Assessing SWOT interferometric SAR altimetry for inland water monitoring: insights from Lake Léman

Monitoring water levels is crucial for managing water resources and addressing climate change challenges. The new Surface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT) mission provides unprecedented spatial and temporal resolution estimates of water surface elevations (WSEs) globally. This study evaluates the accuracy of SWOT WSE estimates over Lake Léman, Switzerland. We evaluated the SWOT L2-HR-Raster product from the calibration and nominal phases using in situ measurements of water levels and compared its performance with other missions, including Sentinel-3A (S3A), Sentinel-3B (S3B), Sentinel-6 (S6), and Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation (GEDI) altimetry. From over 141 acquisitions, SWOT achieved a root mean squared error (RMSE) ranging from 13 cm to 21 cm compared to in situ water levels, depending on the measurement quality reported in the product. Data flagged as good quality had an RMSE of 19 cm and a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.8, although these represented only 42% of the total measurements. When considering WSE estimates of all quality levels and applying a median outlier filter, the RMSE reaches 21 cm, with a correlation coefficient of 0.79, while retaining approximately 83% of the dataset. A consistent bias of −10 cm was observed across the time-series. An analysis of SWOT accuracy relative to instrumental parameters revealed that nadir and near-nadir acquisitions (viewing angle near 0°) exhibited very high uncertainty, with mean absolute differences from in situ water levels potentially exceeding 5 m. To explore the sources of errors in SWOT WSE, a random forest analysis showed that atmospheric perturbations had the most significant impact on the SWOT WSE estimation accuracy. These perturbations were linked to dry tropospheric delays affecting interferometric height measurements and atmospheric effects on the Ka-band sigma0 values. Compared to other missions, SWOT demonstrated slightly better accuracy than S3A, S3B, and S6, with an RMSE of 11 cm on a daily scale, compared to 13 cm, 18 cm, and 20 cm for these three Sentinel missions, respectively. All radar-based missions (S3A, S3B, S6, and SWOT) exhibited correlation coefficients exceeding 0.95 with in situ water levels. In contrast, GEDI LiDAR data showed the highest RMSE (46 cm), a bias of 27 cm, and a correlation coefficient of 0.45.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Frontiers in Remote Sensing
Published
2025-04-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3389/frsen.2025.1572114
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Flood Risk Assessment and Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.32
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Assessing SWOT interferometric SAR altimetry for inland water monitoring: insights from Lake Léman

Nicolas Baghdadi, Hassan Bazzi, Cécile Cazals, Yen-Nhi Ngo et al.
3 citations
Frontiers in Remote Sensing
Flood Risk Assessment and Management
3.32
article

Assessing SWOT interferometric SAR altimetry for inland water monitoring: insights from Lake Léman

Nicolas Baghdadi, Hassan Bazzi, Cécile Cazals, Yen-Nhi Ngo, Cassandra Normandin, Frédéric Frappart
article en
3 citations

Abstract

Monitoring water levels is crucial for managing water resources and addressing climate change challenges. The new Surface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT) mission provides unprecedented spatial and temporal resolution estimates of water surface elevations (WSEs) globally. This study evaluates the accuracy of SWOT WSE estimates over Lake Léman, Switzerland. We evaluated the SWOT L2-HR-Raster product from the calibration and nominal phases using in situ measurements of water levels and compared its performance with other missions, including Sentinel-3A (S3A), Sentinel-3B (S3B), Sentinel-6 (S6), and Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation (GEDI) altimetry. From over 141 acquisitions, SWOT achieved a root mean squared error (RMSE) ranging from 13 cm to 21 cm compared to in situ water levels, depending on the measurement quality reported in the product. Data flagged as good quality had an RMSE of 19 cm and a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.8, although these represented only 42% of the total measurements. When considering WSE estimates of all quality levels and applying a median outlier filter, the RMSE reaches 21 cm, with a correlation coefficient of 0.79, while retaining approximately 83% of the dataset. A consistent bias of −10 cm was observed across the time-series. An analysis of SWOT accuracy relative to instrumental parameters revealed that nadir and near-nadir acquisitions (viewing angle near 0°) exhibited very high uncertainty, with mean absolute differences from in situ water levels potentially exceeding 5 m. To explore the sources of errors in SWOT WSE, a random forest analysis showed that atmospheric perturbations had the most significant impact on the SWOT WSE estimation accuracy. These perturbations were linked to dry tropospheric delays affecting interferometric height measurements and atmospheric effects on the Ka-band sigma0 values. Compared to other missions, SWOT demonstrated slightly better accuracy than S3A, S3B, and S6, with an RMSE of 11 cm on a daily scale, compared to 13 cm, 18 cm, and 20 cm for these three Sentinel missions, respectively. All radar-based missions (S3A, S3B, S6, and SWOT) exhibited correlation coefficients exceeding 0.95 with in situ water levels. In contrast, GEDI LiDAR data showed the highest RMSE (46 cm), a bias of 27 cm, and a correlation coefficient of 0.45.

Frontiers in Remote SensingVol. 6
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR), Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (FR), AgroParisTech (FR), Institut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement (FR), Actia Group (France) (FR), Interaction Sol Plante Atmosphère (FR), Institut Agro Montpelier (FR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Flood Risk Assessment and Management
3.32
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.