Skip to main content

Module 5: Coastal Flooding

 For the first part of this module, I compared before and after pictures of the New Jersey coast, pre and post Hurricane Sandy. I created DEM's from lidar data to compare the before and after. Below, you can see the magnitude of erosion and accretion on the Jersey coast due to the Hurrican Sandy in 2012. 


In the second portion of this lab, I created a storm surge impact model for Collier County, Fl. This was a very educational assignment and I learned a lot. We not only created a storm surge model for the coast of Florida, but we also did so utilizing both Lidar and USGS DEM data to compare accuracy. I first began by converting the Lidar layer to meters, and then reclassified both to only include data where the elevation is under 1 meter. I used the region group tool to clump together into one large area the land along the coast, and isolated it (via select by attributes) to only analysis this single large connected area. Lastly, converted that large area for both Lidar and USGS to a polygon. Here is where the analysis got very tricky and I struggled greatly. 

From here, I had to spatially join the buildings layer with the Lidar/USGS polygon respectively. I accomplished this task simply, and further was able to select by attributes only the areas where the join_count equaled one [where the building was found to be impacted by the flood] to create a new layer. What flabergasted me, was how do I determine the errors of Omission and Comission? How can I compare two different layers (Lidar/USGS)? 

I tried many tools [Overlay, Intersect, Select by location] but I keep getting errors or fails. After connecting with a peer and compairng our thought processes, I realized I needed to do a spatial join of the Lidar/USGS layers that contained all buildings. I spatially joined the impacted LIDAR to the impacted USGS layer. This resulted in a join_count column with 1 where both overlapped and 0 where they did not overlap. I was able to use select by attributes in the table to determine the top half of the formula for error of omission. I spatially joined the LIDAR layer to the USGS layer and did the same thing to determine the error of commission.

Below is my final map.


I do not think the assumptions we made in this analysis are accurate. First, we excluded low-lying areas that are that were not connected to the large polygon touching water. These are likely to get flooded as well and excluding them can cause an error of omission. I think we should also have taken into account the urban planning of the area for water runoff, percent of permeable surfaces to impermeable surfaces, the efficiency of collecting water runoff, nearby large bodies of water, and land topography. Lastly, we assumed the land was at a uniform height, which is very unlikely, and I believe that is what caused our high errors of commission. 



Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Positional Accuracy: NSSDA

 In this analysis, I compared the street and road intersect data collected for Alburquerque, NM by the City of Alburquerque and the application StreetMaps. I used an orthophoto base layer as the reference for this analysis, to compare and determine the accuracy of both the City and Streetmap layers using NSSDA procedures. The most difficult part of this analysis for me was how to determine what 20% per quadrant looks like. Because the reference map was divided into 208 quadrants, I had to determine how to subdivide all the quadrant's equality into 20%. After multiple trials and error, I decided to subdivide the entire area (208 sub-quadrants) into 4 equal-area subsections. In this way, I could do 5 random right intersection points per subsection or 20% per subsection.  Map 1: City of Albuquerque city map data.  Map 2: City of Alburquerque SteetMap data When selecting a random intersection to place the points within each quadrant, I choose a location that had data f...
Post a Comment
Read more

Utilizing ERDAS Imagine to Analyze Map Features

 This week we learned how to utilize histograms and different bands to highlight different features in a map. On the following map that we worked on, dark bodies of water caused high peaks on the left of histograms while snow-peaked mountains were small blips on the far right. These simple distinctions help to quickly identify map features on a graph, that you can then utilize as a stepping stone to finding them on the image. I found it incredibly interesting how the different band layers highlighted different features on the map. Figure 1 below depicts three different features we found on the image.  Figure 1: Distinct features found on an image using ERDAS Imagine. Feature 1: Large body of water. Feature 2: Snow-capped mountains transitioning to thick vegetation. Feature 3: Shallow turbulent body of water near urbanized land, transitioning to deep calm body of water. 
Post a Comment
Read more

Choropleth and Dot Mapping

 This week we explored choropleth and dot mapping. Choropleth is a thematic form of mapping that focuses on color units, whose color intensity is proportional to its corresponding data value. Dot mapping is also thematic. It uses either a proportional or graduated thematic symbol (like a circle), whose size increases due to its data value. Using ArcGIS pro, I analyzed the population densities of countries in Europe (person per square kilometer), as well as their wine consumption (liters per capita) to determine if there was a correlation between the two. In my choropleth map, I decided to use a natural breaks classification. I chose not to use Equal Interval because only 2 classes (with slight 3 rd class) were represented in the map, and it looked like almost just one color in the lower range. The standard deviation classification appeared to be more diverse at first glance but was actually skewed to the top ranges. I was then between Quantile and Natural Breaks. While both t...
Post a Comment
Read more