4.7 Article

Flood Hazard Assessment Supported by Reduced Cost Aerial Precision Photogrammetry

Journal

REMOTE SENSING
Volume 10, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs10101566

Keywords

flood risk assessment; RC-APP technique; ground filtering algorithm; cloth simulation filtering (CSF) algorithm; vertical DTM-uncertainty

Funding

  1. GESINH-IMPADAPT project of the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [CGL2013-48424-C2-2-R]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Increasing flood hazards worldwide due to the intensification of hydrological events and the development of adaptation-mitigation strategies are key challenges that society must address. To minimize flood damages, one of the crucial factors is the identification of flood prone areas through fluvial hydraulic modelling in which a detailed knowledge of the terrain plays an important role for reliable results. Recent studies have demonstrated the suitability of the Reduced Cost Aerial Precision Photogrammetry (RC-APP) technique for fluvial applications by accurate-detailed-reliable Digital Terrain Models (DTMs, up to: approximate to 100 point/m(2); vertical-uncertainty: +/- 0.06 m). This work aims to provide an optimal relationship between point densities and vertical-uncertainties to generate more reliable fluvial hazard maps by fluvial-DTMs. This is performed through hydraulic models supported by geometric models that are obtained from a joint strategy based on Structure from Motion and Cloth Simulation Filtering algorithms. Furthermore, to evaluate vertical-DTM, uncertainty is proposed as an alternative approach based on the method of robust estimators. This offers an error dispersion value analogous to the concept of standard deviation of a Gaussian distribution without requiring normality tests. This paper reinforces the suitability of new geomatic solutions as a reliable-competitive source of accurate DTMs at the service of a flood hazard assessment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available