Effect of SRTM resolution on morphometric feature identification using neural network-self organizing map

GeoInformatica

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 405-424

  Ehsani, Amir Houshang ^a,c   Quiel, Friedrich ^b   Malekian, Arash ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEHRAN   (Iran)

^b ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

^c NONE   (Iran)

Author keywords

Morphometric features; Neural network; Resolution; Self organizing map; SRTM

Indexed keywords

3D INSPECTION; BIOSPHERE RESERVE; BIVARIATE; CARPATHIANS; CHANGE ANALYSIS; CHANGE DETECTION; CONTOUR LINE; COREGISTRATION; CREST LINES; DATA SETS; FEATURE IDENTIFICATION; FEATURE SPACE; GEOMORPHIC ANALYSIS; GRID SIZE; GROUND AREA; HIGH RESOLUTION DATA; LOCAL CONDITIONS; MAP QUALITY; MINIMUM CURVATURE; MISREGISTRATION; MORPHOMETRIC ANALYSIS; MORPHOMETRIC CHARACTERIZATION; MORPHOMETRIC FEATURES; MORPHOMETRIC PARAMETERS; MOVING WINDOW; OBLIQUE VIEW; QUADRATIC APPROXIMATION; RATE OF CHANGE; REFERENCE DATA; RESOLUTION DEPENDENCY; SCALE EFFECTS; SCATTER PLOTS; SEMI-AUTOMATIC PROCEDURES; SHUTTLE RADAR TOPOGRAPHY MISSION; SINGLE ELEMENT; SPATIAL RESOLUTION; X BANDS;

IDENTIFICATION (CONTROL SYSTEMS); SELF ORGANIZING MAPS; SYNTHETIC APERTURE RADAR;

TRACKING RADAR;

ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; DATA SET; DIGITAL ELEVATION MODEL; IMAGE RESOLUTION; MAP; MORPHOMETRY; PIXEL; SHUTTLE RADAR TOPOGRAPHY MISSION; SPATIAL RESOLUTION; SYNTHETIC APERTURE RADAR;

CARPATHIANS; EASTERN CARPATHIANS;

EID: 77954029474     PISSN: 13846175     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10707-009-0085-4     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Farr TG, Kobrick M (2000) Shuttle radar topography mission produces a wealth of data. Am Geophys Union EOS 81: 583-585.
2. Hancock GR et al (2006) A comparison of SRTM and high-resolution digital elevation models and their use in catchment geomorphology and hydrology: Australian examples. Earth Surf Processes Landf 31(11): 1394-1412.
3. Kaab A (2005) Combination of SRTM3 and repeat ASTER data for deriving alpine glacier flow velocities in the Bhutan Himalaya. Remote Sens Environ 94: 463-474. doi: 10. 1016/j. rse. 2004. 11. 003.
4. Kellndorfer J et al (2004) Vegetation height estimation from shuttle radar topography mission and national elevation datasets. Remote Sens Environ 93: 339-358. doi: 10. 1016/j. rse. 2004. 07. 017.
5. Miliaresis GC, Paraschou CVE (2005) Vertical accuracy of the SRTM DTED level 1 of Crete. Int J Appl Earth Observation Geoinformation 7: 49-59. doi: 10. 1016/j. jag. 2004. 12. 001.
6. Rabus B et al (2003) The shuttle radar topography mission-a new class of digital elevation models acquired by spaceborne radar. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 57(4): 241-262. doi: 10. 1016/S0924-2716(02)00124-7.
7. Dikau R (1989) The application of a digital relief model to landform analysis in geomorphology. In: Raper J (ed) Three dimensional applications in geographical information systems. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 51-77.
8. Adediran AO et al (2004) Computer-assisted discrimination of morphological units on north-central Crete (Greece) by applying multivariate statistics to local relief gradients. Geomorphology 58: 357-370. doi: 10. 1016/j. geomorph. 2003. 07. 024.
9. Burrough PA, van Gaans PFM, MacMillan RA (2000) High-resolution landform classification using fuzzy k-means. Fuzzy Sets Syst 113: 37-52. doi: 10. 1016/S0165-0114(99)00011-1.
10. Irvin BJ, Ventura SJ, Slater BK (1997) Fuzzy and isodata classification of landform elements from digital terrain data in Pleasant Valley, Wisconsin Geoderma. 77: 37-154.
11. Prima ODA et al (2006) Supervised landform classification of Northeast Honshu from DEM-derived thematic maps. Geomorphology 78(3-4): 373-386. doi: 10. 1016/j. geomorph. 2006. 02. 005.
12. Hengl T, Rossiter DG (2003) Supervised landform classification to enhance and replace photo-interpretation in semi-detailed soil survey. Soil Sci Soc Am J 67: 10-1822.
13. Brown DG, Lusch DP, Duda KA (1998) Supervised classification of types of glaciated landscapes using digital elevation data. Geomorphology 21: 233-250. doi: 10. 1016/S0169-555X(97)00063-9.
14. Stepinski TF, Collier ML (2004) Extraction of Martian valley networks from digital topography. J Geophys Res 109.
15. Stepinski TF, Vilalta R (2005) Digital topography models for Martian surfaces. IEEE Geosci Remote Sens Lett 2: 260-264. doi: 10. 1109/LGRS. 2005. 848509.
16. Evans IS (1972) General geomorphology, derivatives of altitude and descriptive statistics. In: Chorley RJ (ed) Spatial Analysis in Geomorphology. Methuen & Co. Ltd, London, pp 17-90.
17. Crevenna AB et al (2005) Geomorphometric analysis for characterizing landforms in Morelos State, Mexico. Geomorphology 67(3-4): 407-422. doi: 10. 1016/j. geomorph. 2004. 11. 007.
18. Ehsani AH, Quiel F (2008) Geomorphometric feature analysis using morphometric parameterization and artificial neural networks. Geomorphology 99(1-4): 1-12. doi: 10. 1016/j. geomorph. 2007. 10. 002.
19. Miska L, Jan H (2005) Evaluation of current statistical approaches for predictive geomorphological mapping. Geomorphology 67(3-4): 299-315. doi: 10. 1016/j. geomorph. 2004. 10. 006.
20. Sueli AM, Lima JO (2006) Comparing SOM neural network with Fuzzy c-means, K-means and traditional hierarchical clustering algorithms. Eur J Oper Res 174: 1742-1759. doi: 10. 1016/j. ejor. 2005. 03. 039.
21. Cannon AJ, Whitfield PH (2002) Downscaling recent streamflow conditions in British Coulmbia, Canada using ensemble neural networks. J Hydrol (Amst) 259: 136-151. doi: 10. 1016/S0022-1694(01)00581-9.
22. Lek S, Guegan J (1999) Artificial neural networks as a tool in ecological modelling, an introduction. Ecol Modell 120: 65-73. doi: 10. 1016/S0304-3800(99)00092-7.
23. Zhang B, Govindaraju RS (2003) Geomorphology-based artificial neural networks (GANNs) for estimation of direct runoff over watersheds. J Hydrol (Amst) 273(1-4): 18-34. doi: 10. 1016/S0022-1694(02)00313-X.
24. Iwahashi J, Pike RJ (2007) Automated classifications of topography from DEMs by an unsupervised nested-means algorithm and a three-part geometric signature. Geomorphology 86: 409-440. doi: 10. 1016/j. geomorph. 2006. 09. 012.
25. Suganthan P (2001) Pattern classification using multiple hierarchical overlapped self-organising maps. Pattern Recognit 34(11): 2173-2179. doi: 10. 1016/S0031-3203(00)00147-3.
26. Kiang MY (2001) Extending the Kohonen self-organizing map networks for clustering analysis. Comput Stat Data Anal 38(2): 161-180. doi: 10. 1016/S0167-9473(01)00040-8.
27. Ehsani AH, Quiel F (2008) Application of self organizing maps and SRTM data to charecterize Yardangs in the Lut Desert, Iran. Remote Sens Environ 112(7): 3284-3294. doi: 10. 1016/j. rse. 2008. 04. 007.
28. Manikopoulos CN (1993) Finite state vector quantisation with neural network classification of states. IEEE Proc-F 140(3): 153-161.
29. Bimbo AD, Landi L, Santini S (1993) Three-dimensional planar-faced object classification with Kohonen maps. Opt. Eng 32(6): 1222-1234. doi: 10. 1117/12. 134188.
30. Sabourin M, Mitiche A (1993) Modeling and classification of shape using a Kohonen associative memory with selective multiresolution. Neural Netw 6: 275-283. doi: 10. 1016/0893-6080(93)90021-N.
31. Takahashi T et al (2001) Self-organization of place cells and reward-based navigation for a mobile robot. in 8th International Conference on Neural Information Processing. Shanghai (China).
32. Walter JA, Schulten KJ (1993) Implementation of self-organizing neural networks for visuo-motor control of an industrial robot. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 4: 86-95. doi: 10. 1109/72. 182698.
33. Mather PM, Tso B, Koch M (1998) An evaluation of Landsat TM spectral data and SAR-derived textural information for lithological discrimination in the Red Sea Hills, Sudan. Int J Remote Sens 19(4): 587-604. doi: 10. 1080/014311698215874.
34. Özkan C, Sunar Erbek F (2005) Comparing feature extraction techniques for urban land-use classification. Int J Remote Sens 26(4): 747-757. doi: 10. 1080/01431160512331316793.
35. Ehsani AH, Quiel F (2009) A semi-automatic method for analysis of landscape elements using shuttle radar topography mission and landsat ETM+ data. Comput Geosci 35: 373-389.
36. Penn BS (2005) Using self-organizing maps to visualize high-dimensional data. Computers & Geosciences 31(5): 531-544.
37. Penn BS, Livo KE (2001) Using AVIRIS images to map geologic signatures of copper flat porphyry copper deposit, Hillsboro, New Mexico. in 10th JPL workshop on Airborne Earth Science Workshop. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology.
38. Deboeck GJ (1998) Financial applications of self-organizing maps. Electronic Newsletter American Heuristics, Inc.
39. Deboeck GJ, Kohonen T (1998) Visual explorations in finance with self-organizing maps. Springer-Finance, London, p 205.
40. Bigus JP (1996) Data mining with neural networks. McGraw-Hill, New York, p 220.
41. Koua EL, MacEachren A, Kraak MJ (2006) Evaluating the usability of visualization methods in an exploratory geovisualization environment. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 20: 425-448.
42. Vesanto J, Alhoniemi E (2000) Clustering of the self-organizing map. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 11: 14.
43. Penn BS (2002) Using self-organizing maps, histograms, and standard deviation to detect anomalies in hyperspectral imagery data. In: 5th International Airborne Remote Sensing Conference. Miami, Florida.
44. Penn BS (2002) Using self-organizing maps for anomaly detection in hyperspectral imagery. in IEEE Aerospace Conference. Big Sky, MT.
45. Penn BS, Wolboldt MW (2003) Methods for detecting anomalies in AVIRIS imagery. In: 12th Jet Propulsion Laboratory Airborne Earth Science Workshop. Pasadena, California.
46. Duda T, Canty M (2002) Unsupervised classification of satellite imagery: choosing a good algorithm. Int J Remote Sens 23(11): 2193-2212.
47. Jianwen M, Bagan H (2005) Land-use classification using ASTER data and self-organized neural networks. Int J Appl Earth Obs and Geo 7: 183-188.
48. Fisher P, Wood J, Cheng T (2004) Where is Helvellyn? Fuzziness of multiscale landscape morphometry. Trans Inst Br Geogr 29: 106-128.
49. Pike RJ (2000) Geomorphology-Diversity in quantitative surface analysis. Prog Phys Geogr 24: 1-20.
50. Wood J (1996) The geomorphological characterization of digital elevation models. in Department of Geography. University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
51. Evans IS (2003) Scale specific landforms and aspects of the land surface. In: Evans IS, et al (eds) Concept sand modeling in geomorphology: International perspectives, pp 61-84.
52. Tate N, Wood J (2001) Fractals and scale dependencies in topography. In: Tate N, Atkinson P (eds) Modelling scale in geographical information science. Chichester, Wiley, pp 35-51.
53. Walsh SJ, Butler DR, Malanson G (1998) An overview of scale, pattern, process relationships in geomorphology: a remote sensing and GIS perspective. Geomorphology 21(3-4): 183-205.
54. Wood J (1999) Visualization of scale dependencies in the surface models. In: 19th International Cartographic Association Annual Conference. Ottawa, http://www. soi. city. ac. uk/~jwo/ica99.
55. Wood J (2002) Visualizing the structure and scale dependency of landscapes. In: Fisher P, Unwin D (eds) Virtual reality in geography. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 163-174.
56. Wilson JP, Gallant JC (2000) Terrain analysis: Principles and applications. Wiley, New York, p 479.
57. Wood J (1996) Scale-based characterisation of digital elevation models. In: Parker D (ed) Innovations in GIS 3: Selected papers from the third national conference on GIS Research UK (GISUK). Taylor & Francis, London, pp 163-175.
58. Deng Y, Wilson JP, Bauer BO (2007) DEM resolution dependencies of terrain attributes across a landscape. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 21: 187-213.
59. Deng Y, Wilson JP, Gallant JC (2007) Terrain analysis. In: Wilson JP, Fotheringham AS (eds) The handbook of geographic information science. USA, Blackwell.
60. Schoorl JM, Sonneveld MPW, Veldkamp A (2000) Three-dimensional landscape process modeling: the effect of DEM resolution. Earth Surf Processes Landf 25: 1025-1034.
61. Sorensen R, Seibert J (2007) Effects of DEM resolution on the calculation of topographical indices: TWI and its components. J Hydrol 347(1-2): 79-89.
62. Thompson JA, Bell JC, Butler CA (2001) Digital elevation model resolution: effects on terrain attribute calculation and quantitative soil-landscape modeling. Geoderma 100(1-2): 67-89.
63. Wu W et al (2008) Assessing effects of digital elevation model resolutions on soil-landscape correlations in a hilly area. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 126(3-4): 209-216.
64. Smith MP et al (2006) The effects of DEM resolution and neighborhood size on digital soil survey. Geoderma 137(1-2): 58-69.
65. Ziadat FM (2007) Effect of Contour Intervals and Grid Cell Size on the Accuracy of DEMs and Slope Derivatives. Trans GIS 11(1): 67-81.
66. Valeriano MM et al (2006) Modeling small watersheds in Brazilian Amazonia with shuttle radar topographic mission-90 m data. Comput Geosci 32(8): 1169-1181.
67. Denisiuk Z, Stoyko SM (2000) The East Carpathian biosphere reserve (Poland, Slovakia, Ukraine). In: Breymeyer A, Dabrowski P (eds) Biosphere reserves on borders. Warsaw, UNESCO.
68. Kuemmerle T et al (2006) Cross-border comparison of land cover and landscape pattern in Eastern Europe using a hybrid classification technique. Remote Sens Environ 103(4): 449-464.
69. Jarvis A et al (2006) Hole-filled SRTM for the globe Version 3, available from the CGIAR-CSI SRTM 90m Database: http://srtm. csi. cgiar. org.
70. GRASS Development Team (2006) Geographic resources analysis support system (GRASS), GNU General Public License. Eletronic document. http://grass. itc. it.
71. Kohonen T (2001) Self organizing maps. New York, Springer, p 501.
72. Pike RJ (2001) Topographic fragments of geomorphometry, GIS, DEMs. in 5th Intl. Conf. Geomorph, DEMs, Geomorphology. GIS Assoc, Chuo University, Tokyo, Japan.