Comprehensive vertical accuracy analysis of freely available DEMs for different landscape types of the Rur catchment, Germany

References

• Abrams M, Bailey B, Tsu H, Hato M. 2010. The ASTER global DEM. Photogramm Eng Rem S. 76(4):344–348.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abrams M, Crippen R. 2019. ASTER GDEM V3 (ASTER Global DEM).
   Google Scholar
• Airbus Defence and Space. 2020a. Copernicus digital elevation model – Product handbook. [ Airbus Defense & Space; accessed 2021 April 12]. https://spacedata.copernicus.eu/documents/20126/0/GEO1988-CopernicusDEM-SPE-002_ProductHandbook_I1.00.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Airbus Defence and Space. 2020b. Copernicus digital elevation model – Validation report. Airbus Defense & Space; [accessed 2021 April 12]. https://spacedata.copernicus.eu/documents/20126/0/GEO1988-CopernicusDEM-RP-001_ValidationReport_V1.0.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Alganci U, Besol B, Sertel E. 2018. Accuracy assessment of different digital surface models. Isprs Int Geo-Inf. 7(3):114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altunel AO. 2019. Evaluation of TanDEM-X 90 m digital elevation model. Int J Remote Sens. 40(7):2841–2854.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Vermessungsverwaltungen der Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. 2017. Produkt- und Qualitätsstandard für Digitale Geländemodell – Version 3.0. German.
   Google Scholar
• Baade J, Schmullius C. 2016. TanDEM-X IDEM precision and accuracy assessment based on a large assembly of differential GNSS measurements in Kruger National Park, South Africa. ISPRS J Photogramm. 119:496–508.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becek K, Koppe W, Kutoglu SH. 2016. Evaluation of vertical accuracy of the WorldDEM (TM) using the runway method. Remote Sens. 8(11):934.
   Google Scholar
• Berthier E, Brun F. 2019. Karakoram geodetic glacier mass balances between 2008 and 2016: persistence of the anomaly and influence of a large rock avalanche on Siachen Glacier. J Glaciol. 65(251):494–507.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bezirksregierung Köln. 2017. Digital elevation model (DGM1) of the Rur Catchment, based on data from Bezirksregierung Köln [dataset]. CRC/TR32 Database (TR32DB); [accessed 2021 April 12]. https://www.tr32db.uni-koeln.de/data.php?dataID=1690.
   Google Scholar
• Bezirksregierung Köln. 2020. Festpunktdaten NW im amtlichen Festpunktinformationssystem (AFIS) [dataset]. Geobasis NRW. German. [accessed 2021 April 12]. https://www.opengeodata.nrw.de/produkte/geobasis/rb/fd/hfp_pl_csv/.
   Google Scholar
• Bishop MP, James LA, Shroder JF, Walsh SJ. 2012. Geospatial technologies and digital geomorphological mapping: Concepts, issues and research. Geomorphology. 137(1):5–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blaszczyk M, Ignatiuk D, Grabiec M, Kolondra L, Laska M, Decaux L, Jania J, Berthier E, Luks B, Barzycka B, et al. 2019. Quality assessment and glaciological applications of digital elevation models derived from space-borne and aerial images over two tidewater glaciers of Southern Spitsbergen. Remote Sens. 11(9):1121.
   Google Scholar
• Bogena HR, Montzka C, Huisman JA, Graf A, Schmidt M, Stockinger M, von Hebel C, Hendricks-Franssen HJ, van der Kruk J, Tappe W, et al. 2018. The TERENO-Rur hydrological observatory: A multiscale multi-compartment research platform for the advancement of hydrological science. Vadose Zone J. 17(1):180055.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buchhorn M, Smets B, Bertels L, De Roos B, Lesiv M, Tesendbazar N-E, Herold M, Fritz S. 2020. Copernicus global land service: Land cover 100m: collection 3: epoch 2019: Globe. 3.0.1 [dataset]. Zenodo. [accessed 2021 March 29]. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3939050.
   Google Scholar
• Crippen R, Buckley S, Agram P, Belz E, Gurrola E, Hensley S, Kobrick M, Lavalle M, Martin J, Neumann M, et al. 2016. Nasadem global elevation model: methods and progress. ISPRS – International archives of the photogrammetry. Remote Sens Spatial Inform Sci. XLI-B4:125–128.
   Google Scholar
• Dragut L, Blaschke T. 2006. Automated classification of landform elements using object-based image analysis. Geomorphology. 81(3–4):330–344.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drisya J, Kumar DS. 2016. Comparison of digitally delineated stream networks from different spaceborne digital elevation models: A case study based on two watersheds in South India. Arab J Geosci. 9(18): 710.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Earth Observation Research Center and Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency. 2021. ALOS World 3D-30m (AW3D30) Version 3.2/3.1; [accessed 2021 April 12]. https://www.eorc.jaxa.jp/ALOS/en/aw3d30/aw3d30v3.2_product_e_e1.2.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• European Environment Agency (EEA). 2014. EU-DEM statistical validation; [accessed 2021 April 12]. https://land.copernicus.eu/user-corner/technical-library/eu-dem-2013-report-on-the-results-of-the-statistical-validation.
   Google Scholar
• European Environment Agency (EEA). 2016. European Digital Elevation Model (EU-DEM), version 1.1 [dataset]. [accessed 2021 April 12]. https://land.copernicus.eu/imagery-in-situ/eu-dem/eu-dem-v1.1?tab=metadata.
   Google Scholar
• Farr TG, Rosen PA, Caro E, Crippen R, Duren R, Hensley S, Kobrick M, Paller M, Rodriguez E, Roth L, et al. 2007. The shuttle radar topography mission. Rev Geophys. 45(2):RG2004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fenta AA, Kifle A, Gebreyohannes T, Hailu G. 2015. Spatial analysis of groundwater potential using remote sensing and GIS-based multi-criteria evaluation in Raya Valley, northern Ethiopia. Hydrogeol J. 23(1):195–206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gdulová K, Marešová J, Moudrý V. 2020. Accuracy assessment of the global TanDEM-X digital elevation model in a mountain environment. Remote Sens Environ. 241:111724.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gesch DB. 2018. Best practices for elevation-based assessments of sea-level rise and coastal flooding exposure. Front Earth Sci. 6: 230.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonzalez-Moradas MDR, Viveen W. 2020. Evaluation of ASTER GDEM2, SRTMv3.0, ALOS AW3D30 and TanDEM-X DEMs for the Peruvian Andes against highly accurate GNSS ground control points and geomorphological-hydrological metrics. Remote Sens Environ. 237: 111509.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graf L, Moreno-de-las-Heras M, Ruiz M, Calsamiglia A, Garcia-Comendador J, Fortesa J, Lopez-Tarazon JA, Estrany J. 2018. Accuracy assessment of digital terrain model dataset sources for hydrogeomorphological modelling in small mediterranean catchments. Remote Sens. 10(12):2014.
   Google Scholar
• Grohmann CH. 2018. Evaluation of TanDEM-X DEMs on selected Brazilian sites: Comparison with SRTM, ASTER GDEM and ALOS AW3D30. Remote Sens Environ. 212:121–133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Höhle J, Höhle M. 2009. Accuracy assessment of digital elevation models by means of robust statistical methods. Isprs J Photogramm. 64(4):398–406.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmes KW, Chadwick OA, Kyriakidis PC. 2000. Error in a USGS 30-meter digital elevation model and its impact on terrain modeling. J Hydrol. 233(1-4):154–173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu ZH, Peng JW, Hou YL, Shan J. 2017. Evaluation of recently released open global digital elevation models of Hubei, China. Remote Sens. 9(3):262.
   Google Scholar
• Huang LC, Liu L, Jiang LM, Zhang TJ. 2018. Automatic mapping of Thermokarst landforms from remote sensing images using deep learning: a case study in the Northeastern Tibetan Plateau. Remote Sens. 10(12):2067.
   Google Scholar
• Ihde, J, Augath W, Sacher M. 2002. The vertical reference system for Europe. In: Drewes H, Dodson AH, Fortes LPS, et al., editors. Vertical reference systems. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; p. 345–350.
   Google Scholar
• IT.NRW. 2012. Landwirtschaftszählung in Nordrhein-Westfalen 2010 – Gemeinde- und Kreisstatistik der landwirtschaftlichen Betriebe Betriebsgrößen, Bodennutzung, Viehhaltung, sozialökonomische Betriebstypen, betriebswirtschaftliche Ausrichtung, Arbeitskräfte. Information und Technik Nordrhein-Westfalen (Geschäftsbereich Statistik). Düsseldorf. German.
   Google Scholar
• Jarvis A, Reuter H, Nelsen A, Guevara E. 2008. Hole-filled seamless SRTM data V4 [dataset]. International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT); [accessed 2021 April 12]. http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org.
   Google Scholar
• Kalambukattu JG, Kumar S, Raj RA. 2018. Digital soil mapping in a Himalayan watershed using remote sensing and terrain parameters employing artificial neural network model. Environ Earth Sci. 77(5):203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keys L, Baade J. 2019. Uncertainty in catchment delineations as a result of digital elevation model choice. Hydrology. 6(1):13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korres W, Reichenau TG, Fiener P, Koyama CN, Bogena HR, Comelissen T, Baatz R, Herbst M, Diekkruger B, Vereecken H, et al. 2015. Spatio-temporal soil moisture patterns - A meta-analysis using plot to catchment scale data. J Hydrol. 520:326–341.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kramm T, Hoffmeister D, Curdt C, Maleki S, Khormali F, Kehl M. 2017. Accuracy assessment of landform classification approaches on different spatial scales for the Iranian Loess Plateau. Isprs Int Geo-Inf. 6(11):366.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kramm T, Hoffmeister D. 2019. A relief dependent evaluation of digital elevation models on different scales for Northern Chile. Isprs Int Geo-Inf. 8(10):430.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kramm T, Hoffmeister D. 2020. Assessing the influence of environmental factors and datasets on soil type prediction with two machine learning algorithms in a heterogeneous area in the Rur catchment, Germany. Geoderma Reg. 22:e00316.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar A, Negi HS, Kumar K, Shekhar C. 2020. Accuracy validation and bias assessment for various multi-sensor open-source DEMs in part of the Karakoram region. Remote Sens Lett. 11(10):893–902.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li H, Zhao JY. 2018. Evaluation of the newly released worldwide AW3D30 DEM over typical landforms of China using two global DEMs and ICESat/GLAS data. IEEE J-Stars. 11(11):4430–4440.
   Google Scholar
• Liu K, Song CQ, Ke LH, Jiang L, Pan YY, Ma RH. 2019. Global open-access DEM performances in Earth's most rugged region High Mountain Asia: A multi-level assessment. Geomorphology. 338:16–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu ZW, Zhu JJ, Fu HQ, Zhou C, Zuo TY. 2020. Evaluation of the vertical accuracy of open global DEMs over steep terrain regions using ICESat Data: a case study over Hunan Province, China. Sensors. 20(17):4865.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luana SP, Hou XY, Wang YT. 2015. Assessing the accuracy of SRTM DEM and aster GDEM datasets for the Coastal Zone of Shandong Province, Eastern China. Pol Marit Res. 22:15–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marques KPP, Dematte JAM, Miller BA, Lepsch IF. 2018. Geomorphometric segmentation of complex slope elements for detailed digital soil mapping in southeast Brazil. Geoderma Reg. 14:e00175.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maune DF. 2007. Digital Elevation model technologies and applications: The DEM users manual, 2nd ed.; American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing: Bethesda, MD.
   Google Scholar
• Mmbando GA, Kleyer M. 2018. Mapping precipitation, temperature, and evapotranspiration in the Mkomazi River Basin, Tanzania. Climate. 6(3):63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mokarram M, Seif A, Sathyamoorthy D. 2015. Landform classification via fuzzy classification of morphometric parameters computed from digital elevation models: case study on Zagros Mountains. Arab J Geosci. 8(7):4921–4937.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mouratidis A, Ampatzidis D. 2019. European digital elevation model validation against extensive global navigation satellite systems data and comparison with SRTM DEM and ASTER GDEM in Central Macedonia (Greece). Isprs Int Geo-Inf. 8(3):108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mukherjee S, Joshi PK, Mukherjee S, Ghosh A, Garg RD, Mukhopadhyay A. 2013. Evaluation of vertical accuracy of open source Digital Elevation Model (DEM). Int J Appl Earth Obs. 21:205–217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nagaveni C, Kumar KP, Ravibabu MV. 2019. Evaluation of TanDEMx and SRTM DEM on watershed simulated runoff estimation. J Earth Syst Sci. 128(1):2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NASA JPL. 2020. NASADEM Merged DEM Global 1 arc second V001 [dataset]. NASA EOSDIS Land Processes DAAC; [accessed 2021 April 12]. https://doi.org/10.5067/MEaSUREs/NASADEM/NASADEM_HGT.001.
   Google Scholar
• Pakoksung K, Takagi M. 2021. Assessment and comparison of Digital Elevation Model (DEM) products in varying topographic, land cover regions and its attribute: a case study in Shikoku Island Japan. Model Earth Syst Env. 7:465–484.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pandey P, Manickam S, Bhattacharya A, Ramanathan AL, Singh G, Venkataraman G. 2017. Qualitative and quantitative assessment of TanDEM-X DEM over western Himalayan glaciated terrain. Geocarto Int. 32(4):442–454.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Podgorski J, Kinnard C, Petlicki M, Urrutia R. 2019. Performance assessment of TanDEM-X DEM for Mountain Glacier elevation change detection. Remote Sens. 11(2):187.
   Google Scholar
• Reuter HI, Nelson A, Jarvis A. 2007. An evaluation of void-filling interpolation methods for SRTM data. Int J Geogr Inf Sci. 21(9):983–1008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rexer M, Hirt C. 2014. Comparison of free high resolution digital elevation data sets (ASTER GDEM2, SRTM v2.1/v4.1) and validation against accurate heights from the Australian National Gravity Database. Aust J Earth Sci. 61(2):213–226.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rizzoli P, Brautigam B, Kraus T, Martone M, Krieger G. 2012. Relative height error analysis of TanDEM-X elevation data. Isprs J Photogramm. 73:30–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rizzoli P, Martone M, Gonzalez C, Wecklich C, Tridon DB, Brautigam B, Bachmann M, Schulze D, Fritz T, Huber M, et al. 2017. Generation and performance assessment of the global TanDEM-X digital elevation model. Isprs J Photogramm. 132:119–139.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodriguez E, Morris CS, Belz JE, Chapin E, Martin J, Daffer W, Hensley S. 2005. An assessment of the SRTM topographic products, Technical Report JPL D-31639.
   Google Scholar
• Rossman NR, Zlotnik VA, Rowe CM. 2018. An approach to hydrogeological modeling of a large system of groundwater-fed lakes and wetlands in the Nebraska Sand Hills, USA. Hydrogeol J. 26(3):881–897.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Satge F, Bonnet MP, Timouk F, Calmant S, Pillco R, Molina J, Lavado-Casimiro W, Arsen A, Cretaux JF, Garnier J. 2015. Accuracy assessment of SRTM v4 and ASTER GDEM v2 over the Altiplano watershed using ICESat/GLAS data. Int J Remote Sens. 36(2):465–488.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlund M, Baron D, Magdon P, Erasmi S. 2019. Canopy penetration depth estimation with TanDEM-X and its compensation in temperate forests. Isprs J Photogramm. 147:232–241.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwanghart W, Groom G, Kuhn NJ, Heckrath G. 2013. Flow network derivation from a high resolution DEM in a low relief, agrarian landscape. Earth Surf Processes Landforms. 38(13):1576–1586.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scilands GmbH. 2010. GMK10 Rur – Terrainfactors [dataset]. CRC/TR32 Database (TR32DB). [accessed 2021 April 12]. https://www.tr32db.uni-koeln.de/data.php?dataID=196.
   Google Scholar
• Solberg S, May J, Bogren W, Breidenbach J, Torp T, Gizachew B. 2018. Interferometric SAR DEMs for Forest Change in Uganda 2000-2012. Remote Sens. 10(2):228.
   Google Scholar
• Suwandana E, Kawamura K, Sakuno Y, Kustiyanto E, Raharjo B. 2012. Evaluation of ASTER GDEM2 in Comparison with GDEM1, SRTM DEM and Topographic-Map-Derived DEM Using Inundation Area Analysis and RTK-dGPS Data. Remote Sens. 4(8):2419–2431.
   Google Scholar
• Tachikawa T, Kaku M, Iwasaki A, Gesch DB, Oimoen MJ, Zhang Z, Danielson JJ, Krieger T, Curtis B, Haase J, et al. 2011. ASTER Global Digital Elevation Model Version 2 - summary of validation results.
   Google Scholar
• Tadono T, Shimada M, Murakami H, Takaku J. 2009. Calibration of PRISM and AVNIR-2 Onboard ALOS “Daichi”. IEEE T Geosci Remote. 47(12):4042–4050.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Takaku J, Tadono T, Tsutsui K. 2014. Generation of high resolution global DSM from ALOS PRISM. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spatial. XL-4:243–248.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas J, Joseph S, Thrivikramji KP, Arunkumar KS. 2014. Sensitivity of digital elevation models: The scenario from two tropical mountain river basins of the Western Ghats, India. Geosci Front. 5(6):893–909.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tian JJ, Schneider T, Straub C, Kugler F, Reinartz P. 2017. Exploring digital surface models from nine different sensors for forest monitoring and change detection. Remote Sens. 9(3):287.
   Google Scholar
• Ullmann T, Sauerbrey J, Hoffmeister D, May SM, Baumhauer R, Bubenzer O. 2019. Assessing Spatiotemporal Variations of Sentinel-1 InSAR Coherence at Different Time Scales over the Atacama Desert (Chile) between 2015 and 2018. Remote Sens. 11(24):2960.
   Google Scholar
• Uuemaa E, Ahi S, Montibeller B, Muru M, Kmoch A. 2020. Vertical Accuracy of Freely Available Global Digital Elevation Models (ASTER, AW3D30, MERIT, TanDEM-X, SRTM, and NASADEM). Remote Sens. 12(21):3482.
   Google Scholar
• Vassilaki DI, Stamos AA. 2020. TanDEM-X DEM: Comparative performance review employing LIDAR data and DSMs. Isprs J Photogramm. 160:33–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waldhoff G, Lussem U, Bareth G. 2017. Multi-Data Approach for remote sensing-based regional crop rotation mapping: A case study for the Rur catchment, Germany. Int J Appl Earth Obs. 61:55–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waldhoff G, Lussem U. 2016. Enhanced land use classification of 2015 for the Rur catchment – Update [dataset]. CRC/TR32 Database (TR32DB); [accessed 2021 April 12].
   Google Scholar
• Walk J, Stauch G, Reyers M, Vasquez P, Sepulveda FA, Bartz M, Hoffmeister D, Bruckner H, Lehmkuhl F. 2020. Gradients in climate, geology, and topography affecting coastal alluvial fan morphodynamics in hyperarid regions – The Atacama perspective. Global Planet Change. 185:102994.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wessel B, Huber M, Wohlfart C, Marschalk U, Kosmann D, Roth A. 2018. Accuracy assessment of the global TanDEM-X digital elevation model with GPS data. Isprs J Photogramm. 139:171–182.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wessel B. 2016. TanDEM-X ground segment – DEM products specification document. Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany: Earth Observation Center.
   Google Scholar
• Weydahl DJ, Sagstuen J, Dick OB, Ronning H. 2007. SRTM DEM accuracy assessment over vegetated areas in Norway. Int J Remote Sens. 28(16):3513–3527.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson JP. 2018. Environmental applications of digital terrain modeling. 1st ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Yahaya SI, El Azzab D. 2019. Vertical accuracy assessment of global digital elevation models and validation of gravity database heights in Niger. Int J Remote Sens. 40(20):7966–7985.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yap L, Kande LH, Nouayou R, Kamguia J, Ngouh NA, Makuate MB. 2019. 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. Int J Digit Earth. 12(5):500–524.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang KQ, Gann D, Ross M, Robertson Q, Sarmiento J, Santana S, Rhome J, Fritz C. 2019. Accuracy assessment of ASTER, SRTM, ALOS, and TDX DEMs for Hispaniola and implications for mapping vulnerability to coastal flooding. Remote Sens Environ. 225:290–306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao SM, Cheng WM, Zhou CH, Chen X, Zhang SF, Zhou ZP, Liu HJ, Chai HX. 2011. Accuracy assessment of the ASTER GDEM and SRTM3 DEM: an example in the Loess Plateau and North China Plain of China. Int J Remote Sens. 32(23):8081–8093.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar