Terrain patterns play an important role in determining the nature of water resources and related hydrological modelling. Digital Elevation Models (DEMs), offering an efficient way to represent ground surface, allow automated direct extraction of hydrological features (Garbrecht and Martz, 1999), thus bringing advantages in terms of processing efficiency, cost effectiveness, and accuracy
assessment, compared with traditional methods based on topographic maps, field surveys, or photographic interpretations. However, researchers have found that DEM quality and resolution affect the accuracy of any extracted hydrological features (Kenward et al., 2000). Therefore, DEM quality and resolution must be specified according to the nature and application of the hydrological features.
The most commonly used DEM in Victoria, Australia is Vicmap Elevation delivered by the Land Victoria, Department of Sustainability and Environment. It was produced by using elevation data mainly derived from existing contour map at a
scale of 1:25,000 and digital stereo capture, providing a state-wide terrain surface representation with a horizontal resolution of 20 metres. The claimed standard deviations, vertical and horizontal, are 5 metres and 10 metres respectively (Land- Victoria, 2002). In worst case, horizontal errors could be up to ±30m. Although high resolution stereo aerial photos provide a potential way to
generate high resolution DEMs, under the limitations
of currently used technologies by prevalent commercial photogrammetry software, only DSMs (Digital Surface Models) other than DEMs can be directly generated. Manual removal of the nonground data so that the DSM is transformed into a
DEM is time consuming. Therefore, using stereo aerial photos to produce DEM with currently available techniques is not an accurate and costeffective method.
Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data covering 6900 km² of the Corangamite Catchment area of Victoria were collected over the period 19 July 2003 to 10 August 2003. It will be used to support a series of salinity and water management projects for the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority (CCMA). The DEM derived from the LiDAR data has a vertical accuracy of 0.5m and a horizontal
accuracy of 1.5m. The high quality DEM leads to derive much detailed terrain and hydrological attributes with high accuracy.
Available data sources of DEMs in a catchment management area were evaluated in this study, including the Vicmap DEM, a DEM generated from stereo aerial photos, and LiDAR-derived DEM.
LiDAR technology and LiDAR derived DEM were described. In order to assess the capability of LiDAR-derived DEM for improving the quality of extracted hydrological features, sub-catchment boundaries and drainage networks were generated from the Vicmap DEM and the LiDAR-derived
DEM. Results were compared and analysed in terms of accuracy and resolution of DEMs. Elevation differences between Vicmap and LiDAR-derived DEMs are significant, up to 65m in some areas. Subcatchment boundaries derived from these two DEMs are also quite different. In spite of using same resolution for the Vicmap DEM and the LiDARderived
DEM, high accuracy LiDAR-derived DEM gave a detailed delineation of sub-catchment.
Compared with results derived from LiDAR DEM, the drainage networks derived from Vicmap DEM do not give a detailed description, and even lead to discrepancies in some areas. It is demonstrated that a LiDAR-derived DEM with high accuracy and high resolution offers the capability of improving the quality of hydrological features extracted from DEMs.
[1]
Ruijin Ma.
DEM Generation and Building Detection from Lidar Data
,
2005
.
[2]
Gregory J. McCabe,et al.
Differences in topographic characteristics computed from 100- and 1000-m resolution digital elevation model data
,
2000
.
[3]
Eric F. Wood,et al.
Effects of Digital Elevation Model Accuracy on Hydrologic Predictions
,
2000
.
[4]
Chengcui Zhang,et al.
A progressive morphological filter for removing nonground measurements from airborne LIDAR data
,
2003,
IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..
[5]
S. K. Jenson,et al.
Extracting topographic structure from digital elevation data for geographic information-system analysis
,
1988
.
[6]
Nicolas H. Younan,et al.
DTM extraction of lidar returns via adaptive processing
,
2003,
IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..
[7]
C. S. Lin,et al.
Waveform sampling lidar applications in complex terrain
,
1997
.
[8]
M. Hodgson,et al.
An evaluation of LIDAR- and IFSAR-derived digital elevation models in leaf-on conditions with USGS Level 1 and Level 2 DEMs
,
2003
.
[9]
Andrea Tribe,et al.
Automated recognition of valley heads from digital elevation models
,
1991
.
[10]
J. Means.
Use of Large-Footprint Scanning Airborne Lidar To Estimate Forest Stand Characteristics in the Western Cascades of Oregon
,
1999
.
[11]
Thierry Toutin,et al.
Comparison of stereo-extracted DTM from different high-resolution sensors: SPOT-5, EROS-a, IKONOS-II, and QuickBird
,
2004,
IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing.
[12]
D. Montgomery,et al.
Digital elevation model grid size, landscape representation, and hydrologic simulations
,
1994
.
[13]
Peter Axelsson,et al.
Processing of laser scanner data-algorithms and applications
,
1999
.
[14]
J. A. Tullis,et al.
An Evaluation of Lidar-derived Elevation and Terrain Slope in Leaf-off Conditions
,
2005
.
[15]
J. G. Lyon,et al.
Channel network delineation and watershed segmentation in the TOPAZ digital landscape analysis system.
,
2003
.
[16]
U. Lohr,et al.
Digital Elevation Models By Laser Scanning
,
1998
.