pact of the use of satellite data was seriously limited by the full polarmetry will considerably increase the utility of
ss, and nearly continuous cloud coverage. radar imagery for geological and hydrological studies
, if it all. * New tools should be analysed: (cf. Tab. 5 and 6). However, the user must be aware
ns, the Viewing and target parameters confine the possibili- that the efficiency of imaging radars is best in flat ter-
than the ties of SAR imagery. Radar systems with variable sy- rain and decreases in hilly and mountainous terrain,
92). stem parameters such as multiple frequencies, respectively.
re inve- electable look directions and depression angles, and
R flown
^ would Table 5 The potential of SAR for the application to major geological and hydrological phenomena concerning disaster
management
Disaster
Mangement Hazard/ Early Disaster Planning/
: Vulnerability Warning Effects/ Mitigation
llite re- Geolog. & Hydrogeol. Analysis Relief
Fraane- Phenomena
ins, and Rocktall T T T e
ncluded :
fields Landslide / sid ++ ++ ++
ypes of Creep/flow + + n.a. +
jnisable Mudflow zt T Ft +
d lands- Soil moisture + er n.a. o
are too Ground water aquifer © © o ++)
Flood +++ ++" +++ +++
lata that Snow smelt ++ T n.a. ++
Snow avalanche ++ + +++ ++
' no sudden events Key:
2 only detectable if debris shows up sufficiently n.a. not applicable
? fractures/faults can be mapped as idicators e fair
1 provided, repetition rate is suffcient + good
time-series required ++ better
Abb exellent
Table 6 Potential of major SAR features for the ascertainment of physical ground properties with regard to their rele-
vance for mass movements. Incidence angle mainly based on NASA 1987.
Geolog. & Hydro- MULTI- MULTI- Inc.
geol. Phenomena FREQUENCY POLARISATION POLARIMETRY INTERFEROMETR | ang.
X HH,HV,VV,VH Y, 0
Disaster HA | EW | DR | PL | HA | EW | DR | PL | HA | EW | DR | PL | HA |EW|DR| PL
Management
Creep/flow' + Ina | + | + | 2 ala + + + | ++ | + | ++ | ++ | 10-25
Mudflow ++ | na. | ++ | ++ | + + + | ++ ++ | ++ | ++ ++ | ++ | 10-20
+ | +
MS/ Landslide ++ | na. | ++ | ++ | + + | + | ++ ++ | ++ | ++ ++ |++ | 10-20
| + + | +
Rockfall + | na | + | + | + + | + | ++ ++ | ++ [++ | @ |++ [++ | 35-55
+ + | +
Flood +++ | +++ | 4E | EE | HP | HE | ++ +++ | ++ | + + + + | 30-40
+ + | + | +
Aquifer n.a.|na.|n.a| + | D Q |na| + D na. | + + G | @ | + | 20-30
Soil moisture TE T ++ + ++ e ++ | ++ | ++ [02 +++ | ++ e Qe A | 20-30
ed ade- +
1e most Snow smelt ++ + na) ++ rina | wh n.a. © | © | @ | 10-20
should Snow avalanche Tt T ++ | ++ | ++ + + + |++ e +++ | ++ | ++ Q | ++ | ++ | 25-40
for cer- + DAT nah M E
) to ha-
ution. ' no sudden events 0 = Recommendable optimum INCIDENCE ANGLE
1e most
jer, it is Key:
rom the n.a. not applicable
s where HA hazard analysis D fair
EW early warning + good
DR disaster relief ++ better
PL plannin/mitigation +++ exellent
43
International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. Vol. XXXI, Part B6. Vienna 1996
