It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Near-continuously acquired terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) data contains valuable information on natural surface dynamics. An important step in geographic analyses is to detect different types of changes that can be observed in a scene. For this, spatiotemporal segmentation is a time series-based method of surface change analysis that removes the need to select analysis periods, providing so-called 4D objects-by-change (4D-OBCs). This involves higher computational effort than pairwise change detection, and efforts scale with (i) the temporal density of input data and (ii) the (variable) spatial extent of delineated changes. These two factors determine the cost and number of Dynamic Time Warping distance calculations to be performed for deriving the metric of time series similarity. We investigate how a reduction of the spatial and temporal resolution of input data influences the delineation of twelve erosion and accumulation forms, using an hourly five-month TLS time series of a sandy beach. We compare the spatial extent of 4D-OBCs obtained at reduced spatial (1.0 m to 15.0 m with 0.5 m steps) and temporal (2 h to 96 h with 2 h steps) resolution to the result from highest-resolution data. Many change delineations achieve acceptable performance with ranges of ±10 % to ±100 % in delineated object area, depending on the spatial extent of the respective change form. We suggest a locally adaptive approach to identify poor performance at certain resolution levels for the integration in a hierarchical approach. Consequently, the spatial delineation could be performed at high accuracy for specific target changes in a second iteration. This will allow more efficient 3D change analysis towards near-realtime, online TLS-based observation of natural surface changes.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details


1 3DGeo Research Group, Institute of Geography, Heidelberg University, Germany; 3DGeo Research Group, Institute of Geography, Heidelberg University, Germany; Interdisciplinary Center for Scientific Computing (IWR), Heidelberg University, Germany
2 3DGeo Research Group, Institute of Geography, Heidelberg University, Germany; 3DGeo Research Group, Institute of Geography, Heidelberg University, Germany
3 Interdisciplinary Center for Scientific Computing (IWR), Heidelberg University, Germany; Interdisciplinary Center for Scientific Computing (IWR), Heidelberg University, Germany; i3mainz – Institute for Spatial Information and Surveying Technology, Mainz University Of Applied Sciences, Germany
4 Department of Geoscience & Remote Sensing, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands; Department of Geoscience & Remote Sensing, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
5 Department of Hydraulic Engineering, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands; Department of Hydraulic Engineering, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands