Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14578/jkfs.2017.106.3.320

A Study on the Selection of Parameter Values of FUSION Software for Improving Airborne LiDAR DEM Accuracy in Forest Area  

Cho, Seungwan (School of Forestry Sciences and Landscape Architecture, Kyungpook National University)
Park, Joowon (School of Forestry Sciences and Landscape Architecture, Kyungpook National University)
Publication Information
Journal of Korean Society of Forest Science / v.106, no.3, 2017 , pp. 320-329 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study aims to evaluate whether the accuracy of LiDAR DEM is affected by the changes of the five input levels ('1','3','5','7' and '9') of median parameter ($F_{md}$), mean parameter ($F_{mn}$) of the Filtering Algorithm (FA) in the GroundFilter module and median parameter ($I_{md}$), mean parameter ($I_{mn}$) of the Interpolation Algorithm (IA) in the GridSurfaceCreate module of the FUSION in order to present the combination of parameter levels producing the most accurate LiDAR DEM. The accuracy is measured by the residuals calculated by difference between the field elevation values and their corresponding DEM elevation values. A multi-way ANOVA is used to statistically examine whether there are effects of parameter level changes on the means of the residuals. The Tukey HSD is conducted as a post-hoc test. The results of the multi- way ANOVA test show that the changes in the levels of $F_{md}$, $F_{mn}$, $I_{mn}$ have significant effects on the DEM accuracy with the significant interaction effect between $F_{md}$ and $F_{mn}$. Therefore, the level of $F_{md}$, $F_{mn}$, and the interaction between two variables are considered to be factors affecting the accuracy of LiDAR DEM as well as the level of $I_{mn}$. As the results of the Tukey HSD test on the combination levels of $F_{md}{\ast}F_{mn}$, the mean of residuals of the '$9{\ast}3$' combination provides the highest accuracy while the '$1{\ast}1$' combination provides the lowest one. Regarding $I_{mn}$ levels, the mean of residuals of the both '3' and '1' provides the highest accuracy. This study can contribute to improve the accuracy of the forest attributes as well as the topographic information extracted from the LiDAR data.
Keywords
LiDAR; DEM; FUSION; forest; accuracy; filtering; topography;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 4  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Bright, B.C., Hicke, J.A. and Hudak, A.T. 2012. Estimating aboveground carbon stocks of a forest affected by mountain pine beetle in Idaho using lidar and multispectral imagery. Remote Sensing of Environment 124: 270-281.   DOI
2 Cho, K.H., Heo, J., Jung, J.H., Kim C.J. and Kim, K.M. 2011. Review and Comparative Analysis of Forest Biomass Estimation Using Remotely Sensed Data: from Five Different Perspectives. Journal of the Korean Society for Geo-spatial Information Science 19(1): 87-96.
3 Choi, Y.W., Sohn, D.J. and Cho, G.S. 2009. Applying Image processing Algorithm to Raw LiDAR Data for Extracting Ground Information. Journal of the Korean Society of Surveying, Geodesy, Photogrammetry and Cartography 27(5): 575-583.
4 Edson, C. and Wing, M.G. 2011. Airborne light detection and ranging (LiDAR) for individual tree stem location, height, and biomass measurements. Remote Sensing 3(11): 2494-2528.   DOI
5 Erdody, T.L. and Moskal, L.M. 2010. Fusion of LiDAR and imagery for estimating forest canopy fuels. Remote Sensing of Environment 114(4): 725-737.   DOI
6 Estornell, J., Ruiz, L.A., Velazquez-Marti, B. and Hermosilla, T. 2011. Analysis of the factors affecting LiDAR DTM accuracy in a steep shrub area. International Journal of Digital Earth 4(6): 521-538.   DOI
7 Ferster, C.J., Coops, N.C. and Trofymow, J. A. 2009. Aboveground large tree mass estimation in a coastal forest in British Columbia using plot-level metrics and individual tree detection from lidar. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing 35(3): 270-275.   DOI
8 Fuchs, H., Magdon, P., Kleinn, C. and Flessa, H. 2009. Estimating aboveground carbon in a catchment of the Siberian forest tundra: Combining satellite imagery and field inventory. Remote Sensing of Environment 113: 518-531.   DOI
9 Goodwin, N.R., Coops, N.C. and Culvenor, D.S. 2006. Assessment of forest structure with airborne LiDAR and the effects of platform altitude. Remote Sensing of Environment 103(2): 140-152.   DOI
10 Hwang, S.R. and Lee, I.P. 2011. Comparative Analysis and Accuracy Improvement on Ground Point Filtering of Airborne LIDAR Data for Forest Terrain Modeling. Journal of the Korean Society of Surveying, Geodesy, Photogrammetry and Cartography 29(6): 641-650.   DOI
11 Hyyppa, J., Hyyppa, H., Litkey, P., Yu, X., Haggren, H., Ronnholm, P., Pyysalo, U., Pitkanen, J. and Maltamo, M. 2004. Algorithms and methods of airborne laser scanning for forest measurements. International Archives of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 36(8): 82-89.
12 Kim, Y., Yang, Z., Cohen, W.B., Pflugmacher, D., Lauver, C.L. and Vankat, J.L. 2009. Distinguishing between live and dead standing tree biomass on the North Rim of Grand Canyon National Park, USA using small-footprint lidar data. Remote Sensing of Environment 113(11): 2499-2510.   DOI
13 Kobler, A., Pfeifer, N., Ogrinc, P., Todorovski, L., Ostir, K. and Dzeroski, S. 2007. Repetitive interpolation: A robust algorithm for DTM generation from Aerial Laser Scanner Data in forested terrain. Remote Sensing of Environment 108(1): 9-23.   DOI
14 Kraus, K. and Pfeifer, N. 1998. Determination of terrain models in wooded areas with airborne laser scanner data. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 53(4): 193-203.   DOI
15 Minh, D.H.T., Le Toan, T., Rocca, F., Tebaldini, S., Villard, L., Rejou-Mechain, M., Phillips, O.L., Feldpausch, T.R., Dubois-Fernandez, P., Scipal, K. and Chave, J. 2016. SAR tomography for the retrieval of forest biomass and height: Cross-validation at two tropical forest sites in French Guiana. Remote Sensing of Environment 175: 138-147.   DOI
16 Magnusson, M., Fransson, J.E. and Holmgren, J. 2007. Effects on estimation accuracy of forest variables using different pulse density of laser data. Forest Science 53(6): 619-626.
17 McGaughey, R.J. 2016. Fusion/LDV : Software for LiDAR Data Analysis and Visualization. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Seattle, W.A., USA. pp. 1-206.
18 Meng, X., Currit, N. and Zhao, K. 2010. Ground filtering algorithms for airborne LiDAR data: A review of critical issues. Remote Sensing 2(3): 833-860.   DOI
19 Park, J., Choi, H.T. and Cho, S. 2016. A study on the effects of airborne LiDAR data-based DEM-generating techniques on the quality of the final products for forest areas :Focusing on GroundFilter and GridsurfaceGreate in FUSION software. Journal of the Korean Association of Geographic Information Studies 19(1): 154-166   DOI
20 Reutebuch, S.E., Andersen, H.E. and McGaughey, R.J. 2005. Light detection and ranging (LIDAR): an emerging tool for multiple resource inventory. Journal of Forestry 103(6): 286-292.
21 Richardson, J.J., Moskal, L.M. and Kim, S. H. 2009. Modeling approaches to estimate effective leaf area index from aerial discrete-return LIDAR. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 149(6): 1152-1160.   DOI
22 Yoo, H.H., Kim, E.M. and Chung, D.K. 2005. Assessment of Classification Accuracy of Ground and Nonground Points from LIDAR Data. Journal of the Korean Society of Civil Engineers D 25(6D): 929-935.
23 Saarela, S., Schnell, S., Tuominen, S., Balazs, A., Hyyppa, J., Grafstrom, A. and Stahl, G. 2016. Effects of positional errors in model-assisted and model-based estimation of growing stock volume. Remote Sensing of Environment 172: 101-108.   DOI
24 Shanghai Huace Navigation Technology Ltd. CHC X91+ GNSS Technical Specification. pp. 2