Discrepancy between planimetric and topographic surface in San Andrés Tuxtla: implications for municipal management
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59192/mapping.512Keywords:
Planimetry, Topography, Multipurpose cadastre, San Andrés TuxtlaAbstract
This study addresses the discrepancy between planimetric and topographic surface areas in San Andrés Tuxtla, Veracruz, highlighting its fiscal, legal, and environmental implications. Official cartography reports a planimetric area of 955,3 km², but analysis using high-resolution (5 m) LiDAR data reveals that the actual topographic area is larger, with an increase of over 1,3%, implying an effective difference of more than 12,3 km² compared to the official figure. This underestimation directly affects the property tax base, urban planning, and the estimation of forest biomass, generating distortions in municipal management. The methodology employed—construction of a digital elevation model from 54 LiDAR maps and cell-by-cell calculation using trigonometric correction—offers a replicable and robust protocol for quantifying the actual surface area in territories with complex topography. The findings confirm that traditional two-dimensional representation is insufficient and that incorporating topographic criteria into multipurpose cadastres and land-use plans is essential to guarantee accuracy, transparency, and sustainability. The case of San Andrés Tuxtla serves as a paradigm that highlights the urgent need to modernize land management through advanced geomatics technologies.
Downloads
References
Batista, T., Mendes, P., Carvalho, L., Vila-Viçosa, C., y Gomes, C. P. (2012). Suitable methods for landscape evaluation and valorization: The third dimension in landscape metrics. Acta Botanica Gallica, 159(2), 161–168.
Bernal, L., y Tejedor, F. (2014). La información catastral como reflejo de la diferenciación socioeconómica urbana y su carácter multifinalitario. En C. E. Sepúlveda Rico, D. López Camacho, y J. M. Gallego Acevedo (Eds.), Los límites de la estratificación: En busca de alternativas (pp. 41–82). Bogotá: Editorial Universidad del Rosario; Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá D.C. https://doi.org/10.7476/9789587385373.0005
Berry, J. K. (2007). Beyond Mapping III. Procedures and Applications in GIS. http://www.innovativegis.com/basis/ mapanalysis/topic11/topic11.htm
Chen, C., y Li, Y. (2019). A fast global interpolation method for digital terrain model generation from large LiDAR-derived data. Remote Sensing, 11(11), 1324.
Ercan, O., y Bank, E. (2004). Turkish cadastre automation system with ESRI technology. https://proceedings.esri.com/ library/userconf/proc04/docs/pap1029.pdf
FAO (2009). Guía para la descripción de suelos. Roma: Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y la Alimentación. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/ b54d0348-dfce-413c-bd5d-142b3a14a049/content
Frédéricque, B., Raymond, K., y Van Prooijen, K. (2011, May). 3D GIS as applied to cadastre–A benchmark of today’s capabilities. In Fédération Internationale des Géomètres Working Week.
García, E. (2004). Modificaciones al sistema de clasificación climática de Köppen. Instituto de Geografía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
INEGI. (2009). Modelos Digitales de Elevación de Alta Resolución LiDAR, con resolución de 5m. Terreno. ASCII. E15A63A1. Aguascalientes, Aguascalientes, México: Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e Informática.
INEGI (2010). Compendio de información geográfica municipal de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, San Andrés Tuxtla, Veracruz de Ignacio de la Llave clave geoestadística 30141, Aguascalientes, Aguascalientes, México: Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e Informática, https://www.inegi. org.mx/contenidos/app/mexicocifras/datos_geograficos/30/30141.pdf
INEGI (2015). Conociendo Veracruz de Ignacio de la Llave, Aguascalientes, Aguascalientes, México: Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e Informática.
INEGI (2020). Resultados definitivos, Censo de población y vivienda 2020, Aguascalientes, Aguascalientes, México: Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e Informática.
Jacobsen, F. M., y Theakstone, W. H. (1995). The use of planimetric surface area in glacier mass-balance calculations: A potential source of errors. Journal of Glaciology, 41(139), 441–444.
Kienzle, S. W. (2011). Effects of area under‐estimations of sloped mountain terrain on simulated hydrological behaviour: A case study using the ACRU model. Hydrological Processes, 25(8), 1212–1227.
Minea, C., Kiaji, S., Dahbi, M., Șmuleac, A., y Pascalau, R. (2024). Modern technologies in cadastre: A review of UAV and GIS applications. Research Journal of Agricultural Science, 56(4), 151–160.
Polat, N., y Uysal, M. (2018). An experimental analysis of digital elevation models generated with Lidar data and UAV photogrammetry. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 46(7), 1135–1142.
Webster, T., McGuigan, K., Crowell, N., Collins, K., y MacDonald, C. (2016). Optimization of data collection and refinement
of post-processing techniques for Maritime Canada's first shallow water topographic-bathymetric lidar survey. Journal of Coastal Research, 76(SI), 31–43.
Xie, P., Liu, Y., He, Q., Zhao, X., y Yang, J. (2017). An efficient vector-raster overlay algorithm for high-accuracy and high-efficiency surface area calculations of irregularly shaped land use patches. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 6(6), 156.
Zhiming, Z., Van Coillie, F., De Wulf, R., De Clercq, E. M., y Xiaokun, O. (2012). Comparison of surface and planimetric landscape metrics for mountainous land cover pattern quantification in Lancang Watershed, China. Mountain Research and Development, 32(2), 213–225.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Revista MAPPING
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
