Comparison of Digital Elevation Models by Visibility Analysis in Landscape

PDF

Authors: Jozef Sedláček, Ondřej Šesták and Miroslava Sliacka

Volume/Issue: Volume 19: Issue 2

Published online: 08 Dec 2016

Pages: 28–31

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ahr-2016-0007


Abstract

The paper investigates suitability of digital surface model for visibility analysis in GIS. In experiment there were analysed viewsheds from 14 observer points calculated on digital surface model, digital terrain model and its comparison to field survey. Data sources for the investigated models were LiDAR digital terrain model and LiDAR digital surface model with vegetation distributed by the Czech Administration for Land Surveying and Cadastre. The overlay method was used for comparing accuracy of models and the reference model was LiDAR digital surface model. Average equalities in comparison with LiDAR digital terrain model, ZABAGED model and field survey were 15.5 %, 17.3% and 20.9%, respectively.


Keywords: LiDAR, landscape perception, visibility analyses, Lednice-Valtice area

PDF

References

BENEDIKT M. L. 1979. To take hold of space: isovists and isovist fields. In Environment and Planning B: Planning and design vol. 6 1979 no. 1 pp. 47–65.


BISHOP I. D. – HULSE D. W. 1994. Prediction of scenic beauty using mapped data and geographic information systems. In Landscape and Urban Planning 1994 no. 30 pp. 59–70. ISSN 0265-8135.


ČÚZK. 2015a. Digitální model povrchu České republiky 1. generace (DMP 1G) [online]. [cit. 27. 8.2015]. Available online:


ČÚZK. 2015b. Digitální model reliéfu České republiky 4. generace (DMR 4G) [online]. [cit. 27. 11. 2014]. Available online:


HIGUCHI T. 1983. The Visual and Spatial Structure of Landscapes. In OGBURN D. MIT Press Cambridge Massachusetts. Assessing the level of visibility of cultural objects in past landscapes. In Journal of Archaelogical Science 2006 vol. 33 no. 3 pp. 405–413. ISSN 0305-4403.


HRONOVÁ-ŠTRÉBLOVSKÁ K. – KUPKA J. – VOREL I. 2013. Krajinářská studie Neředínkého horizontu v Olomouci. In HRONOVÁ-ŠTRÉBLOVSKÁ K. – KUPKA J. Ochrana kulturní krajiny: Hledání možností cílů pravidel. 1st ed. Praha : ČVUT 2013 pp. 94–109. ISBN 978-80-01-05391-1.


KOUCKÝ R. – LEŇO M. – BRADOVÁ E. – TÓTHOVÁ L. 2014. Třetí rozměr města. In Metropolitní plán 1st ed. Praha : IPR Praha 2014. ISBN 978-80-87931-06-6.


KUČERA P. – WEBER M. – STRÁNSKÝ M. 2014. Úmluva o krajině: důsledky a rizika nedodržování Evropské úmluvy o krajině. 1st ed. Brno : Mendelova univerzita v Brně 2014 183 pp. ISBN 978-80-7375-967-4.


KULIŠŤÁKOVÁ L. – FLEKALOVÁ M. – KUČERA P. – MATÁKOVÁ B. – SALAŠOVÁ A. – ŠTĚPÁNOVÁ D. 2011. Komponované krajiny. 1st ed. Brno : Mendelova univerzita 2011 78 pp. ISBN 978-80-7375-536-2.


KULIŠŤÁKOVÁ L. – SEDLÁČEK J. 2013. Využití nástroje GIS při analýze vizuálních vazeb v komponovaných krajinách. In Acta Pruhoniciana 2013 no. 103 pp. 51–61. ISSN 1805-921X.


MALOY M. – DEAN D. An Accuracy Assessment of Various GIS-BAsed Viewshed Delineation Techniques. In Photogrammetric engineering and remote sensing vol. 67 2001 no. 4 pp. 1293–1298.


MARTÍNKOVÁ-KUCHYŇKOVÁ H. 2010. Pohledová exponovanost: Metodický postup výpočtu krajinného indikátoru v geografických informačních systémech. 1st ed. Brno: Mendelova univerzita v Brně 2010 pp. 18–22. ISSN 1803-2109.


MILLER M. L. 2011. Analysis of Viewshed Accuracy with Variable Resolution LIDAR Digital Surface Models and PhotogrammetricallyDerived Digital Elevation Models. Balcksburg Virginia U.S.A.. Thesis. Supervisor: Laurence W. Carstensen.


NIJHUIS S. a REITSMA 2011. Landscape policy and visual landscape assessment the province of Noord Holland as a case study. In NIJHUIS Steffen Ron van LAMMEREN a Frank van der HOEVEN. Exploring the visual landscape: advances in physiognomic landscape research in the Netherlands. Amsterdam The Netherlands : IOS Press under the imprint Delft University Press Research in urbanism series vol. 2. 2011 pp. 229–260. ISBN 978-1-60750-832-8.


STEINITZ C. 1990. Toward a sustainable landscape with high visual preference and high ecological integrity: the Loop Road in Acadia National Park USA. Landscape & Urban Planning vol. 19 1990 no. 3 pp. 213–250. ISSN 1991-637X.


SALAŠOVÁ A. – SEDLÁČEK J. – KREJČIŘÍK P. 2011. Hodnocení krajinného rázu ORP Turnov: specializovaná mapa s odborným obsahem 1 : 25 000.


SALAŠOVÁ A. – SEDLÁČEK J. – PSOTOVÁ H. 2010. Změny stavu krajiny CHKO Beskydy. Specializovaná mapa s odborným obsahem 1 : 25 000.


ŠTRÉBLOVÁ HRONOVSKÁ K. – KUPKA J. – VOREL I. 2014. Neředínký horizont v Olomouci. Problematika uchopení vizuálního významu přírodního horizontu. In Urbanizmus a územní rozvoj roč. 17 2014 č. 1 s. 7–13.


TURNER A. – DOXA M. – O'SULLIVAN D. – PENN A. 2001. From isovist to visibility graphs: a methodology for the analysis of architectural space. In Environment and Planning B vol. 28 2001 pp. 103–121. Available online: http://epb.sagepub.com/content/28/1/103.full.pdf+html


VAN LAMMEREN R. 2011. Geomatics in in physiognomics landscape research: A dutch view. In VAN DER HOEVEN F. – NIJHUIS S. – VAN LAMMEREN R. Exploring the visual landscape: advances in physiognomic landscape research in the Netherlands. Amsterdam : IOS Press 2011 pp. 73–102. ISSN 1875-0192.


WEITKAMP G. 2011. Mapping landscape openness with isovists. In VAN DER HOEVEN Frank NIJHUIS Steffen VAN LAMMEREN Ron. Exploring the visual landscape advances in physiognomic landscape research in the Netherlands. Amsterdam : IOS Press 2011 pp. 277–302. ISSN 1875-0192.