SCIRP Mobile Website
Paper Submission

Why Us? >>

  • - Open Access
  • - Peer-reviewed
  • - Rapid publication
  • - Lifetime hosting
  • - Free indexing service
  • - Free promotion service
  • - More citations
  • - Search engine friendly

Free SCIRP Newsletters>>

Add your e-mail address to receive free newsletters from SCIRP.


Contact Us >>

Article citations


Smith, M.J. (2010) Digital Elevation Models for Research: UK Datasets, Copyright and Derived Products. In: Flemming, C., Marsh, S.H. and Giles, J.R.A., Eds., Elevation Models for Geoscience, Geological Society of London, London, 129-133.

has been cited by the following article:

  • TITLE: Fusing Digital Elevation Models to Improve Hydrological Interpretations

    AUTHORS: Shane Furze, Jae Ogilvie, Paul A. Arp

    KEYWORDS: DEM Fusion, LiDAR-Based Calibration, Hydrographic Interpretations, Stream Network, Wet-Areas Mapping

    JOURNAL NAME: Journal of Geographic Information System, Vol.9 No.5, September 18, 2017

    ABSTRACT: Improving the accuracy of digital elevation is essential for reducing hydro-topographic derivation errors pertaining to, e.g., flow direction, basin borders, channel networks, depressions, flood forecasting, and soil drainage. This article demonstrates how a gain in this accuracy is improved through digital elevation model (DEM) fusion, and using LiDAR-derived elevation layers for conformance testing and validation. This demonstration is done for the Province of New Brunswick (NB, Canada), using five province-wide DEM sources (SRTM 90 m; SRTM 30 m; ASTER 30 m; CDED 22 m; NB-DEM 10 m) and a five-stage process that guides the re-projection of these DEMs while minimizing their elevational differences relative to LiDAR-captured bare-earth DEMs, through calibration and validation. This effort decreased the resulting non-LiDAR to LiDAR elevation differences by a factor of two, reduced the minimum distance conformance between the non-LiDAR and LiDAR-derived flow channels to ± 10 m at 8.5 times out of 10, and dropped the non-LiDAR wet-area percentages of false positives from 59% to 49%, and of false negatives from 14% to 7%. While these reductions are modest, they are nevertheless not only consistent with already existing hydrographic data layers informing about stream and wet-area locations, they also extend these data layers across the province by comprehensively locating previously unmapped flow channels and wet areas.