Identifying LiDAR sample uncertainty on terrain features from DEM simulation

Abstract Light detection and ranging (LiDAR) is an effective technology to detect highly dense-point elevation data from terrain surfaces. The density of LiDAR data points significantly affects the level of detail of a high-resolution digital elevation model (DEM). In this study, the conditioned Latin hypercube sampling (cLHS) and simple random sampling (SRS) methods select sufficient LiDAR samples, and sequential Gaussian simulation (SGS) generates multiple DEM realizations that are a set of simulated DEM maps subject to a specified mean, variance, and spatial structure of measured data. Based on DEM realizations, the uncertainty of a spatial feature with a specified elevation is determined. The results suggest that LiDAR sampling patterns, including the size and configuration, affect the spatial distribution of the feature uncertainty, especially when the sample size is small. The accuracy of a DEM is dependent on the choice of sampling techniques for low sampling density data. Unlike random sampling, the cLHS method replicates the distribution of spatial elevation patterns in small sample sizes. Hence, the integrated method can assess the uncertainty of spatial features efficiently in geomorphic monitoring and management.

[1]  K. Juang,et al.  Using sequential indicator simulation to assess the uncertainty of delineating heavy-metal contaminated soils. , 2004, Environmental pollution.

[2]  K. Richards,et al.  Developments in monitoring and modelling small‐scale river bed topography , 1994 .

[3]  Yu-Pin Lin,et al.  Remote Sensing Data with the Conditional Latin Hypercube Sampling and Geostatistical Approach to Delineate Landscape Changes Induced by Large Chronological Physical Disturbances , 2008, Sensors.

[4]  Ernesto Jardim,et al.  Geostatistical assessment of sampling designs for Portuguese bottom trawl surveys , 2007 .

[5]  Ross S. Purves,et al.  The influence of elevation uncertainty on derivation of topographic indices , 2009 .

[6]  Valentina Krysanova,et al.  Parameter and input data uncertainty estimation for the assessment of long-term soil organic carbon dynamics , 2008, Environ. Model. Softw..

[7]  J. Brasington,et al.  Accounting for uncertainty in DEMs from repeat topographic surveys: improved sediment budgets , 2009 .

[8]  Xuezheng Shi,et al.  Using robust kriging and sequential Gaussian simulation to delineate the copper- and lead-contaminated areas of a rapidly industrialized city in Yangtze River Delta, China , 2007 .

[9]  P. Tarolli,et al.  The effectiveness of airborne LiDAR data in the recognition of channel-bed morphology , 2008 .

[10]  Arsenic risk mapping in Bangladesh: a simulation technique of cokriging estimation from regional count data , 2007, Journal of environmental science and health. Part A, Toxic/hazardous substances & environmental engineering.

[11]  Peter F. Fisher,et al.  Causes and consequences of error in digital elevation models , 2006 .

[12]  Yu-Pin Lin,et al.  Characterization of soil lead by comparing sequential Gaussian simulation, simulated annealing simulation and kriging methods , 2001 .

[13]  D. Milan,et al.  Geostatistical analysis of ground‐survey elevation data to elucidate spatial and temporal river channel change , 2003 .

[14]  D. Milan,et al.  Influence of survey strategy and interpolation model on DEM quality , 2009 .

[15]  Tianxiang Yue,et al.  A method of DEM construction and related error analysis , 2010, Comput. Geosci..

[16]  Willibald Loiskandl,et al.  Using sequential Gaussian simulation to assess the field-scale spatial uncertainty of soil water content , 2009 .

[17]  Michael F. Goodchild,et al.  Geostatistics for conflation and accuracy assessment of digital elevation models , 1999, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[18]  Yu-Pin Lin,et al.  Modeling spatial uncertainty of heavy metal content in soil by conditional Latin hypercube sampling and geostatistical simulation , 2011 .

[19]  D. Milan.  LiDAR and ADCP Use in Gravel‐Bed Rivers: Advances Since GBR6 , 2012 .

[20]  Pierre Goovaerts,et al.  Geostatistical modelling of uncertainty in soil science , 2001 .

[21]  Yu-Pin Lin,et al.  Identifying the spatial mixture distribution of bird diversity across urban and suburban areas in the metropolis: A case study in Taipei Basin of Taiwan , 2011 .

[22]  Norbert Silvera,et al.  Accuracy of interpolation techniques for the derivation of digital elevation models in relation to landform types and data density , 2006 .

[23]  Budiman Minasny,et al.  A conditioned Latin hypercube method for sampling in the presence of ancillary information , 2006, Comput. Geosci..

[24]  Q. Guo,et al.  Effects of Topographic Variability and Lidar Sampling Density on Several DEM Interpolation Methods , 2010 .

[25]  Xin Wang,et al.  The effects of sampling design on spatial structure analysis of contaminated soil , 1998 .

[26]  Tianxiang Yue,et al.  A new method of surface modeling and its application to DEM construction , 2007 .

[27]  Clayton V. Deutsch,et al.  GSLIB: Geostatistical Software Library and User's Guide , 1993 .

[28]  N. Metropolis,et al.  Equation of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines , 1953, Resonance.

[29]  D. Milan,et al.  Filtering spatial error from DEMs: Implications for morphological change estimation , 2011 .

[30]  Ten-Lin Liu,et al.  Additional sampling based on regulation threshold and kriging variance to reduce the probability of false delineation in a contaminated site. , 2008, The Science of the total environment.

[31]  M. D. McKay,et al.  A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code , 2000 .

[32]  Hone-Jay Chu,et al.  Identifying spatial mixture distributions of PM2.5 and PM10 in Taiwan during and after a dust storm , 2012 .

[33]  P. Goovaerts.  Geostatistics in soil science: state-of-the-art and perspectives , 1999 .

[34]  Ken B. Newman,et al.  A Comparison of the Sequential Gaussian and Markov-Bayes Simulation Methods for Small Samples , 1998 .