Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

On the accuracy of glacier outlines derived from remote-sensing data


Abstract

Deriving glacier outlines from satellite data has become increasingly popular in the past decade. In particular when glacier outlines are used as a base for change assessment, it is important to know how accurate they are. Calculating the accuracy correctly is challenging, as appropriate reference data (e.g. from higher-resolution sensors) are seldom available. Moreover, after the required manual correction of the raw outlines (e.g. for debris cover), such a comparison would only reveal the accuracy of the analyst rather than of the algorithm applied. Here we compare outlines for clean and debris- covered glaciers, as derived from single and multiple digitizing by different or the same analysts on very high- (1m) and medium-resolution (30m) remote-sensing data, against each other and to glacier outlines derived from automated classification of Landsat Thematic Mapper data. Results show a high variability in the interpretation of debris-covered glacier parts, largely independent of the spatial resolution (area differences were up to 30%), and an overall good agreement for clean ice with sufficient contrast to the surrounding terrain (differences $5%). The differences of the automatically derived outlines from a reference value are as small as the standard deviation of the manual digitizations from several analysts. Based on these results, we conclude that automated mapping of clean ice is preferable to manual digitization and recommend using the latter method only for required corrections of incorrectly mapped glacier parts (e.g. debris cover, shadow).

Abstract

Deriving glacier outlines from satellite data has become increasingly popular in the past decade. In particular when glacier outlines are used as a base for change assessment, it is important to know how accurate they are. Calculating the accuracy correctly is challenging, as appropriate reference data (e.g. from higher-resolution sensors) are seldom available. Moreover, after the required manual correction of the raw outlines (e.g. for debris cover), such a comparison would only reveal the accuracy of the analyst rather than of the algorithm applied. Here we compare outlines for clean and debris- covered glaciers, as derived from single and multiple digitizing by different or the same analysts on very high- (1m) and medium-resolution (30m) remote-sensing data, against each other and to glacier outlines derived from automated classification of Landsat Thematic Mapper data. Results show a high variability in the interpretation of debris-covered glacier parts, largely independent of the spatial resolution (area differences were up to 30%), and an overall good agreement for clean ice with sufficient contrast to the surrounding terrain (differences $5%). The differences of the automatically derived outlines from a reference value are as small as the standard deviation of the manual digitizations from several analysts. Based on these results, we conclude that automated mapping of clean ice is preferable to manual digitization and recommend using the latter method only for required corrections of incorrectly mapped glacier parts (e.g. debris cover, shadow).

Statistics

Citations

Dimensions.ai Metrics
157 citations in Web of Science®
175 citations in Scopus®
204 citations in Microsoft Academic
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

153 downloads since deposited on 03 Nov 2013
57 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:07 Faculty of Science > Institute of Geography
Dewey Decimal Classification:910 Geography & travel
Language:English
Date:2013
Deposited On:03 Nov 2013 13:37
Last Modified:16 Feb 2018 18:16
Publisher:International Glaciological Society
ISSN:0260-3055
OA Status:Gold
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.3189/2013AoG63A296

Download

Download PDF  'On the accuracy of glacier outlines derived from remote-sensing data'.
Preview
Content: Published Version
Language: English
Filetype: PDF
Size: 1MB
View at publisher