RICHARD J. PIKE U.S.
Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, California
STEPHEN E. WILSON ! 94025
Elevation-Relief Ratio, Hypsometric Integral, and
Geomorphic Area-Altitude Analysis
ABSTRACT
Mathematical proof establishes identity of
hypsometric integral and elevation-relief ratio,
two quantitative topographic descriptors de-
veloped independently of one another for
entirely different purposes. Operationally,
values of both measures are in excellent agree-
ment for arbitrarily bounded topographic
samples, as well as for low-order fluvial water-
sheds. By using a point-sampling technique
rather than planimetry, elevation-relief ratio
(defined as mean elevation minus minimum
elevation divided by relief) is calculated man-
ually in about a third of the time required for
the hypsometric integral.
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this note is to prove that
two geomorphic parameters, the familiar
hypsometric integral, and the more obscure
elevation-relief ratio, are identical, and to
demonstrate that the elevation-relief ratio is
the more useful of the two. Since the two
measures are defined differently and were
conceived independently of one another for
entirely dissimilar purposes, it is understand-
able that their identity has not been widely
recognized. Strahler (1952) formally defined
and examined various properties of the hypso-
metric integral, a parameter designed specific-
ally for the genetic analysis of individual
fluvial watersheds. His paper can be con-
sulted for further background information.
Despite potential value of the hypsometric
integral, here designated H, as a research
tool, the time and painstaking planimetry
required for derivation of the measure have
discouraged its wider use among geomor-
phologists.
The elevation-relief ratio was conceived by
Walter F. Wood and developed by Wood and
Snell (i960) as one of six descriptive terrain
parameters designed to abstract salient geo-
metric characteristics of topography at any
Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 82, p. 1079-1084, April 1971
1079
randomly or systematically chosen sample
locale and at any map scale, without special
emphasis on formational geomorphic pro-
cesses. According to Wood and Snell (i960),
the measure, here designated E, expresses
the relative proportion of upland to lowland
within a sample region, and is defined
Mean elevation Min. elevation
Max. elevation Min. elevation '^
In two extensive investigations of terrain ge-
ometry (Wood and Snell, I960; Pike, 1963),
E was obtained, respectively, from 9 and 19
evenly spaced elevations arranged within cir-
cular sample areas with a diameter of 1 to 14
mi, depending upon the value of a large-
scale texture parameter, topographic grain.
These two studies show that topographic
samples may resemble one another with re-
spect to local relief, average slope, or other
geometric aspects, and yet vary appreciably
in appearance as demonstrated by different
values of E. E usually ranges from 0.15 to
0.85, with values tending to cluster between
0.40 and 0.60. Low values occur in terrains
characterized by isolated relief features stand-
ing above extensive level surfaces, whereas
high E values describe broad, somewhat level
surfaces broken by occasional depressions.
Since identical E values, especially between
0.40 and 0.60, can represent dissimilar terrain
types, it is necessary to refer to complemen-
tary geometric parameters to obtain a com-
prehensive and meaningful description of a
topographic sample (see, for example, Wood
and Snell, I960).
This multivariate approach to the classifi-
cation of arbitrarily bounded, small-scale
landform samples has been applied success-
fully by Hammond (1964) in the compilation
of his map, Classes of Land Surface Form in
the United States (U.S. Geological Survey,
1969). One of Hammond's three quantitative
classification criteria, "Profile Type,"
resembles the elevation-relief ratio, but with
1080 PIKE AND WILSON-GEOMORPHIC ANALYSES
the percentage range divided into quartiles.
The measure is expressed as 0.50 to 0.75, or
>0.75 of terrain slope under 8 percent being
either above or below the mean elevation.
Hammond's four categories of profile type
evidently were intended to roughly measure
the same aspect of landscape geometry pre-
sumed by Wood and Snell (i960) to be ex-
pressed by the elevation-relief ratio. The wide
acceptance of Hammond's landform map of
the United States suggests further that area-
altitude, or hypsometric, properties consti-
tute an important element of the landscape.
Clearly, the elevation-relief ratio is a more
exact estimator of this property than Ham-
mond's and has the additional advantage of
expression as a single number.
IDENTITY OF HYPSOMETRIC
INTEGRAL AND ELEVATION-RELIEF
RATIO
Previous work (Pike, 1964) suggested that
elevation-relief ratio and hypsometric integral
were similar. During the present investiga-
tion, identity of the two measures was first
demonstrated empirically and then proven
mathematically. The hypothesis was verified
empirically using 64 finite samples of point
elevations which represent volume percent-
ages of topography in the same way Chayes"
(1956) point sampling of mineralogic con-
stituents estimates volume percentage com-
position of rocks. Values of E and H were
calculated by a Fortran IV program written
for the IBM 360/30 computer. E was ob-
tained directly from the Wood formula
(equation l); H was calculated by deriving
the hypsometric curve and then integrating
the area under the curve. Program input con-
sists of topographic elevations usually read
to at least the nearest 0.5 contour interval
and arranged in an evenly spaced square
matrix. We have used a 21 X 21 sampling
grid, with the 441 elevations separated from
one another along rows and columns by 0.1
in. The small sample interval and large sample
size insure adequa te representation of virtually
all topographic types represented on large-
scale contour maps. For the 64 sample topo-
graphic matrices, drawn largely from 1:24,000
U.S. Geological Survey topographic quad-
rangles, the maximum difference between H
and E is 0.008, and the mean of absolute
values of the differences is only 0.002. Of
the 64 values (of H-E), 27 were zero, 28
positive, and 9 negative.
The high correspondence of H and E sug-
gested to the writers that the hypsometric
integral and the elevation-relief ratio must be
identical mathematically, a unique occurrence
in relations among geomorphic descriptors.
The identity of H and E has been proven in
the following formulation, which shows that
the proportion of landmass volume in any
region A to volume of a reference prism with
base area the same as that of A equals the
elevation-relief ratio. This proof extends the
work of Strahler (1952), who showed that
the hypsometric integral, defined as the ratio
of area beneath the hypsometric curve to
total graph area is equivalent to the ratio of
landmass volume of a given region to volume
of a reference solid with the following rela-
tions: base area equal to base area of the land-
mass volume; height equal to maximum relief
of the region. Both volumes are computed
with base considered as a plane at the mini-
mum elevation of the region.
Let N = number of sample points in the
region,
M = number of distinct elevation
values,
hi = elevation values, i = 1,... M,
hmax = maximum elevation in region
with area A,
h m in = minimum elevation in region
with area A,
fi = frequency of elevation value h i;
A = area of base of sample region or
drainage basin,
V, = volume of landmass, and
Vr = volume of reference solid.
Since fj/N represents the ratio of number of
points at elevation h; to total number of
sample points, the fraction of landmass area
at elevation h; is inferred to be fj/N'A, with
this estimate increasing in validity as N in-
creases. It follows that the landmass volume
of the area at elevation h; is
V,. = . A ( h i - h m i n ) . (2)
Thus, the hypsometric integral, H, is
2
v 4 A(hi - h min ) (3)
Vr A(h max - h min )
Sf h
i i ~ h
min ' Zfi
-- (4)
Since
(5)
 DISCUSSION 1081

and (E-Hp) tend to be predominantly positive,

but the sample is too small to establish this
conclusively; the average difference between
the two sets of values is 0.009.
H = L M ! L _ _ = E. (7) Reducing the number of elevations used to
obtain E from 441 to between 40 and 50 has
not degraded the parameter's accuracy. Each
DISCUSSION E value was calculated in about 15 min, each
Provided adequate sampling procedure is planimetric H value required about 45 min.
followed, the elevation-relief ratio, E, can be Larger and more irregular watersheds require
substituted for the planimetric hypsometric more time to planimeter than do simpler
integral, H p , in morphometric analysis and basins but do not increase the time or effort
landform description. To show that values of needed to gather 40 to 50 elevations for a
the area-altitude quantity are essentially in- reliable value of E.
dependent of the technique used to calculate The elevation-relief ratio is not the first
them in practice, we generated values of E parameter sought as an equivalent to the
by computer and values of H from planimetry hypsometric integral. Chorley and Morley
for 10 of the 64 sample areas used previously. (1959) derived a simplified approximation of
The point-sample technique, using 441 ele- the hypsometric integral in a previous effort
vations, yields values of E similar to values of to reduce the tedium inherent in the calcula-
H derived from planimetry; the mean abso- tion of the measure. Their technique requires
lute difference between the two sets of values that the planimetric outline of a drainage
is 0.010. Differences between the 10 pairs of basin be approximated by a lemniscate loop.
values are neither predominantly positive nor Unfortunately, many fluvial watersheds, espe-
predominantly negative and are attributed to cially those developed upon recent glacial
both the accuracy with which planimetered deposits or in subhumid climatic regimes, do
values of H wete determined and the ac- not lend themselves to approximation by
curacy of the computer values of E. Further such a simple geometric form. Also, values
operational comparisons of E and H p with of the parameter derived by Chorley and
regard to precision and accuracy lie beyond Morley do not correlate directly with the
the scope of the present paper. planimetric hypsometric integral, although
The elevation-relief ratio requires no te- the deviation is fairly constant. However, the
dious planimetry, but rather only three elevation-relief ratio is identical to the hypso-
numbers obtained quickly from a contour metric integral and does not require fitting
map: maximum elevation, minimum eleva- each drainage basin with a lemniscate loop.
tion, and the average elevation of ^he topo- Additionally, the work of Tanner (1959) sug-
graphic sample. The first two values are de- gested that the skewness in a frequency dis-
termined rapidly by inspection; the third is tribution of topographic elevations is com-
calculated from a suitable sample of eleva- parable to the elevation-relief ratio. To test
tions, which must be spaced as evenly as the this hypothesis, the IBM 360/30 was pro-
shape of the sample region or drainage basin grammed to calculate a measure of skewness
will permit so the point-sampling technique from the 441 elevations used previously to
will correctly represent the terrain configura- determine values of E and H. Results show
tion. Experience has shown that a sample of that although E and skewness of elevation
40 to 50 elevations will insure accuracy of E are closely related, skewness is a poorer pre-
to, on the average, 0.01, the value to which dictor of the hypsometric integral than even
area-altitude parameters customarily are read. the hypsometric approximation. Finally,
The elevation-relief ratio can be computed Meier (1954) should be credited with having
rapidly for even the most irregular-shaped recognized the problem when it first became
drainage basins. The sample elevations are evident. His published abstract states that
obtained by positioning a rectangular sample "Strahler's 'hypsometric integral' can be re-
grid of dots over the basin in such a way that placed by the simplet parameter of mean
40 to 50 dots fall within the watershed. Twelve (drainage basin) height, expressed as a frac-
drainage basins were selected to illustrate tion of the total (basin) relief." Although
applicability of the elevation-relief ratio to this parameter is, of course, the elevation-
fluvial watersheds. The resulting values of relief ratio, Meier's abstract furnishes no de-
1082 PIKE AND WILSONGEOMORPHIC ANALYSES

tails showing eithet equivalence of hypso- addition to that adopted for the previous formu-
metric integral and mean basin height or lation:
tests of mean height on topographic maps. h = the altitude of a topographic elevation,
Meier's unpublished 1957 manuscript (1970, h = mean elevation, and
written commun.) does contain a mathe- R = relief, or (h max - h min ).
matical statement of what needed to be proved Let F be the probability density function of h,
and discusses the properties of mean basin in A. The elevation-relief ratio, E, is defined as
height. h max
Previously, geomorphologists have been hF (h) dh - h min __ (1)
reluctant to work with hypsometric analysis / hm[n = h - h min
because of the requisite time-consuming and hmax hmin R
tedious planimetry. The present study has
demonstrated that this objection no longer To define the hypsometric function, we need
first to discuss a proportion-of-relief variable,
is valid and suggests that an area-altitude r, defined by
property, as expressed by the elevation-relief h -
,, -. - h
ratio, is practicable in description, analysis, r(h) =
and interpretation of topographic geometry. "max R
Thus, r(h min ) = 0, r(h *) = 1. (3)
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Let f(r) be the probability density function of r,
It is a pleasure to acknowledge various that is,
individuals who contributed materially to dh
this investigation. J. F. McCauley and H. J. f(r) - F(h) dr (4)
Moore, U.S. Geological Survey; S. A. The hypsometric function is g(r) = proportion
Schumm, Colorado State University; D. K. of area A containing elevations greater than h.
McMacken, Northern Arizona University; More formally,
and R. L. Shreve, University of California,
critically read various drafts of the manu- g(r) = PfMdr. (5)
script. W. J. Rozema and H. J. Moore gen- Jt
erously contributed the simplified proof of The hypsometric integral, H, is
the identity of E and H. L. E. Middlestorb,
while a temporary employee of the U.S. Geo-
(6)
logical Survey, digitized the sample topo-
fraphic matrices. This work was done on
Integrating by parts,
ehalf of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration under Contract W-12,388 as
one phase of the Lunar Terrain Analysis and (7)
Trafficability Project of the U.S. Geological
Survey.
APPENDIX
An alternative proof shows that the hypso- (8)
metric integral, as defined by the hypsometric
curve itself^ is the same as the elevation-relief
ratio. This formulation is more complex than
the first, but also is more direct, as it does not
have to rely upon prior assumptions concerning (9)
Strahler's relation between ratio of landmass
volume and ratio of areas from the hypsometric
graph. As this proof embodies some concepts (10)
from probability and statistics not considered
previously in connection with either the eleva- = , by a change of variables, and using
tion-relief ratio or the hypsometric integral, we equality (4),
have revised the notation to better accommo-
date the present approach. Both parameters are
redefined in these terms, and the reader can
compare the new definitions with the originals
/
/h. *<"> I <">

to assure himself of their identity. For this = , since h = h m i ,, + r R , ~ -= R, (12)

proof, we shall use the following notation in
 REFERENCES CITED 1083

Vol. 65, p. 1283-1284, 1954.

(13) Pike, R. J. Landform regions of southern New
R T Englanda quantitative delimitation:
(14) M.A. thesis, Clark Univ., Worcester, Mass.,
80 p., 1963.

K LX
hF(h)dh - h min

= Lf fh- hF(h)dr -
I

Jh :
max

h min
F(h)dh

R
L^m
h i
n h
min
= E.
R 1142, 1952.
Thus, we see that H = r = E.
REFERENCES CITED
Chayes, Felix. Petrographic modal analysis
an elementary statistical appraisal: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 113 p., New York,
1956.
Chorley, R. J.; and Morley, L. S. D. A
simplified approximation for the hypso-
metric integral: J. Geol., Vol. 67, p. 566-
571, 1959.
Hammond, E. H. Analysis of properties in
landform geography: an application to
broad-scale landform mapping: in New
approaches to the geography ofthe United
States: Ass. Amer. Geogr., Ann., Vol. 54,
p. 11-19, 1964.
Meier, M. F. Area-altitude graph of a mature
drainage basin: Geol. Soc. Amer., Bull.,
(15)
Pike, R. J. Some morphometric properties of
the lunar surfacea preliminary investiga-
tion from lunar aeronautical charts: Cornell
Aeronautical Lab. Rep. No. VS-1985-C-1,
Buffalo, New York, 112 p., 1964.
Strahler, A. M. Hypsometric (area-altitude
(16) curve) analysis of erosional topography:
Geol. Soc. Amer., Bull., Vol. 63, p. 1117-
Tanner, W. F. Examples of departure from the
gaussian in geomorphic analysis: Amer. J.
Sci., Vol. 257, p. 458-460, 1959.
U.S. Geological Survey. Classes of land-sur-
face form: Sheet No. 62, National Atlas of
the United States, scale 1:7,500,000, 1969.
Wood, W. F.; and Snell, J. B. A quantitative
system for classifying landforms: U.S. Army
Natick Lab., Tech. Rep. EP-124, Natick,
Massachusetts, 20 p., 1960.
MANUSCRIPT RECEIVED BY THE SOCIETY JUNE
26, 1970
REVISED MANUSCRIPT RECEIVED NOVEMBER
30, 1970
PUBLICATION AUTHORIZED BY THE DIRECTOR,
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
PRESENT ADDRESS: (WILSON) DEPARTMENT
OF MATHEMATICS, UNIVERSITY OF WASH-
INGTON, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98105