Preserving the Past from Space: An Overview of Risk Estimation and Monitoring Tools

  • Rosa LasaponaraEmail author
  • Nicola Masini
Part of the Geotechnologies and the Environment book series (GEOTECH, volume 16)


Earth observation (EO) technologies can enable advanced performance and new operational applications specifically addressed to security and risk (see, for example Copernicus program and Sentinel missions), also including the monitoring and preservation of heritage sites. EO techniques can provide operative tools for supporting heritage protection, conservation, and presentation identifying and monitoring factors that can adversely affect the property (see, for example, those listed in the UNESCO web site In this context, UNESCO, in partnership with some space agencies of the world (NASA, ESA, DLR, ASI, CNES, Chinese), over the years has strongly promoted the use of space technologies to assess the state of conservation of cultural and natural heritage sites. Nevertheless, even if the potential of EO technologies for assessing and monitoring natural and man-made disasters is well known, still today the application of RS data in operational disaster management and monitoring is a difficult task. To move from scientific to operational applications there are gaps to be filled and needs to be addressed. To improve the risk estimation and management based on remote sensing data, it is particularly important to set up operational approaches and methods for diverse applications and risks, with protocols and quantitative evaluations of accuracy and reliability.


Optical satellite remote sensing Archaeology Proxy indicator Prediction models Image enhancement 



The present publication is under the result of the project “Smart Cities and Communities and Social Innovation” Project (Avviso MIUR n.84/Ric 2012,PON 2007–2013 del 2 marzo 2012- Misura IV.1, IV.2, 2013–2015).

Author Contributions: Rosa Lasaponara and Nicola Masini conceived the study. Rosa Lasaponara wrote the paper. Nicola Masini reviewed the manuscript.


  1. Berardino P, Fornaro G, Lanari R, Sansosti E (2002) A new algorithm for surface deformation monitoring based on small baseline differential SAR interferograms. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 40:2375–2383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biescas E, Crosetto M, Agudo M, Monserrat O, Crippa B (2007) Two radar interferometric approaches to monitor slow and fast land deformations. J Surv Eng 133:66–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonano M, Manzo M, Casu F, Manunta M, Lanari R (2016). DinSAR for the monitoring of cultural heritage sites. In Masini N, Soldovieri F (eds) Sensing the past. Geoscience and sensing technologies for cultural heritage. Springer, Cham, pp 117–134, chapter 6.Google Scholar
  4. Bruzzone L, Prieto DF (2002) An adaptive semiparametric and context-based approach to unsupervised change detection in multitemporal remote-sensing images. IEEE Trans Image Process 11(4):452–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Casana J, Panahipour M (2014) Satellite-based monitoring of looting and damage to archaeological sites in Syria. J East Mediterr Archaeol Herit Stud 2(2):128–150. doi: 10.5325/jeasmedarcherstu.2.2.0128 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cigna F, Lasaponara R, Masini N, Milillo P, Tapete D (2014) Persistent Scatterer Interferometry processing of COSMO-SkyMed StripMap HIMAGE time series to depict deformation of the historic centre of Rome, Italy. Remote Sens 6:12593–12618. doi: 10.3390/rs61212593 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collins JB, Woodcock CE (1996) An assessment of several linear change detection techniques for mapping forest mortality using multitemporal Landsat TM data. Remote Sens Environ 56:66–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Contreras DA (2010) Huaqueros and remote sensing imagery: assessing looting damage in the Viru Valley, Peru. Antiquity 84(324):544–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coppin P, Bauer M (1996) Digital change detection in forest ecosystems with remote sensing imagery. Remote Sens Rev 13:207–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crosetto M, Tscherning CC, Crippa B, Castillo M (2002) Subsidence monitoring using SAR interferometry: reduction of the atmospheric effects using stochastic filtering. Geophys Res Lett 29:26–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crosetto M, Crippa B, Biescas E, Monserrat O, Agudo M, Fernández P (2005) Land deformation monitoring using SAR interferometry: state-of-the-art. Photogrammetrie, Fernerkundung, Geoinformation 6:497–510Google Scholar
  12. Crosetto M, Monserrat O, Herrera G (2010) Urban applications of persistent scatterer interferometry. In Soergel U (ed) Radar remote sensing on urban areas, Remote sensing and digital image processing series, vol 15. Springer Science+Business Media B.V, Berlin, pp 233–246Google Scholar
  13. Crosetto M, Monserrat O, Cuevas M, Crippa B (2011) Spaceborne differential SAR interferometry: data analysis tools for deformation measurement. Remote Sens 3:305–318. doi: 10.3390/rs3020305 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dabin Ji Lin Sun, Jiancheng Shi, Tao Jiang (2010) High resolution AOT retrieval based on MODIS surface reflectance product. Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS), 2010 IEEE International July 2010, pp 1703–1706
  15. Edgington D, Dirk W, Salamy K, Koch C, Risi M, Sherlock R (2003) Automated event detection in underwater video. In Proceedings of the MTS/IEEE oceans 2003 conferenceGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferretti A, Prati C, Rocca F (2000) Nonlinear subsidence rate estimation using permanent scatterers in differential SAR interferometry. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 38:2202–2212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gabriel AK, Goldstein RM, Zebker HA (1989) Mapping small elevation changes over large areas: differential radar interferometry. J Geophys Res 94:9183–9191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hadjimitsis DG, Retalis A, Clayton CRI (2002) The assessment of atmospheric pollution using satellite remote sensing technology in large cities in the vicinity of airports. Water Air Soil Pollut Focus 2:631–640. Monitoring Air Pollution in the Vicinity of Cultural Heritage Sites in Cyprus 547Google Scholar
  19. Hadjimitsis DG, Clayton CRI (2009) Determination of aerosol optical thickness through the derivation of an atmospheric correction for short-wavelength Landsat TM and ASTER image data: an application to areas located in the vicinity of airports at UK and Cyprus. Appl Geomat J 1:31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hadjimitsis DG (2009) Description of a new method for retrieving the aerosol optical thickness from satellite remotely sensed imagery using the maximum contrast value principle and the darkest pixel approach. Trans GIS J 12(5):633–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huertas A, Nevatia T (2000) Detecting changes in aerial views of man-made structures. Image Vis Comput 18(8):583–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaufman YJ, Fraserr RS, Ferrare RA (1990) Satellite measurements of large-scale air pollution: methods. J Geophys Res 95:9895–9909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. King MD, Kaufman YJ, Tanré D, Nakajima T (1999) Remote sensing of tropospheric aerosols from space: past, present, and future. Bull Am Meteorol Soc:2229–2259Google Scholar
  24. Lanari R, Mora O, Manunta M, Mallorquí JJ, Berardino P, Sansosti E (2004) A small-baseline approach for investigating deformations on full-resolution differential SAR interferograms. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 42:1377–1386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Landis E, Nagy E, Keane D, Nagy G (1999) A technique to measure 3D work-of-fracture of concrete in compression. J Eng Mech 126(6):599–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lasaponara R, Masini N (2009) Full-waveform airborne laser scanning for the detection of medieval archaeological microtopographic relief. J Cult Herit 10S:78–82. doi: 10.1016/j.culher.2009.10.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lasaponara R, Masini N (2010) Facing the archaeological looting in Peru by local spatial autocorrelation statistics of Very high resolution satellite imagery. In: Taniar D et al. (eds) Proceedings of ICSSA, The 2010 INTERNATIONAL Conference on Computational Science and its Application (Fukuoka-Japan, 23–26 March, 2010), Springer, Berlin, pp 261–269.Google Scholar
  28. Lasaponara R, Danese M, Masini N (2012) Satellite-based monitoring of archaeological looting in Peru. In: Lasaponara R, Masini N (eds) 2012, Satellite remote sensing: a new tool for Archaeology. Springer Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 177–193. ISBN 978–90–481-8800-0, doi:  10.1007/978-90-481-8801-7_8
  29. Lasaponara R, Leucci G, Masini N, Persico R (2014) Investigating archaeological looting using satellite images and georadar: the experience in Lambayeque in North Peru. J Archaeol Sci 42:216–230.
  30. Lasaponara R, Masini N (2015) Reconnaissance of archaeology marks through satellite Synthetic Aperture Radar. In: Chavarría A, Reynolds A (eds) Detecting and understanding historic landscapes. SAP Società Archeologica s.r.l, Mantiva, pp 93–108Google Scholar
  31. Masini N, Lasaponara R (2016) Sensing the past from space: approaches to site detection. In Masini N, Soldovieri F (eds) Sensing the past. Geoscience and sensing technologies for cultural heritage. Springer, Cham, pp 23–60, chapter 2Google Scholar
  32. Monserrat O, Crosetto M, Cuevas M, Crippa B (2011) The thermal dilation component of persistent scatterer interferometry observations. IEEE Geosci Remote Sens Lett 8(5):864–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nagy G, Zhang T, Franklin W, Landis E, Nagy E, Keane D (2001) Volume and surface area distributions of cracks in concrete. Visual Form 2001 (Springer LNCS 2059):759–768Google Scholar
  34. Proulx BB (2013) Archaeological site looting in “global” perspective: nature, scope, and frequency. Am J Archaeol 117(1):111–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Retalis A (1998) Study of atmospheric pollution in large cities with the use of satellite observations: development of an atmospheric correction algorithm applied to polluted urban areas. Phd thesis, Department of Applied Physics, University of AthensGoogle Scholar
  36. Retalis A, Cartalis C, Athanasiou E (1999) Assessment of the distribution of aerosols in the area of Athens with the use of Landsat TM. Int J Remote Sens 20:939–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rosen PA, Hensley S, Joughin IR et al (2000) Synthetic aperture radar interferometry. Proc IEEE 88:333–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sifakis N, Deschamps PY (1992) Mapping of air pollution using SPOT satellite data. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 58:1433–1437Google Scholar
  39. Singh A (1989) Digital change detection techniques using remotely-sensed data Internet. J Remote Sens 10(6):989–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stone EC (2008) Patterns of looting in Iraq. Antiquity 82:125–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stone EC (2015) An update on the looting of archaeological sites in Iraq. Near East Archaeol 78(3):178–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tang J, Xue Y, Yu T, Guan Y (2004) Aerosol optical thickness determination by exploiting the synergy of Terra and Aqua MODIS. Remote Sens Environ 94:327–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. UNESCO (1956) Recommendation on international principles applicable to archaeological excavationsGoogle Scholar
  44. UNESCO (1970) Convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural propertyGoogle Scholar
  45. UNESCO (2001) Convention on the protection of the underwater cultural heritageGoogle Scholar
  46. Van Ess M, Becker H, Fassbinder J, Kiefl R, Lingenfelder I, Schreier G, Zevenbergen A (2006) Detection of Looting Activities at Archaeological Sites in Iraq Using Ikonos Imagery,” Angewandte Geoinformatik, Beitra¨ge zum 18. Wiechmann-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 668–678.Google Scholar
  47. Wang J, Christopher SA (2003) Intercomparison between satellite derived aerosol optical thickness and PM2.5 mass: implications for air quality studies. Geophys Res Lett 30(21):2095Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CNR-IMAA, Institute of Methodologies for Environmental AnalysisTito ScaloItaly
  2. 2.CNR-IBAM Institute for Archaeological and Monumental HeritageTito ScaloItaly

Personalised recommendations