Creative Commons License

KUTER S., AKYÜREK S. Z., Weber G. -.

3rd International GeoAdvances Workshop / ISPRS Workshop on Multi-dimensional and Multi-Scale Spatial Data Modeling, İstanbul, Turkey, 16 - 17 October 2016, pp.31-36 identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Conference Paper / Full Text
  • Doi Number: 10.5194/isprs-archives-xlii-2-w1-31-2016
  • City: İstanbul
  • Country: Turkey
  • Page Numbers: pp.31-36
  • Keywords: Remote Sensing, Snow Cover, MARS, Artificial Neural Network, MODIS, Landsat, GRAIN-SIZE, RETRIEVAL, NETWORKS
  • Middle East Technical University Affiliated: Yes


Measurement of the areal extent of snow cover with high accuracy plays an important role in hydrological and climate modeling. Remotely-sensed data acquired by earth-observing satellites offer great advantages for timely monitoring of snow cover. However, the main obstacle is the tradeoff between temporal and spatial resolution of satellite imageries. Soft or subpixel classification of low or moderate resolution satellite images is a preferred technique to overcome this problem. The most frequently employed snow cover fraction methods applied on Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) data have evolved from spectral unmixing and empirical Normalized Difference Snow Index (NDSI) methods to latest machine learning-based artificial neural networks (ANNs). This study demonstrates the implementation of subpixel snow-covered area estimation based on the state-of-the-art nonparametric spline regression method, namely, Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines (MARS). MARS models were trained by using MODIS top of atmospheric reflectance values of bands 1-7 as predictor variables. Reference percentage snow cover maps were generated from higher spatial resolution Landsat ETM+ binary snow cover maps. A multilayer feed-forward ANN with one hidden layer trained with backpropagation was also employed to estimate the percentage snow-covered area on the same data set. The results indicated that the developed MARS model performed better than the ANN model with an average RMSE of 0.1656 over the test areas; whereas the average RMSE of the ANN model was 0.3868.