BEACH PROFILE USING UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE IMAGE TECHNIQUE

Nasuha Binti Mohd Shaffiea and Effi Helmy Bin Ariffinb*

a
Faculty of Science and Marine Environment, University Malaysia Terengganu, 21030 Kuala
Nerus, Terengganu, Malaysia; bInstitute of Oceanography and Environment, University
Malaysia Terengganu, 21030 Kuala Nerus, Terengganu, Malaysia
a
nnasuha98@gmail.com; beffihelmy@umt.edu.my
* Corresponding author

Abstract: As technologies increase rapidly, the application of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)
for beach surveying has been used instead of theodolite method. This is still a debatable issue
whether UAV can completely replace the theodolite method for future research. In the studied
area on Seberang Takir, Kuala Nerus, it is recognized as a critical erosion site and beach
nourishment activity has been undertaken here on an approximately 5-year cycle. The
objectives of this study are to determine the accuracy of the beach profile using the UAV
method and to assess the difference between UAV and theodolite method. The results showed
that the elevation data of drone extracted from Digital Elevation Model (DEM) are match
equivalent to the total station elevation data within 0.03 m. The beach profile graph of the drone
and total station shows significant differences in the steeper area. This study shows that the
UAV image technique by using a drone holds the potential for monitoring and quantifying the
beach changes to levels of accuracy and precision that can be compared to the theodolite
method. UAV have a big potential for beach monitoring, and it is encouraged to be applied for
further understanding of how and when they can be most useful.

Keywords: Beach profile, total station, UAV, DEM, accuracy assessment

Introduction Besides, coastal topography is very

Coastal is an area where it holds a huge
amount of various types of sites with unique
ecological, geological, geomorphological,
landscape, or cultural heritage values that
need requirement for monitoring (Yoo & Oh,
2016). Natural beaches are also mostly
influenced by many coastal factors such as
river sediment.
complex and dynamic. Due to constant
changes in beach topography,
implementation of any way of the
topographic survey required followed by
different and precise monitoring. To
understand and learn more about the
morphodynamics, it is important to obtain
high-resolution data on beach topographic
changes. Moreover, monitoring the coastal

1
zone is an important task in environmental
protection and it is very fundamental in
coastal management.
Beach surveys and in-situ monitoring
have been traditionally performed for the
measurement of beach topography in many
methods such as Global Navigation Satellite
Systems – Real-Time Kinematic (GNSS-
RTK) or total station where the results are
very accurate along the measured transects
(Harley et al., 2011). These methods were
always used in beach profiling to determine
the changes of sediment volume where this
method can be used in the evaluation
procedure for various schemes (Yoo & Oh,
2016).
However, there are a few limitations
in traditional survey method where this
method sometimes taking a lot of or too
much time, size of areas that can be in-situ
surveyed are restricted and the cost of the
survey can be costly depending on the
circumstances (Shaw et al., 2019). The
monitoring of coastal change has thus far
been 2-D, specializing in coastal evolution,
supported by a limited set of perpendicular
shoreline profiles. Neither 2-D coastline nor
profile mapping can fully apprehend the
changes of the coastal that are caused by
natural processes. Precise information and a
deeper understanding of coastal topographic
changes are important to increase the success
rate of such coastal environmental projects
(Yoo & Oh, 2016).
Numerous researchers from various
backgrounds have been developed and
strengthened the UAV system over the past
few years. UAV systems are highly
demanding in business, research institutes,
and industries, as UAV is one of the low-cost
and most efficient equipment for image
acquisition. Moreover, UAV can hover at low
altitudes and produce a very high-resolution
image of the bottom surface. It is also a
promising alternative for a low-cost flight
mission to use in surveying. Thus, drones
have been chosen by many researchers in
becoming a standard survey tool of UAV
compared to the theodolite method (Moloney
et al., 2018). A drone can acquire high-
resolution data depends on the quality of the
drone and it is very cost-effective. Moreover,
the process to use drone are very straight-
forward and not confusing.
Nevertheless, some researchers
thought that using a drone as a
photogrammetric method is very challenging
especially in beach environments as low
texture and contrast of the sand surface make
it harder to match distinct features between
different images. Drone-based topographic
reconstructions of beach environment have
been considered as less accurate than in other
geomorphic settings, such as geological
outcrops or landslides. So, the use of a drone
as UAV technique needs to be investigated
further. Even so, the application of UAV that
is used to survey on the coast has started to
spread all around the world. It is also suitable
for coastal engineers and scientists due to
easy-to-get UAV survey equipment and
readily available data processing method
(Turner et al., 2016). The purpose of this
research therefore was to determine the
accuracy of the beach profile using UAV
method and to assess the difference between
UAV and theodolite method.
Materials and Methods
Study Site
Terengganu is located on the East Coast of
the Malaysian Peninsula, next to the
Kelantan state in its southern part and Pahang
state in the south. Terengganu is surrounded
2
by seas and has a large stretch of coconut
trees around the coast (Harun et al., 2018).
Figure 1 shows the study area that is located
at Seberang Takir in the district of Kuala
Nerus, Terengganu, Malaysia. The annual
mean air temperature varies from 26° to 28°C
while its annual rainfall is about 3300 mm
(Suratman et al., 2015).
From the observation, the beach is
fully used for tourist purposes with the
presence of gazebo that is mostly used by
local people for sightseeing. There is a little
presence of bushes beside the road which its
purposes are for decoration and not from
natural causes. The beach has a little
presence of vegetation and more focused on
tourism. This area also involved in ‘Tourism
Gateway’ project that is implemented by the
federal government collaborating with the
state government through the council of the
East Coast Economic Region (ECER, 2010).
The sand volume in the study area are high
due to beach nourishment activity that has
been undertaken here on an approximately 5-
year cycle (Chalabi et al., 2006). Moreover,
the beach receives high waves and the area
was very windy.
Figure 1: Study area
Total Station
The system was composed of an electronic
theodolite with an electronic distance meter
(EDM). The data was collected by using
Topcon GPT-3100N based on Figure 2. This
survey method is a two-person operation,
where one person held a prism (on a
pole/staff) over each feature required to be
recorded while the other person will take a
reading to the prism by focusing on it through
the optics of the instrument. Before
measuring the beach slope, the height of the
instrument on its tripod to the benchmark,
and the height of the prism on the pole was
measured (Oniga et al., 2018). The
instrument was then recorded the bearing and
distance for each surveyed feature. The
readings were adjusted to the DTGSM datum
level (Ariffin et al., 2018) and 9 transects
were recorded containing 2 benchmarks, 29
Ground Control Points (GCPs), and 93
points. The GCPs were used in the process of
indirectly georeferencing drone images
where GCPs were recorded at the presence of
trees and buildings. This theodolite survey
took about 2 hours to finish the field
observation.
Figure 2: Total Station
3
UAV Survey
The system was composed of a drone with a
remote controller, a video return system, a
standard tablet with a planning software, or
application (Laporte-Fauret et al., 2019). The
images were collected using DJI Mavic Pro
based on Figure 3. This device is equipped
with a maximum resolution of 12.71 Mpixel.
The lens has a 78.8° field of view (FOV),
with a 35-mm equivalent focal length of
26mm and a f/2.2 aperture. It was provided
with 3830 mAh smart batteries that allowed
a net flight time of nearly 27 min per battery,
totaling one hour per field session. During
the flight, the drone position, the battery, and
status, and the captured images will be
continuously monitored on the remote
screen.
Figure 3: DJI Mavic Pro
By using Mission HUB Litchi
software for flight planning, the grid mission
for flight capture was selected and the home
point was set up. The drone flies in the grid
that was set along the beach and took images
of the beach and measured the beach
topography for 12 minutes at 120 m altitudes.
Based on Error! Reference source not found.,
the drone captured images vertically with
horizontal movement overlapped 80%. As a
result, the drone captured 250 m image of
beach for 5.5 km in UTM coordinate
containing 248 images and 3 videos collected
for data processing. This UAV survey took
about 1 hour to finish the field observation.
Figure 4: Flight planning
DEM Generation
Aerial images collected during the flight
were processed by using Agisoft Photoscan
Pro (version 1.4.5; www.agisoft.com)
(Casella et al., 2020) which produced
orthophoto and DEM of the beach. Figure 5
shows the steps that were used in Agisoft
Photoscan. For precise georeferencing and to
minimize horizontal and vertical error, a
Topcon GPT-1300N was used to acquire the
coordinates of GCPs with UTM Zone 48N
DATUM for horizontal coordinate. The
alignment parameters were set to “high”,
dense point cloud generation was executed
with “high” settings, and depth filtering
mode set to “aggressive.” The dense cloud
4
was the source used to build the DEMs with
interpolation enabled. ArcGIS was used to
crop the DEM to the area within the transects
and extracting the Z-values by using
ArcToolBox and extracting the raster values
to points to build a beach profile and to
execute the accuracy assessment.
Align Photos
Add GCPs
Build Dense Cloud
Build Mesh
Build Texture
Build Tiled Model
Build DEM
Build Orthophoto
Figure 5: DEM Generation methodology
flowchart
Accuracy Assessment
For each point, two elevation values were
available: one from a total station and other
from a drone. Difference on elevation were
determined as shown in Equation (1):
𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 𝑖𝑛 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝐷𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑒 −
𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (1)
Data from the calculation may be positive or
negative and different for each point. The
whole set of data was summarized with a
single value by calculating RMSE in
elevation. The RMSE was carried out (Udin
& Ahmad, 2014) by using the equation
shown in Equation (2):
∑(𝑛1 − 𝑛2 )2
𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐸 = ±√ (2)
𝑁−1
Where,
𝑛1 = differences values between two
parameters
𝑛2 = mean differentiation
𝑛3 = number of points
Results and Discussion
Elevation data extracted from a drone and
total station created a beach profile graph of
total station and drone as shown in Figure 6.
From the graphs, there are not many
differences between the graph and it shows
the same shape and curve from both
techniques. However, some significant
differences started to appear at the beginning
of the steepness in Transect 1 due to the
presence of breakwater. At Transect 2, there
is a small difference where the drone shows
a smooth linear line compared to a total
station that shows more steepness at the
beginning of the profile. At Transect 3, at the
beginning and at the end of the profile, it
shows a difference in slope between total
station and drone but at the middle of the
steepness, total station and drone overlapped
each other which shows that the value of
elevation from both methods are close to
each other.
At Transect 4, large differences of the
slope appear at the first 10 m of the profile
and at the end of the profile. At Transect 5,
5
significant differences of slope only appear at
the first 20 m of the profile. At Transect 6 and
Transect 7, both show small differences of
the slope at the first 20 m of the profile but
show quite differences between slope at the
end of the profile. At Transect 8, significant
differences of slope appear at the distances of
a)
TRANSECT 1
30 m until the end of the profile. At Transect
9, the differences start to show at the distance
of 20 m and the differences become larger
and more significant until the end of the
profile due to the presence of vegetation and
gazebo.
b)
TRANSECT 2

Elevation (m)
Elevation (m)

6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
0 20 40 0 20 40
Distance (m) Distance (m)
Total Station Drone Total Station Drone

c) d)
TRANSECT 3 TRANSECT 4
Elevation (m)

Elevation (m)

6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
0 20 40 0 20 40
Distance (m)
Distance (m)
Total Station Drone Total Station Drone

e) f)
TRANSECT 5 TRANSECT 6
Elevation (m)

Elevation (m)

6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
0 20 40 0 20 40
Distance (m) Distance (m)
Total Station Drone Total Station Drone

6
 g) h)
Elevation (m) TRANSECT 7 TRANSECT 8

Elevation (m)
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
0 20 40 0 20 40
Distance (m) Distance (m)
Total Station Drone Total Station Drone

i)
TRANSECT 9
Elevation (m)

6
4
2
0
0 20 40
Distance (m)
Total Station Drone
Figure 6: beach profile graphs of total station and drone

Beach profile graphs show the valid in the area limited by the GCPs
differences in elevation value between a total (Trembanis et al., 2017), the extracted value
station and drone. The elevation graph from for elevation can be less accurate and shows
the drone survey is parallel to the slope big differences.
attributes total station. The profile of drone
also shows the same pattern to the profile of The orthophoto generated was
total station. However, it has quite a big analyzed with coordinates of the total station.
difference value, especially in the steeper The 3D coordinates obtained from the total
area where drone overestimated elevation for station were used as a reference value for
the lower part of the profiles. The slope accuracy assessment. RMSE value of
appears less precise can be due to the surface elevation data that has been extracted from
condition where it has various slope angles DEM of the drone was shown in Error!
that can affect the results due to the lens Reference source not found.. The value of
limitation of drone (Tahar, 2015). Besides RMSE is 0.03 that is near to 0 with an altitude
that, Transect 1 and Transect 9 show the most 120m.
significant difference of slope due to the Table 1: Accuracy value of drone
presence of gazebo and breakwater resulting
only a few GCPs can be planted in these areas RMSE (m) Terrain Altitude (m)
because it is not convenient and very hard to 0.03 Slope 120
access. Since drone derived DEM can be

2
 The RMSE value show that the UAV
imagery data collected are accurate prior to
the theodolite method because the smaller the
value of the RMSE, the higher the orthophoto
accuracy (Udin & Ahmad, 2014). The
validity of the orthophoto depends on the
value of the RMSE. This achievable accuracy
was also dependent on the configuration of
the photographs that affect the production of
DEM and orthophoto. Besides, the presence
of GCPs also gives a direct impact on
accuracy (Udin & Ahmad, 2014). Moreover,
the quality of orthophoto and DEM depends
on the accuracy of GCPs (Tahar, 2015) which
contributes to the high accuracy of RMSE
value.
To compared with the total station,
based on Casella et al. (2020), the highest
RMSE value achieved by using a total station
is 0.005 m. Despite having a difference by
much of 0.025 m, it is still considered as
accurate as the RMSE value is not more than
1. This can be concluded that the orthophoto
map and DEM generated from UAV
technique can be a great option in collecting
data in an area instead of tacheometry using
total station (Ngadiman et al., 2018). From
DEM and orthophoto, these two can be
combined to generate accurate 3D modeling
to represent the landscape by using software
such as ArcScene and it can analyze high
accuracy earth moving volumetric
calculations (Barry & Coakley, 2013). In
addition, the time used by UAV to capture
images in producing orthophoto map is lesser
than the total station and its resolution is high
with low cost to be invested.
Based on the past studies by Harwin
et al. (2015), the RMSE value that was
determined by comparing UAV and
theodolite method is 0.005-0.02 m with only
a single survey. Besides that, studies by Desa
et al. (2019), the best value of RMSE value
after comparing UAV and the total station is
0.03 m. It was investigated that the error was
due to the flying height during image
acquisition, image matching during image
processing and motion movements.
Moreover, studies by Saito et al. (2018), by
using UAV and a total station to measure the
sand dune at Tottori, Japan resulting in the
best RMSE value in the article which is 0.14
m. This is due to the unconventional area for
the total station to be conducted as the slope
was too steep, hence the measured points are
not accurate enough.
In addition, studies by Wallace et al.
(2019), where UAV has been used to estimate
the terrain in the presence of a canopy cover.
By using a total station data as GCPs and
reference, it was calculated that the RMSE
values ranged between 0.07 and 0.30 m. High
RMSE value was due to images that had
minimal information representing the ground
and where the canopy gaps were present, the
ground was in deep shadow and the dynamic
range of the sensor has been unable to collect
data describing the terrain. Lastly, studies by
Yeh et al. (2018), the result shows that there
is 0.061 m of RMSE value between the
elevation results of UAV and the total station
where the slope is the main key to affect the
value. From the studies combined with this
research, the UAV and theodolite method are
applicable in certain areas and were used on
many research and purposes.
During the field study, the analysis of
estimation time was studied to compare
between a drone and total station. The
estimation included fieldwork, processing
time, and labor needed. By using the total
station, setting up the equipment took about
10 minutes with the help of professional
people, almost two hours collecting
benchmark and elevation data required and at
least three people execute the survey. For
2
UAV survey, the time taken for this method
required 15 minutes to set up the equipment,
12 minutes for drone flying in the grid to
capture the images of the beach, one person
to control the drone and 15 minutes to settle
down all the instrument. The field
measurement using UAV technique was
obtained in one hour, while the theodolite
method took about two hours. Besides that,
using a drone was very convenient because it
can capture images of an area that very hard
to measure using the total station.
By this means, the UAV method is
contactless that allows for high visual
representations either from a natural or man-
made environment as it can obtain
information from an area that is not
convenient and hard to access such as rocky
cliffs and remote location. In addition, the
risks of obtaining the data with the UAV are
much lower, because people are not exposed
to unstable locations. Moreover, it does not
interfere with public people at the study area
compared to theodolite method where it
cannot be interfered with by any means that
will block the presence of the rod. This is a
noticeable point that UAV method is more
efficient over a large or difficult area than the
conventional theodolite method (Eyoh et al.,
2019).
In general, the advantage of UAV is
its enormous time saving on data collection
without an appreciable loss in accuracy, high-
spatial observations, and easy to generate
topographic maps. To compare with
theodolite method, the advantages are high
accuracy of measurement especially in the
dynamic surf zone and for detailed analysis
of beach changes (Cheng et al., 2016). The
accuracy of the total station depends on the
distance, angle, and the used prism (Chekole,
2014) while the accuracy of a drone depends
on the number of GCPs. Moreover, the
accuracy is not degraded by trees blocking or
ionospheric effect but drone images can be
affected by this presence especially clouds
because the total station collects data from
the ground-based while drone collect from
aerial view.
Total station needs much manpower
to collect data while drone is a one-man
method but based on past studies, the
accuracy using total station is better than a
drone. However, both these techniques are
day time data collection because the UAV
technique needs a clear view of an area to
extract the elevation data while the theodolite
method needs to know the precise angle,
position, and distance of the prism so it can
produce accurate images. Nevertheless, a
total station also an ideal tool for a beginner
as it is a very practical and accurate method
for documenting beach changes, especially
for low wave energy coasts (Cheng et al.,
2016).
Conclusion
This paper focuses on the UAV survey at the
beach area accompany with the theodolite
method. In this research study, the theodolite
method using a total station and UAV
methods were assessed and analyzed. The
study shows that orthophoto and DEM are
very accurate and able to achieve fast results.
To obtain a good result, UAV acquisition is
fundamental, especially during flight
planning where the high percentage of the
overlapping of images affects the results. In
addition, a high number of GCPs should be
included during fieldwork. As orthophoto
and DEM generated, accuracy assessment
and beach profile can be executed and
created. With RMSE value of 0.03 m and R2
value of 0.97, the accuracy of drone data
using the total station as a reference proved
3
to be accurate to be used in coastal
monitoring and beach profiling.
This methodology is very promising
because it took images from aerial view
which minimizes human intervention. Above
all, this approach allows the problem of
surveying at an area that is not convenient for
a total station to be used. There are pros and
cons of the UAV such as time-saving on data
collection and how the method is not
applicable during night-time. Compared to
the UAV method, the total station has high
accuracy measurement but it does not
convenient in areas that are hard to access.
However, both methods are applicable to
coastal monitoring with different objectives
and purposes.
This study also concludes with a call
for more research on costs and actual
impacts, documentation of factors that lead
to successes and failures, and how the UAV
technique divides influence monitoring
outcomes. UAV technologies have a big
potential for monitoring, and it is encouraged
to be applied for further understanding of
how and when they can be most useful.
During this study, there are a few things that
have been identified for future research. I
humbly recommend that (1) during dense
cloud process in data processing using
Agisoft Photoscan, set the quality to “ultra-
high” for more valid alignment accuracy of
image originals and upscaled images; (2) this
methodology to include infrared cameras that
can be used to correct sun glints; and (3)
distribute GCPs throughout the area
especially at the breakwater, vegetation area,
and waterline to ensure the accuracy of
DEM.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank to my only supervisor,
Dr Effi Helmy for his guidance and expertise
throughout the entire duration of the
fieldwork and thesis. Besides that, I would
like to extend my appreciation to the
academic and general staff members of
Faculty of Science and Marine Environment
and INOS from Universiti Malaysia
Terengganu who have helped me for various
aspects of this fieldwork and in processing
raw data so that I can complete this thesis. To
all my beloved friends, my final year project
groupmate and seniors who have helped me
in conducting my fieldwork and giving idea
for the thesis and support me throughout my
research.
References
Ariffin, E. H, Mathew, M. J., Yaacob, R.,
Fadzil, M., Shaari, H., Zulfakar, M. S.Z.
& Awang, N. A. (2018). Beach
morphodynamic classification in
different monsoon seasons at
Terengganu beaches, Malaysia. Journal
of Sustainability Science and
Management, 13(5), 65-74.
Barry, P., & Coakley, R. (2013). Accuracy of
UAV photogrammetry compared with
network RTK GPS. Int. Arch.
Photogramm. Remote Sens, 2, 27-31.
Casella, E., Drechsel, J., Winter, C.,
Benninghoff, M., & Rovere, A. (2020).
Accuracy of sand beach topography
surveying by drones and
photogrammetry. Geo-Marine Letters,
1-14.
Chalabi, A., Mohd-Lokman, H., Mohd-
Suffian, I., Karamali, K., Karthigeyan,
4
 V., & Masita, M. (2006). Monitoring
shoreline change using Ikonos image and
aerial photographs: a case study of Kuala
Terengganu area, Malaysia. ISPRS
Commission VII Mid-term Symposium
“Remote Sensing: From Pixels to
Processes”. Enschede, the Netherlands.
Desa, H., bin Azizan, M. A., Khadir, M. S.
A., Suhaimi, M. S., Ramli, N. Z., & Hat,
Z. (2019). Feasibility Study of UAV
Implementation in Route
Surveying. Journal of Robotics,
Networking and Artificial Life, 6(2), 84-
88.
ECER (2010). Kuala Terengganu City
Centre: A Vibrant Heritage Waterfront
City. East Coast Economic Region
Development Council (ECERDC).
Eyoh, A., Ubom, O., & Ekpa, A. (2019).
Comparative analysis of UAV
photogrammetry and total station
traversing on route survey. European
Journal of Engineering and Technology
Vol, 7(4).
Harley, M. D., Turner, I. L., Short, A. D., &
Ranasinghe, R. (2011). Assessment and
integration of conventional, RTK-GPS
and image-derived beach survey
methods for daily to decadal coastal
monitoring. Coastal Engineering, 58(2),
194-205.
Harun, N. Z., & Jaffar, N. (2018).
Enhancement for rural livability:
Changes and impacts on the traditional
Malay settlement. Environment-
Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 3(9),
127-134.
Harwin, S., Lucieer, A., & Osborn, J. (2015).
The impact of the calibration method on
the accuracy of point clouds derived
using unmanned aerial vehicle multi-
view stereopsis. Remote Sensing, 7(9),
11933-11953.
Laporte-Fauret, Q., Marieu, V., Castelle, B.,
Michalet, R., Bujan, S., & Rosebery, D.
(2019). Low-Cost UAV for high-
resolution and large-scale coastal dune
change monitoring using
photogrammetry. Journal of Marine
Science and Engineering, 7(3), 63.
Moloney, J. G., Hilton, M. J., Sirguey, P., &
Simons-Smith, T. (2018). Coastal dune
surveying using a low-cost remotely
piloted aerial system (RPAS). Journal of
Coastal Research, 34(5), 1244-1255.
Ngadiman, N., Kaamin, M., Sahat, S.,
Mokhtar, M., Ahmad, N. F. A., Kadir, A.
A., & Razali, S. N. M. (2018).
Production of orthophoto map using
UAV photogrammetry: A case study in
UTHM Pagoh campus. In Kaamin, M.
(Ed.) AIP Conference Proceedings.
Malaysia: University Yun Husseion On
Malaysia, Johor.
Oniga, V. E., Breaban, A. I., & Statescu, F.
(2018). Determining the optimum
number of ground control points for
obtaining high precision results based on
UAS images. In Multidisciplinary
Digital Publishing Institute
Proceedings (Vol. 2, No. 7, p. 352)
Saito, T., Kawai, T., Inosako, K., & Yasuda,
H. (2018). Aerial photogrammetry and
three-dimensional modeling of the
Tottori Sand Dunes using UAV. Journal
of Arid Land Studies, 28(S), 89-92.
5
Shaw, L., Helmholz, P., Belton, D., & Addy, Yeh, F. H., Huang, C. J., Han, J. Y., & Ge, L.
N. (2019). Comparison of UAV lidar and (2018). Modeling slope topography
imagery for beach using unmanned aerial vehicle image
monitoring. International Archives of the technique. In MATEC web of
Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing & conferences. EDP Sciences.
Spatial Information Science.
Yoo, C. I., & Oh, T. S. (2016). Beach volume
Suratman, S., Sailan, M. M., Hee, Y. Y., change using UAV photogrammetry
Bedurus, E. A., & Latif, M. T. (2015). A Songjung beach, Korea. The
preliminary study of water quality index International Archives of
in Terengganu River basin, Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and
Malaysia. Sains Malaysiana, 44(1), 67- Spatial Information Sciences, 41, 1201.
73.

Tahar, K. N. (2015). Efficiency and cost

comparison of UAV/Field survey. 2015
International Conference on Space
Science and Communication
(IconSpace). Malaysia: IEEE, Langkawi.

Trembanis, A. C., Duo, E., Dohner, S.,

Grottoli, E., & Ciavola, P. (2017). Quick
response assessment of the impact of an
extreme storm combining aerial drone
and RTK GPS. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst.
Sci. Discuss., https://doi.
org/10.5194/nhess-2017-337, in review.

Udin, W. S., & Ahmad, A. (2014).

Assessment of photogrammetric
mapping accuracy based on variation
flying altitude using unmanned aerial
vehicle. IOP conference series: earth
and environmental science. IOP
Publishing..

Wallace, L., Bellman, C., Hally, B.,

Hernandez, J., Jones, S., & Hillman, S.
(2019). Assessing the ability of image-
based point clouds captured from a UAV
to measure the terrain in the presence of
canopy cover. Forests, 10(3), 284.