M.J. Pronk
info
Please Note
<p>This page displays the records of the person named above and is not linked to a unique person identifier. This record may need to be merged to a profile.</p>
8 records found
1
Spatial data science languages
Commonalities and needs
Review
(2026)
-
Edzer Pebesma, Martin Fleischmann, Josiah Parry, Jakub Nowosad, Anita Graser, Dewey Dunnington, Maarten Pronk, Rafael Schouten, Robin Lovelace, More authors...
Recent workshops brought together several developers, educators and users of software packages extending popular languages for spatial data handling, with a primary focus on R, Python and Julia. Common challenges discussed included handling of spatial or spatio-temporal support, geodetic coordinates, in-memory vector data formats, data cubes, inter-package dependencies, packaging upstream libraries, differences in habits or conventions between the GIS and physical modeling communities, and statistical models. The following set of recommendations have been formulated:
(i) considering software problems across data science language silos helps to understand and standardise analysis approaches, also outside the domain of formal standardisation bodies;
(ii) whether attribute variables have block or point support, and whether they are spatially intensive or extensive has consequences for permitted operations, and hence for software implementing those;
(iii) handling geometries on the sphere rather than on the flat plane requires modifications to the logic of simple features,
(iv) managing communities and fostering diversity is a necessary, on-going effort, and
(v) tools for cross-language development need more attention and support. ...
(i) considering software problems across data science language silos helps to understand and standardise analysis approaches, also outside the domain of formal standardisation bodies;
(ii) whether attribute variables have block or point support, and whether they are spatially intensive or extensive has consequences for permitted operations, and hence for software implementing those;
(iii) handling geometries on the sphere rather than on the flat plane requires modifications to the logic of simple features,
(iv) managing communities and fostering diversity is a necessary, on-going effort, and
(v) tools for cross-language development need more attention and support. ...
Recent workshops brought together several developers, educators and users of software packages extending popular languages for spatial data handling, with a primary focus on R, Python and Julia. Common challenges discussed included handling of spatial or spatio-temporal support, geodetic coordinates, in-memory vector data formats, data cubes, inter-package dependencies, packaging upstream libraries, differences in habits or conventions between the GIS and physical modeling communities, and statistical models. The following set of recommendations have been formulated:
(i) considering software problems across data science language silos helps to understand and standardise analysis approaches, also outside the domain of formal standardisation bodies;
(ii) whether attribute variables have block or point support, and whether they are spatially intensive or extensive has consequences for permitted operations, and hence for software implementing those;
(iii) handling geometries on the sphere rather than on the flat plane requires modifications to the logic of simple features,
(iv) managing communities and fostering diversity is a necessary, on-going effort, and
(v) tools for cross-language development need more attention and support.
(i) considering software problems across data science language silos helps to understand and standardise analysis approaches, also outside the domain of formal standardisation bodies;
(ii) whether attribute variables have block or point support, and whether they are spatially intensive or extensive has consequences for permitted operations, and hence for software implementing those;
(iii) handling geometries on the sphere rather than on the flat plane requires modifications to the logic of simple features,
(iv) managing communities and fostering diversity is a necessary, on-going effort, and
(v) tools for cross-language development need more attention and support.
Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) are a necessity for modelling many large-scale environmental processes. In this study, we investigate the potential of data from two spaceborne lidar altimetry missions, ICESat-2 and GEDI—with respect to their vertical accuracies and planimetric data collection patterns—as sources for rasterisation towards creating global DEMs. We validate the terrain measurements of both missions against airborne lidar datasets over three areas in the Netherlands, Switzerland, and New Zealand and differentiate them using land-cover classes. For our experiments, we use five years of ICESat-2 ATL03 data and four years of GEDI L2A data for a total of 252 million measurements. The datasets are filtered using parameter flags provided by the higher-level products ICESat-2 ATL08 and GEDI L3A. For all areas and land-cover classes combined, ICESat-2 achieves a bias of −0.11 m, an MAE of 0.43 m, and an RMSE of 0.93 m. From our experiments, we find that GEDI is less accurate, with a bias of 0.09 m, an MAE of 0.98 m, and an RMSE of 2.96 m. Measurements in open land-cover classes, such as “Cropland” and “Grassland”, result in the best accuracy for both missions. We also find that the slope of the terrain has a major influence on vertical accuracy, more so for GEDI than ICESat-2 because of its larger horizontal geolocation error. In contrast, we find little effect of either beam power or background solar radiation, nor do we find noticeable seasonal effects on accuracy. Furthermore, we investigate the spatial coverage of ICESat-2 and GEDI by deriving a DEM at different horizontal resolutions and latitudes. GEDI has higher spatial coverage than ICESat-2 at lower latitudes due to its beam pattern and lower inclination angle, and a derived DEM can achieve a resolution of 500 m. ICESat-2 only reaches a DEM resolution of 700 m at the equator, but it increases to almost 200 m at higher latitudes. When combined, a 500 m resolution lidar-based DEM can be achieved globally. Our results indicate that both ICESat-2 and GEDI enable accurate terrain measurements anywhere in the world. Especially in data-poor areas—such as the tropics—this has potential for new applications and insights.
...
Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) are a necessity for modelling many large-scale environmental processes. In this study, we investigate the potential of data from two spaceborne lidar altimetry missions, ICESat-2 and GEDI—with respect to their vertical accuracies and planimetric data collection patterns—as sources for rasterisation towards creating global DEMs. We validate the terrain measurements of both missions against airborne lidar datasets over three areas in the Netherlands, Switzerland, and New Zealand and differentiate them using land-cover classes. For our experiments, we use five years of ICESat-2 ATL03 data and four years of GEDI L2A data for a total of 252 million measurements. The datasets are filtered using parameter flags provided by the higher-level products ICESat-2 ATL08 and GEDI L3A. For all areas and land-cover classes combined, ICESat-2 achieves a bias of −0.11 m, an MAE of 0.43 m, and an RMSE of 0.93 m. From our experiments, we find that GEDI is less accurate, with a bias of 0.09 m, an MAE of 0.98 m, and an RMSE of 2.96 m. Measurements in open land-cover classes, such as “Cropland” and “Grassland”, result in the best accuracy for both missions. We also find that the slope of the terrain has a major influence on vertical accuracy, more so for GEDI than ICESat-2 because of its larger horizontal geolocation error. In contrast, we find little effect of either beam power or background solar radiation, nor do we find noticeable seasonal effects on accuracy. Furthermore, we investigate the spatial coverage of ICESat-2 and GEDI by deriving a DEM at different horizontal resolutions and latitudes. GEDI has higher spatial coverage than ICESat-2 at lower latitudes due to its beam pattern and lower inclination angle, and a derived DEM can achieve a resolution of 500 m. ICESat-2 only reaches a DEM resolution of 700 m at the equator, but it increases to almost 200 m at higher latitudes. When combined, a 500 m resolution lidar-based DEM can be achieved globally. Our results indicate that both ICESat-2 and GEDI enable accurate terrain measurements anywhere in the world. Especially in data-poor areas—such as the tropics—this has potential for new applications and insights.
Journal article
(2024)
-
Fedor Baart, Gerben de Boer, Maarten Pronk, Mark van Koningsveld, Sanne Muis
Introduction:
Global coastal flooding maps are now achieving a level of detail suitable for local applications. The resolution of these maps, derived from widely available open data sources, is approaching that of local flooding maps (0.5–100 m), increasing the need for a standardized approach to evaluate underlying assumptions and indicators for local applications.
Methods:
This study introduces the Waterlevel, Elevation, Protection, Flood, Impact, Future (WEPFIF) notation, a structured notation for documenting and comparing key methodological choices and data variations across global coastal flooding studies. This approach enhances the understanding and explanation of the fitness-for- purpose of flood maps. This notation builds on commonly used methodological choices, dataset variations, and model approaches in global flooding risk research. Analysis of these workflows identifies common elements and highlights the need for a more structured reporting approach to improve comparability.
Results:
Applying the WEPFIF notation to a case study in the Netherlands reveals significant variations in flood risk assessments originating from differences in Digital Elevation Model (DEM) and water level selection, and inclusion of protective infrastructure.
Discussion:
WEPFIF, by annotating these methodological variations, enables more informed comparisons between local and global flood studies. This allows researchers and practitioners to select appropriate data and models, based on their specific research objectives. The study proposes tailored approaches for three common types of flood studies: raising concern, optimizing flood protection investments, and representing the state of coastal risk. ...
Global coastal flooding maps are now achieving a level of detail suitable for local applications. The resolution of these maps, derived from widely available open data sources, is approaching that of local flooding maps (0.5–100 m), increasing the need for a standardized approach to evaluate underlying assumptions and indicators for local applications.
Methods:
This study introduces the Waterlevel, Elevation, Protection, Flood, Impact, Future (WEPFIF) notation, a structured notation for documenting and comparing key methodological choices and data variations across global coastal flooding studies. This approach enhances the understanding and explanation of the fitness-for- purpose of flood maps. This notation builds on commonly used methodological choices, dataset variations, and model approaches in global flooding risk research. Analysis of these workflows identifies common elements and highlights the need for a more structured reporting approach to improve comparability.
Results:
Applying the WEPFIF notation to a case study in the Netherlands reveals significant variations in flood risk assessments originating from differences in Digital Elevation Model (DEM) and water level selection, and inclusion of protective infrastructure.
Discussion:
WEPFIF, by annotating these methodological variations, enables more informed comparisons between local and global flood studies. This allows researchers and practitioners to select appropriate data and models, based on their specific research objectives. The study proposes tailored approaches for three common types of flood studies: raising concern, optimizing flood protection investments, and representing the state of coastal risk. ...
Introduction:
Global coastal flooding maps are now achieving a level of detail suitable for local applications. The resolution of these maps, derived from widely available open data sources, is approaching that of local flooding maps (0.5–100 m), increasing the need for a standardized approach to evaluate underlying assumptions and indicators for local applications.
Methods:
This study introduces the Waterlevel, Elevation, Protection, Flood, Impact, Future (WEPFIF) notation, a structured notation for documenting and comparing key methodological choices and data variations across global coastal flooding studies. This approach enhances the understanding and explanation of the fitness-for- purpose of flood maps. This notation builds on commonly used methodological choices, dataset variations, and model approaches in global flooding risk research. Analysis of these workflows identifies common elements and highlights the need for a more structured reporting approach to improve comparability.
Results:
Applying the WEPFIF notation to a case study in the Netherlands reveals significant variations in flood risk assessments originating from differences in Digital Elevation Model (DEM) and water level selection, and inclusion of protective infrastructure.
Discussion:
WEPFIF, by annotating these methodological variations, enables more informed comparisons between local and global flood studies. This allows researchers and practitioners to select appropriate data and models, based on their specific research objectives. The study proposes tailored approaches for three common types of flood studies: raising concern, optimizing flood protection investments, and representing the state of coastal risk.
Global coastal flooding maps are now achieving a level of detail suitable for local applications. The resolution of these maps, derived from widely available open data sources, is approaching that of local flooding maps (0.5–100 m), increasing the need for a standardized approach to evaluate underlying assumptions and indicators for local applications.
Methods:
This study introduces the Waterlevel, Elevation, Protection, Flood, Impact, Future (WEPFIF) notation, a structured notation for documenting and comparing key methodological choices and data variations across global coastal flooding studies. This approach enhances the understanding and explanation of the fitness-for- purpose of flood maps. This notation builds on commonly used methodological choices, dataset variations, and model approaches in global flooding risk research. Analysis of these workflows identifies common elements and highlights the need for a more structured reporting approach to improve comparability.
Results:
Applying the WEPFIF notation to a case study in the Netherlands reveals significant variations in flood risk assessments originating from differences in Digital Elevation Model (DEM) and water level selection, and inclusion of protective infrastructure.
Discussion:
WEPFIF, by annotating these methodological variations, enables more informed comparisons between local and global flood studies. This allows researchers and practitioners to select appropriate data and models, based on their specific research objectives. The study proposes tailored approaches for three common types of flood studies: raising concern, optimizing flood protection investments, and representing the state of coastal risk.
DeltaDTM
A global coastal digital terrain model
Journal article
(2024)
-
Maarten Pronk, Aljosja Hooijer, Dirk Eilander, Arjen Haag, Tjalling de Jong, Michalis Vousdoukas, Ronald Vernimmen, Hugo Ledoux, Marieke Eleveld
Coastal elevation data are essential for a wide variety of applications, such as coastal management, flood modelling, and adaptation planning. Low-lying coastal areas (found below 10 m +Mean Sea Level (MSL)) are at risk of future extreme water levels, subsidence and changing extreme weather patterns. However, current freely available elevation datasets are not sufficiently accurate to model these risks. We present DeltaDTM, a global coastal Digital Terrain Model (DTM) available in the public domain, with a horizontal spatial resolution of 1 arcsecond (∼30 m) and a vertical mean absolute error (MAE) of 0.45 m overall. DeltaDTM corrects CopernicusDEM with spaceborne lidar from the ICESat-2 and GEDI missions. Specifically, we correct the elevation bias in CopernicusDEM, apply filters to remove non-terrain cells, and fill the gaps using interpolation. Notably, our classification approach produces more accurate results than regression methods recently used by others to correct DEMs, that achieve an overall MAE of 0.72 m at best. We conclude that DeltaDTM will be a valuable resource for coastal flood impact modelling and other applications.
...
Coastal elevation data are essential for a wide variety of applications, such as coastal management, flood modelling, and adaptation planning. Low-lying coastal areas (found below 10 m +Mean Sea Level (MSL)) are at risk of future extreme water levels, subsidence and changing extreme weather patterns. However, current freely available elevation datasets are not sufficiently accurate to model these risks. We present DeltaDTM, a global coastal Digital Terrain Model (DTM) available in the public domain, with a horizontal spatial resolution of 1 arcsecond (∼30 m) and a vertical mean absolute error (MAE) of 0.45 m overall. DeltaDTM corrects CopernicusDEM with spaceborne lidar from the ICESat-2 and GEDI missions. Specifically, we correct the elevation bias in CopernicusDEM, apply filters to remove non-terrain cells, and fill the gaps using interpolation. Notably, our classification approach produces more accurate results than regression methods recently used by others to correct DEMs, that achieve an overall MAE of 0.72 m at best. We conclude that DeltaDTM will be a valuable resource for coastal flood impact modelling and other applications.
Conference paper
(2022)
-
Vitali Diaz, Haicheng Liu, Peter van Oosterom, Martijn Meijers, Edward Verbree, Fedor Baart, Maarten Pronk, Thijs van Lankveld
Point cloud is made up of a multitude of three-dimensional (3D) points with one or more attributes attached. Point cloud is the third data paradigm in addition to the well-established object (vector) and gridded (raster) representations, since point cloud data can be directly collected, computed, stored, and analyzed without converting to other types. Modern ways of data acquisition, including laser scanning from airborne, mobile, or static platforms, multi-beam echo-sounding, and dense image matching from photos, generate millions to trillions of 3D points with attached attributes. If the collection is carried out in different periods, one of the essential attributes is precisely time, allowing spatiotemporal analysis to be performed. Its use is widespread in some fields such as metrology and quality inspection, virtual reality, indoor/outdoor navigation, object detection, vegetation monitoring, building modeling, cultural heritage, and diverse visualization applications. There are some examples in fields related to hydroinformatics, mainly related to terrain modeling. Due to its nature of big data, over the past decades, a series of developments have been carried out in the different processing chains for the optimal use of point cloud. This research seeks to introduce the various point cloud developments from which the hydroinformatics community and research could benefit. A review of recent advances is made, mainly including the analysis and visualization of point cloud for dealing with water-related problems. Potential areas of application and development in hydroinformatics are identified. These include, for example, the topics of coastal monitoring, coastal erosion, shallow water assessment, ice sheet change analysis, sea-level rise assessment, monitoring of levels in water bodies, crop and vegetation monitoring, analysis of the effects of groundwater depletion, detail tracing of basins and channels, analysis of floods with detailed terrain models, and drought monitoring in crops and forests. The challenges to overcome and ongoing developments regarding point cloud application in hydroinformatics are also discussed.
...
Point cloud is made up of a multitude of three-dimensional (3D) points with one or more attributes attached. Point cloud is the third data paradigm in addition to the well-established object (vector) and gridded (raster) representations, since point cloud data can be directly collected, computed, stored, and analyzed without converting to other types. Modern ways of data acquisition, including laser scanning from airborne, mobile, or static platforms, multi-beam echo-sounding, and dense image matching from photos, generate millions to trillions of 3D points with attached attributes. If the collection is carried out in different periods, one of the essential attributes is precisely time, allowing spatiotemporal analysis to be performed. Its use is widespread in some fields such as metrology and quality inspection, virtual reality, indoor/outdoor navigation, object detection, vegetation monitoring, building modeling, cultural heritage, and diverse visualization applications. There are some examples in fields related to hydroinformatics, mainly related to terrain modeling. Due to its nature of big data, over the past decades, a series of developments have been carried out in the different processing chains for the optimal use of point cloud. This research seeks to introduce the various point cloud developments from which the hydroinformatics community and research could benefit. A review of recent advances is made, mainly including the analysis and visualization of point cloud for dealing with water-related problems. Potential areas of application and development in hydroinformatics are identified. These include, for example, the topics of coastal monitoring, coastal erosion, shallow water assessment, ice sheet change analysis, sea-level rise assessment, monitoring of levels in water bodies, crop and vegetation monitoring, analysis of the effects of groundwater depletion, detail tracing of basins and channels, analysis of floods with detailed terrain models, and drought monitoring in crops and forests. The challenges to overcome and ongoing developments regarding point cloud application in hydroinformatics are also discussed.
Journal article
(2020)
-
Ronald Vernimmen, Aljosja Hooijer, Dedi Mulyadi, Iwan Setiawan, Maarten Pronk, Angga T. Yuherdha
Water management in lowland areas usually aims to keep water tables within a narrow range to avoid flooding and drought conditions. A common water management target parameter is the depth of the canal water table below the surrounding soil surface. We demonstrated a method that rapidly determines canal water table depth (CWD) from airborne LiDAR data. The water table elevation was measured as the minimum value determined in a grid of 100 m x 100 m applied to a 1 m x 1 m digital terrain model (DTM), and the soil surface was calculated as the median value of values in each grid cell. Results for areas in eastern Sumatra and West Kalimantan, Indonesia, were validated against 145 field measurements at the time of LiDAR data collection. LiDAR-derived CWD was found to be accurate within 0.25 m and 0.5 m for 86% and 99% of field measurements, respectively, with an R
2 value of 0.74. We demonstrated the method for CWD conditions in a drained peatland area in Central Kalimantan, where we found CWD in the dry season of 2011 to be generally below-1.5 and often below-2.5 m indicating severely overdrained conditions. We concluded that airborne LiDAR can provide an efficient and rapid mapping tool of CWD at the time of LiDAR data collection, which can be cost-effective especially where LiDAR data or derived DTMs are already available. The method can be applied to any LiDAR-based DTM that represents a flat landscape that has open water bodies.
...
Water management in lowland areas usually aims to keep water tables within a narrow range to avoid flooding and drought conditions. A common water management target parameter is the depth of the canal water table below the surrounding soil surface. We demonstrated a method that rapidly determines canal water table depth (CWD) from airborne LiDAR data. The water table elevation was measured as the minimum value determined in a grid of 100 m x 100 m applied to a 1 m x 1 m digital terrain model (DTM), and the soil surface was calculated as the median value of values in each grid cell. Results for areas in eastern Sumatra and West Kalimantan, Indonesia, were validated against 145 field measurements at the time of LiDAR data collection. LiDAR-derived CWD was found to be accurate within 0.25 m and 0.5 m for 86% and 99% of field measurements, respectively, with an R 2 value of 0.74. We demonstrated the method for CWD conditions in a drained peatland area in Central Kalimantan, where we found CWD in the dry season of 2011 to be generally below-1.5 and often below-2.5 m indicating severely overdrained conditions. We concluded that airborne LiDAR can provide an efficient and rapid mapping tool of CWD at the time of LiDAR data collection, which can be cost-effective especially where LiDAR data or derived DTMs are already available. The method can be applied to any LiDAR-based DTM that represents a flat landscape that has open water bodies.
Journal article
(2020)
-
Ronald Vernimmen, Aljosja Hooijer, Maarten Pronk
No accurate global lowland digital terrain model (DTM) exists to date that allows reliable quantification of coastal lowland flood risk, currently and with sea-level rise. We created the first global coastal lowland DTM that is derived from satellite LiDAR data. The global LiDAR lowland DTM (GLL_DTM_v1) at 0.05-degree resolution (~5 × 5 km) is created from ICESat-2 data collected between 14 October 2018 and 13 May 2020. It is accurate within 0.5 m for 83.4% of land area below 10 m above mean sea level (+MSL), with a root-mean-square error (RMSE) value of 0.54 m, compared to three local area DTMs for three major lowland areas: the Everglades, the Netherlands, and the Mekong Delta. This accuracy is far higher than that of four existing global digital elevation models (GDEMs), which are derived from satellite radar data, namely, SRTM90, MERIT, CoastalDEM, and TanDEM-X, that we find to be accurate within 0.5 m for 21.1%, 12.9%, 18.3%, and 37.9% of land below 10 m +MSL, respectively, with corresponding RMSE values of 2.49 m, 1.88 m, 1.54 m, and 1.59 m. Globally, we find 3.23, 2.12, and 1.05 million km
2 of land below 10, 5, and 2 m +MSL. The 0.93 million km
2 of land below 2 m +MSL identified between 60N and 56S is three times the area indicated by SRTM90 that is currently the GDEM most used in flood risk assessments, confirming that studies to date are likely to have underestimated areas at risk of flooding. Moreover, the new dataset reveals extensive forested land areas below 2 m +MSL in Papua and the Amazon Delta that are largely undetected by existing GDEMs. We conclude that the recent availability of satellite LiDAR data presents a major and much-needed step forward for studies and policies requiring accurate elevation models. GLL_DTM_v1 is available in the public domain, and the resolution will be increased in later versions as more satellite LiDAR data become available.
...
No accurate global lowland digital terrain model (DTM) exists to date that allows reliable quantification of coastal lowland flood risk, currently and with sea-level rise. We created the first global coastal lowland DTM that is derived from satellite LiDAR data. The global LiDAR lowland DTM (GLL_DTM_v1) at 0.05-degree resolution (~5 × 5 km) is created from ICESat-2 data collected between 14 October 2018 and 13 May 2020. It is accurate within 0.5 m for 83.4% of land area below 10 m above mean sea level (+MSL), with a root-mean-square error (RMSE) value of 0.54 m, compared to three local area DTMs for three major lowland areas: the Everglades, the Netherlands, and the Mekong Delta. This accuracy is far higher than that of four existing global digital elevation models (GDEMs), which are derived from satellite radar data, namely, SRTM90, MERIT, CoastalDEM, and TanDEM-X, that we find to be accurate within 0.5 m for 21.1%, 12.9%, 18.3%, and 37.9% of land below 10 m +MSL, respectively, with corresponding RMSE values of 2.49 m, 1.88 m, 1.54 m, and 1.59 m. Globally, we find 3.23, 2.12, and 1.05 million km 2 of land below 10, 5, and 2 m +MSL. The 0.93 million km 2 of land below 2 m +MSL identified between 60N and 56S is three times the area indicated by SRTM90 that is currently the GDEM most used in flood risk assessments, confirming that studies to date are likely to have underestimated areas at risk of flooding. Moreover, the new dataset reveals extensive forested land areas below 2 m +MSL in Papua and the Amazon Delta that are largely undetected by existing GDEMs. We conclude that the recent availability of satellite LiDAR data presents a major and much-needed step forward for studies and policies requiring accurate elevation models. GLL_DTM_v1 is available in the public domain, and the resolution will be increased in later versions as more satellite LiDAR data become available.
Other
(2019)
-
Ronald Vernimmen, Aljosja Hooijer, James Ouellette, Warwick Hadley, Angga T. Yuherdha, Martijn Visser, Maarten Pronk, Dirk Eilander, Rizka Akmalia, Natan Fitranatanegara, Dedi Mulyadi, Heri Andreas
Coastal lowland areas support much of the world population on only a small part of its terrestrial surface. Yet these areas face rapidly increasing land surface subsidence and flooding, and are most vulnerable to future sea level rise. The accurate and up to date digital terrain models (DTMs) that are required to predict and manage such risks are absent in many of the areas affected, especially in regions where populations are least developed economically and may be least resilient to such changes. Airborne LiDAR is widely seen as the most accurate data type for elevation mapping but can be prohibitively expensive, as are detailed field surveys across a broad geographic scale. We present an economical method that utilizes airborne LiDAR data along parallel flight lines ('strips') covering between 10% and 35% of the land depending on terrain characteristics, and manual interpolation. We present results for lowland areas in Central Kalimantan and East Sumatra (Indonesia), for which no accurate DTM currently exists. The study areas are covered with forest, plantations and agricultural land, on mineral soils and peatlands. The method is shown to yield DTM differences within 0.5 m, relative to full coverage LiDAR data, for 87.7-96.4% of the land surface in a range of conditions in 15 validation areas, and within 1.0 m for 99.3% of the area overall. After testing, the method was then applied to the entire eastern coastal zone of Sumatra, yielding a DTM at 100 m spatial resolution covering 7.1 Mha of lowland area from 1.45 Mha of effective LiDAR coverage. The DTM shows that 36.3%, or 2.6 Mha, of this area is below 2 m +MSL and, therefore, at risk of flooding in the near future as sea level rise continues. This DTM product is available for use in flood risk mapping, peatland mapping and other applications.
...
Coastal lowland areas support much of the world population on only a small part of its terrestrial surface. Yet these areas face rapidly increasing land surface subsidence and flooding, and are most vulnerable to future sea level rise. The accurate and up to date digital terrain models (DTMs) that are required to predict and manage such risks are absent in many of the areas affected, especially in regions where populations are least developed economically and may be least resilient to such changes. Airborne LiDAR is widely seen as the most accurate data type for elevation mapping but can be prohibitively expensive, as are detailed field surveys across a broad geographic scale. We present an economical method that utilizes airborne LiDAR data along parallel flight lines ('strips') covering between 10% and 35% of the land depending on terrain characteristics, and manual interpolation. We present results for lowland areas in Central Kalimantan and East Sumatra (Indonesia), for which no accurate DTM currently exists. The study areas are covered with forest, plantations and agricultural land, on mineral soils and peatlands. The method is shown to yield DTM differences within 0.5 m, relative to full coverage LiDAR data, for 87.7-96.4% of the land surface in a range of conditions in 15 validation areas, and within 1.0 m for 99.3% of the area overall. After testing, the method was then applied to the entire eastern coastal zone of Sumatra, yielding a DTM at 100 m spatial resolution covering 7.1 Mha of lowland area from 1.45 Mha of effective LiDAR coverage. The DTM shows that 36.3%, or 2.6 Mha, of this area is below 2 m +MSL and, therefore, at risk of flooding in the near future as sea level rise continues. This DTM product is available for use in flood risk mapping, peatland mapping and other applications.