4.7 Review

Cloud-Based Remote Sensing for Wetland Monitoring-A Review

期刊

REMOTE SENSING
卷 15, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs15061660

关键词

wetland; peatland; cloud computing; remote sensing monitoring; PaaS; SaaS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A systematic literature review reveals that only platform-as-a-service has been implemented for wetland monitoring through the integration of cloud computing and remote sensing. However, the current integration of these technologies is not sufficient to fully benefit from their potential. Despite this, economic benefits can still be achieved by implementing cloud computing and remote sensing for wetland monitoring.
The rapid expansion of remote sensing provides recent and developed advances in monitoring wetlands. Integrating cloud computing with these techniques has been identified as an effective tool, especially for dealing with heterogeneous datasets. In this study, we conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) to determine the current state-of-the-art knowledge for integrating remote sensing and cloud computing in the monitoring of wetlands. The results of this SLR revealed that platform-as-a-service was the only cloud computing service model implemented in practice for wetland monitoring. Remote sensing applications for wetland monitoring included prediction, time series analysis, mapping, classification, and change detection. Only 51% of the reviewed literature, focused on the regional scale, used satellite data. Additionally, the SLR found that current cloud computing and remote sensing technologies are not integrated enough to benefit from their potential in wetland monitoring. Despite these gaps, the analysis revealed that economic benefits could be achieved by implementing cloud computing and remote sensing for wetland monitoring. To address these gaps and pave the way for further research, we propose integrating cloud computing and remote sensing technologies with the Internet of Things (IoT) to monitor wetlands effectively.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据