The impact of sensors for satellite derived bathymetry within the Canadian Arctic
Canada’s coastline presents challenges for charting. Within Arctic regions, in situ surveying presents risks to surveyors, is time consuming and costly. To better meet its mandate, the Canadian Hydrographic Service (CHS) has been investigating the potential of remote sensing to complement traditiona...
| Published in: | Geomatica |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Canadian Science Publishing
2020
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/geomat-2019-0022 http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/full-xml/10.1139/geomat-2019-0022 http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/geomat-2019-0022 |
| Summary: | Canada’s coastline presents challenges for charting. Within Arctic regions, in situ surveying presents risks to surveyors, is time consuming and costly. To better meet its mandate, the Canadian Hydrographic Service (CHS) has been investigating the potential of remote sensing to complement traditional charting techniques. Much of this work has focused on evaluating the effectiveness of empirical satellite derived bathymetry (SDB) techniques within the Canadian context. With greater knowledge of applying SDB techniques within Canadian waters, CHS is now interested in understanding how characteristics of optical sensors can impact SDB results. For example, how does the availability of different optical bands improve or hinder SDB estimates? What is the impact of spatial resolution on SDB accuracy? Do commercial satellites offer advantages over freely available data? Through application of a multiple band modelling technique to WorldView-2, Pléiades, PlanetScope, SPOT, Sentinel-2, and Landsat-8 imagery obtained over Cambridge Bay, Nunavut, this paper provides insight into these questions via comparisons with in situ survey data. Result highlights in the context of these questions include the following: Similarities between sensors: Overall linear error at 90% (LE90) results for each sensor ranged from 0.88 to 1.91 m relative to in situ depths, indicating consistency in the accuracy of SDB estimates from the examined satellites. Most estimates achieved Category of Zone of Confidence level C accuracy, the suggested minimum survey accuracy level for incorporating SDB information into navigational charts. SDB coverage: Between sensors, differences in the area of the sea floor that could be measured by SDB were apparent, as were differences in the ability of each sensor to properly represent spatial bathymetry characteristics. Sensor importance: Though relationships between SDB accuracy and sensor resolution were found, significant advantages or disadvantages for particular sensors were not identified, suggesting that ... |
|---|