Author Contributions
Conceptualization, M.A.M., L.W., D.Z., and G.M.; methodology, M.A.M., D.Z., and A.M.H.; validation, M.A.M., D.Z., and A.M.H.; formal analysis, M.A.M. and A.M.H.; resources, M.A.M. and B.L.E.; data curation, M.A.M. and B.L.E.; writing—original draft preparation, M.A.M., and A.M.H.; writing—review and editing, M.A.M., A.M.H., L.W., T.A.A., and D.Z.; visualization, M.A.M.; supervision, T.A.A., B.T.H., G.M., and D.Z.; funding acquisition, G.M. and. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Figure 1.
Study area in the southern Ethiopian highlands in East Africa with (a) the Bale Mountains National Park (b) and the Sanneti Plateau quarry sites (c). Data: Shuttle Radar Thematic Mapper (United States Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, USA), Ethio-GIS (Central Statistics Agency, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia), and Georeferenced toposheet (Geospatial Information Institute of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia) (© Google Earth imagery source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community).
Figure 1.
Study area in the southern Ethiopian highlands in East Africa with (a) the Bale Mountains National Park (b) and the Sanneti Plateau quarry sites (c). Data: Shuttle Radar Thematic Mapper (United States Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, USA), Ethio-GIS (Central Statistics Agency, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia), and Georeferenced toposheet (Geospatial Information Institute of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia) (© Google Earth imagery source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community).
Figure 2.
Block diagram (flight index) showing camera exposure stations (ground principal points), areal extent and forward overlap of individual aerial photographs for the year 1967 (source: Ethiopian Geospatial Information Institute, and background © Google Earth imagery sources: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community).
Figure 2.
Block diagram (flight index) showing camera exposure stations (ground principal points), areal extent and forward overlap of individual aerial photographs for the year 1967 (source: Ethiopian Geospatial Information Institute, and background © Google Earth imagery sources: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community).
Figure 3.
Block diagram (flight index) showing camera exposure stations (ground principal points), areal extent, forward overlap, and side overlap of individual aerial photographs for the year 1984 (source: Ethiopian Geospatial Information Institute, and background © Google Earth imagery sources: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community).
Figure 3.
Block diagram (flight index) showing camera exposure stations (ground principal points), areal extent, forward overlap, and side overlap of individual aerial photographs for the year 1984 (source: Ethiopian Geospatial Information Institute, and background © Google Earth imagery sources: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community).
Figure 4.
Spatial distribution of the in situ primary data collected in the study area for Site 1 (a) and Site 2 (b). The check points (triangle) included in the map were used to assess the accuracy of DEMs generated from point data (Background © Google Earth imagery sources: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community).
Figure 4.
Spatial distribution of the in situ primary data collected in the study area for Site 1 (a) and Site 2 (b). The check points (triangle) included in the map were used to assess the accuracy of DEMs generated from point data (Background © Google Earth imagery sources: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community).
Figure 5.
Methodological workflow applied for landscape volumetric change calculating Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) of Differences (DEMs). SfM MVS = Structure-from-Motion Multi View Stereo photogrammetry, HAPs = Historical Aerial Photographs, IDW = Inverse Distance Weighting, FGD = Focus Group Discussion, DoD = DEM of Difference.
Figure 5.
Methodological workflow applied for landscape volumetric change calculating Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) of Differences (DEMs). SfM MVS = Structure-from-Motion Multi View Stereo photogrammetry, HAPs = Historical Aerial Photographs, IDW = Inverse Distance Weighting, FGD = Focus Group Discussion, DoD = DEM of Difference.
Figure 6.
DEMs generated from HAPs for Site 1 in 1967 (
a) and 1984 (
b), and for Site 2 in 1967 (
c) and 1984 (
d); see also (
Figure 1).
Figure 6.
DEMs generated from HAPs for Site 1 in 1967 (
a) and 1984 (
b), and for Site 2 in 1967 (
c) and 1984 (
d); see also (
Figure 1).
Figure 7.
DEMs generated from in situ data with different interpolation techniques. Site 1: Inverse Distance Weight (a), kriging (b), spline (c), and topo-to-raster (d). Site 2: Inverse Distance Weight (e), kriging (f), spline (g), and topo-to-raster (h).
Figure 7.
DEMs generated from in situ data with different interpolation techniques. Site 1: Inverse Distance Weight (a), kriging (b), spline (c), and topo-to-raster (d). Site 2: Inverse Distance Weight (e), kriging (f), spline (g), and topo-to-raster (h).
Figure 8.
Historical aerial images of the two study quarry sites. Historical view of Site 1 in 1967 (
a), 1984 (
b), 2011 (
c), and 2023 (
d); and Site 2 in 1967 (
e), 1984 (
f), 2011 (
g), and 2023 (
h). (Source: [
69]; © Google Earth imagery; Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community).
Figure 8.
Historical aerial images of the two study quarry sites. Historical view of Site 1 in 1967 (
a), 1984 (
b), 2011 (
c), and 2023 (
d); and Site 2 in 1967 (
e), 1984 (
f), 2011 (
g), and 2023 (
h). (Source: [
69]; © Google Earth imagery; Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community).
Figure 9.
DEM of Difference (DoD) in meter showing maps of Site 1 from 1967 to 1984 (a), from 1984 to 2023 (b), and from 1967 to 2023 as a whole (c); and of Site 2 from 1967 to 1984 (d), from 1984 to 2023 (e), and from 1967 to 2023 as a whole (f).
Figure 9.
DEM of Difference (DoD) in meter showing maps of Site 1 from 1967 to 1984 (a), from 1984 to 2023 (b), and from 1967 to 2023 as a whole (c); and of Site 2 from 1967 to 1984 (d), from 1984 to 2023 (e), and from 1967 to 2023 as a whole (f).
Figure 10.
Topographic data collection using a total station and documented landscape change due to quarrying operations in the BMNP. (a) Collecting data using a total station, (b) newly formed road entry to the site, (c,d) excavated surfaces vulnerable to flooding, and (e) cliff formation prone to further erosion (Photo: B. Bekelle).
Figure 10.
Topographic data collection using a total station and documented landscape change due to quarrying operations in the BMNP. (a) Collecting data using a total station, (b) newly formed road entry to the site, (c,d) excavated surfaces vulnerable to flooding, and (e) cliff formation prone to further erosion (Photo: B. Bekelle).
Figure 11.
Landscape change due to quarrying operations in the BMNP. (a,e) Newly formed drainage pattern, (b) excavated surfaces, (c) stockpile, and (d) machine and vehicle footprint (Photo: B. Bekelle).
Figure 11.
Landscape change due to quarrying operations in the BMNP. (a,e) Newly formed drainage pattern, (b) excavated surfaces, (c) stockpile, and (d) machine and vehicle footprint (Photo: B. Bekelle).
Table 1.
Flight parameters of historical aerial photographs (HAPs) for the year 1967.
Table 1.
Flight parameters of historical aerial photographs (HAPs) for the year 1967.
Exposure Date | Calibrated Focal Length (mm) | Flight Height (m) | Overlaps (Forward/Side) (%) | Photo Number |
---|
10 December 1967 | 150.996 | 9448 | 60/30 | 37,736–37,739 |
Table 2.
Camera exposure position for the year 1967.
Table 2.
Camera exposure position for the year 1967.
Photo Number | Xo (m) | Yo (m) | Zo (m) |
---|
37,736 | 599,103 | 752,350 | 13,437 |
37,737 | 595,075 | 752,119 | 13,494 |
37,738 | 591,208 | 751,896 | 13,479 |
37,739 | 587,718 | 751,696 | 13,373 |
Table 3.
Flight parameters of historical aerial photographs (HAPs) for the year 1984.
Table 3.
Flight parameters of historical aerial photographs (HAPs) for the year 1984.
Exposure Date | Calibrated Focal Length (mm) | Flight Height (m) | Overlaps (Forward/Side) (%) | Photo Number |
---|
17 January 1984 | 152.822 | 7600 | 60/30 | 1657–1658 |
17 January 1984 | 152.822 | 7600 | 60/30 | 1618–1622 |
Table 4.
Camera exposure positions for the year 1984.
Table 4.
Camera exposure positions for the year 1984.
Photo Number | Xo (m) | Yo (m) | Zo (m) |
---|
1618 | 586,452.4576 | 749,164.9667 | 10,513.8 |
1619 | 590,163.3025 | 749,468.6249 | 10,515.7 |
1620 | 593,924.6311 | 749,856.5179 | 10,516.5 |
1621 | 597,799.8222 | 750,264.2541 | 10,515.8 |
1622 | 602,366.8219 | 750,870.0517 | 10,515.1 |
1657 | 596,838.6056 | 758,210.4355 | 10,526.3 |
1658 | 600,708.0729 | 757,949.1201 | 10,527.7 |
Table 5.
Parameters, processing errors, and final product characteristics used and obtained in HAPs processing.
Table 5.
Parameters, processing errors, and final product characteristics used and obtained in HAPs processing.
Specification | 1967 | 1984 |
---|
Average flight height (m above terrain) | 9448 | 7600 |
Number of images | 4 | 7 |
Alignment parameters (accuracy) | Highest | Highest |
Depth maps and dense point cloud generation parameters |
Quality | Ultra-high | Ultra-high |
Filtering mode | Moderate | Moderate |
DEM reconstruction parameters |
Source data | Dense cloud | Dense cloud |
Interpolation | Enabled | Enabled |
Orthomosaic reconstruction parameters |
Blending mode | Mosaic | Mosaic |
Surface | DEM | DEM |
Ground sampling distance (m/pix) | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Number of tie points after filtration | 11,072 | 25,534 |
Number of dense point clouds | 193,132,444 | 235,285,419 |
Tie point RMS reprojection error (pix) | 0.22 | 0.09 |
Average tie point multiplicity | 2.04 | 2.08 |
Mean key point size | 4.00 | 6.1 |
Dense cloud point density (point m−2) | 1.7 | 1.3 |
Number of control points | 22 | 30 |
Total (3D) RMSE (cm) on checkpoints | 40.00 | 38.00 |
Table 6.
DEM accuracy assessment results of different interpolation techniques for the two quarry sites (in m).
Table 6.
DEM accuracy assessment results of different interpolation techniques for the two quarry sites (in m).
Interpolation Method | IDW | Kriging | Spline | Topo-to-Raster |
---|
RMSE | Site 1 | 0.360 | 0.751 | 0.885 | 0.634 |
Site 2 | 0.276 | 0.311 | 0.385 | 0.381 |
Table 7.
Total volume of surface lowering, total volume of surface raising, and total net volumetric (m3) changes with uncertainty volume of the quarry sites.
Table 7.
Total volume of surface lowering, total volume of surface raising, and total net volumetric (m3) changes with uncertainty volume of the quarry sites.
Site | Change Period | Total Volume of Surface Lowering | Total Volume of Surface Raising | Total Net Volume Change |
---|
1 | December 1967–January 1984 | 68,020 | 1077 | −66,943 (±10,526) |
January 1984–May 2023 | 439,399 | 2622 | −436,777 (±26,894) |
December 1967–May 2023 | 507,420 | 3699 | −503,721 (±27,970) |
2 | December 1967–January 1984 | 104,892 | 1033 | −103,859 (±12,784) |
January 1984–May 2023 | 267,507 | 2842 | −264,664 (±28,726) |
December 1967–May 2023 | 372,399 | 3876 | −368,523 (±30,003) |