Can. J. Remote Sensing, Vol. 39, No. 5, pp.

396409, 2013

A comparison between LiDAR and

photogrammetry digital terrain models in a forest
area on Tenerife Island
Alejandro Lorenzo Gil, Laia Núñez-Casillas, Martin Isenburg, Alfonso Alonso Benito,
José Julio Rodrigo Bello, and Manuel Arbelo

Abstract. This paper compares two types of digital terrain models (DTMs) with ground elevation measures collected
through field work in a dense forest area on the island of Tenerife (Canary Islands, Spain). The first was an existing DTM
derived from altimetric features obtained by manual photogrammetric restitution. The second DTM was computed from
aerial LiDAR data with a nadir density of 0.8 points × m2. Both DTMs have a pixel size of 5 m. The field work consisted
of measuring three elevation profiles by land surveying techniques using a total station survey and taking into account
different vegetation covers. The analysis of the profiles by means of nonparametric techniques showed an accuracy at the
Downloaded by [85.155.235.161] at 07:17 07 October 2014

95th percentile between 0.54 m and 24.26 m for the photogrammetry-derived DTM and between 0.22 m and 3.20 m for
the LiDAR-derived DTM. Plotting the elevation profiles allowed for the visual detection of locations where the models
failed. The LiDAR data were able to reflect more accurately the true ground surface in areas of dense vegetation,
especially in places where the ground was invisible to photogrammetric operators as in the case of Canarian pine forest
with understory.

Résumé. Cet article compare deux types de MNTs avec des mesures d’élévation du sol recueillies lors du travail sur le
terrain dans une zone de forêt dense sur l’ı̂le de Tenerife (Îles Canaries, Espagne). Le premier était un MNT existant dérivé
des caractéristiques altimétriques obtenues par restitution photogrammétrique manuel. Le deuxième MNT a été calculé à
partir des données LiDAR aériennes avec une densité de points minimum (Nadir) de 0,8 points × m2. Les deux MNT ont
une taille de pixel de 5 m. Le travail de terrain a consisté à mesurer trois profils d’élévation avec une station totale et en
tenant compte des couvertures végétales différentes. L’analyse des profils au moyen de techniques non paramétriques a
montré une précision du 0,95 quantile entre 0,54 m et 24,26 m pour le MNT dérivé de la photogrammétrie et entre 0,22 m
et 3,20 m pour le MNT dérivé des données LiDAR. La représentation graphique des profils d’altitude a permis de détecter
visuellement les endroits où les modèles ont échoué. Les données LiDAR ont été capables de refléter avec plus de précision
la vraie surface du sol dans des zones de végétation dense, surtout dans les endroits où le sol était invisible aux opérateurs
photogrammétriques, comme c’est le cas de la forêt de pins des canaries avec des sous-bois.

Introduction There are several different technologies that can be used

‘‘A Digital Terrain Model (DTM) is a digital model of a
topographic surface represented as regularly or irregularly
spaced point elevation values corresponding to bare earth
(avoiding vegetation or man-made objects)’’ (Höhle and
Potuckova, 2011, p. 12). DTMs play a fundamental role in
decision making regarding land management: wildfire pre-
vention (Köse et al., 2008), watershed analysis (Vianello
et al., 2009), forest management (Wulder et al., 2008), etc.
A solid understanding of the accuracy of a DTM and the
implied limitation is necessary for it to be used properly
(Karel, 2006).
to generate DTMs such as Interferometic Synthetic Aper-
ture Radar (IFSAR) (Burrough and McDonnell, 1998;
Maune, 2001; Hodgson et al., 2003) on a world-wide scale.
However, the main techniques for producing DTMs on a
national scale are to create them either from digital
photogrammetry or from ground-filtered aerial Light De-
tection and Ranging (LiDAR) data (Petzold et al., 1999;
Podobnikar, 2009).
The accuracy of DTMs generated by means of photo-
grammetric techniques or aerial LiDAR are influenced by a
large number of factors such as data acquisition and

Received 3 December 2012. Accepted 12 August 2013. Published on the Web at http://pubs.casi.ca/journal/cjrs on 4 December 2013.
Alejandro Lorenzo Gil1, Laia Núñez-Casillas, Alfonso Alonso Benito, and Manuel Arbelo. Grupo de Observación de la Tierra y la Atmósfera
(GOTA). Avda. Astrofı́sico Francisco Sánchez, s/n. 38203 San Cristobal de La Laguna, Spain.
Martin Isenburg. LAStools, rapidlasso GmbH, Friedrichshafener Straße 1, 82205 Gilching, Germany.
José Julio Rodrigo Bello. Cartográfica de Canarias (GRAFCAN), Departamento de Ingenierı́a, Calle Panamá, 34. Polı́gono Costa Sur.
38009 Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain.
1
Corresponding author (e-mail: alejandro.lorenzo@ull.es).

396 # 2013 CASI

 Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing / Journal canadien de télédétection

Pfeifer, N., Reiter T., Briese, C., and Rieger, W. 1999. Interpolation of high Zhang, J.X., Wu, J.Q., Chang, K., Elliot, W.J., and Dun, S. 2009. Effects of
quality ground models from laser scanner data in forested areas. DEM source and resolution on wepp hydrologic and erosion simulation:
International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Vol. 32, a case study of two forest watersheds in Northern Idaho. American
No. Part 3W14, pp. 3136. Society of Agricultural and Biological Engine, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 447457

Podobnikar, T. 2009. Methods for visual quality assessment of a digital Zhao, Z., Benoy, G., Chow L., Rees H., and Daigle J-L. 2010. Impacts of
terrain model. S.A.P.I.E.N.S. Vol. 2, No. 2. Available from http://sapiens. accuracy and resolution of conventional and LiDAR based DEMs on
revues.org/738 [Accessed 19 April 2013]. parameters used in hydrologic modeling. Water resources management,
Vol. 24, No. 7, pp. 13631380. doi: 10.1007/s11269-009-9503-5.
Rayburg, S., Thoms, M., and Neave, M. 2009. A comparison of digital
elevation models generated from different data sources. Geomorphology,
Vol. 106, No. 34, pp. 261270. doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2008.11.007.

Razali, N.M., and Wah, Y.B. 2011. Power Comparisons of ShapiroWilk, Appendix A
KolmogorovSmirnov, Lilliefors and AndersonDarling tests. Journal of
Statistical Modeling and Analysis, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 2133. The LAStools command line calls that were used to compute the
DTM derived from the LiDAR data:
Reutebuch, E., McGaughey, J., Andersens H-E., and Carson W. 2003.
Accuracy of a high-resolution LiDAR terrain model under a conifer :: improve the data (fix precision, add projection, compress)
forest canopy. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing, Vol. 29, No. 5,
pp. 527535. doi: 10.5589/m03-022. las2las -i raw\*.las ^
-rescale 0.01 0.01 0.01 ^
Downloaded by [85.155.235.161] at 07:17 07 October 2014

Schumann, G., Matgen, P., Cutler, M.E.J., Black, A., Hoffmann, L., and -utm 28N -point_type 0 ^
Pfiste, L. 2008. Comparison of remotely sensed water stages from -odir improved -olaz ^
LiDAR, topographic contours and SRTM. ISPRS journal of photo- -cores 4
grammetry and remote sensing, Vol. 63, No. 3, pp. 283296. doi: 10.1016/
j.isprsjprs.2007.09.004. :: convert ellipsoidal to orthometric height (above sea level)
Sithole, G., and Vosselman, G. 2003. Comparison of filtering algorithms.
lasheight -i improved\*.laz ^
Available from http://www.isprs.org/proceedings/XXXIV/3-W13/papers/
-ground_points geoid.las -replace_z ^
Sithole_ALSDD2003.pdf. [Accessed 19 April 2013].
-odir orthometric -olaz ^
Spaete, P., Glenn, F., Derryberry, R., Sankey, T., Mitchel J., and Hardegree, -cores 4
P. 2011. Vegetation and slope effects on accuracy of a LiDAR derived
DEM in the sagebrush steppe. Remote sensing Letters, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. :: tile the data with temporary 25 m buffer around each tile
317326. doi: 10.1080/01431161.2010.515267.
lastile -i orthometric\*.laz ^
Su, J., and Bork, E. 2006. Influence of vegetation, slope and LiDAR -tile_size 500 -buffer 25 ^
sampling angle on DEM accuracy. Photogrammetric Engineering & -o tiles_buffered\tile.laz -olaz
Remote Sensing, Vol. 72, No. 11, pp. 12651274.
:: classify points into ground (2) and non-ground (1)
Vianello, A., Cavalli, M., and Tarolli P. 2009. LiDAR-derived slopes for
headwater channel network analysis. Catena, Vol. 76, No. 2, pp. 97106 lasground -i tiles_buffered\*.laz ^
doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2008.09.012. -step 5-spike 0.5-offset 0.1-extra_fine ^
-odir tiles_ground  olaz ^
Wulder, M.A., Bater, C.W., Coops, N.C., Hilker, T., and White, J.C. 2008. -cores 4
The role of LiDAR in sustainable forest management. The forestry
chronicle, Vol. 84. No. 6, pp. 807826
:: remove the temporary buffer from each tile
Yu, X., Hyyppä, H., Kaartinen, H., Hyyppä, J., Ahokas, E., and
Kaasalainen, S. Applicability of first pulse derived digital terrain models lastile -i tiles_ground\*.laz ^
for boreal forest studies. ISPRS WG III/3, III/4, V/3 Workshop ‘‘Laser -remove_buffer ^
scanning 2005’’, Enschede, the Netherlands, September 1214, 2005. -odir tiles_final -olaz

Zhang, J. 2002. A comparison of digital photogrammetric and LiDAR high :: merge the ground points of all tiles and create the DTM
resolution digital elevation models. Department of Geology and Geo-
graphy. Research project for the degree of Master of Arts in Geography. blast2dem -i tiles_final\*.laz  merged ^
West Virginia University. Available from http://wvuscholar.wvu. -keep_classification 2 ^
edu:8881//exlibris/dtl/d3_1/apache_media/L2V4bGlicmlzL2R0bC9kM -step 5 ^
18xL2FwYWNoZV9tZWRpYS82MjI2.pdf. [Accessed 19 April 2013] -o DTM5.tif

# 2013 CASI 409