Measurement of self-affinity on surfaces as a trial application of fractal geometry to landform analysis

Abstract Landforms, which are often referred to as good examples of fractal geometry, are considered to be self-affine, because they appear flatter as the viewing point is moved farther away. The line-scaling method, which can express the self-affinity of various curves (including self-similar curves as a limiting case) by separately scaling two coordinates, was expanded and applied to surfaces developing in three-dimensional space (area-scaling method), for the purpose of deriving a parameter which might be useful in landform analysis. The variance of height change Z 2 , surface area, S , and basal area, A , measured in a number of scaling unit areas of various sizes, can be scaled as Z 2 ∼ S νz and A ∼ S νA , indicating the self-affinity of these surfaces. Z 2 and A then are scaled to each other as Z 2 ∼ A H ′ , and H′ = ν z ν A . In the of land surfaces, H′ ⋟ v z , because ν A is always close to 1. This means that H ′ is equivalent to the scaling (Hurst) exponent, H (0 H H ′, measured by the area-scaling method, closely reproduced the initially introduced H values of computer-generated, fractional Brownian surfaces. Although vertical exaggeration can make a surface look very different from the original appearance, the measured values of H ′ do not change significantly, owing to vertical exaggeration. The H ′ value seems to express a “relief texture” essential for the surface. A surface with minor H ′ has a greater local roughness relative to the total relief than surfaces with large H ′. The area-scaling method then was applied to actual landforms in two areas of well-dissected, low mountains using equally scaled topographic maps, with the same grid spacing (25 m grid on 1/5000 maps). The obtained values of H ′ are considered reasonable for the difference in “relief texture” shown by the block diagrams of these areas. H ′ values, which were evaluated for four different landscapes on 1/25,000 topographic maps with a 125 m grid, moreover, also seem to indicate their relief texture expressed by the 125 m grid spacing. H ′ values obtained by the area-scaling method may become a useful parameter to express the degree of self-affinity or “relief texture” of landform surfaces, although more research is necessary to establish the reliability of the H ′ parameter for landform analysis.

[1]  M. Goodchild,et al.  The Fractal Nature of Geographic Phenomena , 1987 .

[2]  A. Roy,et al.  On the fractal interpretation of the mainstream length‐drainage area relationship , 1990 .

[3]  B. Mandelbrot How Long Is the Coast of Britain? Statistical Self-Similarity and Fractional Dimension , 1967, Science.

[4]  K. Clarke,et al.  Measuring the Fractal Dimension of Natural Surfaces Using a Robust Fractal Estimator , 1991 .

[5]  J. R. Wallis,et al.  Some long‐run properties of geophysical records , 1969 .

[6]  André Robert,et al.  Statistical properties of sediment bed profiles in alluvial channels , 1988 .

[7]  J. Elliot,et al.  An investigation of the change in surface roughness through time on the foreland of Austre Okstindbr , 1989 .

[8]  W. Culling,et al.  The fractal geometry of the soil—covered landscape , 1987 .

[9]  D. Mark,et al.  Scale-dependent fractal dimensions of topographic surfaces: An empirical investigation, with applications in geomorphology and computer mapping , 1984 .

[10]  F. Ahnert,et al.  Local relief and the height limits of mountain ranges , 1984 .

[11]  J. R. Wallis,et al.  Noah, Joseph, and Operational Hydrology , 1968 .

[12]  B. Mandelbrot,et al.  Fractional Brownian Motions, Fractional Noises and Applications , 1968 .

[13]  S. Ouchi Self-affinity of landform and its measurement , 1990 .

[14]  A. D. Abrahams,et al.  Fractal techniques and the surface roughness of talus slopes: Reply , 1989 .

[15]  M. Matsushita,et al.  On the fractal structure and statistics of contour lines on a self-affine surface , 1991 .

[16]  B. Mandelbrot Fractal Geometry of Nature , 1984 .

[17]  W. B. Whalley,et al.  The use of the fractal dimension to quantify the morphology of irregular‐shaped particles , 1983 .

[18]  D. Saupe Algorithms for random fractals , 1988 .

[19]  S. Orey Gaussian sample functions and the Hausdorff dimension of level crossings , 1970 .

[20]  H. Ohmori Relief structure of the Japanese mountains and their stages in geomorphic development , 1978 .

[21]  B. Mandelbrot Self-Affine Fractals and Fractal Dimension , 1985 .

[22]  Shunji Ouchi,et al.  On the self-affinity of various curves , 1989 .

[23]  H. E. Hurst,et al.  Long-Term Storage Capacity of Reservoirs , 1951 .

[24]  M. Goodchild Fractals and the accuracy of geographical measures , 1980 .

[25]  J. R. Wallis,et al.  Robustness of the rescaled range R/S in the measurement of noncyclic long run statistical dependence , 1969 .