANAGEMENT (GISTAM) | 2021年
关键词
GIS; Remote Sensing; Interpolation; LiDAR; Kriging; Inverse Distance Weighting; Spline; Nearest Neighbour; Topo to Raster; ANUDEM; Chief Directorate National Geospatial Information; NGI; UNCERTAINTY; ACCURACY;
D O I
10.5220/0010525100370047
中图分类号
TP [自动化技术、计算机技术];
学科分类号
0812 ;
摘要
Continuous elevation surfaces, which are commonly referred to as Digital Elevation Models (DEM), are vital sources of information in flood modelling. Due to the multitude of interpolation techniques available to create DEMs, there is a need to identify the best suited interpolation techniques to represent a localised hydrological environment. This study investigated the accuracies of commonly applied interpolation techniques including Inverse Distance Weighting (IDW), Nearest Neighbour (NN), Kriging, Spline and Topo to Raster interpolation techniques as applied to a 5-m interval elevation contours as a precursor to simulate a flood zone in the Roodepoort region in Johannesburg, South Africa. A 50 cm resolution DEM derived from aerial Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) point cloud was used as a reference to compare the five interpolations techniques. The Topo to Raster results were not significantly different from the reference data (P = 0.79 at 95% confidence level), where elevation values were on average underestimated by 0.93 m. In contrast, the spline interpolation showed the highest significant difference from the reference data (P = 0.00 at 95% confidence level), with an average underestimation of the elevation by 69.84 m. Outlier identification using standardized residual analysis flagged significant elevation outliers that were produced in the interpolation process, and it was noted that most of the outliers across all techniques coincide with areas that showed frequent topographical changes. Specifically, the largest significant differences using the Topo to Raster technique were overestimations of the elevation that occur in the upstream section of the tributary. The Spline technique in contrast showed significant underestimations of the elevation throughout the river system. Overall, the results indicate that the Topo to Raster technique is preferred to accurately represent the topography around a river system of the study area.
引用
收藏
页码:37 / 47
页数:11
相关论文
共 47 条
  • [1] Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf), 2020, QUEST SCI S AFR, V16
  • [2] Effects of terrain morphology, sampling density, and interpolation methods on grid DEM accuracy
    Aguilar, FJ
    Agüera, F
    Aguilar, MA
    Carvajal, F
    [J]. PHOTOGRAMMETRIC ENGINEERING AND REMOTE SENSING, 2005, 71 (07) : 805 - 816
  • [3] Al-Mashagbah A., 2012, Research Journal of Environmental and Earth Sciences, V4, P177
  • [4] [Anonymous], 1988, 3 INT S SPAT DAT HAN
  • [5] [Anonymous], 2003, INT ARCH PHOTOGRAMME
  • [6] [Anonymous], 1952, J CHEM METALLURGICAL
  • [7] A comparative analysis of different DEM interpolation methods
    Arun, P. V.
    [J]. EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING AND SPACE SCIENCES, 2013, 16 (02) : 133 - 139
  • [8] How does modifying a DEM to reflect known hydrology affect subsequent terrain analysis?
    Callow, John Nikolaus
    Van Niel, Kimberly P.
    Boggs, Guy S.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY, 2007, 332 (1-2) : 30 - 39
  • [9] Cellmer R., 2014, Real Estate Management and Valuation, V22, P54, DOI [10.2478/remav-2014-0027, DOI 10.2478/remav-2014-0027]
  • [10] Accuracy of interpolation techniques for the derivation of digital elevation models in relation to landform types and data density
    Chaplot, Vincent
    Darboux, Frederic
    Bourennane, Hocine
    Leguedois, Sophie
    Silvera, Norbert
    Phachomphon, Konngkeo
    [J]. GEOMORPHOLOGY, 2006, 77 (1-2) : 126 - 141