Ground-return density and internal vertical differences in 1 m airborne lidar terrain models

Mustafa Hayri Kesikoğlu

doi:10.53030/tjags.2011590

Ground-return density and internal vertical differences in 1 m airborne lidar terrain models

Abstract

Airborne lidar surveys are typically planned based on overall pulse density, yet digital terrain models (DTMs) rely exclusively on returns classified as ground. Because complex terrain and vegetation limit actual ground returns, high nominal pulse density does not guarantee adequate ground-return density. This study investigates how reducing the density of available ground returns impacts the internal consistency of 1-meter DTMs across diverse landscapes. Using data from two USGS 3D Elevation Program acquisitions in Utah and Idaho, four distinct sites were analyzed. At each location, 10% of the ground returns were withheld as a control set. The remaining 90% established a high-density reference DTM. This baseline dataset was systematically reduced using a spatially balanced thinning method with target densities ranging from 4 down to 0.03125 points per square meter. New DTMs were then generated via linear TIN interpolation. Results demonstrate that internal elevation differences increase steadily as point density declines. At 1 point per square meter, the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) varied drastically by topography. It ranged from 0.010 meters on low-relief plains to 0.084 meters on steep escarpments. Errors peaked on steep slopes and in areas with dense non-ground features. Furthermore, purely random thinning increased the RMSE by 13% to 120% compared to spatially balanced thinning, proving that the spatial arrangement of points is as critical as the overall point count. Ultimately, these findings highlight DTM interpolation sensitivity and provide practical insights for evaluating surface reliability based on realized ground-return density.

Keywords

Ethical Statement

In the study, the author declares that there is no violation of research and publication ethics.

Thanks

The author acknowledges the U.S. Geological Survey for providing the 3D Elevation Program point-cloud data used in this study. This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Abdullah, Q., Munjy, R., Nimetz, J., Zoltek, M., & Lee, C. (2024). ASPRS Positional Accuracy Standards for Digital Geospatial Data, Edition 2, Version 2. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. https://doi.org/10.14358/ASPRS.PAS.2024
Aguilar, F. J., & Mills, J. P. (2008). Accuracy assessment of lidar-derived digital elevation models. The Photogrammetric Record, 23(122), 148-169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9730.2008.00476.x
Aguilar, F. J., Mills, J. P., Delgado, J., Aguilar, M. A., Negreiros, J. G., & Pérez, J. L. (2010). Modelling vertical error in LiDAR-derived digital elevation models. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 65(1), 103-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2009.09.003
Anderson, E. S., Thompson, J. A., Crouse, D. A., & Austin, R. E. (2006). Horizontal resolution and data density effects on remotely sensed LIDAR-based DEM. Geoderma, 132(3-4), 406-415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2005.06.004
Bater, C. W., & Coops, N. C. (2009). Evaluating error associated with lidar-derived DEM interpolation. Computers & Geosciences, 35(2), 289-300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2008.09.001
Chaplot, V., Darboux, F., Bourennane, H., Leguédois, S., Silvera, N., & Phachomphon, K. (2006). Accuracy of interpolation techniques for the derivation of digital elevation models in relation to landform types and data density. Geomorphology, 77(1-2), 126-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2005.12.010
Chen, Z., Gao, B., & Devereux, B. (2017). State-of-the-art: DTM generation using airborne LIDAR data. Sensors, 17(1), Article 150. https://doi.org/10.3390/s17010150
Chow, T. E., & Hodgson, M. E. (2009). Effects of lidar post-spacing and DEM resolution to mean slope estimation. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 23(10), 1277-1298. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658810802344127

Goulden, T., Hopkinson, C., Jamieson, R., & Sterling, S. (2016). Sensitivity of DEM, slope, aspect and watershed attributes to LiDAR measurement uncertainty. Remote Sensing of Environment, 179, 23-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2016.03.005
Guo, Q., Li, W., Yu, H., & Alvarez, O. (2010). Effects of topographic variability and lidar sampling density on several DEM interpolation methods. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 76(6), 701-712. https://doi.org/10.14358/PERS.76.6.701
Heidemann, H. K. (2018). Lidar Base Specification, Version 1.3. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 11, chap. B4. https://doi.org/10.3133/tm11b4
Hodgson, M. E., & Bresnahan, P. (2004). Accuracy of airborne lidar-derived elevation. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 70(3), 331-339. https://doi.org/10.14358/PERS.70.3.331
Höhle, J., & Höhle, M. (2009). Accuracy assessment of digital elevation models by means of robust statistical methods. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 64(4), 398-406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2009.02.003
Hyyppä, J., Hyyppä, H., Leckie, D., Gougeon, F., Yu, X., & Maltamo, M. (2008). Review of methods of small-footprint airborne laser scanning for extracting forest inventory data in boreal forests. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 29(5), 1339-1366. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160701736489
Liu, X. (2008). Airborne LiDAR for DEM generation: Some critical issues. Progress in Physical Geography, 32(1), 31-49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133308089496
Meng, X., Currit, N., & Zhao, K. (2010). Ground filtering algorithms for airborne LiDAR data: A review of critical issues. Remote Sensing, 2(3), 833-860. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs2030833
Montealegre, A., Lamelas, M., & de la Riva, J. (2015). Interpolation routines assessment in ALS-derived digital elevation models for forestry applications. Remote Sensing, 7(7), 8631-8654. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs70708631
Okyay, U., Telling, J., Glennie, C. L., & Dietrich, W. E. (2019). Airborne lidar change detection: An overview of Earth sciences applications. Earth-Science Reviews, 198, Article 102929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.102929
Passalacqua, P., Belmont, P., Staley, D. M., Simley, J. D., Arrowsmith, J. R., Bode, C. A., Crosby, C., DeLong, S. B., Glenn, N. F., Kelly, S. A., Lague, D., Sangireddy, H., Schaffrath, K., Tarboton, D. G., Wasklewicz, T., & Wheaton, J. M. (2015). Analyzing high resolution topography for advancing the understanding of mass and energy transfer through landscapes: A review. Earth-Science Reviews, 148, 174-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2015.05.012
Petras, V., Petrasova, A., McCarter, J. B., Mitasova, H., & Meentemeyer, R. K. (2023). Point density variations in airborne lidar point clouds. Sensors, 23(3), Article 1593. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23031593
Polidori, L., & El Hage, M. (2020). Digital elevation model quality assessment methods: A critical review. Remote Sensing, 12(21), Article 3522. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12213522
Raber, G. T., Jensen, J. R., Hodgson, M. E., Tullis, J. A., Davis, B. A., & Berglund, J. (2007). Impact of lidar nominal post-spacing on DEM accuracy and flood zone delineation. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 73(7), 793-804. https://doi.org/10.14358/PERS.73.7.793
Simpson, J., Smith, T., & Wooster, M. (2017). Assessment of errors caused by forest vegetation structure in airborne LiDAR-derived DTMs. Remote Sensing, 9(11), Article 1101. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9111101
Stereńczak, K., Ciesielski, M., Bałazy, R., & Zawiła-Niedźwiecki, T. (2016). Comparison of various algorithms for DTM interpolation from LIDAR data in dense mountain forests. European Journal of Remote Sensing, 49(1), 599-621. https://doi.org/10.5721/EuJRS20164932
Stoker, J., & Miller, B. (2022). The accuracy and consistency of 3D Elevation Program data: A systematic analysis. Remote Sensing, 14(4), Article 940. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14040940
Štroner, M., Urban, R., Lidmila, M., Kolář, V., & Křemen, T. (2021). Vegetation filtering of a steep rugged terrain: The performance of standard algorithms and a newly proposed workflow on an example of a railway ledge. Remote Sensing, 13(15), Article 3050. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13153050
Su, J., & Bork, E. (2006). Influence of vegetation, slope, and lidar sampling angle on DEM accuracy. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 72(11), 1265-1274. https://doi.org/10.14358/PERS.72.11.1265
Sugarbaker, L. J., Constance, E. W., Heidemann, H. K., Jason, A. L., Lukas, V., Saghy, D. L., & Stoker, J. M. (2014). The 3D Elevation Program initiative: A call for action. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1399. https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1399
Wechsler, S. P. (2007). Uncertainties associated with digital elevation models for hydrologic applications: A review. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 11(4), 1481-1500. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-11-1481-2007

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Computational Modelling and Simulation in Earth Sciences

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Mustafa Hayri Kesikoğlu ^*
0000-0001-5199-0815
Türkiye

Publication Date

September 30, 2026

Submission Date

August 5, 2026

Acceptance Date

September 3, 2026

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Volume: 8 Number: 2

DOI

https://doi.org/10.53030/tjags.2011590

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA62DJ95NK

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Kesikoğlu, M. H. (2026). Ground-return density and internal vertical differences in 1 m airborne lidar terrain models. Turkish Journal of Applied Geoinformation Sciences, 8(2), 93-105. https://doi.org/10.53030/tjags.2011590

AMA

1.Kesikoğlu MH. Ground-return density and internal vertical differences in 1 m airborne lidar terrain models. Turk. J. Appl. Geoinf. Sci. 2026;8(2):93-105. doi:10.53030/tjags.2011590

Chicago

Kesikoğlu, Mustafa Hayri. 2026. “Ground-Return Density and Internal Vertical Differences in 1 M Airborne Lidar Terrain Models”. Turkish Journal of Applied Geoinformation Sciences 8 (2): 93-105. https://doi.org/10.53030/tjags.2011590.

EndNote

Kesikoğlu MH (September 1, 2026) Ground-return density and internal vertical differences in 1 m airborne lidar terrain models. Turkish Journal of Applied Geoinformation Sciences 8 2 93–105.

IEEE

[1]M. H. Kesikoğlu, “Ground-return density and internal vertical differences in 1 m airborne lidar terrain models”, Turk. J. Appl. Geoinf. Sci., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 93–105, Sept. 2026, doi: 10.53030/tjags.2011590.

ISNAD

Kesikoğlu, Mustafa Hayri. “Ground-Return Density and Internal Vertical Differences in 1 M Airborne Lidar Terrain Models”. Turkish Journal of Applied Geoinformation Sciences 8/2 (September 1, 2026): 93-105. https://doi.org/10.53030/tjags.2011590.

JAMA

1.Kesikoğlu MH. Ground-return density and internal vertical differences in 1 m airborne lidar terrain models. Turk. J. Appl. Geoinf. Sci. 2026;8:93–105.

MLA

Kesikoğlu, Mustafa Hayri. “Ground-Return Density and Internal Vertical Differences in 1 M Airborne Lidar Terrain Models”. Turkish Journal of Applied Geoinformation Sciences, vol. 8, no. 2, Sept. 2026, pp. 93-105, doi:10.53030/tjags.2011590.

Vancouver

1.Mustafa Hayri Kesikoğlu. Ground-return density and internal vertical differences in 1 m airborne lidar terrain models. Turk. J. Appl. Geoinf. Sci. 2026 Sep. 1;8(2):93-105. doi:10.53030/tjags.2011590