Next Article in Journal
The Intensity of Urban Sprawl in Poland
Next Article in Special Issue
Spatial Distribution Characteristics of Heavy Metals in Surface Soil of Xilinguole Coal Mining Area Based on Semivariogram
Previous Article in Journal
A Novel Hybrid Method for Landslide Susceptibility Mapping-Based GeoDetector and Machine Learning Cluster: A Case of Xiaojin County, China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Assessing Quality of Life Inequalities. A Geographical Approach
Review

Geoinformation Technologies in Support of Environmental Hazards Monitoring under Climate Change: An Extensive Review

1
Department of Surveying and Geoinformatics Engineering, University of West Attica, Ag. Spyridonos Str., Egaleo, 12243 Athens, Greece
2
Department of Geography, Harokopio University of Athens, El. Venizelou St., 70, Kallithea, 17671 Athens, Greece
3
Institute for Space Applications and Remote Sensing, National Observatory of Athens, BEYOND Centre of EO Research & Satellite Remote Sensing,15236 Athens, Greece
4
Laboratory Mineralogy-Geology, Department of Natural Resources Development and Agricultural Engineering, Agricultural University of Athens, 75 Iera Odos, 11855 Athens, Greece
5
Laboratory of Agricultural Hydraulics, Division of Water Resources, Department of Natural Resources Development and Agricultural Engineering, Agricultural University of Athens, 75 Iera Odos, 11855 Athens, Greece
6
Laboratory of Technology and Policy of Energy and Environment, School of Science and Technology, Hellenic Open University Parodos Aristotelous 18, 26335 Patra, Greece
7
Department of Architecture, University of Patras, University Campus, Rio, 26500 Patra, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Wolfgang Kainz
ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2021, 10(2), 94; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijgi10020094
Received: 17 January 2021 / Accepted: 16 February 2021 / Published: 21 February 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue GIS-Based Analysis for Quality of Life and Environmental Monitoring)

Abstract

Human activities and climate change constitute the contemporary catalyst for natural processes and their impacts, i.e., geo-environmental hazards. Globally, natural catastrophic phenomena and hazards, such as drought, soil erosion, quantitative and qualitative degradation of groundwater, frost, flooding, sea level rise, etc., are intensified by anthropogenic factors. Thus, they present rapid increase in intensity, frequency of occurrence, spatial density, and significant spread of the areas of occurrence. The impact of these phenomena is devastating to human life and to global economies, private holdings, infrastructure, etc., while in a wider context it has a very negative effect on the social, environmental, and economic status of the affected region. Geospatial technologies including Geographic Information Systems, Remote Sensing—Earth Observation as well as related spatial data analysis tools, models, databases, contribute nowadays significantly in predicting, preventing, researching, addressing, rehabilitating, and managing these phenomena and their effects. This review attempts to mark the most devastating geo-hazards from the view of environmental monitoring, covering the state of the art in the use of geospatial technologies in that respect. It also defines the main challenge of this new era which is nothing more than the fictitious exploitation of the information produced by the environmental monitoring so that the necessary policies are taken in the direction of a sustainable future. The review highlights the potential and increasing added value of geographic information as a means to support environmental monitoring in the face of climate change. The growth in geographic information seems to be rapidly accelerated due to the technological and scientific developments that will continue with exponential progress in the years to come. Nonetheless, as it is also highlighted in this review continuous monitoring of the environment is subject to an interdisciplinary approach and contains an amount of actions that cover both the development of natural phenomena and their catastrophic effects mostly due to climate change.
Keywords: environmental monitoring; climate change; geohazards; geoinformation; geographical information systems; earth observation environmental monitoring; climate change; geohazards; geoinformation; geographical information systems; earth observation

1. Introduction

Significant social, economic, and environmental changes, as well as rapid advances in technology mark the 21st century. A characteristic landmark of this century is climate change and its effects, a global phenomenon that directly and indirectly affects human life and the environment. The most important effects of the phenomenon are climate change in many areas, the rising average global temperature, rising sea levels locally, melting ice, etc., and the effects of these changes, such as the steadily increasing incidence of natural hazards and disasters (Figure 1), changes in biodiversity of areas, changes in natural processes, etc.
An important contributor to the proper management and response to this reality is the modern and highly effective tools that have been created, developed, tested, and implemented in recent years through the technological and scientific explosion that has taken place alongside climate change.
Research, management, and response to natural disasters and processes has been the center of interest and engagement of the scientific community and decision makers for the past decade. The current environmental, social and economic challenge (Figure 2), among others due to climate change, is the prediction of natural disasters, and the protection of vulnerable areas, against imminent natural hazards and ever-increasing natural processes with negative impacts. A striking example of this is the European Union Directive 2007/60, which aims to update and upgrade flood prevention, management and rehabilitation methods in the Member States. More generally, this directive seeks to set environmental objectives for Member States’ water management policies, with an emphasis on groundwater, which is also threatened by natural factors, in combination with human over-exploitation, with deterioration in their quantitative and qualitative characteristics. Corresponding initiatives have been taken worldwide with very significant results.
Modern requirements in the research, design and management of the above geo-environmental risks are very high. A major contributor to these efforts is the significant advancement of science and the rapid technological development of the last decades, which seems to continue to grow in the coming years. In the areas of geosciences, and more specifically in natural processes, risks and disasters, the scientific, and technological spearheads are Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Remote Sensing. The evolutionary explosion of recent years in these two fields has opened up new avenues, ways, and methods for approaching and researching the environmental issues that concern the lives of modern humans.
At a global level, there is a huge boom in satellite programs for monitoring the earth and the natural (and not only) phenomena that take place. Many countries, either autonomously or cooperatively, are developing satellite systems designed for specific applications.
The main expressers of these efforts are passive optical satellites (e.g., Landsat) and active RADAR satellites (e.g., Sentinel-1), which are designed for environmental applications, such as vegetation capture, recording of flooded areas, monitoring of earthquakes (e.g., by applying the technique of interferometry to satellite images), etc. Over time and in conjunction with the evolution of technology, satellite data is continuously improving in both frequency and spatial resolution.
At the same time, spatial information processing and analysis tools are constantly being improved, adopting new methods and techniques, while becoming more user-friendly. In recent years, open source free software (e.g., QGIS) has competed with commercial packages (e.g., ArcGIS), giving the researcher the ability to create their own tools, according to their needs, within their environment.
Consequently, GIS along with open satellite databases and other free spatial databases cover modern research needs, significantly reducing its cost, as well as time to analyze and extract results, compared to traditional methods. In addition, they overcome obstacles that in traditional field research were inaccessible, such as accessibility to inaccessible areas, weather conditions, etc.
It is understood that 21st century’s geo-environmental challenges can be explored and addressed with the modern tools provided by technological and scientific progress. Within the next sections there will be a variety of thematic issues related to environmental monitoring and in particular drought, floods, soil erosion, groundwater, frost, and sea level rise. Techniques and tools (GIS and Earth Observation—EO) for observing and researching the environment will be presented as well as ways to deal with each individual phenomenon.

Specificity of the Review Methodology of This Paper

This review work aims to point out some of most devastating hazards from the view of environmental monitoring, covering a wide area in the use of geospatial technologies in that respect. This work presents specific hazards in terms of environmental monitoring. The selected disasters are as follows: i. drought, ii. soil erosion, iii. groundwater degradation, iv. floods, and v. sea level rise. The selection of the papers presented in this work has been made based on some objective criteria, but also on some subjective criteria. It must be mentioned that all referred and described publications were selected based, mostly, on their citations in an attempt to quote the ones with the highest impact in the disciplines discussed in this review work (objective criteria). For this purpose Scopus citation index was used. In addition, the expertise of each author on each presented subject was also a guide for the selected papers (subjective criteria).
In addition, the contribution of Geospatial Technologies such as GIS, Spatial Data Infrastructures, and EO in natural disasters is presenting as well, as the main research keys in the field of environmental monitoring. Thus, the next section (Section 2) is presenting the review of the bibliography concerning drought, soil erosion, groundwater degradation, floods and sea level rise, respectively. All the cited manuscripts were subject to a good survey on the scientific community for each of them. Table 1 presents the list of cited studies in this work.

2. Environmental Monitoring

2.1. Drought Monitoring

With its stability and durability, nature can introduce extreme changes in the variables and factors of human systems. Extreme changes or extreme events, such as earthquakes, floods, and droughts, often called natural hazards, can present insurmountable obstacles and difficulties in how human societies deal with them [1,2,3,4,5]. In this context, it is argued that droughts are one of many natural hazards that can affect domestic use and irrigation—in other words, the water supply of an area [6,7]. The current trend among broad technical and professional circles, administrators, politicians, and decision-makers and generally among common citizens is to regard drought as something transient, a random and remote risk that requires only an extraordinary mobilization [8,9]. However, the accumulated experience of scientific research and observations in recent decades shows that droughts are inevitable, as these phenomena appear to be inescapable and permanent elements of the global climate [8,10,11,12,13,14]. Drought issues can turn into a water crisis and will play a crucial role in the next years in defining both development and environmental policies on a world level [15,16,17]. As far as Europe is concerned, the droughts in Greece in 1989–1993, in Spain in 2003, in France in 2005, and again in Greece in 2007–2008, confirm this trend, as well as the urgent need to implement common strategies to the problem across Europe and not just in the Mediterranean countries [1,11,18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. The next figure (Figure 3) presents such a context [21].
Drought and its consequences must be recognized and taken into account from the early stages of water resources planning and management efforts [25,26,27,28,29]. Accordingly, measures and efforts to tackle droughts should begin by studying the phenomenon’s dimensions [1,30,31,32]. Functional definitions allow the determination of the beginning and end, as well as the degree of severity of drought [1,11,33,34]. These definitions are categorized based on four different approaches: meteorological, hydrological, agricultural, and socioeconomic drought. GIS and Expert Systems (E.S.) can respond timely to identify and recognize drought events over large areas through satellite data, gridded datasets, and measured values from meteorological stations. However, the calculation of Drought Risk and Vulnerability Assessment require spatial data on specific time step (monthly or yearly). Thus, using geoinformation solutions improve the observation visualization of drought hazards. [5,10,11,12,14,20,35,36,37].
Drought is a temporary state (months/years), instead of aridity, which is a permanent climate feature [38,39]. Additionally, seasonal drought, i.e., a well-defined dry season, must be distinguished from the drought that occurs with different characteristics [5,6]. There is considerable confusion between scientists and policymakers about diversifying these terms. A typical example is the Greek territory, especially in the island regions, where the rainfall season begins in October and ends in April [19,21,22]. Thus, a large part of the islands appears barren, and drought is an inevitable climate feature. However, the seasonal drought on these islands is almost certain to occur over time due to the failure to meet water needs over a given time horizon. Drought usually occurs when rainfall in a region is less than average and is followed by large evaporation rates for prolonged periods [20,37,40,41,42]. The drought varies from other natural disasters because of its leisureliness and long duration. In most cases, drought is caused either by a decrease in rainfall or a shortage of water resources reserves. The concept of deficiency is relevant and determined by a specific water demand by sector or by specific activities. Nevertheless, drought analyses and drought assessments should include all the available data from the investigated study area. These results composing drought indices (indicators or indexes) were visualized on a GIS environment to portray spatial distribution. There are efforts and they use geo-statistical techniques to transform the point values form meteorological stations to a spatial distribution in a specific time frame, namely, kriging and co-kriging methods and Inverse Distance Weighting (IDW) are the most common approaches it is referred to as having a better fit for indices or climate parameters [1,4,7,10,14,43].
To address drought phenomena, the development of a strategy and a Master Plan of these phenomena is recommended as an effective means of improving the ability to assess and respond to state mechanisms for action. Unanimity between state agencies and private and public interest groups is also an important part of the process. Composite indicators and indices can help recognize a drought promptly and achieve this goal. Additionally, in combination with forecasting models, a short-term prediction of the phenomenon and its effects can be successfully made for decision-makers to be able to better prepare by reducing or minimizing the effects and reaction time to them. An important helper in this direction is the promotion and integration of contingency planning.

2.2. Soil Erosion Monitoring

Soil erosion is a complex and dynamic phenomenon that affects many areas around the world. It is one of the most serious problems of land degradation and a major source of environmental deterioration, as it is the largest environmental problem the world is facing after population growth. Indicatively, it is reported that the United States loses soil 10 times faster than the rate of natural replenishment, while the corresponding loss for China and India is 30–40 times faster [44].
Worldwide, the total area of land affected by water erosion is 10,940,000 km2, of which 7,510,000 km2 are significantly degraded [45]. The annual sediment transport to the ocean from rivers around the world has been estimated to be 15 to 30 billion tonnes [46,47]. In addition, soil erosion affects the geomorphological characteristics of an area in terms of soil fertility, agricultural productivity, water quality, water reservoir capacity, and the evolution of coastal areas in sedimentary environments [48,49,50].
The current evolution of the erosion phenomenon is directly related to global warming, which results in a more intense hydrological cycle in several regions, including more total rainfalls and more frequent events of high intensity rainfall (combined or not). These changes in rainfall, as well as changes in temperature, solar radiation, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations, have significant effects on soil erosion rates. In general, the processes associated with the effects of climate change on soil erosion by water are complex and include changes in the volume and intensity of rainfall, number of days of rainfall, ratio between rain and snow, production of biomass from plants, decomposition rates of vegetable residues, evapotranspiration rates, and land use changes that are necessary to adapt to a new climate regime [51].
In addition, degradation of agricultural land by soil erosion is also a global phenomenon leading to the loss of nutrient-rich surface soil, increased runoff in the more impermeable layer of the ground and reduced availability of water to plants [52]. About 85% of soil degradation worldwide is associated with soil erosion and causes up to 17% reduction in crop productivity [53].
Effective monitoring, modeling, and analysis of the soil erosion phenomenon can provide information on the current erosion state, trends, and allow the analysis of different scenarios [52]. Furthermore, these actions can be important sources of information for land management decisions through the development of alternative land use scenarios and the evaluation of their results [54]. Quantitative monitoring and evaluation [55] is often required to extract the extent and magnitude of soil erosion problems in order to develop sound regional management strategies along with field measurements.
Soil erosion monitoring and analysis models are classified [56] into three main categories: empirical, conceptual (partly empirical/mixed) and physical. Examples of the three categories include the empirical model USLE and its modifications, the conceptual ANSWERS (Areal Nonpoint Source Watershed Environment Response Simulation), CREAMS (Chemicals, Runoff and Erosion from Agricultural Management Systems), and MODANSW (Modified ANSWERS), as well as the physical models EUROSEM (European Soil Erosion Model) and MIKE SHE (“Systeme Hydrologique Europeen” or European Hydrological System). Since 1930s, soil experts and decision-makers have been developing and using erosion models to monitor and calculate soil loss [57]. Over 80 erosion models have been created over the last fifty years [58].
One of the most widely used empirical models for monitoring and estimating erosion is the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) model developed by Wischmeier and Smith in 1965, based on soil erosion measurements in the USA [57]. It has been developed mainly for the assessment of soil erosion on arable land or on slightly sloping topographies and is still used in a large number of studies to estimate soil loss [52]. With the revised version RUSLE, which takes into account the upstream areas that contribute to the downstream surface runoff and is thus considered to have better predictability than USLE [59], and modified version MUSLE [57,60,61], USLE is still widely used in soil loss assessment studies and is the most common tool for large-scale soil erosion assessment and monitoring in Europe [62,63,64,65].
In recent years, with the development and significant evolutions in GIS and remote sensing, as well as the progress made in computing power, efforts to spatially model soil erosion have been intensified and greatly upgraded [66]. The widespread dissemination of GIS and the use of satellite data has greatly facilitated the development of erosion models, since they allow the use of multiple data sources, easy modification of the structure of erosion models and unconditional reshaping of their scale [67,68]. The use of conventional methods for monitoring and assessing the risk of soil erosion is costly and time consuming. The integration of existing soil erosion models, field data and data provided by remote sensing technologies through the use of GIS has proved to be particularly advantageous, while enabling the spatial distribution of erosion to be presented through hazard maps, which are necessary for the design of protective measures [50,52,65,69,70,71].
The importance of continuous monitoring of soil erosion and application of integrated river basin management practices has been enhanced by the independent use of remote sensing data, such as aerial photos, LiDAR, UAV, and satellite data such as Landsat (ETM +, TM, MSS), IRS-P6 LISS (III, IV), ASTER GDEM, GeoEye, QuickBird, WorldView, MODIS, Hyperion, etc., but also by their combined analysis and evaluation with other types of data, such as rain gauges, soil samples, topographic maps, etc., in GIS environment [72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82]. A typical example of the above is the soil erosion risk mapping on a monthly basis by Nigel et al. [83] for the Mauritius region via GIS, decision rules, rainfall, and soil data, and SPOT satellite imagery. They developed the MauSERM model, which produces high resolution soil erosion monitoring maps for the whole area of Mauritius every month.
The combined use of remote sensing data (and indicators derived by these like NDVI), GIS and soil loss assessment models, such as USLE, RUSLE, RUSLE3D (a modification of RUSLE for composite soil), USPED (Unit Stream Power-based Erosion Deposition), PESERA (Pan-European Soil Erosion Risk Assessment), etc., has proven to be extremely important and effective in monitoring and predicting soil erosion [52,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100]. A good and recent example supporting the previous argument is the implementation by Karydas et al. [101] of the G2 soil erosion model in five study areas in south-eastern Europe and Cyprus aiming to estimate soil loss on a monthly basis. This model operates in a GIS environment utilizing a wealth of satellite data such as Sentinel-2, MERIS, PROBA-V and SPOT-VGT. Based also on the above, a very useful reference would be the work of Leh et al. [102], who created scenarios for predicting future land use allocation and soil erosion levels for a US catchment area for 2030. This research combined remote sensing, GIS and modeling techniques and created land use maps through analysis of Landsat satellite images every five years for a period of 20 years (1986–2006). The studies were based on these maps for the synthesis of future scenarios that predict an increase in urbanization with a consequent increase in erosion risk for the study area.
Steps forward in the development of the previous logic were the utilization of the aforementioned data, models and methods along with the use of other techniques such as Frequency Ratio (FR), Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), Logistic Regression (LR), Multiple Linear Regression (MLR), Potential Erosion Index (PEI), Sediment Delivery Ratio (SDR), the GIS model GWLF (Generalized Watershed Loading Function), the TLSD (Transport Limited Sediment Delivery) function, etc. [103,104,105,106,107]. A worth noting and recent example is the work of Macedo et al. [108], who developed the Environmental Fragility Index (EFI) through GIS procedures and its ability to monitor and predict sediment deposition was evaluated on 148 rivers in Brazil. The index takes into account geoclimatic factors as well as anthropogenic pressures and utilizes geospatial, rainfall and Landsat TM satellite data.
In conclusion, taking into consideration all previous references, GIS and Remote Sensing are proven very useful tools with great potential in monitoring and estimating soil erosion reliably. These can be based on either models as for example USLE/RUSLE [91,109,110,111,112,113], or in other methods like for example Multi-Criteria Evaluation Techniques—MCE [114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121], or in combinations of the above.
Finally, spatial information analysis is an ever-evolving approach capable of monitoring evaluating, managing and analyzing the complex problems, such as soil erosion, of river basins and lake basins. In recent years, GIS has proven to be a good alternative as they are better decision support tools in soil monitoring, planning, management and sustainable development.

2.3. Groundwater Monitoring

Groundwater is one of the most valuable natural resources and is related, directly, to human health, economic development, and ecological diversity [122]. They are a vital resource for reliable and affordable drinking water supply in urban and rural environments and play a fundamental role in human well-being, sustainable agriculture, and the conservation of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems [123]. Groundwater quality is usually very good, as it is filtered naturally through the soil and is clear, colorless, and free of microbial contamination, requiring minimal treatment [124].
Effective groundwater management and monitoring is of particular importance in areas with hard rocky soil, which are deprived almost everywhere and permanently of surface water. In these areas, where ever-growing human populations live, finding water supply zones is increasingly difficult [125]. In addition, in many areas groundwater availability is limited, and aquifer development is mainly associated with fractured and disintegrated horizons and secondary porosity created [126]. Moreover, exposure to various pollutants can render groundwater unsuitable for consumption and can endanger human life, fauna, and the environment [127].
Assessing the impact of climate change on a country’s water resources is the most important assessment that has to be carried out before planning any long-term water potential project. Numerous studies have been conducted worldwide on the trends of river flows in relation to water filtration in the face of climate change and potential pressures on groundwater aquifers [128]. In recent years, researchers around the world, have conducted numerous studies to assess groundwater reserves and groundwater aquifers, as sustainable groundwater management is increasingly necessary. Investigation of groundwater presence and delineation of groundwater aquifers can be achieved by indirectly analyzing some directly observed soil characteristics, such as tectonics [129].
Unlike traditional methods, remote sensing (RS) technology, with the benefits of spatial, spectral, and temporal data availability covering large and inaccessible areas in a short period of time, has proved to be a very useful tool for evaluation, monitoring and the management of groundwater resources [130,131]. In addition, it is widely used to map land surface features (such as linear tectonic elements, lithology, etc.), as well as to monitor groundwater supply zones [129].
Hydrogeological interpretation of satellite data has proven to be a valuable research tool in areas where little geological and cartographic information is available (or not accurate) as well as inaccessible areas [130]. Since satellite sensors cannot directly detect groundwater, the presence of groundwater results from the interpretation of different surface features derived from satellite images, such as geology, soil geomorphology, soil characteristics (texture, roughness, etc.), land uses/land cover, surface water bodies, etc. [132,133]. In recent years, the widespread use of satellite data in combination with conventional maps and corrected terrain data has facilitated the extraction of baseline information [134,135,136,137,138,139].
Alongside remote sensing, GSPs have emerged as powerful tools for spatial data management and decision making in various fields, including engineering and the environment [140,141]. The application of GIS for the assessment of groundwater resources has been reported several years before [142,143,144].
GIS and remote sensing tools are widely used to manage various natural resources [145,146]. Since groundwater zoning and simulation require large amounts of interdisciplinary data, the combined use of remote sensing techniques and GIS has become a valuable tool and important studies have been conducted in recent years [122]. One such example is the integration of remote sensing with GIS to prepare various thematic levels, such as lithology, drainage density, curvature of the basin, rainfall, slope, soil and land uses, etc., in is defined as a weight of importance, a method that can successfully support the identification of potential groundwater areas [123].
In similar research efforts, the combined application of remote sensing and GIS in groundwater management and the delimitation of potential aquifer zones has been implemented by various researchers worldwide [129,147,148,149]. The first corresponding studies include the work of Gustafsson [150], who used GSPs to analyze SPOT satellite data to map potential groundwater presence.

2.4. Frost Monitoring

The prevalence of low air temperatures and frost conditions in an area is a major factor controlling vegetation zonation and biodiversity. Frost has been globally identified as a leading hazard, as it can occur in almost any location, outside the tropical zones, especially at high altitudes [151]. It has significant impact on agriculture, forestry, pasture as it affects most biotic processes such as plant phenology, growth, evapotranspiration, moisture requirements, carbon fixation and decomposition in natural and cultivated mountain ecosystems [152,153,154,155]. Moreover, frost can cause significant damage to infrastructure works and inhibit their smooth and safe operation due to road closures, or even endanger their stability [156,157,158]. The next figure (Figure 4) presents such a context [158].
Two criteria are often used for the recording of frost: the formation of ice crystals on surfaces (during field surveys) and meteorological measurements of air temperature [159]. As far as agriculture is concerned, frost can be described as a meteorological event when crops and other plants experience freezing injury due to occurrence of an air temperature less than 0 °C [151].
Meteorological measurements have high accuracy but have limited ability to describe the spatial heterogeneity of frost distribution [160]. Attempts to spatial interpolate air temperature measurements and frost often lead to unrepresentative spatial patterns, due to the low number and the irregular distribution of weather stations [161].
Nowadays, with the rapid technological and scientific development in Earth Observation (EO) technology, there is an upgraded potential in the study of the spatiotemporal distribution of frost. Especially in areas where temperature data are unavailable or expensive due to sparsity of meteorological stations or difficult access, remote sensing can be an important and valuable source of information [162]. Remote sensing data have been developed that provide ready to use products with information on night-time land surface temperature, through which frost can be recorded. The values of remotely sensed LST are determined from Planck’s Law using the emissivity of thermal infrared (TIR) bands. The quality of LST retrievals is affected by sensor characteristics, atmospheric conditions, variations in spectral emissivity, surface type heterogeneity, soil moisture, visualization geometry, and assumptions related to the split-window method [162].
A broadly used LST data source is the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MODIS) sensor, which has been providing information since 2000. The MODIS LST product (MOD11A1) has very high temporal resolution, with more than one revisit per day for some areas of the world, but its spatial resolution is course (1 km). The accuracy of the retrieved LST depends on the atmospheric and land surface conditions and is better than 1 °K in some cases [163].
An alternative source of night time LST is the Advanced Spaceborn Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) sensor. The accuracy of the ASTER LST product (AST-08–L.2) is calculated to be 0.3 °K and has a 90-m resolution for land areas, but its temporal resolution is lower, as its revisit time is at 16-day intervals [164].
A relatively recent thermal infrared sensor is the Landsat 8 Thermal Infrared Sensor (TIRS), with two adjacent thermal bands. Several approaches have been developed for the generation of LST from Landsat 8 data, such as the radiative transfer equation (RTE)-based method, the split-window (SW) algorithm and the single channel (SC) method. The highest estimated accuracy is accomplished with RTE, which is better than 1 °K [165].
Lastly, Sentinel-3 which has been developed by the European Space Agency and provides with LST data on a daily basis since 2017. The product SLSTR Level-2 LST product contains LST information with a spatial resolution of 1 km. The accuracy of the derived LST depends on atmosphere type and is estimated to be 0.8 °K for Polar Regions, 1.5 °K for mid-latitudes and 2 °K for equatorial latitudes [166].
In temperature fluctuation and frost monitoring studies, it is essential to have datasets with high spatial and temporal resolution. The limitations of the currently available EO data sets of either low temporal resolution, or low spatial resolution can be overcome by synthesizing high temporal resolution imagery with high spatial resolution imagery (Liu & Weng, 2012). The development of data fusion models such as Spatial and Temporal Adaptive Reflectance Fusion Model, has enabled the generation of ASTER-like daily land surface temperature with promising results [167,168,169,170].

2.5. Flood Monitoring

Natural disasters have significant impacts in many countries around the world, with a large number of deaths, damage to technical and infrastructure projects and population relocations. In addition, due to the significant impacts of climate change, these impacts are expected to increase in the coming years in many countries. Although technology and scientific knowledge have grown significantly today, natural disasters continue to have disastrous economic and environmental consequences, as well as many human casualties worldwide. The study and monitoring of these phenomena has been consistent in recent decades and has shown increasing trends [171]. In order to successfully monitor these phenomena and manage their impacts, it is very important to create hazard and risk maps for both the natural and the artificial environment [172,173].
Among the most dangerous and serious natural disasters, affecting more than 75 million people worldwide, are flood events [173]. In extreme flood events, it is important to quickly manage the magnitude of their impacts and land uses covered by water [174]. In this context, flood mapping and modeling are useful tools for monitoring, predicting, protecting, but also improving short and long term assistance to affected areas immediately after the event.
According to Lekkas [175], there are two types of floods, upstream and downstream. Upstream floods are observed in the higher parts of the drainage area and are generally the result of intense short-term rainfall in a small area. In contrast, downstream floods are caused by long-term storms that infiltrate the soil and cover a wide area. Most floods are the result of (i) the total amount and distribution of rainfall, (ii) the permeability of rock or soil, and (iii) the topography of an area. It has also been found that the distribution of land use, especially in small drainage basins, can significantly affect the size and frequency of floods. In addition, the risk of a flood in a watershed is determined by the following factors: land use, flood volume, intensity and frequency, elevation and duration of flood, season, weight of sediment deposited, and finally efficiency of monitoring, prediction, prevention, warning and emergency measures adaptation mechanisms [175].
New environmental challenges have put water resources monitoring and management at high academic and research interest. The local effects of climate change in recent decades, such as rising temperatures, decreasing rainfall (or increasing in other cases), desertification, etc., but also the occurrence of extreme phenomena such as storms, floods, landslides, and soil erosion threaten human life and infrastructure. The tendency to deal with this issue is rapidly increasing, due to the ever-increasing occurrence of such phenomena and the need for optimal monitoring and management, but also due to the technological boom that provides new tools and techniques. This constantly modifying and changing environmental regime has promoted the need for systematic research in related fields such as hydrology and/or hydraulics. Important goals of this endeavor are optimal methodological efficiency, comprehensive databases, and in particular state-of-the-art modeling developments, as well as understanding, monitoring and predicting an event or phenomenon of high importance nowadays. Modern geo-technologies (e.g., GIS and Remote Sensing) play a key role in this ongoing effort.
In the early 1980s, geographers argued that flood maps did not significantly influence people’s perception of floods and at the same time did not provide sufficient research planning. According to the Canadian Flood Disaster Reduction Program, although awareness of the effects of floods has increased among—after mapping—groups, it is not due to maps [176,177]. In an effort to improve this weakness many methods have been tried. Among these is the use of Remote Sensing (RS), which is not a new idea. In 1980, proving the previous argument, a research paper proposed the application of remote sensing for disaster monitoring and warning through various processes, such as flood mapping and assessment [178].
During the next decade, the use of Remote Sensing and GIS in flood monitoring and research became well established. Both passive and active sensors were used and tested, as can be understood by the two following references. Hubert-Moy et al. [179] suggested that the spatial analysis of Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) is compatible for the study of floods in small catchments. The study also supported the fact that satellite image processing and flow analysis can simulate flood conditions even several days after the event’s peak, although the satellite’s repeatability is low. On the other hand, the usefulness of synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data was examined in a 1996 study. This study was able to compare satellite data on river floods with photographic recordings (taken from a small aircraft) aiming to demonstrate the accuracy of the SAR technique [180].
In 21st century GIS, Remote Sensing and other modern technologies play an important role in flood monitoring, analysis and mapping, but also in hydrological and/or hydraulic modeling, firmly established. Many scientists aimed to develop new ideas based on the above tools and techniques. Free software packages have been developed and distributed, huge global digital databases have been created and a multitude of research projects have been carried out. The evolution and revolution of hydrological and hydraulic modeling, as well as flood monitoring, analysis, and mapping, with modern technologies are flourishing, constantly finding new applications, satisfying ever-increasing demands—needs and inviting more and more young scientists to work in this field. The use of remote sensing data for monitoring and investigating floods and related phenomena (e.g., coastal impacts from sea level rise due to climate change) has increased rapidly in recent years. Various monitoring and research applications were based on RS data like LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) [181], RADARSAT SAR [182], NEXRAD III [183], EUMETSAT, SENTINEL [184,185,186], COSMO-SkyMed SAR [187], optical and microwave data US DMSP/Quikscat, RADARSAT, LANDSAT-5/7 (TM, ETM+), EOS-AM TERRA/MODIS, SRTM DEM and ASTER [188,189,190]. The continuous evolution and improvement of remote sensing data (coverage range, spatial resolution, data frequency, etc.) is expected to continuously increase their use and efficiency.
Furthermore, several scientists have attempted to exploit, or propose new, hydrological, hydraulic and other models along with remote sensing and GIS data and techniques, in order to investigate and monitor several issues directly or indirectly related to surface runoff and flooding [189,191,192,193,194,195]. At this point it is worth mentioning the development of the HYDROTEL hydrological model [196], the application of the hydrological model SLURP [197,198], the SWAT model (Soil and Water Assessment Tool) [199,200,201,202,203] and its evolution SWAT2000 [204], the HEC-HMS/RAS models [183,186,205,206,207,208,209,210,211], the naturally distributed WEP-L hydrological model [212], the MIKE11 model [213], spatially distributed hydrological model LIS-Flood model [214]. An example of the variety of applications, which combines hydrological and other models (e.g., SLEUTH) with Remote Sensing and GIS, is the study of urban sprawl [215,216].
The evolution of geographic–spatial analysis methods, and in particular of GIS, has been the forerunner and essence of change to the approach of flooding from purely mathematical–theoretical models and in situ research into a functional approach through spatial analysis, spatial models, geostatistics and other related methods, e.g., logistic regression, frequency analysis, etc. [185,217,218,219,220,221,222,223,224,225,226,227,228,229,230,231,232,233]. The next figure (Figure 5) provides such a context [230].
In general, the development of new technologies for rainfall–runoff modeling and flood monitoring, analysis, and forecasting, either in combination with GIS and Remote Sensing or autonomously, also involves the use of advanced methods such as Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), which are a highly evolving area of research [234,235], the application of fuzzy logic algorithms [236], SVM (Support Vector Machine) models [237].
The constant evolution of technology, as can be understood from the literature review, provides ever-more modern tools and techniques for the assessment and monitoring of natural disasters, and in particular floods. The development of new models (and the evolution of older ones), Geographic Information Systems, Remote Sensing, Applied Spatial Analysis, Geostatistics, etc., are some of the capabilities currently available to researchers, engineers, etc. to approach disastrous phenomena, such as floods. The need to apply these tools, to modernize existing methods, as well as to continually evolve and create new ones, is further enhanced by the effects of climate change and modern environmental, social, and economic requirements and needs.

2.6. Sea Level Rise Monitoring

According to the IPCC, (2018), global warming is likely to reach 1.5 °C between 2030 and 2052. Ablain et al. [238], explained in detail the importance of sea level rise, i.e., a measure of the increase in ocean volume, as a clear indicator of climate change and one of its main effects, by using data from European Space Agency (ESA) Earth Observation (EO) mission such as the ERS-1&2 and Envisat missions, the TOPEX/Poseidon, the Jason-1&2 and Geosat Follow-on (GFO) missions. Sea-level rise over the next century is expected to contribute significantly to physical changes along shorelines, enhancing coastal hazards particularly on low-gradient coastal zones, developing geodetic technologies and especially the Global Positioning System (GPS) [239,240]. Model-based projections of global mean sea level rise (relative to 1986–2005) suggest an indicative range of 0.26 to 0.77 m by 2100 for 1.5 °C of global warming [241].
Global warming is causing global mean sea level to rise mainly by the melting of glaciers and ice sheets resulting to the super induced addition of water into the ocean as well as by an increase of water body volume due to thermal expansion [242]. Relative sea level changes induced by variations for water in the oceans and land movements can be detected by tide gauges measurements, while EO satellite altimetry/gravimetry, as well as GPS satellites can be applied to measure absolute sea level changes at a global scale [243].
Tide gauges have been used since ancient times to record sea level variations but a well-developed network of tide gauges at almost 1000 locations around the globe, started to appear by the end of the nineteenth century. Moreover, the existence of altimeter satellites such as TOPEX/POSEIDO creates the opportunity for even better measures [244,245,246]. Human activities are estimated to have caused global mean sea level rise of about 21–24 cm since 1880 and even though there is a network of tide gauges provides valuable information about sea level changes from a few seconds to centuries [247,248,249], these observations suffer from several limitations, i.e., their geographic distribution which is poor in open oceans or the southern hemisphere, the availability of records which is not contemporary for all stations and the effect of vertical land movements which is the one of the main difficulties to interpret tide gauge measurements [244,250].
On the other hand, satellite altimetry together with SAR altimetry is described by Cipollini et al. [251] as one of the workhorses of open-ocean operational oceanography and global sea level monitoring, providing for more than 28 years valuable data sea level date with accuracies of the order of just a few cm even for the most remote areas of the oceans. Major support has been provided to the international scientific community by several space agencies such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales (CNES) in research and development of innovative techniques for coastal altimetry.
According to Ablain et al. [238] satellite altimetry data fit well with tide gauge measurements, however it is of great importance to be able to link the satellite altimeter measurements of sea level rise with the tide gauge measurements, by bridging the open-ocean measurements with those in close proximity to the coast in order to meet the scientific needs for better data resolution.
GIS has proved that when it is integrated with remote sensing data and tide gauge measurements, it has the potential to act as an important tool in monitoring the environmental and socio-economic effects of sea-level rise. GIS is increasingly used as a support tool in sea-level rise monitoring, as it allows homogenization and integration of all the available data into a geodatabase, in order to access information, perform spatial and geostatistical analysis and it has a strong potential to combine a broad range of complex variables and data in varying formats and to integrate physical, ecological, socioeconomic, and hazards information. Furthermore, owing to its numerous advantages such as editing and data automation, visualization, mapping and map-based tasks, spatial consultation, spatial analysis, and geostatistical analysis and its flexibility, GIS can be used in further planning applications and future scenarios. Over the years GIS has shown great potential in its application and problem-solving capabilities and a great number of researchers have applied GIS-based methodologies to study sea level rise globally and regionally.

3. Contribution of Earth Observation in Natural Disasters

In the era of climate change, disasters are a cause for concern in the research sector due to their devastating effects worldwide. Indeed, the incidence and frequency of natural disasters has significantly increased in the recent decades [252,253,254]. A variety of scientific approaches are employed to reduce the loss from disasters based on their characteristics.
Earth observation (EO) has progressively developed into a significant resource for disaster management, including the quantification, and detection of the spatiotemporal distribution and variability of many environmental hazards at different scales [254,255]. Especially the rapid growth in the EO sector over the last decades has made it easy to capture the impact of disaster on land, water, vegetation, and human health during many disaster events. Satellite-based EO is regarded now an established technology for mapping and monitoring spatial information about disasters at frequent intervals in all weathers at real time [256,257].
Satellite remote sensing is becoming gradually the preferred tool for disaster management, because it offers information over large areas at short time intervals. Furthermore, the information gathered from past and present conditions allows the identification of changes occurring in Earth’s cover and helps to frame management and mitigation strategies [258]. The obtained EO datasets are the primary input data source for various geospatial analyses that allow retrieval, mapping, tracking, simulation, and representation of disaster-related events in a more effective and accurate manner in a short time without visiting the ground. EO exists scientific and technical strengths pose a broad range of new capabilities in assessing and monitoring several features of environmental variables [259]. Thus, remotely sensed forecasting-nowcasting, monitoring, and assessment of environmental hazards is becoming attractive, since these systems provide also consistently available data with high resolution covering large areas [260].
EO includes satellites with varying spatial and temporal resolution at both geostationary and polar orbit. Both orbit types consist two complementary sources of data which can provide the best choices for disaster management. Polar-orbiting satellites are placed at low altitude (<1000 km from Earth surface) provide data at high spatial resolution and low temporal resolution. On the other, the geo­ stationary satellites are placed at higher altitude (36,000 km from Earth surface) and acquire data at low spatial resolution with high temporal resolution (even in order of few minutes) [261,262,263]. Many satellite platforms carry more than one sensor onboard, which acquire spectral information starting from the visible, infrared, and thermal to the microwave region of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum. Between others [252,264,265], have reviewed the use of different EO sensor types in various natural hazards. Depending on the interaction mechanism of the EM wave with atmospheric constituents and the surface features of the Earth, the sensors that operate in active and passive mode at different wavelengths are used to collect data on various geophysical phenomena. Monitoring of natural disasters over the decades reveals that EO measures natural disasters using primarily optical and microwave (MW) technologies [266,267].
Natural disasters predictions rely on the availability of suitable EO data products which could be collected by short- to long-term monitoring [268,269]. Continuous and frequent EO provides high spatio-temporal data that allows gathering information to study past and present phenomena. There are currently numerous EO data available for tracking natural hazards, including data on the buoys located on the ocean floor, station used for tracking the atmosphere, observations of aircraft and orbital satellites around the globe. Optical sensors have constantly improved both spatial and spectral resolution [253,263,270]. For example, optical sensors MODIS [271], ASTER [272,273], Hyperion [274], and OLI [263,275] have proven their advantage and usefulness for mapping hazards successfully but the use of such data is limited by weather conditions. On the other, microwave sensors overcome these limitations and are used where factors such as clouds impede optical observations. Some of such sensors for mapping disasters are radio direction and ranging (RADAR), radiometers, scatterometers, and radar altimeters [254].
Mitigation of natural disasters can be successful when detailed information about the expected frequency, characteristics and magnitude of natural hazard over any area are available [276]. There are three major phases of disaster management activities on which EO can potentially contribute to (1) the preparedness phase occurs long before the event with risk prediction and risk zone identification; (2) the prevention phase taken up just before or during the event, includes early warning/forecasting, monitoring, and preparation of contingency plans; and (3) the last phase is response and mitigation for damage assessment and relief management just after the event [277]. Information required during any of those phases of hazards’ phenomena can be gathered from EO sensors over a large area by means of various sensors operating on board aircraft or satellites. Subsequently, this information can be processed in a GIS environment implementing appropriate geospatial analysis techniques, to deliver information useful in developing an effective disaster management plan for optimizing preparations and undertaking management options [256,263,278]. Disaster mitigation and preparedness can be successfully made possible using EO data and image manipulation techniques and offer input data as systematic observations to risk modelling [256,279]. The geospatial analysis of land surface condition integrated with various spatial and non-spatial data helps in efficient management and framing effective mitigation plans. The broad variety of data with different characteristics allows identification of surface and subsurface ground conditions and provides minute and rapid analysis. However, there are certain limitations with the use of EO in natural disasters. For example, EO does not provide information about the subsurface ground features beyond certain depths. EO data predictions also come often with some biasness, and ground truth observations for calibration and validation process are required to assess their predictions.

Particularity and Technical Characteristics of EO Satellites

The methods, techniques, and tools described in this work are modern contemporary and effective tools for research, management and monitoring of the environment and geo-environmental hazards in general, such as drought, floods, soil erosion, groundwater, frost, sea level rise, etc., as well as all the valuable natural resources. One of the most important features of these tools, which enhance their dynamics, is their evolutionary capabilities, which are based on the modern way in which these methods were developed and structured (modern software, data, techniques, etc.). Therefore, the ever-increasing scientific knowledge and technological progress will always be beneficial in the evolution of the methods presented.
Regarding satellite programs, there are two main types of earth observation imagery—Passive and Active imagery. Passive imagery includes panchromatic, multi-spectral, pan-sharpened, hyper-spectral, microwave radiometry and Active imagery includes Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR), LIDAR, Radar Altimetry, GNSS-R and Radar Scatterometry. Low resolution images have a Ground Sample Distance larger than 300 m. Medium resolution is between 300 m and 30 m, high resolution from 30 to 5 m and very high resolution (VHR) below 5 m. In terms of duration there satellites with revisit time 1 h (e.g., COMS) but the Ground Sample Distance (GSD) is 500 m and there are satellites with revisit time 26 days but with the GSD being 2.5 m (e.g., SPOT-5). Furthermore, the number of bands differs between different types of satellites. Thus, there are satellites with 1, 2, and 3 bands (e.g., Himawari 8) and satellites with 21 bands (e.g., Sentinel 3 A/B). Thus, there is a variety of choices in terms of satellite sensors or platforms, GSD, which would be most suitable each time for an application or research investigation. The next table (Table 2) is providing the most famous EO satellites with their main characteristics (launch year, number of bands, spatial resolution, altitude, and revisit days).
Nevertheless, a challenge that needs to be addressed in terms of satellite programs, actually is the time-consuming consolidation of downloads and data production. The latter, which requires the sending of new satellites and their integration into existing formations. At the same time, effort is required towards improving the spatial discretion of the receivers (and therefore the products) of these satellites, which in order to achieve this requires a new generation of sensors (transmitter and receiver) in satellite equipment. In addition, one of the possible future targets for environmental surveillance products would be to try to reduce the error they present, which, as mentioned, is already evolving in product documentation. Efforts to validate and improve this data are already being carried out by co-processing ground measurements from stations in several EU countries, with the aim of not only adjusting the error by comparing the measurements, but also assessing the specific weather and morphological conditions of each region.

4. Environmental Monitoring, Geospatial Data, and Spatial Data Infrastructures (SDIs)

Environmental monitoring processes are directly connected to the collection, store, management, and analysis of spatiotemporal data. The collection of several types of environmental data is based on the use of both smart devices and sensors [280] including also mobile and low-cost solutions [281]. Moreover, traditional monitoring instruments are combined with Unmanned Aerial Systems (UASs) towards the production of high resolution data in both temporal and spatial dimension [282,283]. Over the last decades, the expeditious development of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) tools contributed substantially to the effective management and analysis of geospatial data. However, modern approaches of geospatial data manipulation, in both national and multinational level, are based on the use of integrated Spatial Data Infrastructures (SDIs). In European level, the status of the national SDIs, as well as the influence of European INSPIRE Directive, are discussed in several studies [284,285,286,287]. At the same time, other studies describe the use of SDIs in national level (e.g., in Poland) [288] or in specific domains based on environmental data collection (e.g., in marine spatial planning) [289].
The basic components of an SDI model can be grouped into three main categories, including users, technology, and products [290]. In this categorization, technology part contains additional subcomponents including access network, policy, standards, metadata, as well as processing tools, while the main products of SDIs are consisted of data and services [290]. Among the basic parts participated in the design and the implementation of contemporary SDIs, users have undoubtedly a significant role. The last decade, several studies highlight also the importance of incorporating volunteered geographic information (VGI) for environmental monitoring [291], of course with a respect on the derived data quality [292,293]. Simultaneously, a huge and open challenge is referred to the integration of VGI techniques into global GIS platforms [294].
One of the major and challenging issues in SDIs development is related to cartographic data harmonization [295], either in national or multinational level. Considering that environmental monitoring data are usually produced by several organizations (possibly with non-uniform standardization protocols) using different devices which may produce various file formats and/or data characterized by different ranges of spatiotemporal accuracy, this process of their integration is considered quite important. For example, incompatibilities in monitoring can be referred to different temporal and spatial scales [296]. Geospatial data harmonization can be achieved either considering common approaches in data standardization (i.e., implementing common directives such as EU INSPIRE Directive) or after implementing methods which examine geospatial data heterogeneity in terms of their nature and distribution [297].
As also mentioned above, SDIs provide both data and services to the potential users. Particularly, geospatial data services give the opportunity to distribute different types of geospatial data, including vector (e.g., ESRI® shapefiles) and raster (e.g., GeoTIFF) data, as well as (geo) databases (e.g., PostGIS databases) via World Wide Web (WWW). This information can be accessed through desktop GIS environments, simple web browsers, or other (spatial data) infrastructures, while geospatial data can be used in several standalone or web-based applications. The basis of geospatial data services is connected to the use of specific open protocols and standards, such as Web Map Services (WMS), Web Feature Services (WFS), Web Coverage Services (WCS), and Web Map Tile Services (WMTS). The aforementioned standards are developed and distributed by the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC, https://www.ogc.org/, accessed date: 20 December 2020) in order to ensure the interoperability among the developed systems. In general, modern web mapping approaches utilize open source technologies, including open data, software, and tools [298,299], while online map services is a new cartographic cultures which requires the collaboration between cartography and GIS community and this of software developers [300]. Klein et al. [301] point out the need of open source platforms and widely available cloud-based environments in order to move forward to open scientific analysis of environmental data. Hence, prototype solutions, such as the application provided by Wiemann et al. [302] for water quality, could be adapted in several domains having either local, international, or global coverage. Towards this direction, recently Lacroix et al. [303] present also an open platform (MapX) which aims to support environmental monitoring process by provided authorized geospatial data in local, national, and global scale.
Finally, SDIs can serve as powerful Decision Support Systems (DSSs) with valuable applications in environmental monitoring processes for scientific and/or decision-making purposes. Concurrently, considering the variety of Internet of Things (IoT) devices, contemporary SDIs could also provide real time (or near real time) geospatial information [304] which can be used as an input in several (online or not) geo-processing analysis tools in a specific geographic context [305].

5. Discussion

The necessity for resourcefully managing with environmental monitoring has led numerous scientists to carry out studies on a variety of directions such as prediction and impact assessment, besides monitoring. The modern requirements for small budget applications and management tools are met by the continuously developing modern technology. Thus, advances in geoinformation technologies, such as in RS satellite technology, open spatial databases, and contemporary technologies in GIS, area likely to complement overpriced and time-consuming fieldwork, outdated techniques and enormously problematic data collecting methods.
In support to the above mentioned, this work presented an extensive literature review consisting of 304 references. From this total, 192 refer to applications involving GIS and 150 refer to applications involving RS. 226 refer to applications in specific study areas, 23 refer to applications worldwide and the rest do not relate to specific applications or specific areas. The next figure (Figure 6) presents these facts.
The above figure shows the spatiality of the used references in terms of continents. One of the goals of this work is to present applications from around the world. Thus, the provided reference list covers this goal. In parallel, these references are not from specific regions from each continent, but they are referred to a variety of countries within each continent. Thus, there are many countries that are been covered through the presented references, such as Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Greece, India, Iran, Italy, UK, USA, etc. The next figure (Figure 7) presents these countries.

6. Conclusions

As has been made clear from the present review, continuous monitoring of the environment is subject to an interdisciplinary approach. It includes a number of procedures and actions that cover both the evolution of natural phenomena and their catastrophic effects mainly due to the problem of climate change. However, what is the deep meaning and at the same time the cause that challenges all these changes and the effects on the environment? Why is this explosion of scientific methods and technologies happening today in order for this monitoring to extend to protection measures?
It is concluded that mentioned methodologies, technologies, and tools attempt to provide extensive solutions for disaster detection, modelling and monitoring of the environment. Appropriate geospatial data and procedures together with other socioeconomic data can be used in order to evaluate the risks involved. Thus, these data can provide raw material towards the creation of management plans and mitigation policies. The comprehensive diversity of data with dissimilar features permits the monitoring of the environment to the fullest extent at the time, while trying to reduce uncertainties and limitations.

7. Current Challenges and Future Trends

The United Nations Committee of Experts on Global Geospatial Information Management (UN-GGIM) reports that this is a very crucial decade in terms of future terms in geospatial technologies. The previous decades the digital data provided the basis for the decision making policy for the public and private sector. Nowadays, digital world is producing huge amount of data and especially geospatial data with such a speed, in which the main task is to reveal new ways of understanding and analyze of this data very fast.
Thus, new trends like big data, artificial intelligence with machine learning and deep learning techniques, new EO products, drones, smart cities, autonomous vehicles arise. All these must be managed in a sustainable way in order to maximize the profit that results from them. This will lead to improved monitoring by using for example better satellites, improved spatial and temporal resolution, better modeling/analysis (geostatistical analysis, time series analysis, and geospatial intelligence) in all phases (pre-, plus-, and post-catastrophic) and finally to better response/participation (speed improvement, mobile applications, crowd sourcing, etc.).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Kleomenis Kalogeropoulos; Andreas Tsatsaris; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, Kleomenis Kalogeropoulos (introduction, discussion and groundwater monitoring); Nikolaos Stathopoulos (floods and soil erosion monitoring); Panagiota Louka (frost monitoring); Konstantinos Tsanakas (sea level rise monitoring); Demetrios E. Tsesmelis (drought monitoring); Vassilios Krassanakis (SDI and environmental monitoring); George P. Petropoulos (EO role); Writing—Review and Editing, Andreas Tsatsaris; Kleomenis Kalogeropoulos; Nikolaos Stathopoulos; Panagiota Louka; Konstantinos Tsanakas; Demetrios E. Tsesmelis; Vassilios Krassanakis; George P. Petropoulos; Vasilis Pappas; and Christos Chalkias; Visualization, Kleomenis Kalogeropoulos; Project Administration, Kleomenis Kalogeropoulos; Andreas Tsatsaris; Vasilis Pappas; and Christos Chalkias. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

GPP’s contribution to this work has been supported by NERC’s Newton Fund RCUK project Toward a Fire Early Warning System for Indonesia (ToFEWSI).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Karavitis, C. Drought Management Strategies for Urban Water Supplies: The Case of Metropolitan Athens. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  2. Kalabokidis, K.D.; Karavitis, C.; Vasilakos, C. Automated fire and flood danger assessment system. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Forest Fires in the Wildland-Urban Interface and Rural Areas in Europe; MAICH: Crete, Greece, 2004; pp. 143–153. [Google Scholar]
  3. Kalabokidis, K.; Kallos, G.; Karavitis, C.; Caballero, D.; Tettelaar, P.; Llorens, J.; Vasilakos, C. Automated fire and flood hazard protection system. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Remote Sensing and GIS Applications to Forest Fire Management: Fire Effects Assessment, Zaragoza, Spain, 16–18 June 2005; Universidad de Zaragoza: Zaragoza, Spain, 2005; pp. 167–172. [Google Scholar]
  4. Tsesmelis, D.E.; Oikonomou, P.D.; Vasilakou, C.G.; Skondras, N.A.; Fassouli, V.; Alexandris, S.G.; Grigg, N.S.; Karavitis, C.A. Assessing structural uncertainty caused by different weighting methods on the Standardized Drought Vulnerability Index (SDVI). Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2019, 33, 515–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Karavitis, C.A.; Tsesmelis, D.E.; Skondras, N.A.; Stamatakos, D.; Alexandris, S.; Fassouli, V.; Vasilakou, C.G.; Oikonomou, P.D.; Gregorič, G.; Grigg, N.S.; et al. Linking drought characteristics to impacts on a spatial and temporal scale. Water Policy 2014, 16, 1172–1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wilhite, D.A. Chapter 1 Drought as a Natural Hazard: Concepts and Definitions; Drought Mitigation Center Faculty Publications: Lincoln, NE, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  7. Sonmez, K.; Komuscu, A.U.; Erkan, A.; Turgu, E. An Analysis of Spatial and Temporal Dimension of Drought Vulnerability in Turkey Using the Standardized Precipitation Index. Nat. Hazards 2005, 35, 243–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Grigg, N.S.; Vlachos, E.C. Drought Water Management; International School for Water Resources, Department of Civil Engineering, Colorado State University: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  9. Karavitis, C.A. Drought and urban water supplies: The case of metropolitan Athens. Water Policy 1998, 1, 505–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yevjevich, V.; Da Cunha, L.; Vlachos, E. Coping with Droughts; Water Resources Publications: Littleton, CO, USA, 1983.
  11. Karavitis, C.A. Decision Support Systems for Drought Management Strategies in Metropolitan Athens. Water Int. 1999, 24, 10–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bordi, I.; Fraedrich, K.; Petitta, M.; Sutera, A. Large-Scale Assessment of Drought Variability Based on NCEP/NCAR and ERA-40 Re-Analyses. Water Resour. Manag. 2006, 20, 899–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Mishra, A.K.; Singh, V.P. A review of drought concepts. J. Hydrol. 2010, 391, 202–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Oikonomou, P.D.; Tsesmelis, D.E.; Waskom, R.M.; Grigg, N.S.; Karavitis, C.A. Enhancing the Standardized Drought Vulnerability Index by Integrating Spatiotemporal Information from Satellite and In Situ Data. J. Hydrol. 2019, 569, 265–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Adger, W.N. Vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2006, 16, 268–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Horton, G.; Hanna, L.; Kelly, B. Drought, drying and climate change: Emerging health issues for ageing Australians in rural areas. Australas. J. Ageing 2010, 29, 2–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wilhite, D.A.; Sivakumar, M.V.K.; Pulwarty, R. Managing drought risk in a changing climate: The role of national drought policy. Weather Clim. Extrem. 2014, 3, 4–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ciais, P.; Reichstein, M.; Viovy, N.; Granier, A.; Ogée, J.; Allard, V.; Aubinet, M.; Buchmann, N.; Bernhofer, C.; Carrara, A.; et al. Europe-wide reduction in primary productivity caused by the heat and drought in 2003. Nature 2005, 437, 529–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Oikonomou, P.D.; Karavitis, C.A.; Tsesmelis, D.E.; Kolokytha, E.; Maia, R. Drought Characteristics Assessment in Europe over the Past 50 Years. Water Resources Management. 2020, 34, 4757–4772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Tsesmelis, D.E. Development, Implementation and Evaluation of Drought and Desertification Risk Indicators for the Integrated Management of Water Resources. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Natural Resources Management & Agricultural Engineering, Agricultural University of Athens, Athens, Greece, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  21. Karavitis, C.A.; Alexandris, S.; Tsesmelis, D.E.; Athanasopoulos, G. Application of the Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) in Greece. Water 2011, 3, 787–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Karavitis, C.A.; Chortaria, C.; Alexandris, S.; Vasilakou, C.G.; Tsesmelis, D.E. Development of the standardised precipitation index for Greece. Urban. Water J. 2012, 9, 401–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Pedro-Monzonís, M.; Ferrer, J.; Solera, A.; Estrela, T.; Paredes-Arquiola, J. Key issues for determining the exploitable water resources in a Mediterranean river basin. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 503–504, 319–328. [Google Scholar]
  24. Pedro-Monzonís, M.; Solera, A.; Ferrer, J.; Estrela, T.; Paredes-Arquiola, J. A review of water scarcity and drought indexes in water resources planning and management. J. Hydrol. 2015, 527, 482–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Loucks, D.P. Sustainable Water Resources Management. Water Int. 2000, 25, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wilhite, D.A.; Hayes, M.J.; Knutson, C.; Smith, K.H. Planning for drought: Moving from crisis to risk management. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2000, 36, 697–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kampragou, E.; Apostolaki, S.; Manoli, E.; Froebrich, J.; Assimacopoulos, D. Towards the harmonization of water-related policies for managing drought risks across the EU. Environ. Sci. Policy 2011, 14, 815–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Skondras, N.A.; Karavitis, C.A.; Gkotsis, I.I.; Scott, P.J.B.; Kaly, U.L.; Alexandris, S.G. Application and assessment of the Environmental Vulnerability Index in Greece. Ecol. Indic. 2011, 11, 1699–1706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Skondras, N. Decision Making in Water Resources Management: Development of a Composite Indicator for the Assessment of the Social-Environmental Systems in Terms Resilience and Vulnerability to Water Scarcity and Water Stress. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Natural Resources Management and Agricultural Engineering, Agricultural University of Athens, Athens, Greece, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  30. Cancelliere, A.; Mauro, G.D.; Bonaccorso, B.; Rossi, G. Drought forecasting using the Standardized Precipitation Index. Water Resour. Manag. 2007, 21, 801–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Priscoli, J.D. Keynote Address: Clothing the IWRM Emperor by Using Collaborative Modeling for Decision Support. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2013, 49, 609–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Salas, J.D.; Fu, C.; Cancelliere, A.; Dustin, D.; Bode, D.; Pineda, A.; Vincent, E. Characterizing the Severity and Risk of Drought in the Poudre River, Colorado. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 2005, 131, 383–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Vlachos, E. Prologue: Water peace and conflict management. Water Int. 1990, 15, 185–188. [Google Scholar]
  34. Vlachos, E.; Braga, B. The challenge of urban water management. In Proceedings of the Frontiers in Urban Water Management: Deadlock or Hope; IWA Publishing: London, UK, 2001; pp. 1–36. [Google Scholar]
  35. Grigg, N.S. Water Resources Management. In Water Encyclopedia; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  36. Tsesmelis, D.E.; Karavitis, C.A.; Oikonomou, P.D.; Alexandris, S.; Kosmas, C. Assessment of the Vulnerability to Drought and Desertification Characteristics Using the Standardized Drought Vulnerability Index (SDVI) and the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Index (ESAI). Resources 2019, 8, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Swathandran, S.; Aslam, M.A.M. Assessing the role of SWIR band in detecting agricultural crop stress: A case study of Raichur district, Karnataka, India. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2019, 191, 442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Vlachos, E.C. Drought Management Interfaces; ASCE: Las Vegas, NE, USA, 1982; p. 15. [Google Scholar]
  39. AghaKouchak, A.; Feldman, D.; Hoerling, M.; Huxman, T.; Lund, J. Water and climate: Recognize anthropogenic drought. Nat. News 2015, 524, 409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Tsakiris, G.; Pangalou, D.; Vangelis, H. Regional Drought Assessment Based on the Reconnaissance Drought Index (RDI). Water Resour. Manag. 2007, 21, 821–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Vangelis, H.; Tigkas, D.; Tsakiris, G. The effect of PET method on Reconnaissance Drought Index (RDI) calculation. J. Arid Environ. 2013, 88, 130–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Fassouli, V. Development, Implementation and Assessment of a Composite Index for the Identification and Classification of Drought and Creation of the Corresponding Decision Support System. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Natural Resources Management & Agricultural Engineering, Agricultural University of Athens, Athens, Greece, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  43. Rossi, G.; Benedini, M.; Tsakiris, G.; Giakoumakis, S. On regional drought estimation and analysis. Water Resour. Manag. 1992, 6, 249–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Pimentel, D. Soil erosion: A food and environmental threat. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2006, 8, 119–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lal, R. Soil erosion and the global carbon budget. Environ. Int. 2003, 29, 437–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Milliman, J.D.; Syvitski, J.P.M. Geomorphic/tectonic control of sediment discharge to the ocean: The importance of small mountainous rivers. J. Geol. 1992, 100, 525–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Walling, D.E.; Webb, B.W. Erosion and sediment yield: A global overview. In Erosion and Sediment Yield: Global and Regional Perspectives Proceedings of the Exeter Symposium; Walling, D.E., Webb, B.W., Eds.; IAHS Publication No. 236; ISI: Exeter, UK, 1996; pp. 3–19. [Google Scholar]
  48. Polykretis, C.; Alexakis, D.D.; Grillakis, M.G.; Manoudakis, S. Assessment of Intra-Annual and Inter-Annual Variabilities of Soil Erosion in Crete Island (Greece) by Incorporating the Dynamic “Nature” of R and C-Factors in RUSLE Modeling. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 2439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lai, R. Soil degradation by erosion. Land Degrad. Dev. 2001, 12, 519–539. [Google Scholar]
  50. Xu, L.; Xu, X.; Meng, X. Risk assessment of soil erosion in different rainfall scenarios by RUSLE model coupled with Information Diffusion Model: A case study of Bohai Rim, China. Catena 2013, 100, 74–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Nearing, M.A.; Pruski, F.F.; O’neal, M.R. Expected climate change impacts on soil erosion rates: A review. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2004, 59, 43–50. [Google Scholar]
  52. Ganasri, B.P.; Ramesh, H. Assessment of soil erosion by RUSLE model using remote sensing and GIS-A case study of Nethravathi Basin. Geosci. Front. 2016, 7, 953–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Oldeman, L.R.; Van Engelen, V.W.P.; Pulles, J.H.M. The extent of human induced soil degradation. In Annex 5 of World Man of the Status of Human-Induced Soil Degradation: An. Explanatory Note, 2nd ed.; Oldeman, L.R., Hakkeling, R.T.A., Sombroek, W.G., Eds.; International Soil Reference and Information Center: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  54. Fistikoglu, O.; Harmancioglu, N.B. Integration of GIS with USLE in assessment of soil erosion. Water Resour. Manag. 2002, 16, 447–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kothyari, U.C. Erosion and sediment problems in India. In Proceedings of the Exeter Symposium on Erosion and Sediment Yield: Global and Regional Perspectives; IAHS Publication No. 236; ISI: Exeter, UK, 1996; pp. 531–540. [Google Scholar]
  56. Jha, M.K.; Paudel, R.C. Erosion predictions by empirical models in a mountainous watershed in Nepal. J. Spat. Hydrol. 2010, 10, 89–102. [Google Scholar]
  57. Wischmeier, W.H.; Smith, D.D. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses: A Guide to Conservation Planning; Agriculture Handbook No. 537; USDA: Washington, DC, USA, 1978.
  58. Karydas, C.G.; Panagos, P.; Gitas, I.Z. A classification of water erosion models according to their geospatial characteristics. Int. J. Digit. Earth 2014, 7, 229–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zhang, Z.-H.; Gang, H.U.; Jian, N.I. Effects of Topographical and Edaphic Factors on the Distribution of Plant Communities in Two Subtropical Karst Forests, Southwestern China. J. Mt. Sci. 2013, 10, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lee, G.S.; Lee, K.H. Scaling effect for estimating soil loss in the RUSLE model using remotely sensed geospatial data in Korea. J. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2006, 3, 135–157. [Google Scholar]
  61. Remortel Van, R.; Hamilton, M.; Hickey, R. Estimating the LS factor for RUSLE through iterative slope length processing of digital elevation data. Cartography 2001, 30, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Eckelmann, W.; Baritz, R.; Bialousz, S.; Bielek, P.; Carré, F.; Hrušková, B.; Jones, R.J.; Kibblewhite, M.; Kozak, J.; Le Bas, C.; et al. Common Criteria for Risk Area Identification According to Soil Threats; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Brussels, Belgium, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  63. Van Beek, C.L.; Tóth, T.; Hagyó, A.; Tóth, G.; Recatalá Boix, L.; Añó Vidal, C.; Malet, J.P.; Maquaire, O.; Van den Akker, J.J.H.; Van der Zee, S.; et al. The need for harmonizing methodologies for assessing soil threats in Europe. Soil Use Manag. 2010, 26, 299–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Rozos, D.; Skilodimou, H.D.; Loupasakis, C.; Bathrellos, G.D. Application of the revised universal soil loss equation model on landslide prevention. An example from N. Euboea (Evia) Island, Greece. Environ. Earth Sci. 2013, 70, 3255–3266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Fernandez, P.; Delgado, E.; Lopez-Alonso, M.; Poyatos, J.M. GIS environmental information analysis of the Darro River basin as the key for the management and hydrological forest restoration. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 613, 1154–1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. De Jong, S.M. Applications of reflective remote sensing for land degradation studies in a Mediterranean environment. Ph.D. Thesis, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  67. De Vente, J.; Poesen, J. Predicting soil erosion and sediment yield at the basin scale: Scale issues and semi-quantitative models. Earth Sci. Rev. 2005, 71, 95–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Giordano, A.; Bonfils, P.; Briggs, D.J.; de Sequeira, E.M.; de Laburu, C.R.; Yassoglou, N. The methodological approach to soil erosion and important land resources evaluation of the European Community. Soil Technol. 1991, 4, 65–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Stathopoulos, N.; Lykoudi, E.; Vasileiou, E.; Rozos, D.; Dimitrakopoulos, D. Erosion Vulnerability Assessment of Sperchios River Basin, in East Central Greece—A GIS Based Analysis. Open J. Geol. 2017, 7, 621–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Gitas, Ι.Z.; Douros, K.; Minakou, C.; Silleos, G.N.; Karydas, C.G. Multi-temporal soil erosion risk assessment in N. Chalkidiki using a modified USLE raster model. EARSeL eProceedings 2009, 8, 40–52. [Google Scholar]
  71. Fernandez, C.; Wu, J.Q.; McCool, D.Q.; Stockle, C.O. Estimating water erosion and sediment yield with GIS, RUSLE and SEDD. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2003, 58, 128–136. [Google Scholar]
  72. Alemayehu, F.; Taha, N.; Nyssen, J.; Girma, A.; Zenebe, A.; Behailu, M.; Deckers, S.; Poesen, J. The impacts of watershed management on land use and land cover dynamics in Eastern Tigray (Ethiopia). Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2009, 53, 192–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Rahman, M.R.; Shi, Z.H.; Chongfa, C. Soil erosion hazard evaluation—An integrated use of remote sensing, GIS and statistical approaches with biophysical parameters towards management strategies. Ecol. Model. 2009, 220, 1724–1734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Alexakis, D.D.; Hadjimitsis, D.G.; Agapiou, A. Integrated use of remote sensing, GIS and precipitation data for the assessment of soil erosion rate in the catchment area of “Yialias” in Cyprus. Atmos. Res. 2013, 131, 108–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Künzer, C.; Ottinger, M.; Liu, G.; Sun, B.; Baumhauer, R.; Dech, S. Earth observation-based coastal zone monitoring of the Yellow River Delta: Dynamics in China’s second largest oil producing region over four decades. Appl. Geogr. 2014, 55, 92–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Alexandridis, T.K.; Sotiropoulou, A.M.; Bilas, G.; Karapetsas, N.; Silleos, N.G. The Effects of Seasonality in Estimating the C-Factor of Soil Erosion Studies. Land Degrad. Dev. 2015, 26, 596–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ghosh, M.K.; Kumar, L.; Roy, C. Monitoring the coastline change of Hatiya Island in Bangladesh using remote sensing techniques. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2015, 101, 137–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. AbdelRahman, M.A.; Natarajan, A.; Hegde, R. Assessment of land suitability and capability by integrating remote sensing and GIS for agriculture in Chamarajanagar district, Karnataka, India. Egypt. J. Remote Sens. Space Sci. 2016, 19, 125–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Neugirg, F.; Stark, M.; Kaiser, A.; Vlacilova, M.; Della Seta, M.; Vergari, F.; Schmidt, J.; Becht, M.; Haas, F. Erosion processes in calanchi in the Upper Orcia Valley, Southern Tuscany, Italy based on multitemporal high-resolution terrestrial LiDAR and UAV surveys. Geomorphology 2016, 269, 8–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Rayegani, B.; Barati, S.; Sohrabi, T.A.; Sonboli, B. Remotely sensed data capacities to assess soil degradation. Egypt. J. Remote Sens. Space Sci. 2016, 19, 207–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Dewan, A.; Corner, R.; Saleem, A.; Rahman, M.M.; Haider, M.R.; Rahman, M.M.; Sarker, M.H. Assessing channel changes of the Ganges-Padma River system in Bangladesh using Landsat and hydrological data. Geomorphology 2017, 276, 257–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Chappell, A.; Webb, N.P.; Guerschman, J.P.; Thomas, D.T.; Mata, G.; Handcock, R.N.; Leys, J.F.; Butler, H.J. Improving ground cover monitoring for wind erosion assessment using MODIS BRDF parameters. Remote Sens. Environ. 2018, 204, 756–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Nigel, R.; Rughooputh, S. Mapping of monthly soil erosion risk of mainland Mauritius and its aggregation with delineated basins. Geomorphology 2010, 114, 101–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Jain, M.K.; Das, D. Estimation of sediment yield and areas of soil erosion and deposition for watershed prioritization using GIS and remote sensing. Water Resour. Manag. 2010, 24, 2091–2112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Chou, W.C. Modelling watershed scale soil loss prediction and sediment yield estimation. Water Resour. Manag. 2010, 24, 2075–2090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Hui, L.; Xiaoling, C.; Lim, K.J.; Xiaobin, C.; Sagong, M. Assessment of soil erosion and sediment yield in Liao watershed, Jiangxi Province, China, Using USLE, GIS, and RS. J. Earth Sci. 2010, 21, 941–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Ouyang, W.; Hao, F.; Skidmore, A.K.; Toxopeus, A.G. Soil erosion and sediment yield and their relationships with vegetation cover in upper stream of the Yellow River. Sci. Total Environ. 2010, 409, 396–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Demirci, A.; Karaburun, A. Estimation of soil erosion using RUSLE in a GIS framework: A case study in the Buyukcekmece Lake watershed, northwest Turkey. Environ. Earth Sci. 2012, 66, 903–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Mhangara, P.; Kakembo, V.; Lim, K.J. Soil erosion risk assessment of the Keiskamma catchment, South Africa using GIS and remote sensing. Environ. Earth Sci. 2012, 65, 2087–2102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Pradhan, B.; Chaudhari, A.; Adinarayana, J.; Buchroithner, M.F. Soil erosion assessment and its correlation with landslide events using remote sensing data and GIS: A case study at Penang Island, Malaysia. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2012, 184, 715–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Prasannakumar, V.; Vijith, H.; Abinod, S.; Geetha, N. Estimation of soil erosion risk within a small mountainous sub-watershed in Kerala, India, using Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) and geo-information technology. Geosci. Front. 2012, 3, 209–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Ranzi, R.; Le, T.H.; Rulli, M.C. A RUSLE approach to model suspended sediment load in the Lo river (Vietnam): Effects of reservoirs and land use changes. J. Hydrol. 2012, 422, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Esteves, T.C.J.; Kirkby, M.J.; Shakesby, R.A.; Ferreira, A.J.D.; Soares, J.A.A.; Irvine, B.J.; Ferreira, C.S.S.; Coelho, C.O.A.; Bento, C.P.M.; Carreiras, M.A. Mitigating land degradation caused by wildfire: Application of the PESERA model to fire-affected sites in central Portugal. Geoderma 2012, 191, 40–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Chatterjee, S.; Krishna, A.P.; Sharma, A.P. Geospatial assessment of soil erosion vulnerability at watershed level in some sections of the Upper Subarnarekha river basin, Jharkhand, India. Environ. Earth Sci. 2014, 71, 357–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Sun, W.; Shao, Q.; Liu, J.; Zhai, J. Assessing the effects of land use and topography on soil erosion on the Loess Plateau in China. Catena 2014, 121, 151–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Cilek, A.; Berberoglu, S.; Kirkby, M.; Irvine, B.; Donmez, C.; Erdogan, M.A. Erosion modelling in a Mediterranean subcatchment under climate change scenarios using Pan-European Soil Erosion Risk Assessment (PESERA). Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2015, 40, 359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Aiello, A.; Adamo, M.; Canora, F. Remote sensing and GIS to assess soil erosion with RUSLE3D and USPED at river basin scale in southern Italy. Catena 2015, 131, 174–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Gaubi, I.; Chaabani, A.; Mammou, A.B.; Hamza, M.H. A GIS-based soil erosion prediction using the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) (Lebna watershed, Cap Bon, Tunisia). Nat. Hazards 2017, 86, 219–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Bera, A. Estimation of soil loss by USLE model using GIS and remote sensing techniques: A case study of Muhuri River Basin, Tripura, India. Eurasian J. Soil Sci. 2017, 6, 206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Bouguerra, H.; Bouanani, A.; Khanchoul, K.; Derdous, O.; Tachi, S.E. Mapping erosion prone areas in the Bouhamdane watershed (Algeria) using the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation through GIS. J. Water Land Dev. 2017, 32, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Karydas, C.G.; Panagos, P. The G2 erosion model: An algorithm for month-time step assessments. Environ. Res. 2018, 161, 256–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Leh, M.; Bajwa, S.; Chaubey, I. Impact of land use change on erosion risk: An integrated remote sensing, geographic information system and modeling methodology. Land Degrad. Dev. 2013, 24, 409–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Park, S.; Oh, C.; Jeon, S.; Jung, H.; Choi, C. Soil erosion risk in Korean watersheds, assessed using the revised universal soil loss equation. J. Hydrol. 2011, 399, 263–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Chowdary, V.M.; Chakraborthy, D.; Jeyaram, A.; Murthy, Y.K.; Sharma, J.R.; Dadhwal, V.K. Multi-criteria decision making approach for watershed prioritization using analytic hierarchy process technique and GIS. Water Resour. Manag. 2013, 27, 3555–3571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Badar, B.; Romshoo, S.A.; Khan, M.A. Integrating biophysical and socioeconomic information for prioritizing watersheds in a Kashmir Himalayan lake: A remote sensing and GIS approach. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2013, 185, 6419–6445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Mello, C.D.; Viola, M.R.; Beskow, S.; Norton, L.D. Multivariate models for annual rainfall erosivity in Brazil. Geoderma 2013, 202, 88–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Thomas, J.; Joseph, S.; Thrivikramji, K.P. Assessment of soil erosion in a tropical mountain river basin of the southern Western Ghats, India using RUSLE and GIS. Geosci. Front. 2018, 9, 893–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Macedo, D.R.; Hughes, R.M.; Kaufmann, P.R.; Callisto, M. Development and validation of an environmental fragility index (EFI) for the neotropical savannah biome. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 635, 1267–1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Tetzlaff, B.; Friedrich, K.; Vorderbrügge, T.; Vereecken, H.; Wendland, F. Distributed modelling of mean annual soil erosion and sediment delivery rates to surface waters. Catena 2013, 102, 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Shi, Z.H.; Cai, C.F.; Ding, S.W.; Wang, T.W.; Chow, T.L. Soil conservation planning at the small watershed level using RUSLE with GIS: A case study in the Three Gorge Area of China. Catena 2004, 55, 33–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Şahin, Ş.; Kurum, E. Erosion risk analysis by GIS in environmental impact assessments: A case study—Seyhan Köprü Dam construction. J. Environ. Manag. 2002, 66, 239–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Millward, A.A.; Mersey, J.E. Conservation strategies for effective land management of protected areas using an erosion prediction information system (EPIS). J. Environ. Manag. 2001, 61, 329–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Aguirre, J.A.M.; Sánchez, J.C.R. Caracterización de las cuencas hidrográficas, objeto de restauración higrológico-forestal, mediante modelos hidrológicos. Ing. Del Agua 1994, 1, 2. [Google Scholar]
  114. Tabesh, M.; Saber, H. A prioritization model for rehabilitation of water distribution networks using GIS. Water Resour. Manag. 2012, 26, 225–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Tang, Z.; Li, X.; Zhao, N.; Li, R.; Harvey, E.F. Developing a restorable wetland index for rainwater basin wetlands in south-central Nebraska: A multi-criteria spatial analysis. Wetlands 2012, 32, 975–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Nekhay, O.; Arriaza, M.; Boerboom, L. Evaluation of soil erosion risk using Analytic Network Process and GIS: A case study from Spanish mountain olive plantations. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 3091–3104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. De Paz, J.M.; Sánchez, J.; Visconti, F. Combined use of GIS and environmental indicators for assessment of chemical, physical and biological soil degradation in a Spanish Mediterranean region. J. Environ. Manag. 2006, 79, 150–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Liu, C.; Frasier, P.; Kumar, L.; Macgregor, C. Catchmentwide wetland assessment and prioritization using the multi-criteria decision making method TOPIS. Environ. Manag. 2006, 38, 316–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Metternicht, G.; Gonzalez, S. FUERO: Foundations of a fuzzy exploratory model for soil erosion hazard prediction. Environ. Model. Softw. 2005, 20, 715–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Navas, A.; Machín, J.; Soto, J. Assessing soil erosion in a Pyrenean mountain catchment using GIS and fallout 137Cs. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2005, 105, 493–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Finlayson, D.P.; Montgomery, D.R. Modelling large-scale fluvial erosion in geographic information systems. Geomorphology 2003, 53, 147–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Chowdhury, A.; Jha, M.K.; Chowdary, V.M.; Mal, B.C. Integrated remote sensing and GIS-based approach for assessing groundwater potential in West Medinipur district, West Bengal, India. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2009, 30, 231–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Magesh, N.S.; Chandrasekar, N.; Soundranayagam, J.P. Delineation of groundwater potential zones in Theni district, Tamil Nadu, using remote sensing, GIS and MIF techniques. Geosci. Front. 2012, 3, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Babiker, I.S.; Mohamed, M.A.; Hiyama, T. Assessing groundwater quality using GIS. Water Resour. Manag. 2007, 21, 699–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Mukherjee, S.; Veer, V.; Tyagi, S.K.; Sharma, V. Sedimentation study of Hirakud reservoir through remote sensing techniques. J. Spat. Hydrol. 2007, 7, 1. [Google Scholar]
  126. Saraf, A.K.; Choudhury, P.R. Integrated remote sensing and GIS for groundwater exploration and identification of artificial recharge sites. Int. J. Remote Sens. 1998, 19, 1825–1841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Babiker, I.S.; Mohamed, M.A.; Terao, H.; Kato, K.; Ohta, K. Assessment of groundwater contamination by nitrate leaching from intensive vegetable cultivation using geographical information system. Environ. Int. 2004, 29, 1009–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Shetkar, R.V.; Mahesha, A. Tropical, seasonal river basin development: Hydrogeological analysis. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2004, 16, 280–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Sener, E.; Davraz, A.; Ozcelik, M. An integration of GIS and remote sensing in groundwater investigations: A case study in Burdur, Turkey. Hydrogeol. J. 2005, 13, 826–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Engman, E.T.; Gurney, R.J. Remote Sensing in Hydrology; Chapman and Hall: London, UK, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  131. Jha, M.K.; Chowdhury, A.; Chowdary, V.M.; Peiffer, S. Groundwater management and development by integrated remote sensing and geographic information systems: Prospects and constraints. Water Resour. Manag. 2007, 21, 427–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Todd, D.K. Groundwater Hydrogeology, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Son: New York, NY, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  133. Jha, M.K.; Peiffer, S. Applications of Remote Sensing and GIS Technologies in Groundwater Hydrology: Past, Present and Future; BayCEER: Bayreuth, Germany, 2006; p. 201. [Google Scholar]
  134. Tiwari, A.; Rai, B. Hydromorphogeological mapping for groundwater prospecting using landsat-MSS images—a case study of part of Dhanbad District, Bihar. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens. 1996, 24, 281–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Das, S.; Behera, S.C.; Kar, A.; Narendra, P.; Guha, S. Hydrogeomorphological mapping in ground water exploration using remotely sensed data—a case study in keonjhar district, orissa. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens. 1997, 25, 247–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Thomas, A.; Sharma, P.K.; Sharma, M.K.; Sood, A. Hydrogeomorphological mapping in assessing ground water by using remote sensing data—A case study in lehra gaga block, sangrur district, Punjab. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens. 1999, 27, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Harinarayanan, P.; Gopalakrishna, G.S.; Balasubramanian, A. Remote sensing data for groundwater development and management in Keralapura watersheds of Cauvery Basin, Karnataka, India. Indian Mineral. 2000, 34, 11–17. [Google Scholar]
  138. Muralidhar, M.; Raju, K.R.K.; Raju, K.S.V.P.; Prasad, J.R. Remote sensing applications for the evaluation of water resources in rainfed area, Warangal district, Andhra Pradesh. Indian Miner. 2000, 34, 33–40. [Google Scholar]
  139. Chowdhury, A.; Jha, M.K.; Chowdary, V.M. Delineation of groundwater recharge zones and identification of artificial recharge sites in West Medinipur district, West Bengal, using RS, GIS and MCDM techniques. Environ. Earth Sci. 2010, 59, 1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Stafford, D.B. Civil Engineering Applications of Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems; ASCE: Reston, VA, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  141. Goodchild, M.F. The state of GIS for environmental problem-solving. In Environmental Modeling with GIS; IntechOpen: London, UK, 1993; pp. 8–15. [Google Scholar]
  142. Chopra, R.; Sharma, P.K. Landform analysis and ground water potential in the Bist Doab area, Punjab, India. Int. J. Remote Sens. 1993, 14, 3221–3229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Sander, P. Water-well siting in hard-rock areas: Identifying promising targets using a probabilistic approach. Hydrogeol. J. 1997, 5, 32–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Teeuw, R.M. Groundwater exploration using remote sensing and a low-cost geographical information system. Hydrogeol. J. 1995, 3, 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Dar, I.A.; Sankar, K.; Dar, M.A. Deciphering groundwater potential zones in hard rock terrain using geospatial technology. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2011, 173, 597–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Kumar, S.K.; Chandrasekar, N.; Seralathan, P.; Godson, P.S.; Magesh, N.S. Hydrogeochemical study of shallow carbonate aquifers, Rameswaram Island, India. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2012, 184, 4127–4138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Jankowski, P. Integrating geographical information systems and multiple criteria decision-making methods. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Syst. 1995, 9, 251–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Solomon, S.; Quiel, F. Groundwater study using remote sensing and geographic information systems (GIS) in the central highlands of Eritrea. Hydrogeol. J. 2006, 14, 229–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Prasad, R.K.; Mondal, N.C.; Banerjee, P.; Nandakumar, M.V.; Singh, V.S. Deciphering potential groundwater zone in hard rock through the application of GIS. Environ. Geol. 2008, 55, 467–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Gustafsson, P. High Resolution Satellite Imagery and GIS as a Dynamic Tool in Groundwater Exploration in a Semi-arid Area; IAHS Publication: Wallingford, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  151. Snyder, R.L.; Melo-Abreu, J.D. Frost Protection: Fundamentals, Practice and Economics; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2005; Volume 1, pp. 1–240.
  152. Kramer, P.J. Water Relations of Plants; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  153. Waring, R.H.; Schlesinger, W.H. Forest Ecosystems, Concepts and Management; Academic Press: Orlando, FL, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  154. Aber, J.D.; Melillo, J.M. Terrestrial Ecosystems; Saunders College Publishing: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  155. Blennow, K.; Lindkvist, L. Models of low temperature and high irradiance and their application to explaining the risk of seedling mortality. For. Ecol. Manag. 2000, 135, 289–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Thornes, J.E. Road salting—An international cost/benefit review. In 8th World Salt Symposium; Geertman, R.M., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands; New York, NY, USA, 2000; Volume 2, pp. 787–790. [Google Scholar]
  157. Chapman, L.; Thornes, J.E.; Bradley, A.V. Modelling of road surface temperature from a geographical parameter database. Part 2: Numerical. Meteorol. Appl. 2001, 8, 421–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Louka, P.; Papanikolaou, I.; Petropoulos, G.P.; Kalogeropoulos, K.; Stathopoulos, N. Identifying Spatially Correlated Patterns between Surface Water and Frost Risk Using EO Data and Geospatial Indices. Water 2020, 12, 700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Simões, D.D.S.; Fontana, D.C.; Vicari, M.B. Use of LST images from MODIS/AQUA sensor as an indication of frost occurrence in RS. Rev. Bras. De Eng. Agrícola E Ambient. 2015, 19, 920–925. [Google Scholar]
  160. Benali, A.; Carvalho, A.C.; Nunes, J.P.; Carvalhais, N.; Santos, A. Estimating air surface temperature in Portugal using MODIS LST data. Remote Sens. Environ. 2012, 124, 108–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Willmott, C.J.; Robeson, S.M. Climatologically aided interpolation (CAI) of terrestrial air temperature. Int. J. Climatol. 1995, 15, 221–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Czajkowski, K.P.; Goward, S.N.; Stadler, S.J.; Walz, A. Thermal remote sensing of near surface environmental variables: Application over the Oklahoma Mesonet. Prof. Geogr. 2000, 52, 345–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. NASA—National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Available online: https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/dataset_discovery/modis/modis_products_table/myd11a1 (accessed on 16 March 2013).
  164. NASA—National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Available online: https://cmr.earthdata.nasa.gov/search/concepts/C1299783630-LPDAAC_ECS (accessed on 16 February 2016).
  165. Yu, X.; Guo, X.; Wu, Z. Land surface temperature retrieval from Landsat 8 TIRS—Comparison between radiativetransfer equation-based method, split window algorithm and single channel method. Remote Sens. 2014, 6, 9829–9852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. ESA—European Space Agency. Available online: https://sentinels.copernicus.eu/documents/247904/2731673/Sentinel-3-SLSTR-level-2-Land-Product-Notice (accessed on 11 March 2020).
  167. Gao, F.; Masek, J.; Schwaller, M.; Hall, F. On the blending of the Landsat and MODIS surface reflectance: Predicting daily Landsat surface reflectance. IEEE. Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2006, 44, 2207–2218. [Google Scholar]
  168. Coll, C.; Caselles, V.; Valor, E.; Niclòs, R.; Sánchez, J.M.; Galve, J.M.; Mira, M. Temperature and emissivity separation from ASTER data for low spectral contrast surfaces. Remote Sens. Environ. 2007, 110, 162–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Liu, H.; Weng, Q. Enhancing temporal resolution of satellite imagery for public health studies: A case study of West Nile Virus outbreak in Los Angeles in 2007. Remote Sens. Environ. 2012, 117, 57–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Semmens, K.A.; Anderson, M.C.; Kustas, W.P.; Gao, F.; Alfieri, J.G.; McKee, L.; Xia, T. Monitoring daily evapotranspiration over two California vineyards using Landsat 8 in a multi-sensor data fusion approach. Remote Sens. Environ. 2016, 185, 155–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Smith, K.; Petley, D.N. Environmental Hazards: Assessing Risk and Reducing Disaster, 5th ed.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  172. Maantay, J.; Maroko, A. Mapping urban risk: Flood hazards, race, and environmental justice in New York. Appl. Geogr. 2009, 29, 111–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Smith, K. Environmental Hazards Assessing Risk and Reducing Disaster, 3rd ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  174. Wang, Y. Using Landsat 7 TM data acquired days after a flood event to delineate the maximum flood extent on a coastal floodplain. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2004, 25, 959–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Lekkas, E. Natural and Technological Disasters; Access Pre-Press, 2000; Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226053524_Natural_and_Technological_Disasters (accessed on 2 February 2021).
  176. Handmer, J.W. Flood hazard maps as public information: An assessment within the context of the Canadian flood damage reduction program. Can. Water Resour. J. 1980, 5, 82–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Handmer, J.W.; Milne, J. Flood maps as public information. In Proceedings of the Floodplain Management Conference, Canberra, Australia, 7–10 May 1980; Conference Series 4. Australian Water Resources Council: Canberra, Australia; Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra, Australia, 1981; pp. 1–26. [Google Scholar]
  178. Deekshatulu, B.L.; Lohani, B.N.; Narayan, L.R.A. Disaster warning and assessment by remote sensing. In Proceedings of the Southeast Asian Conference on Soil Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan, 19–28 May 1980; pp. 819–824. [Google Scholar]
  179. Hubert-Moy, L.; Ganzetti, I.; Bariou, R.; Mounier, J. Maps of flooded areas in Ille-et-Vilaine through remote sensing [Une cartographie des zones inondables en Ille-et-Vilaine par teledetection]. Norois 1992, 155, 337–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Biggin, D.S.; Blyth, K. A comparison of ERS-1 satellite radar and aerial photography for river flood mapping. J. Chart. Inst. Water Environ. Manag. 1996, 10, 59–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Webster, T.L.; Forbes, D.L.; Dickie, S.; Shreenan, R. Using topographic lidar to map flood risk from storm-surge events for Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada. Can. J. Remote Sens. 2004, 30, 64–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Dewan, A.M.; Kumamoto, T.; Nishigaki, M. Flood hazard delineation in Greater Dhaka, Bangladesh using an integrated GIS and remote sensing approach. Geocarto Int. 2006, 21, 33–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Knebl, M.R.; Yang, Z.L.; Hutchison, K.; Maidment, D.R. Regional scale flood modeling using NEXRAD rainfall, GIS, and HEC-HMS/RAS: A case study for the San Antonio River Basin Summer 2002 storm event. J. Environ. Manag. 2005, 75, 325–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Stathopoulos, N.; Louka, P.; Kalogeropoulos, K.; Karymbalis, E.; Papadopoulos, A.; Chalkias, C. Flood Impact Assessment via SAR data analysis and GIS. Applications in Sperchios River Basin Greece. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference of GIS and Spatial Analysis in Agriculture and Environment, Athens, Greece, 25–26 May 2017. [Google Scholar]
  185. Stathopoulos, N.; Kalogeropoulos, K.; Polykretis, C.; Skrimizeas, P.; Louka, P.; Karymbalis, E.; Chalkias, C. Introducing Flood Susceptibility Index Using Remote-Sensing Data and Geographic Information Systems: Empirical Analysis in Sperchios River Basin, Greece. In Remote Sensing of Hydrometeorological Hazards; Petropoulos, G., Islam, T., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  186. Stathopoulos, N.; Kalogeropoulos, K.; Dimitriou, E.; Skrimizeas, P.; Louka, P.; Papadias, V.; Chalkias, C. A Robust Remote Sensing–Spatial Modeling–Remote Sensing (R-M-R) Approach for Flood Hazard Assessment. In Spatial Modeling in GIS and R for Earth and Environmental Sciences; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 391–410. [Google Scholar]
  187. Pulvirenti, L.; Pierdicca, N.; Chini, M.; Guerriero, L. An algorithm for operational flood mapping from synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data using fuzzy logic. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2011, 11, 529–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Stancalie, G.; Craciunescu, V. Contribution of earth observation data supplied by the new satellite sensors to flood disaster assessment and hazard reduction. In Geo-information for Disaster Management; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2005; pp. 1315–1332. [Google Scholar]
  189. Tapia-Silva, F.O.; Nuñez, J.M.; López-López, D. Using SRTM DEM, Landsat ETM+ images and a distributed rainfall-runoff model to define inundation hazard maps on urban canyons. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Symposium on Remote Sensing of Environment: Sustainable Development Through Global Earth Observations, San José, Costa Rica, 25–29 June 2007; p. 4. [Google Scholar]
  190. Skakun, S.; Kussul, N.; Shelestov, A.; Kussul, O. Flood hazard and flood risk assessment using a time series of satellite images: A case study in Namibia. Risk Anal. 2014, 34, 1521–1537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Pelletier, J.D.; Mayer, L.; Pearthree, P.A.; House, P.K.; Demsey, K.A.; Klawon, J.E.; Vincent, K.R. An integrated approach to flood hazard assessment on alluvial fans using numerical modeling, field mapping, and remote sensing. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am. 2005, 117, 1167–1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Rozalis, S.; Morin, E.; Yair, Y.; Price, C. Flash flood prediction using an uncalibrated hydrological model and radar rainfall data in a Mediterranean watershed under changing hydrological conditions. J. Hydrol. 2010, 394, 245–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Kourgialas, N.N.; Karatzas, G.P.; Nikolaidis, N.P. An integrated framework for the hydrologic simulation of a complex geomorphological river basin. J. Hydrol. 2010, 381, 308–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Fugura, A.A.; Billa, L.; Pradhan, B.; Mohamed, T.A.; Rawashdeh, S. Coupling of hydrodynamic modeling and aerial photogrammetry-derived digital surface model for flood simulation scenarios using GIS: Kuala Lumpur flood, Malaysia. Disaster Adv. 2011, 4, 20–28. [Google Scholar]
  195. Paiva, R.C.D.; Collischonn, W.; Buarque, D.C. Validation of a full hydrodynamic model for large-scale hydrologic modelling in the Amazon. Hydrol. Process. 2013, 27, 333–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Fortin, J.; Turcotte, R.; Massicotte, S.; Moussa, R.; Fitzback, J.; Villeneuve, J. Distributed watershed model compatible with remote sensing and GIS data I: Description of model. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2001, 6, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Lacroix, M.P.; Martz, L.W.; Kite, G.W.; Garbrecht, J. Using digital terrain analysis modeling techniques for the parameterization of a hydrologic model. Environ. Model. Softw. 2002, 17, 27–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Thorne, R.; Woo, M. Efficacy of a hydrologic model in simulating discharge from a large mountainous catchment. J. Hydrol. 2006, 330, 301–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Neitsch, S.L.; Arnold, A.G.; Kiniry, J.R.; Srinivasan, J.R.; Williams, J.R. Soil and Water Assessment Tool User’s Manual: Version 2000; TR-192; Texas Water Resources Institute: College Station, TX, USA, 2002.
  200. Abbaspour, K.C.; Yang, J.; Maximov, I.; Siber, R.; Bogner, K.; Mieleitner, J.; Zobrist, J.; Srinivasan, R. Modelling hydrology and water quality in the pre-alpine/alpine Thur watershed using SWAT. J. Hydrol. 2007, 333, 413–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Kalogeropoulos, K.; Chalkias, C.; Pissias, E.; Karalis, S. Application of the SWAT model for the investigation of reservoirs creation. In Advances in the Research of Aquatic Environment; Lambrakis, N., Stournaras, G., Katsanou, K., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany; New York, NY, USA, 2011; Volume II, pp. 71–79. [Google Scholar]
  202. Pissias, E.; Psarogiannis, A.; Kalogeropoulos, K. Water savings-a necessity in a changing environment. The case of small reservoirs. In Proceedings of the WIN4life Conference, Tinos, Greece, 19–21 September 2013. [Google Scholar]
  203. Kalogeropoulos, K.; Chalkias, C. Modelling the impacts of climate change on surface runoff in small Mediterranean catchments: Empirical evidence from Greece. Water Environ. J. 2013, 27, 505–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Arnold, J.G.; Fohrer, N. SWAT2000: Current capabilities and research opportunities in applied watershed modeling. Hydrol. Process. 2005, 19, 563–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Amengual, A.; Romero, R.; Gomez, M.; Martin, A.; Alonso, S. A Hydrometeorological Modeling Study of a Flash-Flood Event over Catalonia, Spain. J. Hydrometeorol. 2007, 8, 282–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. McColl, C.; Aggett, G. Land-use forecasting and hydrologic model integration for improved land-use decision support. J. Environ. Manag. 2007, 84, 494–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Gul, G.O.; Harmancioglu, N.; Gul, A. A combined hydrologic and hydraulic modeling approach for testing efficiency of structural flood control measures. Nat. Hazards 2010, 54, 245–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Popescu, I.; Jonoski, A.; Van Andel, S.J.; Onyari, E.; Moya Quiroga, V.G. Integrated modelling for flood risk mitigation in Romania: Case study of the Timis–Bega river basin. River Basin Manag. 2010, 8, 269–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Choudhari, K.; Panigrahi, B.; Chandra, J.P. Simulation of rainfall-runoff process using HEC-HMS model for Balijore Nala watershed, Odisha, India. Int. J. Geomat. Geosci. 2014, 5, 253–265. [Google Scholar]
  210. Mendes, J.; Maia, R. Hydrologic Modelling Calibration for Operational Flood Forecasting. Water Resour. Manag. 2016, 30, 5671–5685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Al-Zahrani, Μ.; Al-Areeq, Α.; Sharif, Η.Ο. Estimating urban flooding potential near the outlet of an arid catchment in Saudi Arabia. Geomat. Nat. Hazards Risk 2017, 8, 672–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Jia, Y.; Wang, H.; Zhou, Z.; Qiu, Y.; Luo, X.; Wang, J.; Yan, D.; Qin, D. Development of the WEP-L distributed hydrological model and dynamic assessment of water resources in the Yellow River basin. J. Hydrol. 2006, 331, 606–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Ranaee, Ε.; Mahmoodian, Μ.; Quchani, S.R. The Combination of HEC-Geo-HMS, HEC-HMS and MIKE11 Software Utilize in a Two Branches River Flood Routing Modeling. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Environmental and Computer Science, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 28–30 December 2009; pp. 317–321. [Google Scholar]
  214. Van der Knijff, J.M.; Younis, J.; De Roo, A.P.J. LISFLOOD: A GIS-based distributed model for river basin scale water balance and flood simulation. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2010, 24, 189–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Weng, Q. Modeling urban growth effects on surface runoff with the integration of remote sensing and GIS. Environ. Manag. 2001, 28, 737–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Stamellou, E.; Kalogeropoulos, K.; Stathopoulos, N.; Chalkias, C.; Katsafados, P. Flood Assessment via analytical Hierarchy model, GIS & Cellular Automata. In Proceedings of the 11th International Hydrogeological Congress of Greece, Athens, Greece, 4–6 October 2017. [Google Scholar]
  217. Melesse, A.M.; Graham, W.D. Storm runoff prediction based on a spatially distributed travel time method utilizing remote sensing and GIS. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2004, 40, 863–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Olivera, F.; Valenzuela, M.; Srinivasan, R.; Choi, J.; Cho, H.; Koka, S.; Agrawal, A. ArcGIS-SWAT: A geodata model and GIS interface for SWAT. J. Am. Water Resour. Asoc. 2006, 42, 295–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Wolski, P.; Savenije, H.H.G.; Murray-Hudson, M.; Gumbricht, T. Modelling of the flooding in the Okavango Delta, Botswana, using a hybrid reservoir-GIS model. J. Hydrol. 2006, 331, 58–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Pradhan, B. Flood susceptible mapping and risk area delineation using logistic regression, GIS and remote sensing. J. Spat. Hydrol. 2009, 9, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  221. Chen, J.; Hill, A.A.; Urbano, L.D. A GIS-based model for urban flood inundation. J. Hydrol. 2009, 373, 184–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Du, J.; Xie, H.; Hu, Y.; Xu, Y.; Xu, C.Y. Development and testing of a new storm runoff routing approach based on time variant spatially distributed travel time method. J. Hydrol. 2009; 369, 44–54. [Google Scholar]
  223. Lei, X.; Wang, Y.; Liao, W.; Jiang, Y.; Tian, Y.; Wang, H. Development of efficient and cost-effective distributed hydrological modeling tool MWEasyDHM based on opensource MapWindow GIS. Comput. Geosci. 2011, 37, 1476–1489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Sarhadi, A.; Soltani, S.; Modarres, R. Probabilistic flood inundation mapping of ungauged rivers: Linking GIS techniques and frequency analysis. J. Hydrol. 2012, 458–459, 68–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  225. Tehrany, M.S.; Pradhan, B.; Jebur, M.N. Spatial prediction of flood susceptible areas using rule based decision tree (DT) and a novel ensemble bivariate and multivariate statistical models in GIS. J. Hydrol. 2013, 504, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Gioti, E.; Riga, C.; Kalogeropoulos, K.; Chalkias, C. A GIS-based flash flood runoff model using high resolution DEM and meteorological data. EARSeL eProceedings 2013, 12, 33–43. [Google Scholar]
  227. Kalogeropoulos, K.; Karalis, S.; Karymbalis, E.; Chalkias, C.; Chalkias, G.; Katsafados, P. Modeling Flash Floods in Vouraikos River Mouth, Greece. In Proceedings of the MEDCOAST Conference Proceedings 2013, Marmaris, Turkey, 30 October–3 November 2013; Volume II, pp. 1135–1146. [Google Scholar]
  228. Kalogeropoulos, K.; Stathopoulos, N.; Psarogiannis, A.; Penteris, D.; Tsiakos, C.; Karagiannopoulou, A.; Krikigianni, E.; Karymbalis, E.; Chalkias, C. A GIS-based method for flood risk assessment. In Proceedings of the European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2016, Vienna, Austria, 17–22 April 2016. [Google Scholar]
  229. Chalkias, C.; Stathopoulos, N.; Kalogeropoulos, K.; Karymbalis, E. Applied Hydrological Modeling with the Use of Geoinformatics: Theory and Practice. In Empirical Modeling and Its Applications; Mamun, H.M., Ed.; InTech: Rijeka, Croatia, 2016; pp. 61–86. [Google Scholar]
  230. Kalogeropoulos, K.; Stathopoulos, N.; Psarogiannis, A.; Pissias, E.; Louka, P.; Petropoulos, G.P.; Chalkias, C. An Integrated GIS-Hydro Modeling Methodology for Surface Runoff Exploitation via Small-Scale Reservoirs. Water 2020, 12, 3182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  231. Formetta, G.; Antonello, A.; Franceschi, S.; David, O.; Rigon, R. Hydrological modeling with components: A GIS-based open-source framework. Environ. Model. Softw. 2014, 55, 190–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  232. Mahmoud, S.H. Investigation of rainfall-runoff modeling for Egypt by using remote sensing and GIS integration. Catena 2014, 120, 111–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  233. Tsanakas, K.; Gaki-Papanastassiou, K.; Kalogeropoulos, K.; Chalkias, C.; Katsafados, P.; Karymbalis, E. Investigation of flash flood natural causes of Xirolaki Torrent, Northern Greece based on GIS modeling and geomorphological analysis. Nat. Hazards 2016, 84, 1015–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  234. Dawson, C.W.; Wilby, R. Hydrological modeling using artificial neural networks. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 2001, 25, 80–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  235. Kia, M.B.; Pirasteh, S.; Pradhan, B.; Mahmud, A.R.; Sulaiman, W.N.A.; Moradi, A. An artificial neural network model for flood simulation using GIS: Johor River Basin, Malaysia. Environ. Earth Sci. 2012, 67, 251–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  236. Mukerji, A.; Chatterjee, C.; Raghuwanshi, N.S. Flood Forecasting Using ANN, Neuro-Fuzzy, and Neuro-GA Models. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2009, 14, 647–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  237. Tehrany, M.S.; Pradhan, B.; Jebur, M.N. Flood susceptibility mapping using a novel ensemble weights-of-evidence and support vector machine models in GIS. J. Hydrol. 2014, 512, 332–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  238. Ablain, M.; Cazenave, A.; Larnicol, G.; Balmaseda, M.; Cipollini, P.; Faugère, Y.; Andersen, O. Improved sea level record over the satellite altimetry era (1993–2010) from the Climate Change Initiative project. Ocean. Sci 2015, 11, 67–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  239. Muhs, D.R.; Wehmiller, J.F.; Simmons, K.R.; York, L.L. Quaternary sea-level history of the United States. Dev. Quat. Sci. 2003, 1, 147–183. [Google Scholar]
  240. Bindoff, N.L.; Willebrand, J.; Artale, V.; Cazenave, A.; Gregory, J.; Gulev, S.; Hanawa, K.; Le Quéré, C.; Levitus, S.; Nojiri, Y.; et al. Section 5.5.1: Introductory Remarks. In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, 2007 ed.; Chapter 5; Observations: Ocean Climate Change and Sea, Level; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland; UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  241. IPCC. Global Warming of 1.5°C; Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pörtner, H.O., Roberts, D., Skea, J., Shukla, P.R., Pirani, A., Moufouma-Okia, W., Péan, C., Pidcock, R., Eds.; An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  242. Mengel, M.; Levermann, A.; Frieler, K.; Robinson, A.; Marzeion, B.; Winkelmann, R. Future sea level rise constrained by observations and long-term commitment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 2597–2602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  243. Rovere, A.; Stocchi, P.; Vacchi, M. Eustatic and Relative Sea Level Changes. Curr. Clim. Chang. Rep. 2016, 2, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  244. Douglas, B.C. Global sea rise: A redetermination. Surv. Geophys. 1997, 18, 279–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  245. Jevrejeva, S.; Grinsted, A.; Moore, J.C.; Holgate, S. Nonlinear trends and multi-year cycle in sea level records. J. Geophys. Res. 2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  246. Jevrejeva, S.; Moore, J.C.; Grinsted, A.; Matthews, A.P.; Spada, G. Trends and acceleration in global and regional sea levels since 1807. Glob. Planet. Chang. 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  247. Church, J.A.; White, N.J. A twentieth century acceleration in global Sea-level rise. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2006, 33, L01602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  248. Church, J.A.; White, N.J. Sea-level rise from the late ninenteenth to the early twenty-first century. Surv. Geophys. 2011, 32, 585–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  249. Hay, C.C.; Morrow, E.; Kopp, R.E.; Mitrovica, J.X. Probabilistic reanalysis of twentieth-century sea-level rise. Nature 2015, 517, 481–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  250. Wöppelmann, G.; Marcos, M. Vertical land motion as a key to understanding sea level change and variability. Rev. Geophys. 2016, 54, 64–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  251. Cipollini, P.; Calafat, F.M.; Jevrejeva, S.; Melet, A.; Prandi, P. Monitoring sea level in the coastal zone with satellite altimetry and tide gauges. Surv. Geophys. 2016, 32, 585–602. [Google Scholar]
  252. Gillespie, T.W.; Chu, J.; Frankenberg, E.; Thomas, D. Assessment and prediction of natural hazards from satellite imagery. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 2007, 31, 459–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  253. Colson, D.; Petropoulos, G.P.; Ferentinos, K. Exploring the Potential of Sentinels-1 & 2 of the Copernicus Mission in Support of Rapid and Cost-effective Wildfire Assessment. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2018, 73, 262–276. [Google Scholar]
  254. Whyte, A.; Fredinos, K.; Petropoulos, G.P. A New Synergistic Approach for Monitoring Wetlands Using Sentinels -1 and 2 data With Object-based Machine Learning Algorithms. Environ. Model. Softw. 2018, 104, 40–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  255. Srivastava, P.K.; Petropoulos, G.P.; Gupta, M.; Singh, S.K.; Islam, T.; Loka, D. Deriving Forest Fire Probability Maps from the Fusion of Visible/Infrared Satellite Data and Geospatial Data Mining. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 2019, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  256. Evans, A.; Lamine, S.; Kalivas, D.; Petropoulos, G.P. Exploring the Potential of EO data and GIS for Ecosystem Health Modelling in Response to Wildfire: A Case Study in Central Greece. Environ. Eng. Manag. 2018, in press. [Google Scholar]
  257. Pandey, V.; Srivastava, P.K.; Petropoulos, G.P. The Contribution of Earth Observation in Disasters Prediction, Management and Mitigation: A Holistic View. In Techniques for Disaster Risk Management and Mitigation; AGU-Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019; in press; Chapter 4. [Google Scholar]
  258. Amos, C.; Petropoulos, G.P.; Feredinos, K.P. Determining the use of Σentinel-2A MSI for wildfire burning and severity detection. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  259. Dalezios, N.; Petropoulos, G.P.; Faraslis, I. Concepts and Methodologies of Environmental Hazards Affecting Agriculture and Agroecosystems. In Techniques for Disaster Risk Management and Mitigation; AGU-Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019; in press; Chapter 1. [Google Scholar]
  260. Karamesouti, M.; Petropoulos, G.P.; Papanikolaou, I.D.; Kairis, O.; Kosmas, K. An Evaluation of the PESERA and RUSLE in Predicting Erosion Rates at a Mediterranean Site Before and After a Wildfire: Comparison & implications. Geoderma 2016, 261, 44–58. [Google Scholar]
  261. Jeyaseelan, A. Droughts and Floods Assessment and Monitoring Using Remote Sensing and GIS, Satellite Remote Sensing and GIS Applications in Agri-Cultural Meteorology; World Meteorological Organization: Dehra Dun, India; Geneva, Switzerland, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  262. Petropoulos, G.P.; Kontoes, C.; Keramitsoglou, I. Burnt Area Delineation from a Uni-temporal Perspective Based on Landsat TM Imagery Classification Using Support Vector Machines. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2011, 13, 70–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  263. Petropoulos, G.P.; Kontoes, C.C.; Keramitsoglou, I. Land Cover Mapping with Emphasis to Burnt Area Delineation Using Co-orbital ALI and Landsat TM Imagery. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2012, 18, 344–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  264. Joyce, K.E.; Belliss, S.E.; Samsonov, S.V.; McNeill, S.J.; Glassey, P.J. A review of the status of satellite remote sensing and image processing techniques for mapping natural hazards and disasters. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 2009, 33, 183–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  265. Tralli, D.M.; BJorn, R.G.; Zlotnicki, V.; Donnellan, A.; Evans, D.L. Satellite remote sensing of Earthquake, volcano, flood, landslide and coastal inundation hazards. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2005, 59, 185–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  266. Volpi, M.; Petropoulos, G.P.; Kanevski, M. Flooding Extent Cartography with Landsat TM Imagery and Regularized Kernel Fisher’s Discriminant Analysis. Comput. Geosci. 2013, 57, 24–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  267. Said, Y.A.; Petropoulos, G.P.; Srivastava, P.K. Assessing the Influence of Atmospheric and Topographic Correction on Burnt Scars Identification from High Resolution. Nat. Hazards 2015, 78, 1609–1628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  268. Kosmopoulos, P.G.; Kazadzis, S.; El-Askary, H.; Taylor, M.; Gkikas, A.; Proestakis, E.; Kontoes, C.; El-Khayat, M.M. Earth-Observation-Based Estimation and Forecasting of Particulate Matter Impact on Solar Energy in Egypt. Remote Sensing. 2018, 10, 1870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  269. Knorr, W.; Pytharoulis, I.; Petropoulos, G.P.; Gobron, N. Combined Use of Weather Forecasting and Satellite Remote Sensing Information for Fire Risk, fire and fire impact monitoring. Comput. Ecol. Softw. 2011, 1, 112–120. [Google Scholar]
  270. Ireland, G.; Volpi, M.; Petropoulos, G.P. Examining the Capability of Supervised Machine Learning Classifiers in Extracting Flooded Areas from Landsat TM Imagery: A Case Study from a Mediterranean Flood. Remote Sens. 2015, 7, 3372–3399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  271. Xin, Q.; Olofsson, P.; Zhu, Z.; Tan, B.; Woodcock, C.E. Toward near real-time monitoring of forest distur­ bance by fusion of MODIS and Landsat data. Remote Sens. Environ. 2013, 135, 234–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  272. Liu, C.C.; Wu, A.M.; Yen, S.Y.; Huang, C.H. Rapid locating of fire points from Formosat-2 high spatial resolution imagery: Example of the 2007 California wildfire. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2009, 18, 415–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  273. Huang, S.; Li, J.; Xu, M. Water surface variations monitoring and flood hazard analysis in Dongting Lake area using long-term Terra/MODIS data time series. Nat. Hazards 2012, 62, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  274. Forkuo, E.K. Flood hazard mapping using Aster image data with GIS. Int. J. Geomat. Geosci. 2011, 1, 932–950. [Google Scholar]
  275. McNeil, B.E.; de Beurs, K.M.; Eshleman, K.N.; Foster, J.R.; Townsend, P.A. Maintenance of ecosystem nitrogen limitation by ephemeral forest disturbance: An assessment using MODIS, Hyperion, and Landsat ETM+. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2007, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  276. Amarnath, G. An algorithm for rapid flood inundation mapping from optical data using a reflectance differencing technique. J. Flood Risk Manag. 2014, 7, 239–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  277. Ireland, G.; Petropoulos, G.P. Exploring the Relationships Between Post-fire Vegetation Regeneration Dynamics, Topography and Burn Severity: A case study from the Montane Cordillera Ecozones of Western Canada. Appl. Geogr. 2015, 56, 232–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  278. Kalivas, D.; Petropoulos, G.P.; Athanasiou, I.; Kollias, V. An Intercomparison of Burnt Area Estimates Derived from Key Operational Products: Analysis of Greek Wildland Fires 2005–2007. Non-Linear Process. Geophys. 2013, 20, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  279. Poser, K.; Dransch, D. Volunteered geographic information for disaster management with application to rapid flood damage estimation. Geomatica 2010, 64, 89–98. [Google Scholar]
  280. Justino, C.I.; Duarte, A.C.; Rocha-Santos, T.A. Recent progress in biosensors for environmental monitoring: A review. Sensors 2017, 17, 2918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  281. Velasco, A.; Ferrero, R.; Gandino, F.; Montrucchio, B.; Rebaudengo, M. A mobile and low-cost system for environmental monitoring: A case study. Sensors 2016, 16, 710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  282. Manfreda, S.; McCabe, M.F.; Miller, P.E.; Lucas, R.; Pajuelo Madrigal, V.; Mallinis, G.; Ben Dor, E.; Helman, D.; Estes, L.; Ciraolo, G.; et al. On the use of unmanned aerial systems for environmental monitoring. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  283. Tmušić, G.; Manfreda, S.; Aasen, H.; James, M.R.; Gonçalves, G.; Ben-Dor, E.; Brook, A.; Polinova, M.; Arranz, J.J.; Mészáros, J.; et al. Current Practices in UAS-based Environmental Monitoring. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  284. Craglia, M.; Campagna, M. Advanced regional SDIs in Europe: Comparative cost-benefit evaluation and impact assessment perspectives. Int. J. Spat. Data Infrastruct. Res. 2010, 5, 145–167. [Google Scholar]
  285. Crompvoets, J.; Vancauwenberghe, G.; Ho, S.; Masser, I.; de Vries, W.T. Governance of national spatial data infrastructures in Europe. Int. J. Spat. Data Infrastruct. Res. 2018, 13, 253–285. [Google Scholar]
  286. Kalogeropoulos, K.; Stathopoulos, N.; Tsatsaris, A.; Chalkias, C. A survey of GeoInformatics use for Census purposes and the INSPIRE maturity within Statistical Institutes of EU & EFTA countries. Ann. Gis 2019, 25, 167–178. [Google Scholar]
  287. Kalogeropoulos, K. The geographical aspect of the geodata of the national population censuses: Mapping—Creation of modern spatial data infrastructures with the use of Geoinformatics. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Gepgraphy, Harokopio University, Harokopio, Greece, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  288. Zwirowicz-Rutkowska, A.; Michalik, A. The use of spatial data infrastructure in environmental management: An example from the spatial planning practice in Poland. Environ. Manag. 2016, 58, 619–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  289. Abramic, A.; Bigagli, E.; Barale, V.; Assouline, M.; Lorenzo-Alonso, A.; Norton, C. Maritime spatial planning supported by infrastructure for spatial information in Europe (INSPIRE). Ocean Coast. Manag. 2018, 152, 23–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  290. Oliveira, I.L.; Câmara, J.H.; Torres, R.M.; Lisboa-Filho, J. Design of a Corporate SDI in Power Sector Using a Formal Model. Infrastructures 2017, 2, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  291. Manouchehri, M.; Moghaddam, M.K. Volunteered Geographic Information and Environmental Monitoring: A New Approach in Developing Countries. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2017, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  292. Antoniou, V.; Skopeliti, A. Measures and indicators of VGI quality: An overview. ISPRS Ann. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2015, 2, 345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  293. Skopeliti, A.; Antoniou, V.; Bandrova, T. Visualisation and communication of VGI quality. In Mapping and the Citizen Sensor; Ubiquity Press: London, UK, 2017; pp. 197–222. [Google Scholar]
  294. Demetriou, D.; Campagna, M.; Racetin, I.; Konecny, M. A discussion for integrating INSPIRE with volunteered geographic information (VGI) and the vision for a global spatial-based platform. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Remote Sensing and Geoinformation of the Environment (RSCy2017), Paphos, Cyprus, 20–23 March 2017; International Society for Optics and Photonics: Bellingham, WA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  295. Noardo, F.; Lingua, A.; Aicardi, I.; Vigna, B. Cartographic data harmonisation for a cross-border project development. Appl. Geomat. 2016, 8, 133–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  296. Mollenhauer, H.; Kasner, M.; Haase, P.; Peterseil, J.; Wohner, C.; Frenzel, M.; Mirtl, M.; Schima, R.; Bumberger, J.; Zacharias, S. Long-term environmental monitoring infrastructures in Europe: Observations, measurements, scales, and socio-ecological representativeness. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 624, 968–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  297. Krassanakis, V.; Vassilopoulou, V. Introducing a data-driven approach towards the identification of grid cell size threshold (CST) for spatial data visualization: An application on marine spatial planning (MSP). J. Urban. Environ. Eng. 2018, 12, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  298. Brovelli, M.A.; Minghini, M.; Moreno-Sanchez, R.; Oliveira, R. Free and open source software for geospatial applications (FOSS4G) to support Future Earth. Int. J. Digit. Earth 2017, 10, 386–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  299. Coetzee, S.; Ivánová, I.; Mitasova, H.; Brovelli, M.A. Open geospatial software and data: A review of the current state and a perspective into the future. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2020, 9, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  300. Skopeliti, A.; Stamou, L. Online Map Services: Contemporary Cartography or a New Cartographic Culture? ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, 215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  301. Klein, T.; Nilsson, M.; Persson, A.; Håkansson, B. From Open Data to Open Analyses—New Opportunities for Environmental Applications? Environments 2017, 4, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  302. Wiemann, S.; Karrasch, P.; Bernard, L. Ad-hoc combination and analysis of heterogeneous and distributed spatial data for environmental monitoring–design and prototype of a web-based solution. Int. J. Digit. Earth 2018, 11, 79–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  303. Lacroix, P.; Moser, F.; Benvenuti, A.; Piller, T.; Jensen, D.; Petersen, I.; Planque, M.; Ray, N. MapX: An open geospatial platform to manage, analyze and visualize data on natural resources and the environment. SoftwareX 2019, 9, 77–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  304. Rieke, M.; Bigagli, L.; Herle, S.; Jirka, S.; Kotsev, A.; Liebig, T.; Malewski, C.; Paschke, T.; Stasch, C. Geospatial IoT—The need for event-driven architectures in contemporary spatial data infrastructures. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2018, 7, 385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  305. Bouyerbou, H.; Bechkoum, K.; Lepage, R. Geographic ontology for major disasters: Methodology and implementation. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2019, 34, 232–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Worldwide Disaster Rates by Type (1995–2015) (Source: https://www.weforum.org/, (accessed date: 20 December 2020), modified figure by the authors of this work, photo: Vasilis Pappas).
Figure 1. Worldwide Disaster Rates by Type (1995–2015) (Source: https://www.weforum.org/, (accessed date: 20 December 2020), modified figure by the authors of this work, photo: Vasilis Pappas).
Ijgi 10 00094 g001
Figure 2. Worldwide Disaster Rates (1995–2015) (Source: https://www.weforum.org/, (accessed date: 20 December 2020), modified figure by the authors of this work).
Figure 2. Worldwide Disaster Rates (1995–2015) (Source: https://www.weforum.org/, (accessed date: 20 December 2020), modified figure by the authors of this work).
Ijgi 10 00094 g002
Figure 3. Example of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technique for monitoring/simulate drought [21].
Figure 3. Example of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technique for monitoring/simulate drought [21].
Ijgi 10 00094 g003
Figure 4. An example of integration of GIS and Earth Observation (EO) for frost monitoring [158].
Figure 4. An example of integration of GIS and Earth Observation (EO) for frost monitoring [158].
Ijgi 10 00094 g004
Figure 5. An example of GIS-based model for exploitation of floods via reservoirs ((a). DEM, (b). Land cover map, (c). Geology map) [230].
Figure 5. An example of GIS-based model for exploitation of floods via reservoirs ((a). DEM, (b). Land cover map, (c). Geology map) [230].
Ijgi 10 00094 g005
Figure 6. Spatiality of research areas in used references.
Figure 6. Spatiality of research areas in used references.
Ijgi 10 00094 g006
Figure 7. The referred countries of this work.
Figure 7. The referred countries of this work.
Ijgi 10 00094 g007
Table 1. The list of the cited studies per section in this work.
Table 1. The list of the cited studies per section in this work.
HazardList of References
Drought Monitoring[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43]
Soil erosion monitoring[44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121]
Groundwater monitoring[122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150]
Frost Monitoring[151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170]
Flood Monitoring[171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197,198,199,200,201,202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,214,215,216,217,218,219,220,221,222,223,224,225,226,227,228,229,230,231,232,233,234,235,236]
Sea level rise monitoring[237,238,239,240,241,242,243,244,245,246,247,248,249,250]
Contribution of EO in Natural Disasters[251,252,253,254,255,256,257,258,259,260,261,262,263,264,265,266,267,268,269,270,271,272,273,274,275,276,277,278]
Geospatial Data and Spatial Data Infrastructures (SDIs)[279,280,281,282,283,284,285,286,287,288,289,290,291,292,293,294,295,296,297,298,299,300,301,302,303,304]
Table 2. EO satellites and their main characteristics.
Table 2. EO satellites and their main characteristics.
Satellite NameLaunch YearNo of BandsSpatial Resolution (m)Altitude (km)Revisit Time (days)
SPOT 119863208322–3
SPOT 219903208322–3
SPOT 319932208322–3
SPOT 419984208322–3
SPOT 520024108222–3
SPOT 62012466941
SPOT 72014466941
MODIS199936250–10007051
Landsat 1197248091718
Landsat 2197548091718
Landsat 3197848091718
Landsat 4198268070516
Landsat 5198463070516
Landsat 61993 3070516
Landsat 7199963070516
Landsat 820139307054.5
Sentinel 12016C269312
Sentinel 220151310–602905–10
Sentinel 3201621300814100 (min)
SeaSAT1978L20 24
ENVISAT2002C25–50 35
Radarsat-11995C20–30 24
Radarsat-22007C20–-30 24
ALOS-12006L9–30 46
ALOS-22014L6–10 14
COSMO-SkyMED2007X3–15 1–8
TerraSAR-X2007X1–3 11
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Back to TopTop