Microwave Remote Sensing

  • Joseph AwangeEmail author
  • John Kiema
Part of the Environmental Science and Engineering book series (ESE)


Persistent cloud cover, especially within the tropics, offers limited clear views of the Earth’s surface from space. This presents a major impediment to the application of optical remote sensing discussed in Chap. 8 in providing global remote sensing coverage. Moreover, other than thermal sensors, most other optical imaging technologies best operate during day time when there is sufficient sunlight. The microwave region of the EM spectrum represents a principal atmospheric window that can be employed to overcome the above limitations in optical remote sensing. For instance, in view of their much longer wavelengths and contrary to optical sensors, microwaves can easily penetrate through vegetation canopies and even dry soils. In addition, microwave systems offer the user more choice and control over the properties of the incident microwave energy to be applied. Furthermore, they can be operated round the clock even under rainy or poor visibility conditions.


  1. 1.
    Richards JA (2009) Remote sensing with imaging radar. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ulaby FT, Moore RK, Fung AK (1986) Microwave remote sensing: active and passive, Volume 3, Volume scattering and emission theory, advanced systems and applications. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ulaby FT, Moore RK, Fung AK (1981) Microwave remote sensing: active and passive, vol 2. Radar remote sensing and surface scattering and emission theory. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ulaby FT, Moore RK, Fung AK (1981) Microwave remote sensing: active and passive, Volume 1. Microwave remote sensing and fundamentals. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Henderson FM, Lewis AJ (eds) (1998) Principles and applications of imaging radar, manual of remote sensing, vol 2, 3rd edn. Wiley, New YokGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Woodhouse IH (2006) Introduction to microwave remote sensing. Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang BC (2008) Digital signal processing techniques and applications in radar image processing. Wiley, Hoboken, NJCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ferretti A, Monti-Guarnieri A, Prati C, Rocca F, Massonnet D (2007) InSAR principles: guidelines for SAR interferometry processing and interpretation. ESA Publications, NoordwijkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hanssen RF (2001) Radar interferometry: data intepretation and error analysis, vol 2. Remote sensing and digital image processing book series. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Massonnet D, Souyris J-C (2008) Imaging with synthetic aperture radar, EPFL. Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton, FLCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mott H (2007) Remote sensing with polarimetric radar. IEEE Press, Wiley, Hoboken, NJGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ulaby FT, Elachi C (eds) (1990) Radar polarimetry for geoscience applications. Artech House, Norwood, MAGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Murai S (2004) Remote sensing and GIS courses—distance education. Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)-NetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kummerow C, Barnes W, Kozu T, Shiue J, Simpson J (1998) The Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) sensor package. J Atmos Oceanic Technol 15(3):809–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wolff C (2012) Radar tutorial. Accessed 26 Oct 2012
  16. 16.
    Lee J-S, Jurkevich L, Dewaele P, Wambacqb P, Oosterlinck A (1994) Speckle filtering of synthetic aperture radar images: a review. Remote Sens Rev 8(4):313–340. Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mueller PW, Hoffer RN (1989) Low-pass spatial filtering of satellite radar data. Photogram Eng Remote Sens 55:887–895. ISSN 0099-1112Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rio JNR (2000) Spatial filtering of radar data (RADARSAT) for wetlands (Brackish Marshes) classification. Remote Sens Environ 73(2):143–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee J-S, Grunes MR, de Grandi G (1999) Polarimetric SAR speckle filtering and its implication for classification. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 37(5):2363–2373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee J-S, Miller AR, Hoppel KW (1994) Statistics of phase difference and product magnitude of multi-look processed Gaussian signals. Waves Random Media 4:307–319. Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shi Z, Fung KB (1994) A comparison of digital speckle filters. In: Geoscience and remote sensing symposium, 1994. IGARSS ’94. Surface and atmospheric remote sensing: technologies, data analysis and interpretation, vol 4, pp 2129–2133Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    CCRS (2012) Canada Centre for Remote Sensing Remote Sensing tutorial. Accessed 24 July 2012
  23. 23.
    Mora O, Arbiol R, Pala V, Adell A, Torre M (2006) Generation of accurate DEMs using DInSAR methodology (TopoDInSAR). IEEE Geosci Remote Sens Lett 3:551–554. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Spatial SciencesCurtin UniversityPerthAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Geospatial and Space TechnologyUniversity of Nairobi NairobiKenya

Personalised recommendations