International Journal of Remote Sensing

ISSN: 0143-1161 (Print) 1366-5901 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tres20

Determining the best remotely sensed DEM for

flood inundation mapping in data sparse regions

Asghar Azizian & Luca Brocca

To cite this article: Asghar Azizian & Luca Brocca (2020) Determining the best remotely sensed
DEM for flood inundation mapping in data sparse regions, International Journal of Remote Sensing,
41:5, 1884-1906, DOI: 10.1080/01431161.2019.1677968

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2019.1677968

Published online: 19 Oct 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 711

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 20 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tres20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING
2020, VOL. 41, NO. 5, 1884–1906
https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2019.1677968

Determining the best remotely sensed DEM for flood

inundation mapping in data sparse regions
Asghar Aziziana and Luca Broccab
a
Department of Water engineering, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran; bResearch
Institute for Geo-Hydrological Protection IRPI, Perugia, Italy

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

One of the most essential inputs in flood inundation mapping is the Received 18 November 2018
geometric description of the floodplains and river channel that Accepted 17 July 2019
often derives from the digital elevation models (DEMs). By increas-
ing the satellite-based technologies during the past 30 years, sev-
eral DEM sources ranging from fine-resolution and accurate, but
costly, to low-cost and low-resolution have been developed. In
most parts of the world, especially developing countries and data
sparse regions, the coarse resolution DEMs is the only available data
set for hydraulic modelling and flood inundation mapping. This
research addressed the usefulness and efficiency of the recently
released Advanced Land Observing Satellite (ALOS) DEM in flood
inundation mapping using 1D Hydrologic Engineering Centre- River
Analysis System (HEC-RAS) model. In addition, other DEM sources
such as Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM-90 m), SRTM-
30 m, and Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection
Radiometer (ASTER-30 m) are used to carry out a comprehensive
evaluation of remotely sensed DEMs for flood inundation mapping.
Findings indicate that using ALOS-30m for hydraulic simulation
approximately leads to the similar results as well as ground-based
DEM (GDEM). For example, the Mean Absolute Percentage Error
(MAPE) in simulating mean Water Surface Elevation (WSE) and
mean inundated extents based on this dataset, within the cross-
sections, is lower than 8% and 13% for SojasRood river, respectively,
while for Sarbaz river these values are 9% and 2%. Moreover, in
both rivers, SRTM-30 m relative to ASTER-30 m and SRTM-
90 m DEMs presents better results in deriving the geometric
model and hydraulic simulation. Also, Hydraulic modelling based
on ASTER-30 m, even relative to SRTM-90 m as a coarser resolution
DEM, shows a significant discrepancy compared to GDEM.
Moreover, in both rivers, the MAPE in predicting inundated extents,
within the reaches, is higher than 38%.

1. Introduction
Flooding is one of the major natural disasters that affects many parts of the world and has
led to the huge amounts of property damages and human lives losses, especially in
developing countries (Wilby et al., 2008; Cook and Merwade 2009; Spence et al., 2011;

CONTACT Asghar Azizian Azizian@Eng.ikiu.ac.ir Department of Water engineering, Imam Khomeini

International University, Qazvin, Iran
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING 1885

Arnell and Gosling, 2016; Liu et al., 2018). During the past 30 years, several hydraulic
models have been developed and integrated with the Geographic Information Systems
(GIS). The performance of these models depends on several factors, which among them
the choice of hydraulic model (1D or 2D), a correct representation of the river channel and
floodplain geometry, model assumptions/parameters, reliable boundary and initial con-
ditions are required to achieve accurate results, such as flood extent and Water Surface
Elevation (WSE) along the river (Hall et al. 2005; Pappenberger et al. 2006; Srinivas et al.,
2008; Jung and Merwade 2011; Lin et al. 2012; Saksena and Merwade 2015; Laks et al.,
2016; Azizian 2019). Among these factors the geometric description of the floodplains and
river channels has been reported to be one of the fundamental input data in hydraulic
modelling (Brandt 2005; Cook and Merwade 2009; Saksena and Merwade 2015) and this
input data can be obtained from the Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) (Ali, Solomatine, and
Baldassarre 2015). Currently, there are several DEM sources that ranging from fine-
resolution and accurate, but costly, to low-cost and low-resolution, such as ASTER
(Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer), SRTM (Shuttle
Radar Topography Mission), ALOS (Advanced Land Observing Satellite) and GTOPO30
(global 30 arc-second elevation). Two key attributes of a DEM, including the horizontal
and the vertical accuracy, are important in flood inundation mapping (Gallant and
Hutchinson, 1997; Haile and Rientjes 2005; Saksena and Merwade 2015). Many studies
have been carried out on understanding the importance of DEM resolution in flood
inundation mapping and most of them have found that fine-resolution DEMs lead to
more accurate flood extents, while using low-resolution DEMs over-predict the flood
maps (Marks and Bates, 2000; Werner 2001; Omer et al., 2003; Brandt 2005; Haile and
Rientjes 2005; Casas et al. 2006; Sanders 2007; Cook and Merwade 2009, 2009; Saksena
and Merwade 2015; Laks et al. 2017). Moreover, vertical accuracy of a DEM depends on
data resolution (the density of points which are used for the creation of a DEM), sampling
and interpolation techniques (Smith et al., 2004; Bater and Coops, 2009). Most of the
researches have investigated this key attribute and have found that Light Detection and
Ranging (LiDAR) datasets have the minimum vertical error relative to other available
elevation sources (Hodgson et al., 2003; Heritage et al., 2009; Schumann et al. 2008;
Saksena and Merwade 2015; Ali, Solomatine, and Baldassarre 2015). In other words,
using high-resolution DEMs, such as LiDAR, Global Position System (GPS), and contour-
based DEMs leads to the highest accuracy in generating the geometric model and flood
inundation mapping. In contrast to high-resolution datasets, other DEM sources that are
remotely sensed result in significant errors in geometric model and flood inundation
maps (Moya et al. 2013) and before using them for hydraulic modelling they must be
corrected (Saksena and Merwade 2015; Laks et al. 2017).
In many developing countries, DEMs are not easily available and topographic maps are
used to derive the geometric description of rivers and flood simulation. Therefore,
evaluating the usability of different topographic data sets on the quality of terrain models
and subsequently, the outputs of hydraulic models can be beneficial for these countries
and data-sparse regions. To date, a number of studies have been carried out with the aim
of investigating the efficiency and applicability of some remotely sensed DEMs for flood
inundation mapping. In addition, most of these studies have focused on SRTM-90 m and
ASTER-30 m datasets (Hirt, Filmer, and Featherstone 2010; Wang, Yang, and Yao 2012;
Gichamo et al. 2012; Jing et al. 2014; Gesch, Oimoen, and Evans 2014; Rexer and Hirt 2014;
1886 A. AZIZIAN AND L. BROCCA

Jarihani et al. 2015) and other DEM sources such as SRTM-30 m and ALOS-30 m have been
considered less in the past studies. For example, Schumann et al. (2008) evaluated three
DEMs (LiDAR, counter-based DEM and SRTM-90 m) for estimating the water stage and
inundation area of a study reach in Luxembourg. Findings showed that the LiDAR DEM
with the minimum Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) value is the best dataset for the
estimation of water stage compared to other DEMs. However, they stated that SRTM-
90 m DEM with RMSE of 1.07 m was relatively good and it can be used for flood
inundation mapping in large and homogeneous areas. Patro et al. (2009) assessed the
applicability of SRTM-90 m DEM for hydraulic simulation of a river in India and found that
the hydraulic model performed quite well in simulating the peak flow and other hydraulic
properties. Tarekegn et al. (2010) used ASTER-30 m DEM for hydraulic simulation in some
Ethiopian rivers and concluded ASTER-30 m DEM can accurately estimate the inundated
extents. Yan et al. () found that using SRTM-90 m DEM as a topographic map to a 1D
hydraulic model, simulated hydraulic properties as well as high-resolution ground map.
Jarihani et al. (2015) evaluated the topographic accuracy, methods of preparation and
grid size on hydrodynamic models performance in Thompson river, Australia and found
that SRTM-30 m DEM had higher accuracy than ASTER-30 m DEM in simulating inundation
areas. Also, they concluded that correcting DEMs (removing noises and vegetation effects)
improved the hydrodynamic model results. Mukolwe et al. (2016) assessed the utility of
EUDEM (digital elevation model over Europe), SRTM-90 m and LiDAR DEMs to support
flood inundation modelling on a 98 km reach of the river Po, Italy. Results indicated that
the flood inundation maps built on coarse resolutions data (EUDEM and SRTM-90m)
performed well in simulating WSE along the river. Fernández et al. (2016) applied the
LISFLOOD-FP model and SRTM-90 m DEM to simulate inundation dynamics on the
Logone river floodplain, northern Cameroon. Results showed that total inundation areas
and flow into the floodplain are accurately simulated, but due to uncertainties in SRTM
elevations the spatial pattern of inundation areas was not well simulated. Chen et al.
(2018) proposed a Hydraulic Correction Method (HCM) for the SRTM-90 m DEM to
improve 2D hydrodynamic modelling accuracy in Huifa river basin, China. Findings
depicted that hydraulically corrected DEM has obtained favourable results in flood
simulation. Araújo et al. (2019) calibrated SRTM DEM using ground control points
(GCPs) and derived flood risk areas map under the influence of the Uruguay river, Itaqui
(southern Brazil). Findings on calibrated DEM showed a 68.2% improvement in vertical
accuracy and five classes of flood hazards were determined.
Although several studies have been carried out during the past 30 years on assessing
the vertical accuracy of remotely sensed DEMs (e.g. Nikolakopoulos, Kamaratakis, and
Chrysoulakis 2006; Gesch 2007; Thomas et al. 2014; Amans et al. 2014; Satgé et al. 2015;
Elkhrachy, 2018; Pakoksung and Takagi 2016; Jain et al. 2018; Ghandehari, Buttenfield, and
Farmer 2019), but the usability of such DEMs for hydraulic simulation and flood inunda-
tion mapping is still remained as a challenging issue, especially in developing countries
and data-limited areas. Very recently, the ALOS DEM (Takaku et al. 2016; Tadono et al.,
2016) dataset was released for all parts of the world (within approx. 82°. of N/S latitudes).
ALOS DEM is a free of charge dataset at a resolution of 1 arc-second (approximately 30 m)
and almost covering all continents and countries. Its potential for hydraulic simulation
and flood inundation mapping is still unexplored, especially for data-limited areas such as
Iran’s rivers. Therefore, the main objective of this study is to test the usefulness of the
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING 1887

recently released ALOS DEM in flood inundation mapping. Moreover, other remotely
sensed DEMs such as SRTM-90 m, SRTM-30 m, and ASTER-30 m are used to carry out
a comprehensive evaluation of different DEM sources for hydraulic modelling and deriv-
ing the geometric description of rivers. These goals are satisfied by creating multiple
geometric models using above datasets, and running 1D hydraulic model to the simula-
tion of flood inundation maps for two river reaches in Iran.

2. Methods and materials

2.1. Methodology of research
This study involves the following steps for each river reach: (1) surveying topographic map
with the scale of 1:1000 (common map scale for river engineering studies); (2) using
different interpolation method to create the accurate DEM from topographic map (hereafter
called GDEM); (3) creating channel geometry (floodplain and river bed) based on GDEM and
remotely sensed DEMs using HEC-GeoRAS (Ackerman, 2005; Dysarz et al., 2015); (4) flood
simulation and inundation mapping using each DEM sources; (5) evaluating each dataset’s
performance by comparing simulated hydraulic properties (inundation extents and WSE)
with the GDEM’s results using common efficiency measures including the Root Mean Square
Error (RMSE), Mean Relative Error (MRE), Mean Absolute Difference (MAD) and F-statistic; (6)
correcting and improving the efficiency of remotely sensed DEMs by removing mean bias.
The flowchart of all these steps is presented in Figure 1. Moreover, due to the lack of
observed flood maps and in order to evaluate solely the influence of the DEM on the model
results, all hydraulic simulations are conducted with the same boundary conditions, rough-
ness coefficients and without any calibration.

2.2. Study area

The study river reaches are located within the two different catchments in the states of
Zanjan and Sistan-Baluchistan, Iran (Figure 2). The above study reaches including the
SojasRood river in Zanjan and Sarbaz river in Sistan-Baluchistan. The above rivers provide
distinct topographical, geographic situation of rivers (urban, rural, agricultural or moun-
tainous reaches), floodplain width and climate condition, then offering an appropriate
case study for addressing the research objectives. Sarbaz river is a wide width river in the
south-east of Sistan-Baluchistan, and it has U-shaped valley and history of high floods,
especially in the spring season. The SojasRood river near Gheidar city, Zanjan, is sur-
rounded by Agh-Dagh mountainous and agricultural areas.
The main channel of this river is V-shaped and surrounded by small trees and natural
vegetation, which affect the flow moving between the floodplain and main channel
(Azizian 2019). Flood simulation for all rivers is performed by using 100-year flow for
steady state. The main reason that leads to the selection of this return period is the flood
inundation conditions along the study reaches. Because in these reaches the floodplains
do not get inundated for smaller return period flows. Details of the study rivers are
summarized in Table 1.
1888 A. AZIZIAN AND L. BROCCA

Figure 1. Flowchart presenting the required steps of the research.

2.3. Hydraulic modelling and flood inundation mapping

Flood inundation mapping is carried out by using a 1D Hydrologic Engineering Centre- River
Analysis System (HEC-RAS) model, which is developed by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE, 2010; 2016). This is the most commonly used flood modelling tool in all
parts of the world (Schumann et al. 2008; Cook and Merwade 2009; Saksena and Merwade
2015; Ali, Solomatine, and Baldassarre 2015) and can simulate both steady and unsteady flow
conditions. In steady state, HEC-RAS computes WSE, inundated extent and velocity at discrete
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING 1889

Figure 2. Layout map of the study areas (A: SojasRood river and B: Sarbaz river).

Table 1. General characteristics of the study rivers (Azizian 2019).

100-year flow
River reach No. of cross-sections (m3 s−1) Reach length (m) Bed slope (%) Land use/landform
Sarbaz 45 2150 13,200 0.50 Rural/U-shaped valleys
SojasRood 44 310 3800 0.67 Agricultural/V-shaped valleys

cross-sections by solving the energy equation with an iterative procedure called the standard
step method (USACE, 2010, 2016). The energy equation is follows as below:

V22 V2
Z2 þ Y2 þ α2 ¼ Z1 þ Y1 þ α1 1 þ he (1)
2g 2g

where Z1 and Z2: elevation of the main channel inverts (m); Y1 and Y2: flow depth at cross-
sections (m); V1 and V2: mean flow velocity (m s−1) at cross-sections 1 and 2; α1 and α2:
velocity weighting coefficients; g: gravitational acceleration (m s−2) and he: energy head loss
(m) between cross-sections 1 and 2.
The energy head loss (he) between two cross-sections follows as below:




V22 V12





he ¼ LSf þ C
α2  α1
(2)
2g 2g

where L: discharge weighted reach length;
Sf : average friction slope between two cross-
sections and C: contraction or expansion loss coefficient.
1890 A. AZIZIAN AND L. BROCCA

Because the HEC-RAS is a 1D hydraulic model, only a single water surface and a single
average energy are computed at each cross-section. The unknown WSE at a cross-section is
determined by an iterative solution of Equations (1) and (2). The main steps of WSE
estimation follows as below (USACE, 2010), 1) assume a WSE at the upstream and down-
stream; 2) based on the assumed WSE, determine the corresponding total conveyance and
velocity head; 3) with the values from step 2, compute
Sf and solve Equation (2); 4) with the
values from steps 2 and 3, solve Equation (1) for WSE2; 5) compare the computed value of
WSE2 with the value assumed in step 1 and 6) repeat steps 1 to 5 until the values agree to
within 0.003 m, or user-defined tolerance.
Setting up this model requires the description of channel geometry, which is mainly
provided in the form of cross-sections at multiple locations along the channel, roughness
coefficients at all cross-sections, upstream flow rate and boundary conditions (Liu et al.,
2017). In this study, HEC-GeoRAS extension is used in GIS to derive channel geometry from
different DEM sources and generating flood properties. All simulations are performed by
assuming a steady state (100-year flow) for the 1D model. Also, the friction slope (normal
depth) is used as a downstream boundary condition for all study reaches. In addition, to
calculate the design flow rate for all study rivers, hydrologic modelling using HEC-HMS
program is conducted. The Manning’s n for SojasRood and Sarbaz rivers in the main
channel ranges from 0.04 to 0.05 and 0.02 to 0.04, respectively. For floodplains, it ranges
from 0.1 to 0.2 (SojasRood) and 0.1 to 0.3 (Sarbaz).

2.4. The source of elevation datasets

The main required input for the hydraulic model is the geometry of the river’s bed and its
floodplain that can be obtained from a DEM. In the following, four widely used DEMs,
namely SRTM-30 m, SRTM-90 m, ASTER-30 m and ALOS-30 m are described (Figure 3,
Table 2).

2.4.1. ALOS-30 m
This dataset is one of the latest free public global DEMs that was released in May 2016 by
the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) (Hu et al. 2017). The ALOS-30m is
a resampling version of the world 3d topographic data, which is considered one of the
most accurate global elevation dataset (JAXA 2015). ALOS-30 m was produced using the
traditional optical stereo matching technique as applied to images obtained by
Panchromatic Remote Sensing Instrument for Stereo Mapping (PRISM) sensor onboard
the Advanced Land Observing Satellite (ALOS) (Takaku, Tadono, and Tsutsui 2014). The
vertical accuracy of this dataset, specified by the producer, is 5 m (Tadono et al. 2015).
However, some researchers have found that the vertical accuracy of the ALOS-30 m is
about 4.1 m (Santillan and Makinano 2016). The ALOS-30 m DEM is the Digital Surface
Model (DSM) which illustrates the top elevation of canopy and building roofs. It can be
downloaded free of charge from JAXA (http://www.eorc.jaxa.jp/ALOS/en/aw3d30).

2.4.2. SRTM DEMs

The Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) DEMs are the joint effort of National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
(NGA) and the German Aerospace Centre (DLR) and the Italian Space Agency (ASI) (Rexer
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING 1891

Figure 3. DEMs used in Sarbaz river.

Table 2. Information about the remote sensing-based DEMs used in this study.
SRTM-30 m SRTM-90 m ASTER-30 m ALOS-30 m
Released years Since 2015 2003 2009 2016
Agency NASA NASA NASA and METI JAXA
Sensor Shuttle radar Shuttle radar ASTER PRISM
Method InSAR InSAR Stereo matching Stereo matching
Vertical accuracy 16 m 16 m 20 m 5m
Spatial coverage 60°N to 56°S 60°N to 56°S 83°N to 83°S 82°N to 82°S
1892 A. AZIZIAN AND L. BROCCA

and Hirt 2014). These elevation datasets are based on interferometric assessments of observa-
tions of the dual radar antennas on the board of the shuttle radar topography mission’s
spacecraft which flew in 2000 (Farr et al. 2007). Until 2014, SRTM DEMs were available at
90 m spatial resolution for most parts of the world, but since 2015 the 30 m resolution data
was released globally. The vertical accuracy of this elevation dataset in most regions of the
world is better than 9 m (Rodriguez, Morris, and Belz 2006). It can be downloaded free of
charge from a consortium for spatial information (CGIAR-CSI, www.cgiar-csi.org).

2.4.3. ASTER-30 m
The Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) is sensor
on the Terra satellite, a joint mission between NASA and the Japanese Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry (JMETI) (NASA, 2001). The ASTER DEM was generated
through image matching technique and almost covers about 99% of the global land
(Hu et al. 2017). This dataset was released in 2009 and has the height accuracy about
13 m in 30 m cell size at a confidence interval of 95% (Tachikawa et al. 2011). The datum of
this dataset is WGS84 and heights are provided as 1̊ ×1̊ tiles with geographic coordinates
sampled to a 1 arc-second grid (Rexer and Hirt 2014). It can be downloaded free of charge
from the United States Geological Survey (USGS, http://earthexplorer.usgs.gov).
In this research, a fine-resolution DEM, which is created from topographic map with the
scale of 1:1000, was chosen as a reference data to assess all remotely sensed DEMs. Several
interpolation methods are compared in order to choose the most appropirate one for creating
this DEM. Then, both cross-validation technique and statistical indexes are used to evaluate
the accuracy of DEM. The results showed that in both study reaches the Topo2Raster method
is the best one for this purpose. Also, it should be noted, because of having a wide width
relative to SojasRood river, the SRTM DEM with 90 m resolution only used in Sarbaz river.

2.5. Evaluation indices

The performance of all elevation sources for extracting the cross-sections and running
hydraulic model are assessed based on GDEM’s results. In this research, four quantitative
indices which MAD, RMSE, mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) and F-statistic are used.
1X
MAD ðmÞ ¼ jxGDEM  xi j (3)
N
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
P
ðxGDEM  xi Þ2
RMSE ðmÞ ¼ (4)
N

1X N
xGDEM  xi




MAPE ð%Þ ¼ 100 
(5)
N i¼1 xGDEM

 
Aos intersection
F ð%Þ ¼ 100  (6)
Ao þ As  Aos union
where xGDEM: refers to the results (both geometric and hydraulic) that obtained using
GDEM, xi: refers to the results obtained using each DEM sources, N: refers to the numbers
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING 1893

of cross-sections in each river, Aos: refers to area that is predicted based on both GDEM
and desired DEM, Ao: refers to the GDEM’s inundation area and As: refers to the predicted
inundation area based on each DEM. A value of 100 means a perfect match between
GDEM and other DEMs in simulating inundation areas (Bates and De Roo 2000; Tayefi et al.
2007; Cook and Merwade 2009; Azizian 2019). Because of the importance of WSE and
flood extents in most studies, they are selected for investigating the efficiency of remote-
sensing-based DEMs for flood modelling.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Effect of different DEM sources on the quality of a terrain model
Results show that among DEMs, the efficiency of ALOS-30 m in deriving the cross-sections’
shape is similar to surveyed cross-sections. Accurately presenting the topographic features
of the river bed is one of the most important factors that increases the similarity between
this dataset and GDEM. The efficiency of ALOS-30 m DEM in deriving the shape of cross-
sections versus other DEM sources for all study rivers are shown in Figure 4 (Sarbaz river) and
Figure 5 (SojasRood river). As it can be seen, ALOS-30 m accurately capture the shape of
cross-sections and riverbed elevations compared to other datasets. The main reason for this
performance is that this dataset is based on optical imagery acquired by the PRISM sensor
mounted on the Advanced Land Observing Satellite (ALOS). It has an exclusive ability to
perform a triplet stereo observation which views forward, nadir, and backward along the
satellite track in 2.5 m ground resolution, and collected its derived images all over the world
during the mission life of the satellite from 2006 through 2011 (Takaku et al. 2016). Although
ALOS DEM generally suffers problems and errors like SRTM and ASTER DEMs, but using
triplet stereo observation and PRISM sensor increases the potential of this dataset in
estimating the ground’s elevation, especially in the cases in which the density of vegetation
cover is small. Findings in this study showed that in the case of Sarbaz river, which is located
in a dry region with limited vegetation cover, the derived cross-sections using ALOS-30 m is
so match to the ground observations’ results. Furthermore, in the case of SojasRood river,
which is surrounded by small trees and natural vegetation, ALOS-30 m can accurately
capture the river bed details, while other datasets produce significant differences.
Also, ASTER-30 m and SRTM DEMs (both 30 m and 90 m resolutions) generally under-
estimate and overestimate the elevation value, respectively, and this means that they do not
have the potential of presenting river bed elevation which is more important in accurately
flood modelling. The major downside of ASTER-30 m is that it is an optical sensor and thus
constant cloud cover over certain areas may lead to data voids or artefacts in the DEM.
Further, it is important to remember that ASTER-30 m captures the surface of the earth
including all buildings and plant canopy, so heights do not reflect the bare ground where
the ground is covered (Tachikawa et al. 2011). About the SRTM it should be noted that it
generally suffers from different kinds of errors. First of all, SRTM does not always map the
bare ground surface. The measurement is influenced by buildings, vegetation and snow
cover (especially the northern hemisphere), as radar signals only partially penetrate the
vegetation snow, canopy, ice and very dry soil (Farr et al. 2007). These problems don’t allow
the SRTM radar signals to penetrate deeply and the reflected signals from the earth surface
overestimate the elevation value.
1894 A. AZIZIAN AND L. BROCCA

Figure 4. Comparison of different DEM sources in deriving cross-sections of Sarbaz river ((a)(i) to (a)(iv)).

Based on the findings, the SRTM-30 m relative to ASTER-30 m and SRTM-90 m DEMs
presents better results and it seems that the difference between this dataset and ground
measurements could be minimized by imposing some modifications. As an overall con-
clusion, it is reasonable to say that ALOS-30 m and ASTER-30 m DEMs are the best and the
worst free-public domain DEMs, respectively, for deriving geometric model and maybe for
application in flood inundation mapping.
In order to quantitatively assessment of different DEM sources, RMSE and MAD
statistics are calculated for all cross-sections in the study areas with respect to the
GDEM dataset and presented in Figure 6.
In the case of Sarbaz river, findings indicate that the ALOS-30 m has the lowest RMSE
value and it ranges between 2.76 m and 5.58 m with the mean value of 3.85 m, while for
SRTM-30 m, ASTER-30 m and SRTM-90 m DEMs the mean values of RMSE are about 4.96 m,
9.98 m and 8.41 m, respectively. Also, the MAD between GDEM and ALOS-30 m is about
2.28 m, while for ASTER-30 m it is more than 8 m. In the case of SojasRood river, results
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING 1895

Figure 5. Comparison of different DEM sources in deriving cross-sections of SojasRood river ((b)(i) to (b)(iv)).

approximately are similar to Sarbaz river and ALOS-30 m leads to the minimum errors.
Moreover, in both rivers, the performance of ASTER-30 m because of having higher RMSE
and MAD values is not reliable for deriving geometric descriptions, and therefore this
dataset does not recommend for hydraulic simulation and flood inundation mapping,
especially in small and medium-size rivers.

3.2. Effect of using different DEMs on hydraulic modelling

To investigate the impacts of using different datasets on hydraulic outputs, the flood
properties for all cross-sections within a reach are averaged to produce one mean WSE
and one mean flood extent (MFE). Then, the MAPE and F-statistics for each DEM are
calculated with respect to hydraulic properties simulated based on GDEM (Table 3).
1896 A. AZIZIAN AND L. BROCCA

Figure 6. The RMSE and MAD statistics of all DEMs within all cross-sections (a) Sarbaz river; (b)
SojasRood river.

Table 3. Effect of DEM source on simulated flood extents. (Note: F-statistic is estimated using Equation
(6)).
Sarbaz SojasRood
DEM source MAPE (%) F (%) MAPE (%) F (%)
ALOS-30 m 13.3 0.75 8.9 84.3
ASTER-30 m 37.6 0.49 43.6 47.5
SRTM-30 m 25.2 0.65 12.5 72.6
SRTM-90 m - - 14.1 70.1

smaller, better bigger, better

Figure 7 shows the effect of DEM sources on the mean WSE and MFE for Sarbaz and
SojasRood rivers. As shown, hydraulic simulation using ALOS-30m produces more accurate
results relative to other DEM sources. For example, using this dataset in SojasRood river
leads to 13.4% and 7.6% MAPE in simulating MFE and mean WSE, respectively. In this river,
the performance of ALOS-30 m and SRTM-30 m DEMs in the simulation of WSE within the
reach is very well and the maximum MAPE limits to only 8.5%. In addition, based on
F-statistic, the inundation map using ALOS-30 m is so match to GDEM’s result, while
ASTER-30 m with the F-value of 49% shows a significant difference compared to GDEM.
Therefore, ASTER-30 m because of producing averagely 38% error is the worst dataset to
estimate the inundated extents and therefore it does not recommended for hydraulic
simulation in small-scale rivers.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING 1897

Figure 7. The effect of using different DEM sources on the average percentage error of simulated flood
components (a) Sarbaz river; (b) SojasRood river.

In the case of Sarbaz river, findings illustrate that the efficiency of ALOS-30 m is very
similar to GEDM’s results. Outcomes indicate that using this dataset only leads to 9.5% and
1.5% MAPE in the estimation of MFE and mean WSE, respectively; whereas using ASTER-
30 m results about 44% and 23% error in estimating MFE and mean WSE. In contrast, the
efficiency of SRTM-30 m and SRTM-90 m approximately are the same and both of them
produce 13% and 10% MAPE in the simulation of MFE and mean WSE, respectively.
In addition, the MAPE value of WSE for all DEM sources (expect of ASTER-30 m) ranges
between 1.3% and 11.7% and this means that in medium and large-scale rivers, such as
Sarbaz river, the source of elevation datasets plays a minor role in the simulation of WSE.
In this case, the ALOS-30 m with the F-statistic value of 84.3% shows a good agreement
with GDEM, while ASTER-30 m is the weakest dataset in simulating inundated areas. The
spatial pattern of inundated extents in Sarbaz and SojasRood rivers (Figure 8) proves the
usability of ALOS-30 m and low efficiency of other DEMs, especially ASTER-30 m.
For better studying the performance of different DEMs, the frequency of MAPE values
in the simulation of flood extents, within a reach, are categorized into five groups and
shown in Figure 9. It should be noted that owing to the similarity of both rivers, only the
results of Sarbaz river presented in this figure.
Analysing the hydraulic components within the cross-sections based on ALOS-
30 m shows that in more than 62% of cross-sections the MAPE value in simulating flood
extents is lower than 10% (as a reasonable limitation of MAPE). In addition, when the
maximum reasonable (or allowable) MAPE sets to 15%, the performance of the hydraulic
model, in 84% of cross-sections, will be acceptable. In the case of using SRTM-30 m, in 53%
of cross-sections, the MAPE is lower than 10% and this proves the capability of ALOS-30m
for flood inundation mapping. Conversely, ASTER-30m, SRTM-30m imposes lower errors
on HEC-RAS outputs and therefore it can be used as an appropriate alternative for ALOS-
30 m. As shown in Figure 9, the efficiency of ASTER-30 m is not acceptable and even
relative to coarse resolution DEMs such as SRTM-90 m leads to significant errors in the
simulation of inundated extents. The MAPE in simulating inundated extents and WSE
based on the ASTER-30 m, in the case of Sarbaz river, is about 3.1 and 1.4 times of SRTM-
90 m’s results.
Also, the simulated flood extents within the cross-section compared with that of in
GDEM’s result are presented in Figure 10. As mentioned, in this research the error
1898 A. AZIZIAN AND L. BROCCA

Figure 8. The spatial pattern of inundated areas using different DEM sources (a) Sarbaz river and (b)
SojasRood river.

bandwidth of ±10% in simulating inundated extents accepted as a reasonable range for

all rivers. The results prove that using ALOS-30 m leads to better performance in most
cross-sections, while using other DEM sources don’t get appropriate and reliable outputs.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING 1899

Figure 9. The frequency of MAPE values in simulating inundated extents based on different DEM
sources (Sarbaz river).

3.3. The effect of correcting DEMs on hydraulic outputs

As shown in the previous sections, most remotely sensed DEMs have biases in the
estimation of elevation and this leads to considerable errors, especially in flood’s inun-
dated extents. Therefore, before using them for hydraulic studies, some modification
must be done. Although there are several approaches to reduce the biases from the
specific datasets, but in this study, the mean values of elevation differences between
remotely sensed DEMs and GDEM is used as a measure for removing the bias. The below
relations are used to calculate the elevation difference raster (EDR) between GDEM and
other dataset over the study reaches:

EDR = (Remotely sensed DEM) – GDEM

Bias = mean (EDR)
Corrected remotely sensed DEM = (Remotely sensed DEM) ± Bias

Note: in the cases of overestimation and underestimation the sign (–) and (+) are used
for Bias, respectively.
1900 A. AZIZIAN AND L. BROCCA

Figure 10. Scatter plots of simulated flood extents within the cross-sections based on all DEMs vs
GDEM (a) Sarbaz river; and (b) SojasRood river.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING 1901

Figure 11. The effect of correcting DEMs on improving the simulated flood components (a) Sarbaz
river; (b) SojasRood river (C means corrected).

After correcting all elevation datasets, the cross-sections derived again and hydraulic
simulation is performed for all study areas and compared with GDEM’s results. As shown in
Figure 11, by removing mean bias from different DEM sources the MAPE in simulating flood
extent and WSE decreases, especially in the case of ASTER-30 m. Results show that correct-
ing ASTER-30 m increases the performance of the hydraulic model in both rivers. For
example, in the case of Sarbaz river, the MAPE value in simulating inundated extents before
and after correcting ASTER-30 m is about 43.6% and 25.2%, respectively. In addition, the
MAPE in estimation of WSE decreases from 24.1% to 5.5% and this completely proves the
advantages of correcting remotely sensed DEMs for accurate flood modelling. Moreover,
removing mean bias from SRTM-90 m and SRTM-30 m DEMs significantly increases the
performance of the HEC-RAS model in estimating WSE. Using raw SRTM-90 m and SRTM-
30 m DEMs lead to MAPE of 11.9% and 10.9% while correcting these DEMs leads to only 2%
and 3.2% MAPE in the estimation of WSE.
In the case of SojasRood river, using corrected DEMs increases the performance of the
hydraulic model in estimating flood components. Findings indicate that by using cor-
rected DEMs the MAPE of simulated WSE within the study reach limits to lower than 10%.
Also, the MAPE value of simulated flood extents using raw ASTER-30m and SRTM-30m
DEMs is about 37.6% and 25.2%, respectively, while using corrected DEMs the MAPE limits
to only 25.2% and 18.9%. These outcomes demonstrate that by imposing some modifica-
tions to raw DEMs, even low-resolution DEMs, their efficiency/usability for flood inunda-
tion mapping can be improved.

4. Conclusions
Elevation datasets play a major role in hydraulic modelling and determining the accuracy
of inundated areas. However, the high quality and accurate elevation datasets are
unavailable in most parts of the world, especially in data-limited regions. Using ground-
based topographic maps are costly, time-consuming and in low-budget projects, it is
impossible to provide such maps. Increasing the satellite-based technologies in recent
1902 A. AZIZIAN AND L. BROCCA

years has made it easier to access several elevation data sets. Currently, there are several
DEM sources ranging from fine-resolution and accurate, but costly, to low-cost and low-
resolution. This research addressed the usability and efficiency of the newly released
ALOS-30 m DEM in deriving river’s geometric description and flood inundation mapping
in two rivers of Iran. Furthermore, evaluation of other free public domain DEMs for
hydraulic simulation is another objective of this study. We summarize the major conclu-
sions of this research below.
ALOS-30 m DEM accurately captures the topographic details of the river’s bed and the
shape of cross-sections as well as ground surveyed map. The RMSE value of this dataset
within the Sarbaz river ranges between 2.76 m and 5.58 m (with the mean value of
3.85 m), while in the case of SojasRood river these values are 2.2 m (min), 5.8 m (max) and
3.8 m (mean), respectively. Also, the mean value of RMSE for SRTM-30 m, ASTER-30 m and
SRTM-90 m DEMs varies between 4.96 m and 9.98 m in both study reaches.
The MAD statistic between ground surveyed maps and ALOS-30 m in Sarbaz and
SojasRood rivers is 2.28 m and 2.3 m, respectively. Moreover, using ASTER-30m in both
rivers produces the maximum MAD and RMSE and therefore this dataset does not
recommend for extracting river’s geometric description.
Using ALOS-30 m DEM in both study areas results lower error in simulating flood
properties, especially WSE. In the case of SojasRood river, the mean error of hydraulic
model in simulating WSE, within the reach, is lower than 8%, while for Sarbaz river it limits
to only 2%. In contrast to other DEMs, using ASTER-30 m leads to the significant errors in
simulating inundation areas. Also, the accuracy of SRTM-90 m as a coarser resolution DEM
is higher than after-30 m. Within the both rivers, the error between simulated inundated
extent using ASTER-30 m and GDEM’s results, is higher than 38%.
Except of ALOS-30 m, the SRTM-30 m DEM is one of the best elevation datasets that
produces reasonable results, especially in Sarbaz river. The frequency analyses of flood
extents based on ALOS-30 m within the Sarbaz river show that in more than 84% of cross-
sections the mean error of HEC-RAS model in simulating inundated extents is lower than
15%, while in the case of using ASTER-30 m most of the cross-sections have the error higher
than 30%. In the case of SojasRood river, the mean error of hydraulic model in simulating
WSE based on different DEM sources varies between 7.6% and 13.8% (with the mean value
of 10.1%), while for Sarbaz river it varies from 1.3% to 24.1% with the mean value of 11.9%.
These findings represent that remote-sensing-based DEMs have the potential of using in
studies such as flood warning systems that WSE and its variations are very important.
Using corrected DEMs for hydraulic modelling, showed that the efficiency of the
hydraulic model in simulating flood components, specifically WSE, improved considerably
and among all DEMs, ASTER-30 m resulted higher improvements.
Future works on flood simulation should consider the usability of ALOS-30 m DEM in
different topographical and climate conditions. Moreover, correcting the remotely sensed
DEMs base on ground measurements can improve the efficiency of these free public
domain datasets. Furthermore, using 2D hydraulic models, such as 2D HEC-RAS, CCHE2D,
and Flood Modeller, instead of 1D HEC-RAS model can better present the usefulness and
drawbacks of different DEM sources.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING 1903

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Ackerman, C.T. 2005. “HEC-GeoRAS: GIS Tools for Support of HEC-RAS Using ArcGIS. User’s Manual
Version 4.” US Army Corps of Engineers.
Ali, A. M., D. P. Solomatine, and G. D. Baldassarre. 2015. “Assessing the Impact of Different Sources of
Topographic Data on 1-D Hydraulic Modeling of floods.” Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 19:
631–643. doi:10.5194/hess-19-631-2015.
Amans, O. C., W. Beiping, and Y. Y. Ziggah. 2013. “Assessing Vertical Accuracy of SRTM Ver 4.1 And
ASTER GDEM Ver 2 Using Differential GPS Measurements Case Study in Ondo State Nigeria.”
International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research 4 (12): 523–531.
Araújo, P. V. N., V. E. Amaro, R. M. Silva, and A. B. Lopes. 2019. “Delimitation of Flood Areas Based on
a Calibrated a DEM and Geoprocessing: Case Study on the Uruguay River, Itaqui, Southern Brazil.”
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 19: 237–250. doi:10.5194/nhess-19-237-2019.
Arnell, N. W., and S. N. Gosling. 2016. “″The Impacts Of Climate Change on River Flood Risk at The
Global Scale.” ″ Climatic Change 134 (3): 387–401. doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1084-5.
Azizian, A. 2019. “The Effects of Topographic Map Scale and Costs of Land Surveying on Geometric
Model and Flood Inundation Mapping.” Water Resource Management 33 (4): 1315–1333.
doi:10.1007/s11269-019-2202-y.
Bater, C.W., and N.C. Coops. 2009. “″Evaluating Error Associated with Lidar-derived Dem
Interpolation.” Computers & Geosciences 35: 289–300. doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2008.09.001.
Bates, P. D., and A. P. J. De Roo. 2000. “A Simple Raster-based Model for Flood Inundation
Simulation.” Journal of Hydrology 236 (1–2): 54–77. doi:10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00278-X.
Brandt, S. 2005. “Resolution Issues of Elevation Data during Inundation Modeling of River Floods.” In
Proceedings of the XXXI International Association of Hydraulic Engineering and Research
Congress (IAHR). 3573–3581.
Casas, A., G. Benito, V. R. Thorndycraft, and M. Rico. 2006. “The Topographic Data Source of Digital
Terrain Models as a Key Element in the Accuracy of Hydraulic Flood Modeling.” Earth Surface
Processes and Landforms 31: 444–456. doi:10.1002/esp.1278.
Chen, H., Q. Liang, Y. Liu, and S. Xie. 2018. “Hydraulic Correction Method (HCM) to Enhance the
Efficiency of SRTM DEM in Flood Modeling.” Journal of Hydrology 559: 56–70. doi:10.1016/j.
jhydrol.2018.01.056.
Cook, A., and V. Merwade. 2009. “Effect of Topographic Data, Geometric Configuration and
Modeling Approach on Flood Inundation Mapping.” Journal of Hydrology 377: 131–142.
doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.015.
Dysarz, T., J. Wicher-Dysarz, and M. Sojka. 2015. “Assessment Of The Impact Of New Investments on
Flood Hazard-study Case: The Bridge on The Warta River near Wronki.″ Water.” 7: 10. doi:10.3390/
w7105752.
Elkhrachy, I. 2018. “Vertical Accuracy Assessment for Srtm and Aster Digital Elevation Models: a case
Study Of Najran City, Saudi Arabia.” ″ Ain Shams Engineering Journal 9 (4): 1807–1817.
doi:10.1016/j.asej.2017.01.007.
Farr, T. G., P. A. Rosen, E. Caro, R. Crippen, R. Duren, S. Hensley, M. Kobrick, et al. 2007. “The Shuttle
Radar Topography Mission.” Review of Geophysics 45 (2). doi:10.1029/2005RG000183.
Fernández, A., M. R. Najafi, M. Durand, B. G. Mark, M. Moritz, H. C. Jung, J. Neal, et al. 2016.
“Corrigendum to ’testing the Skill of Numerical Hydraulic Modeling to Simulate Spatiotemporal
Flooding Patterns in the Logone Floodplain, Cameroon.” Journal of Hydrology 539: 265–280.
doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.05.026.
Gallant, J.C., and M.F Hutchinson. 1997. “″Scale Dependence in Terrain Analysis.” Mathematics and
Computers in Simulation 43: 313–321. doi:10.1016/S0378-4754(97)00015-3.
1904 A. AZIZIAN AND L. BROCCA

Gesch, D. B., M. J. Oimoen, and G. A. Evans. 2014. Accuracy Assessment of the US Geological Survey
National Elevation Dataset, and Comparison with Other Large-area Elevation Datasets: SRTM and
ASTER US Geological Survey, 10. Reston, VA.
Gesch, D.B, Maune, D. (Ed.), Digital Elevation Model Technologies and Applications: The DEM User’s
Manual, second ed 2007. “″Chapter 4- The National Elevation Dataset.” ″ American Society for
Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Ed Maune, D. (Ed.), Digital Elevation Model Technologies
and Applications: The DEM User’s Manual, second ed, Maryland: 99–118: Bethesda.
Ghandehari, M., B. P. Buttenfield, and C. J. Q. Farmer. 2019. “Comparing the Accuracy of Estimated
Terrain Elevations across Spatial Resolution.” International Journal of Remote Sensing 40: 5025–
5049. doi:10.1080/01431161.2019.1577581.
Gichamo, T. Z., I. Popescu, A. Jonoski, and D. Solomatine. 2012. “River Cross-section Extraction from
the ASTER Global DEM for Flood Modeling.” Environmental Modelling & Software 31 (May): 37–46.
doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.12.003.
Haile, A., and T. Rientjes 2005. “Effects of LiDAR DEM Resolution in Flood Modelling: A Model
Sensitivity Study for the City of Tegucigalpa, Honduras.” ISPRS WG III/3, III/4 V/3 Workshop
“Laser Scanning 2005”, Enschede, the Netherlands. p. 168–173.
Hall, J. W., S. Tarantola, P. D. Bates, and M. S. Horritt. 2005. “Distributed Sensitivity Analysis of Flood
Inundation Model Calibration.” Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 131 (February): 117–126.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2005)131:2(117).
Heritage, G.L., D.J. Milan, A.R.G. Large, and I.C. Fuller. 2009. “Influence Of Survey Strategy and
Interpolation Model on Dem Quality.” Geomorphology 112: 334–344. doi:10.1016/j.
geomorph.2009.06.024.
Hirt, C., M. S. Filmer, and W. E. Featherstone. 2010. “Comparison and Validation of the Recent Freely
Available ASTER-GDEM Ver1, SRTM Ver4.1 And GEODATA DEM-9S Ver3 Digital Elevation Models over
Australia.” Australian Journal of Earth Sciences 57 (3): 337–347. doi:10.1080/08120091003677553.
Hodgson, M.E., J.R. Jensen, L. Schmidt, S. Schill, and B Davis. 2003. “″An Evaluation Of Lidar- and Ifsar-
derived Digital Elevation Models in Leaf-on Conditions with Usgs Level 1 and Level 2 Dems.″
Remote Sens.” Remote Sensing Of Environment 84 (2): 295–308. doi:10.1016/S0034-4257(02)
00114-1.
Hu, Z., J. Peng, Y. Hou, and J. Shan. 2017. “Evaluation of Recently Released Open Global Digital
Elevation Models of Hubei, China.” Remote Sensing 9: 262. doi:10.3390/rs9030262.
Jain, A. O., T. Thaker, A. Chaurasia, P. Patel, and A. Kumar Singh. 2018. “Vertical Accuracy Evaluation
of SRTM-GL1, GDEM-V2, AW3D30 and CartoDEM-V3.1 Of 30-m Resolution with Dual Frequency
GNSS for Lower Tapi Basin India.” Geocarto International 33 (11): 1237–1256. doi:10.1080/
10106049.2017.1343392.
Jarihani, A. A., J. N. Callow, T. R. McVicar, T. G. Van Niel, and J. R. Larsen. 2015. “Satellite-derived
Digital Elevation Model (DEM) Selection, Preparation and Correction for Hydrodynamic Modelling
in Large, Low-gradient and Data-sparse Catchments.” Journal of Hydrology 524: 489–506.
doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.02.049.
JAXA. 2015. “ALOS Global Digital Surface Model “ALOS World 3D - 30m (AW3D30)”, Japan
Aerospace Exploration Agency.” Accessed 28 December 2015. http://www.eorc.jaxa.jp/ALOS/
en/aw3d30/
Jing, C., A. Shortridge, S. Lin, and J. Wu. 2014. “Comparison and Validation of SRTM and ASTER GDEM
for a Subtropical Landscape in Southeastern China.” International Journal of Digital Earth 7 (2):
969–992. doi:10.1080/17538947.2013.807307.
Jung, Y., and V. Merwade. 2011. “Uncertainty Quantification in Flood Inundation Mapping Using
Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty Estimate and Sensitivity Analysis.” Journal of Hydrologic
Engineering 17 (4): 507–520. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000476.
Laks, I., M. Sojka, Z. Walczak, and R. Wrózynski. 2017. “Possibilities of Using Low-Quality Digital
Elevation Models of Floodplains in Hydraulic Numerical Models.” Water 9: 283–300. doi:10.3390/
w9040283.
Laks, I., M. Sojka, Z. Walczak, and R. Wróżyński. 2016. “″Possibilities Of Using Low Quality Digital
Elevation Models Of Floodplains in Hydraulic Numerical Models.″ Water.” 9: 283. .
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING 1905

Lin, S., C. Jing, N. A. Coles, V. Chaplot, N. J. Moore, and J. Wu. 2012. “Evaluating DEM Source and
Resolution Uncertainties in the Soil and Water Assessment Tool.” Stochastic Environmental
Research and Risk Assessment 27 (1): 209–221. doi:10.1007/s00477-012-0577-x.
Liu, Z., V. Merwade, and K. Jafarzadegan. 2018. "Investigating The Role Of Model Structure and
Surface Roughness in Generating Flood Inundation Extents Using One- and Two-dimensional
Hydraulic Models.″ Journal Of Flood Risk Management : 12347.
Marks, K., and P. Bates. 2000. “Integration Of High-resolution Topographic Data with Floodplain Flow
Models.” Hydrological Processes 14: 2109–2122. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1085.
Moya, Q., V. Popescu, and I. Solomatine, D. P., and Bociort, L. 2013. ″Cloud and cluster computing in
uncertainty analysis of integrated flood models.″ J. Hydroinf 15: 55–69.
Mukolwe, M. M., K. Yan, G. Di Baldassarre, and D. P. Solomatine. 2016. “Testing New Sources of
Topographic Data for Flood Propagation Modeling under Structural, Parameter and Observation
Uncertainty.” Hydrological Sciences Journal 61 (9): 1707–1715. doi:10.1080/02626667.2015.1019507.
NASA Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center. 2001. ASTER L1B DEM. USGS/Earth Resources
Observation and Science (EROS) Center. Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
Nikolakopoulos, K. G., E. K. Kamaratakis, and N. Chrysoulakis. 2006. “SRTM Vs ASTER Elevation
Products. Comparison for Two Regions in Crete, Greece.” International Journal of Remote
Sensing 27 (21): 4819–4838. doi:10.1080/01431160600835853.
Omer, C., E. Nelson, and A. Zundel 2003. ″Impact of varied data resolution on hydraulic modeling
and floodplain delineation.″ J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. (JAWRA) 39 (2): 467–475.
Pakoksung, K., and M. Takagi. 2016. “Digital Elevation Models on Accuracy Validation and Bias
Correction in Vertical.” Modeling Earth Systems and Environment 2: 11. doi:10.1007/s40808-015-
0069-3.
Pappenberger, F., P. Matgen, K. J. Beven, J.-B. Henry, L. Pfister, and P. Fraipont. 2006. “Influence of
Uncertain Boundary Conditions and Model Structure on Flood Inundation Predictions.” Advances
in Water Resources 29 (10): 1430–1449. doi:10.1016/j.advwatres.2005.11.012.
Patro, S., C. Chatterjee, R. Singh, and N. S. Raghuwanshi. 2009. “Hydrodynamic Modeling of a Large
flood-prone System in India with Limited Data.” Hydrological Processes 23: 2774–2791.
doi:10.1002/hyp.7375.
Rexer, M., and C. Hirt. 2014. “Comparison of Free High Resolution Digital Elevation Data Sets (ASTER
GDEM2, SRTM V2.1/v4.1) And Validation against Accurate Heights from the Australian National
Gravity Database.” Australian Journal of Earth Sciences 61 (2): 213–226. doi:10.1080/
08120099.2014.884983.
Rodriguez, E., C. S. Morris, and J. E. Belz. 2006. “A Global Assessment of the SRTM Performance.”
Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 72 (3): 249–260. doi:10.14358/PERS.72.3.249.
Saksena, S., and V. Merwade. 2015. “Incorporating the Effect of DEM Resolution and Accuracy for
Improved flood Inundation Mapping.” Journal of Hydrology 530: 180–194. doi:10.1016/j.
jhydrol.2015.09.069.
Sanders, B. F. 2007. “Evaluation of On-line DEMs for Flood Inundation Modeling.” Advances in Water
Resources 30 (8): 1831–1843. doi:10.1016/j.advwatres.2007.02.005.
Santillan, J., and M. Makinano. 2016. “Vertical Accuracy Assessment of 30-M Resolution Alos, Aster,
and Srtm Global Dems over Northeastern Mindanao, Philippines.” ISPRS the International Archives
of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences XLI-B4: 149–156.
doi:10.5194/isprsarchives-XLI-B4-149-2016.
Satgé, F., M. P. Bonnet, F. Timouk, S. Calmant, R. Pillco, J. Molina, W. Lavado-Casimiro, A. Arsen,
J. F. Crétaux, and J. Garnier. 2015. “Accuracy Assessment of SRTM V4 and ASTER GDEM V2 over the
Altiplano Watershed Using ICESat/GLAS Data.” International Journal of Remote Sensing 36 (2):
465–488. doi:10.1080/01431161.2014.999166.
Schumann, G., P. Matgen, M. E. J. Cutler, A. Black, L. Hoffmann, and L. Pfister. 2008. “Comparison of
Remotely Sensed Water Stages from LiDAR, Topographic Contours and SRTM.” ISPRS Journal of
Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 63 (3): 283–296. doi:10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2007.09.004.
Smith, S., D. Holland, and P. Longley 2004. ″The importance of understanding error in LiDAR Digital
Elevation Models.″ In: Proceedings of XXth ISPRS Conference.
1906 A. AZIZIAN AND L. BROCCA

Spence, A., W. Poortinga, C. Butler, and N. F. Pidgeon. 2011. “″Perceptions Of Climate Change and
Willingness to Save Energy Related to Flood Experience.” ″ Nature Climate Change 1 (1): 46–49.
doi:10.1038/nclimate1059.
Srinivas, K., M. Werner, and N. Wright, 2008. ″Comparing forecast skill of inundation models of
differing complexity: the case of Upton upon Severn. ″ Journal of Flood Risk Management Res.
Pract., 85–94.
Tachikawa, T., M. Kaku, A. Iwasaki, D. B. Gesch, M. J. Oimoen, Z. Zhang, J. J. Danielson, et al. 2011.
“ASTER Global Digital Elevation Model Version 2-summary of Validation Results.” http://www.
Jspacesystems.or.jp/ersdac/GDEM/ver2Validation/SummaryGDEM2validationreportfinal
Tadono, T., H. Nagai, H. Ishida, F. Oda, S. Naito, K. Minakawa, and H. Iwamoto. 2016. “″Initial
Validation Of The 30 M-mesh Global Digital Surface Model Generated by Alos Prism.″.” The
International Archives Of The Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences,
Isprs XLI-B4: 157-162.
Tadono, T., J. Takaku, K. Tsutsui, F. Oda, and H. Nagai 2015. “Status of “ALOS World 3D (AW3D)”
Global DSM Generation.” In: Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE.″ International Geoscience and Remote
Sensing Symposium (IGARSS), Milan, Italy. p. 3822–3825.
Takaku, J., T. Tadono, and K. Tsutsui. 2014. “Generation of High Resolution Global DSM from ALOS
PRISM.” The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information
Sciences Xl-4: 243–248. doi:10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-4-243-2014.
Takaku, J., T. Tadono, K. Tsutsui, and M. Ichikawa. 2016. Validation of “AW3D” GLOBAL DSM Generated
from ALOS PRISM III, 25–31. Tokyo, Japan.
Tarekegn, T. H., A. T. Haile, T. Rientjes, P. Reggiani, and D. Alkema. 2010. “Assessment of an ASTER
Generated DEM for 2D flood Modeling.” International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and
Geoinformation 12: 457–465. doi:10.1016/j.jag.2010.05.007.
Tayefi, V., S. N. Lane, R. J. Hardy, and D. Yu. 2007. “A Comparison of One- and Two-dimensional
Approaches to Modelling Flood Inundation over Complex Upland Floodplains.” Hydrological
Processes 21 (23): 3190–3202. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1085.
Thomas, J., S. Joseph, K.P. Thrivikramji, and K.S. Arunkumar. 2014. “Sensitivity Of Digital Elevation
Models: The Scenario from Two Tropical Mountain River Basins Of The Western Ghats, India.”
India.″ Geoscience Frontiers 5 (6): 893-909. doi:10.1016/j.gsf.2013.12.008.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. “HEC-RAS River Analysis System Hydraulic Reference Manual.”
Version 4.1. Hydrologic Engineering Center. Davis, California. p. 411.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2016. “HEC-RAS River Analysis System 2D Modeling User’s Manual.
Version 5.0.” Hydrologic Engineering Center. Davis, California. p. 171.
Wang, W., X. Yang, and T. Yao. 2012. “Evaluation of ASTER GDEM and SRTM and Their Suitability in
Hydraulic Modelling of a Glacial Lake Outburst flood in Southeast Tibet.” Hydrological Processes 26
(2): 213–225. doi:10.1002/hyp.v26.2.
Werner, M. G. F. 2001. “Impact of Grid Size in GIS-based Flood Extent Mapping Using 1-D Flow
Model.” Physics and Chemistry of the Earth (B) 26: 517–522. doi:10.1016/S1464-1909(01)00043-0.
Wilby, R. L., K. J. Beven, and N. Reynard. 2008. “Climate Change and Fluvial Flood Risk in The Uk: More
Of The Same?.” Hydrological Processes 22 (14): 2511–2523. doi:10.1002/hyp.v22:14.
Yan, K., G. Di Baldassarre, and D. P. Solomatine 2013. ″Exploring the potential of SRTM topographic
data for flood inundation modelling under uncertainty.″ J. Hydroinf 15: 849–861, 2013.