Geospatial-Based Slope Mapping Studies Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Technology

  • Ahmad Razali YusoffEmail author
  • Norhadija Darwin
  • Zulkepli Majid
  • Mohd Farid Mohd Ariff
  • Khairulnizam Mohd Idris
  • Mohd Azwan Abbas
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)


Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) is one of the geospatial-based data acquisition technologies which acquire data within a short period for slope mapping studies. Geospatial-based UAV mapping are widely used in many applications, specifically for scientific and mapping research. The capabilities of rapid data acquisition and accessibility to slope risk area are several advantages of using UAV technology. However, the accuracy that influences the output of slope mapping studies using UAV technology need to be considered such as flying altitude and selection of the optimum numbers of Ground Control Points (GCPs). This study focuses on the reviews of geospatial-based UAV mapping, others geospatial-based technologies as well as accuracy assessment of its output. Several considerations were discussed in the production of slope map using UAV technology namely determining the optimum number of GCPs and flying altitudes, as well as evaluating of UAV images. This study presents the production of high resolution slope map area that has been conducted at Kulim, Kedah, Malaysia as the slope location prone to landslide occurrences. Multi-rotor UAV known as DJI Phantom 4 was used for collecting the high resolution images with various flying altitudes. The result of X, Y and Z coordinates show that the accuracy is influenced by the flying altitude of UAV. As for flying altitude is increased, the accuracy of slope mapping is improved. Moreover, the analysis indicated that the slope area coverage and the number of tie point increases as the UAV altitude level also increases.



The authors would like to express their sincere appreciation to Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) under GUP Tier 2 (Vot. 14J96) and PAS Grant (Vot OK319) for supporting this study. In addition, the authors would like to thank to the Geospatial Imaging and Information Research Group UTM (Gi2RG UTM) for supporting the image of research equipment to be shown in this study.


  1. Agüera-Vega F, Carvajal-Ramírez F, Martínez-Carricondo P (2017) Assessment of photogrammetric mapping accuracy based on variation ground control points number using unmanned aerial vehicle. Measurement 98:221–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmad A, Tahar KN, Udin WS, Hashim KA, Darwin N, Hafis M (2013) Digital aerial imagery of unmanned aerial vehicle for various applications. In: 2013 IEEE international conference on control system, computing and engineering (ICCSCE), pp 535–540Google Scholar
  3. Alho P, Kukko A, Hyyppa H, Kaartinen H, Hyyppa J, Jaakkola A (2009) Application of boat-based laser scanning for river survey. Earth Surf Proc Land 34(13):1831–1838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Al-Tahir R, Arthur M, Davis D (2011) Low cost aerial mapping alternatives for natural disasters in the caribbean. FIG Working Week 2011, Bridging the gap between cultures. Marrakech, MoroccoGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnold L, Wartman J, Massey C, MacLaughlin M, Keefer D (2015) Insights into the seismically-induced rock-slope failures in the Canterbury region using the discrete element method. Paper presented at the 6th international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  6. Bagnardi M, González PJ, Hooper A (2016) High-resolution digital elevation model from tri-stereo Pleiades-1 satellite imagery for lava flow volume estimates at Fogo Volcano. Geophys Res Lett 43(12):6267–6275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blyth FGH, de Freitas M (2017) A geology for engineers. CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Cahyono A, Zayd R (2018) Rapid mapping of landslide disaster using UAV-photogrammetry. Paper presented at the journal of physics: conference series, p 012046Google Scholar
  9. Collin English Dictionary (2012) Complete & unabridged 2012 digital editionGoogle Scholar
  10. Darwin N, Ahmad A, Zainon O (2014) The potential of unmanned aerial vehicle for large scale mapping of coastal area. Paper presented at the IOP conference series: earth and environmental science, p 012031Google Scholar
  11. Dunham L, Wartman J, Olsen MJ, O’Banion M, Cunningham K (2017) Rockfall activity index (RAI): a lidar-derived, morphology-based method for hazard assessment. Eng Geol 221:184–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eisenbeiss H, Lambers K, Sauerbier M, Zhang L (2005) Photogrammetric documentation of an archaeological site (Palpa, Peru) using an autonomous model helicopter. In: International archives of photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences, vol 34, no 5, p C34Google Scholar
  13. Everaerts J (2008) The use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for remote sensing and mapping. In: The international archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences, vol 37, pp 1187–1192Google Scholar
  14. Forlani G, Roncella R, Nardinocchi C (2015) Where is photogrammetry heading to? State of the art and trends. Rendiconti Lincei 26(1):85–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Francioni M, Salvini R, Stead D, Litrico S (2014) A case study integrating remote sensing and distinct element analysis to quarry slope stability assessment in the Monte Altissimo area, Italy. Eng Geol 183:290–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Francioni M, Salvini R, Stead D, Coggan J (2018) Improvements in the integration of remote sensing and rock slope modelling. Nat Hazards 90(2):975–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fuad N, Ismail Z, Majid Z, Darwin N, Ariff M, Idris K (2018) Accuracy evaluation of digital terrain model based on different flying altitudes and conditional of terrain using UAV LiDAR technology. Paper presented at the IOP conference series: earth and environmental science, p 012100Google Scholar
  18. Fugazza D, Scaioni M, Corti M, D’Agata C, Azzoni RS, Cernuschi M (2018) Combination of UAV and terrestrial photogrammetry to assess rapid glacier evolution and map glacier hazards. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 18(4):1055–1071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Geomatics World (2017) UAV Monitoring of coastal erosion. Accessed 25 Sept 2018
  20. Gonçalves J, Henriques R (2015) UAV photogrammetry for topographic monitoring of coastal areas. ISPRS J Photogram Remote Sens 104:101–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hori T, Tamate S (2018) Monitoring Shear strain in shallow subsurface using mini pipe strain meter for detecting potential threat of slope failure. Geotech Test J 41(2)Google Scholar
  22. Hungr O, Evans S, Hazzard J (1999) Magnitude and frequency of rock falls and rock slides along the main transportation corridors of southwestern British Columbia. Can Geotech J 36(2):224–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Knapen A, Kitutu MG, Poesen J, Breugelmans W, Deckers J, Muwanga A (2006) Landslides in a densely populated county at the footslopes of Mount Elgon (Uganda): characteristics and causal factors. Geomorphology 73(1–2):149–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krishna K R (2016) Push button agriculture: Robotics, drones, satellite-guided soil and crop management. CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  25. Kršák B, Blišťan P, Pauliková A, Puškárová P, Kovanič Ľ, Palková J (2016) Use of low-cost UAV photogrammetry to analyze the accuracy of a digital elevation model in a case study. Measurement 91:276–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kumar NS, Ismail MAM, Sukor NSA, Cheang W (2018) Geohazard reconnaissance mapping for potential rock boulder fall using low altitude UAV photogrammetry. Paper presented at the IOP conference series: materials science and engineering, p 012033Google Scholar
  27. Lucieer A, Jong SM, Turner D (2014) Mapping landslide displacements using structure from motion (SfM) and image correlation of multi-temporal UAV photography. Prog Phys Geogr 38(1):97–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Michoud C, Carrea D, Costa S, Derron M-H, Jaboyedoff M, Delacourt C (2015) Landslide detection and monitoring capability of boat-based mobile laser scanning along Dieppe coastal cliffs, Normandy. Landslides 12(2):403–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Reis A, Araújo E, Silva C, Cruz A, Gorini C, Droz L (2016) Effects of a regional décollement level for gravity tectonics on late Neogene to recent large-scale slope instabilities in the Foz do Amazonas Basin, Brazil. Mar Pet Geol 75:29–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rossi G, Tanteri L, Tofani V, Vannocci P, Moretti S, Casagli N (2018) Multitemporal UAV surveys for landslide mapping and characterization. Landslides 1–8Google Scholar
  31. Remondino F, Barazzetti L, Nex F, Scaioni, M, Sarazzi D (2011) UAV photogrammetry for mapping and 3d modeling–current status and future perspectives. In: International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences, vol 38, no 1, p C22Google Scholar
  32. Spatalas S, Tsioukas V, Daniil M (2006) The use of remote controlled helicopter for the recording of large scale urban and suburban sites. In: Proceedings of the scientific conference. Culture of representation, Xanthi, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  33. Tahar K (2013) An evaluation on different number of ground control points in unmanned aerial vehicle photogrammetric block. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci 40:93–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tahar KN (2015) Investigation on different scanning resolutions for slope mapping studies in cameron highlands, Malaysia. Arabian J Sci Eng 40(1):245–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Trappmann D, Stoffel M, Corona C (2014) Achieving a more realistic assessment of rockfall hazards by coupling three-dimensional process models and field-based tree-ring data. Earth Surf Proc Land 39(14):1866–1875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tung WY, Nagendran SK, Ismail MAM (2018) 3D rock slope data acquisition by photogrammetry approach and extraction of geological planes using FACET plugin in CloudCompare. Paper presented at the IOP conference series: earth and environmental science, p 012051Google Scholar
  37. Udin W, Ahmad A (2014) Assessment of photogrammetric mapping accuracy based on variation flying altitude using unmanned aerial vehicle. Paper presented at the IOP conference series: earth and environmental science, p 012027Google Scholar
  38. Uysal M, Toprak Polat N (2015) DEM generation with UAV photogrammetry and accuracy analysis in Sahitler hill. Measurement 73:539–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Xiang J, Chen J, Sofia G, Tian Y, Tarolli P (2018) Open-pit mine geomorphic changes analysis using multi-temporal UAV survey. Environ Earth Sci 77(6):220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yeh F-H, Huang C-J, Han J-Y, Ge L (2018) Modeling slope topography using unmanned aerial vehicle image technique. Paper presented at the MATEC web of conferences, p 07002Google Scholar
  41. Yusoff AR, Ariff MFM, Idris KM, Majid Z, Chong AK (2017) Camera calibration accuracy at different UAV flying heights. In: The international archives of photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences, vol 42, p 595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zieher T, Toschi I, Remondino F, Rutzinger M, Kofler C, Mejia-Aguilar A, Schlögel R (2018) Sensor-and scene-guided integration of TLS and photogrammetric point clouds for landslide monitoring. In: International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing & spatial information sciences, vol 42, no 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahmad Razali Yusoff
    • 1
    Email author
  • Norhadija Darwin
    • 2
  • Zulkepli Majid
    • 2
  • Mohd Farid Mohd Ariff
    • 2
  • Khairulnizam Mohd Idris
    • 2
  • Mohd Azwan Abbas
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Built Environment and Surveying, Department of GeoinformationUniversiti Teknologi MalaysiaSkudaiMalaysia
  2. 2.Geospatial Imaging and Information Research Group, Faculty of Built Environment and SurveyingUniversiti Teknologi MalaysiaSkudaiMalaysia
  3. 3.Faculty of Architecture Planning and SurveyingCentre of Study for Surveying Science and Geomatic, Universiti Teknologi MARAShah AlamMalaysia

Personalised recommendations