Provides an overview of methods of automated landform classification
R. A. (Bob) MacMillan
Remote Predictive Mapping (RPM) Webinar
Government of Canada series
Tech-Forward - Achieving Business Readiness For Copilot in Microsoft 365
Automated Extraction of Landforms from DEM Data
1. Automated Extraction of Landforms from
DEM data
R. A. MacMillan
LandMapper Environmental Solutions Inc.
2. Outline
• Rationale for Automated Landform Classification
– Theoretical, methodological, cost and efficiency arguments
• Classification of Landform Elements
– Conceptual underpinnings – hill slope segments
– Implementation methods – various examples
• Classification of Landform Patterns
– Conceptual underpinnings – size, shape, scale, context
– Implementation methods – various examples
• Miscellaneous Bits and Pieces
– Thoughts and ideas that may or may not prove useful
• Discussion and Conclusions
– What works and what doesn’t?
– Future developments & challenges to be addressed
3. Rationale for Automated Landform
Classification
Scientific and theoretical arguments
Business case – costs and efficiency
4. Rationale: Scientific and Theoretical
• Why Delineate Landforms?
– Landforms define boundary conditions for
processes operative in the fields of:
• Geomorphology
• Hydrology
• Ecology
• Pedology
• Forestry ... others
– Landforms control or influence the distribution
and redistribution of water, energy and matter
Source: MacMillan and Shary, (2009)
5. Rationale: Costs and Efficiency
• Why Automate the Delineation of Landforms?
– Speed and cost of production
• Never likely to ever again see investments in large
groups of human interpreters to produce global maps
• Governments can’t afford and are unwilling to pay for
manual interpretation and delineation of landforms
– Consistency and reproducibility
• Manual human interpretation can never be entirely
consistent or reproducible
• Automated methods can be constantly improved and
re-run to produce updated products.
Source: MacMillan and Shary, (2009)
6. Conceptual Hierarchy of Landforms
• Focus here is on two main levels
– Landform elements (facets here)
– Landform patterns (repeating landform types)
Source: MacMillan, 2005
8. Rationale: Process-Form Relationships
• Landform Elements related to hill slope processes
– Forms are related to processes and also control them
Source: Skidmore et al. (1991)
10. Rationale: Recognizing Landform Patterns
• Landform Patterns Establish Context and Scale
– Different landform patterns exhibit differences in
• Relief energy available to drive processes such as runoff,
erosion, mass movement, solar illumination, energy flows
• Size and scale of landform features such as slope lengths,
slope gradients, surface texture, complexity of slopes, degree
of incision of channel networks
• Contextual position in the larger landscape
– Runoff producing or runoff receiving area
– Sediment accumulation or removal area
– Elevated water tables or artesian conditions versus recharge areas
Source: MacMillan, 2005
12. Landform Elements: Conceptual
Underpinnings
• Many similar ideas on partitioning of hill slopes
– Simplest and most basic conceptualization
– 2d not 3d partitioning of a hill slope into elements
13. Landform Elements: Conceptual
Underpinnings
• Many similar ideas on partitioning of hill slopes
Ruhe and Reprinted from Ventura
Walker (1968) and Irvin (2000)
14. Landform Elements: Conceptual
Underpinnings
• 2D Concepts in 3D
– Ventura & Irwin (2000)
• Ridge top
• Shoulder
• Backslope
• Footslope
• Toeslope
• Floodplain
– Based solely on slope
and curvature
• No landform position
Source: Ventura and Irvin (2000)
15. Landform Elements: Conceptual
Underpinnings
• 3D concepts more comprehensive than 2D
– Erosion, deposition, and transit are influenced by
both profile and plan (across-slope) curvature
Concepts: Gauss, 1828 Source: Shary et al., (2005)
17. Landform Elements: Conceptual
Underpinnings
• 3D conceptualization • 3D classes
Source: Pennock et al., (1987)
Source: Pennock et al., (1987)
18. Landform Elements: Conceptual
Underpinnings
• Complete system of classification by curvature
Source: Shary et al., (2005)
19. Landform Elements: Conceptual
Underpinnings
• 3D conceptualization • 3D classes
– Initially based solely on
local surface form
• Convex, concave, planar
– In theory surface form
should reflect
• Landscape position
• Hillslope processes
– Surface shape not
always sufficient
• Need better context
Source: Dikau et al., (1989)
20. Landform Elements: Conceptual
Underpinnings
• Adding landform position to 3D improves 3D.
Upslope length - cell to peak (cells)
2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7 6
Upslope drainage direction (UDIR)
PEAK CELL
5 100 Relative
slope
4 80
Elevation of each 5m position as
3 3 cells 63 PIT CELL 60 % height
cell above pit
elevation (m) 2 40 above pit
DIVIDE level
1 CELL 5 cells 20
3m
Downslope drainage direction (DDIR)
4 5 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2
Downslope length - cell to pit (cells)
80 100 100 88 75 63 50 38 25 12 0 10 20
Relative slope position as % length upslope
Source: MacMillan, 2000, 2005
21. Measures of Absolute Landform Position
Computed by LandMapR
• Flow Length N to Peak • Vertical Distance Z to Ridge
FLOW UP TO PEAK FROM EVERY CELL FLOW UP TO RIDGE FROM EVERY CELL
Image Data Copyright the Province of British Columbia, 2003
Source: MacMillan et al., 2007
22. Measures of Relative Relief (in Z)
Computed by LandMapR
• Percent Z Pit to Peak • Percent Z Channel to Divide
MEASURE OF REGIONAL CONTEXT MEASURE OF LOCAL CONTEXT
Image Data Copyright the Province of British Columbia, 2003
Source: MacMillan et al., 2007
23. Measures of Relative Slope Length (L)
Computed by LandMapR
• Percent L Pit to Peak • Percent L Channel to Divide
MEASURE OF REGIONAL CONTEXT MEASURE OF LOCAL CONTEXT
Image Data Copyright the Province of British Columbia, 2003
Source: MacMillan et al., 2007
24. Measures of Relative Slope Position
Computed by LandMapR
• Percent Diffuse Upslope Area • Percent Z Channel to Divide
SENSITIVE TO HOLLOWS & DRAWS RELATIVE TO MAIN STREAM CHANNELS
Image Data Copyright the Province of British Columbia, 2003
Source: MacMillan et al., 2007
25. Measures of Relative Slope Position
Computed by LandMapR
• Percent Diffuse Upslope Area • Percent Z Channel to Divide
SENSITIVE TO HOLLOWS & DRAWS RELATIVE TO MAIN STREAM CHANNELS
Image Data Copyright the Province of British Columbia, 2003
Source: MacMillan et al., 2007
26. Multiple Resolution Landform Position
What you see depends upon how closely you look
Different results with different window sizes and grid resolutions
Relative position is always relative to something and varies across
an area
Source: Geng et al., 2012
27. MRVBF: Multi-resolution valley
bottom flatness
• Valley bottom flatness from:
– Flatness (inverse of slope)
– Local lowness (ranking in a 6 cell circular region)
• Multi-resolution:
– Compute valley bottom flatness at different
resolutions
• Smooth and subsample the DEM
Source: Gallant, 2012
28. MRVBF: Generalise DEM
Smooth and subsample Source: Gallant, 2012
Original: 25 m Generalised: 75 m Generalised 675 m
Flatness Flatness
Bottomness Bottomness
Valley Bottom Valley Bottom
Flatness Flatness
29. MRVBF: Multi-Resolution
Flatness and bottomness at multiple resolutions
Source: Gallant, 2012
25
m
75
m
675
m
Flatness Bottomness Valley Bottom Flatness
31. Multiple Resolution Landform Position
MRVBF Example Outputs
Broader Scale 9” DEM
MRVBF for 25 m DEM
Source: Gallant, 2012
32. Landform Elements: Other Measures of
Landform Position
• SAGA-RHSP: relative • SAGA-ABC: altitude
hydrologic slope position above channel
Source: C. Bulmer, unpublished
Calculation based on: MacMillan, 2005 Source: C. Bulmer, unpublished
33. Landform Elements: Other Measures of
Landform Position
• SAGA-MRVBF: valley • SAGA-Combined RHSP
bottom flatness index and MRVBF
Source: C. Bulmer, unpublished
34. Landform Elements: Other Measures of
Landform Position
• SAGA-Combined RHSP • SAGA-Combined RHSP
and MRVBF vs Soil Map and MRVBF vs Soil Map
Source: C. Bulmer, unpublished
Calculation based on: MacMillan, 2005 Source: C. Bulmer, unpublished
35. Landform Elements: Other Measures of
Landform Position
• TOPHAT – Schmidt • Slope Position – Hatfield
and Hewitt (2004) (1996)
Source: Schmidt & Hewitt, (2004) Source: Hatfield (1996)
46. LandMapR: Different Classes in Different Areas
Normal Mesic
Moist Foot Slope
Warm SW Slope
Shallow Crest
Organic Wetland
Wet Toe Slope
Cold Frosty Wet
Permanent Lake
Source: MacMillan et
al., 2007
47. Example of Application of Fuzzy K-means
Unsupervised Classification
From: Burrough et al.,
2001, Landscsape
Ecology
Note similarity of unsupervised
classes to conceptual classes
48. Supervised Classification Using Fuzzy Logic
• Shi et al., 2004 Fuzzy likelihood of being a broad ridge
– Used multiple cases of reference
sites
– Each site was used to establish
fuzzy similarity of unclassified
locations to reference sites
– Used Fuzzy-minimum function to
compute fuzzy similarity
– Harden class using largest (Fuzzy-
maximum) value
– Considered distance to each
reference site in computing
Fuzzy-similarity
Source: Shi et al., 2004
51. Conceptualization of Landform Patterns
• Landform Patterns Tend to Repeat
– Landform patterns are typically of larger size and
scale and display greater complexity and variation
• Hills, mountains, plains, plateaus, tablelands
– Landform patterns usually, but not always,
exhibit full or partial cycles of repetition of forms
• Hills and mountains exhibit a full range of landform
positions, slope gradients, curvatures (mostly positive)
• Valleys and plains can exhibit undulations or cyclic
variations OR they may be asymmetric.
52. Considerations Used in Several Systems of
Classifying Landform Patterns
• Hammond (Dikau, 1991) • Iwahashi & Pike (2006)
– Considerations – Considerations
• Slope gradient; percentage of gentle • Local slope gradient (3x3 window)
slopes (4 classes) in search window • Texture - Local relief intensity
• Local relief within a search window assessed as number of pits and peaks
of fixed dimensions (6 classes) within a fixed window of 10 cells
• Profile type; percentage of cells • Curvature; calculated as percentage of
classed as gentle slope in lowland convex cells in a 10 cell radius
versus upland locations (4 classes)
• eSOTER (Dobos et al., 2005)
• SOTER (van Engelen & Wen, – Considerations
1995) • Majority slope gradient (of 7 classes
– Considerations in 900 m block, then smoothed)
• Dominant slope gradient • Relief intensity (max-min elevation
within a radius of 5 cells, 990 m
• Relief intensity
classified into 4 classes & smoothed)
• Hypsometry (elevation asl)
• Hypsometry (elevation asl, 10 classes)
• Degree of dissection
• Dissection (# channel cells in radius)
53. Rationale for Classifying Landform Patterns
• So, Why Consider These Attributes?
– Slope Gradient
• Steepness relates to energy, erosion, deposition, context
– Relief Intensity (or texture or local relief)
• Provides an indication of amplitude of landscape,
amount of energy available for erosion, slope lengths,
size and scale of hill slopes
– Profile Type (or shape, curvature, hypsometry)
• Helps to differentiate uplands (convex) from lowlands
• Helps to establish broader landscape context
56. Landform Patterns: Implementation
Example of the Hammond System
• Hammond system; as per Dikau et al., 1991
Source: MacMillan and Shary, (2009)
57. Source: Zawadzka et al., in prep
Landform Patterns: Implementation
Example of the Hammond System
• Hammond system; as per Dikau et al., 1991
Normal Relief Index
Modified Relief Index
9600m square window 9600m circular window 900m circular window
58. Source: Zawadzka et al., in prep
Landform Patterns: Implementation
Example of the Hammond System
• Hammond system; as per Dikau et al., 1991
900m circular window 18000 m circular window
Hammond approach is Hammond approach
very sensitive to tends to produce
differences in window concentric rings
size and shape or grid related to how the
resolution search window
observes the data
9200m circular window
59. Landform Patterns: Implementation
Example of the Hammond System
• Hammond system; as per Dikau et al., 1991
Source: MacMillan, (unpublished)
60. Landform Patterns: Implementation
Example of the Hammond System
• Hammond landform underlying 1:650k soil map
Source: Reuter, H.I. (unpublished)
61. Source: Zawadzka et al., in prep
Landform Patterns: Implementation
Example of Iwahashi & Pike (2006)
• Implemented by Zawadzka et al., (in prep)
8 classes 12 classes 16 classes
Iwahashi & Pike classes need
to be labelled and interpreted
62. Landform Patterns: Implementation
Example of Iwahashi & Pike (2006)
• Iwahashi landform underlying 1:650k soil map
Terrain Classes
Fine texture,
Terrain Series
High convexity
1 5 9 13
Fine texture,
Low convexity 3 7 11 15
Coarse texture,
High convexity 2 6 10 14
Coarse texture,
Low convexity 4 8 12 16
steep gentle
Source: Reuter, H.I. (unpublished)
63. Source: Dobos et al., 2005
8 classes
Landform Patterns: Implementation
Example of eSOTER (Dobos, 2005)
• Implemented by Dobos et al., (in 2005)
Manual - yellow Manual - yellow
eSOTER - red eSOTER - red
64. Source: Zawadzka et al., in prep
Landform Patterns: Implementation
Example of Peak Shed Approach
• Implemented by Zawadzka et al., (in prep)
Peak shed entities
classified by
clustering
algorithm.
Resulting entities
need to be labelled
and interpreted
65. Source: Zawadzka et al., in prep
Landform Patterns: Implementation
Example of Peak Shed Approach
• Implemented by Zawadzka et al., (in prep)
Peak shed entities labelled according to Hammond
66. Source: Zawadzka et al., in prep
Landform Patterns: Implementation
Example of Slope Break Approach
• Implemented by Zawadzka et al., (in prep)
Run 2 Run 3
67. Source: Zawadzka et al., in prep
Landform Patterns: Implementation Example
of Homogeneous Objects (eCognition)
• Implemented by Zawadzka et al., (in prep)
69. Landform Patterns: Implementation Example
of Homogeneous Objects vs Meybeck 2001
• Implemented by Dragut, (unpublished)
See: ai-relief.org
Implemented by:
Reuter and Nelson
Method: Meybeck
et al., 2001
Source: Drãgut & Eisank, 2011 Source: http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/projects/landform/
70. Landform Patterns: Implementation Example
of Meybeck 2001 vs Homogeneous Objects
• Implemented by Dragut, (unpublished)
See: ai-
relief.org
Method:
Meybeck et
al., 2001
Source:
Reuter Source:
and Drãgut ,
Nelson unpublished
82. We are Really Looking for Discontinuities!
Source: Minar and Evans. (2008)
83. We are Really Looking for Discontinuities!
Source: MacMillan, unpublished
84. We are Really Looking for Discontinuities!
• The more I think about it the clearer it becomes
– We are really looking to locate abrupt boundaries
where the slope, texture, relief and context change
• If we are looking for boundaries it makes sense to try to
extract vector objects
• It makes less sense to classify grid cells then agglomerate
them, then de-speckle them, then vectorize them
• This argues in favor of approaches like Object Extraction
(Dragut) or perhaps Scilands (Kothe)
Source: Minar and Evans. (2008)
85. There are Special Cases that do not fit in a
General Classification (e.g River Valleys)
I like this!
Source: Rüdiger Köthe , 2012
86. There are Special Cases that do not fit in a
General Classification (e.g River Valleys)
• Many General Purpose Classifications Need to
be Extended to Handle Special Cases
– River Valleys are a case in point
• They have forms and patterns that are not cyclical
• They have special features that have special interpretation
– Active flood plain, levee, low terrace, high terrace, inter-terrace
scarp, ox-bow lake, abandoned channel, dry islands
– Other Special Cases no doubt exist too
• Think of mineral and organic wetlands, deserts, playas
87. Source: MacMillan, 2005
Multi-Scale and Multi-Resolution
Calculations are Important but Problematic
No single fixed window size fits all landscapes – Need to be locally adaptive
88. Multi-Scale and Multi-Resolution are
Important but Problematic
• All algorithms and systems that compute
attributes within a fixed window are flawed
– No single window fits all landscapes
– User’s frequently adjust window size subjectively to
fit local landscape features – no longer universal!
– Windows that don’t fit the landscape produce
artifacts and unrealistic classes or values
– Need to use multiple windows and average (like
MRVBF) or make windows self-adjusting
89. Source: Drãgut, unpublished
I Like Top-Down, Divisive, Multi-scale
Fully Nested Hierarchical Objects
• Multi-scale Objects of Dragut, (unpublished)
90. I Like Top-Down, Divisive, Multi-scale
Fully Nested Hierarchical Objects
• Advantages of multi-scale, hierarchical, nested
vector objects
– They nest, or fit, within higher level objects exactly
– There is less arbitrary sliver removal, filtering,
speckle removal, smoothing and manipulation
– They seem to produce fewer artifacts and outright
errors
– They produce consistent and comparable results for
all similar terrains
Source: Drãgut, unpublished
91. Source: MacMillan, unpublished
The World is Divided into Things that
Stick Up and Things that Stick Down
As a first step we should always strive to separate erosional uplands from lowlands
92. Source: MacMillan, unpublished
The World is Divided into Things that
Stick Up and Things that Stick Down
Extracting nested peaks may be a way to separate uplands from lowlands
Might work even better if applied to DEM of inverted Height Above Channel (Z2St)
93. The World is Divided into Things that
Stick Up and Things that Stick Down
• In the First Instances Many Landform Pattern
Classifications are Binary (upland vs lowlands)
– Systems of Iwahashi and Pike, eSOTER, Hammond
Scilands all recognize this in their own way
– Maybe we should be making a point of finding ways
to explicitly separate erosional uplands from
aggrading lowlands as a first step in any classification
– I have fooled around with the idea of extracting
nested pits from an inverted DEM as a way to
extract uplands Source: MacMillan, 2005
94. Are Landform Patterns and Landform
Elements Really Different Things??
Maybe the only real difference is one of scale?
Many classifications of Landform Patterns look a lot like Hillslope Elements on a
large scale
Source: Rüdiger Köthe , 2012 Source: MacMillan, unpublished
95. Are Landform Patterns and Landform
Elements Really Different Things?
• The More I look, the more that landform
patterns begin to look like landform elements
computed over larger areas and at a coarser scale
– Maybe we need to look at approaches like MRVBF
that compute values at multiple scales then average
them to produce a final value or class
• Similarities to the work of Jo Wood.
• We still want to first separate hills from valleys and
uplands from lowlands, then landform elements within
these larger scale features.
Source: MacMillan, 2005
96. Source: MacMillan, 2005
I Have Personally Found Hierarchical
Classification Useful to Set Context
I first classified areas into 3-4 relief classes
Then I developed and applied different classification rules for each relief class
97. Discussion and Conclusions
What works and what doesn’t?
How can we tell what works?
Challenges to be addressed
Future developments
98. What Works and What Doesn’t?
• All things being equal apply Ockham’s Razor
– If you need to decide between several competing
methods and none is clearly superior to others
• Pick the one that is simplest, fastest and easiest to
implement
– Fewest input variables
– Fewest processing steps
– Fewest tuneable parameters
– Fewest subjective decisions
• This points towards selection of one of the following
– Iwahashi and Pike, Dragut or Scilands
Source: MacMillan, 2005
99. How Can We Tell What Works?
• How can we evaluate “Truth” for subjective
classifications?
– Hard to decide objectively which classification
method to use when all classifications appear partly
useful and partly incorrect
• Need objective criteria and methods of computing them
to assess different classifications and identify the most
useful
• Should be based on the ability of the classification to
predict ancillary environmental properties or conditions
of interest Source: MacMillan, 2005
100. Challenges to be Addressed
• A diversity of methods and absence of standards
– Classes and results need to be comparable between
different areas
• This argues for selecting and applying one method
universally and not applying different methods in
different regions
• Need to objectively compare methods and then select one
to use widely (everywhere?).
• Method almost certainly has to be multi-scale, hierarchical
and locally adaptive
• Method needs to be parsimonious and easy to apply
Source: MacMillan, 2005
101. Future Developments
• Global standards
– We need global standards to compare results
• Free and open-source data and tools on-line
– I see both data & tools increasingly available on-line
• Incorporation of ancillary (remotely sensed) data
to infer parent material attributes for landforms
– Once delineated, objects need to be attributed for pm
• Innovations in multi-scale hierarchical analysis
– Way forward will undoubtedly be multi-scale
Source: MacMillan, 2005
103. Source: MacMillan, 2005
Image Data Copyright the Province of British Columbia, 2003
Classify Landforms by Size and Scale
104. Source: MacMillan, 2005
Image Data Copyright the Province of British Columbia, 2003
Quesnel PEM Landform Classification
105. Source: MacMillan, 2005 Source: MacMillan, unpublished
I Have Personally Found Hierarchical
Classification Useful to Set Context
I first classified areas into 3-4 relief classes
Then I developed and applied different classification rules for each relief class
106. Source: MacMillan, 2005
Image Data Copyright the Province of British Columbia, 2003
Quesnel PEM Landform Classification
107. Source: MacMillan, unpublished
The World is Divided into Things that
Stick Up and Things that Stick Down
As a first step we should always strive to separate erosional uplands from lowlands