[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Next Article in Journal
Long-Term Expansion of Regional Museums in Russia: A Quantitative Analysis of Historical Dynamics
Previous Article in Journal
Dual Approach to Large-Scale Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Churches Through Representative Archetypes
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Heritage
Volume 7
Issue 12
10.3390/heritage7120325
heritage-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Review of Geomatics Solutions for Protecting Cultural Heritage in Response to Climate Change

by
Vincenzo Barrile
1,*,
Caterina Gattuso
2 and
Emanuela Genovese
1
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Energy, Environment and Materials (DICEAM), Mediterranea University of Reggio Calabria (ITALY), 89124 Reggio Calabria, Italy
2
Department of Architecture and Territory (DARTE), Mediterranea University of Reggio Calabria (ITALY), 89124 Reggio Calabria, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Heritage 2024, 7(12), 7031-7049; https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage7120325
Submission received: 4 November 2024 / Revised: 30 November 2024 / Accepted: 9 December 2024 / Published: 11 December 2024
Browse Figures
Figure 1
<p>(<b>a</b>) Segmentation in eCognition of Ikonos imagery; (<b>b</b>) pixel-based and object-based image analysis classification [<a href="#B17-heritage-07-00325" class="html-bibr">17</a>].</p> "> Figure 2
<p>(<b>a</b>) Survey with laser scanner [<a href="#B23-heritage-07-00325" class="html-bibr">23</a>]; (<b>b</b>) reconstruction of building information modeling.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>(<b>a</b>) Laser scanner point cloud [<a href="#B24-heritage-07-00325" class="html-bibr">24</a>]; (<b>b</b>) Vitrioli house portal 3D model [<a href="#B25-heritage-07-00325" class="html-bibr">25</a>].</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Three-dimensional reconstruction from UAV survey [<a href="#B40-heritage-07-00325" class="html-bibr">40</a>].</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Three-dimensional model of Precacore Complex [<a href="#B41-heritage-07-00325" class="html-bibr">41</a>].</p> "> Figure 6
<p>WebGis.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Riace Bronzes at the National Archaeological Museum of Reggio Calabria, Italy [<a href="#B47-heritage-07-00325" class="html-bibr">47</a>].</p> ">
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In the context of an increasing risk to cultural heritage due to climate change, this review explores and analyzes different geomatics techniques to efficiently monitor and safeguard historical sites and works of art. The rapid succession of technological innovations relating to the production of 3D models and the growth in recent years of the risks to which monumental heritage is exposed poses an all-round reflection on the prospects for the development and refinement of the disciplines of geomatics. The results highlight that geomatics techniques certainly improve data collection and the assessment of risks associated with climate change, also supporting geospatial-based decisions aimed at managing vulnerable cultural sites. The field of digital goods represents, in fact, one of the sectors where it is not possible to centralize knowledge in a single figure, instead postulating a synergistic interaction between different knowledge and techniques. Referring to the national framework, the distinction between protection and enhancement also involves us for both aspects, combining the more consolidated use of digital heritage for cognitive purposes and for the preparation of restoration projects. The study concludes by exploring possible future directions, emphasizing the need for interdisciplinary collaboration and the creation of effective guidelines and policies for the preservation of cultural heritage. Finally, the growing interest in this field in artificial intelligence and, in particular, machine learning is underscored.

1. Introduction

The climate is changing on a global scale. Many indicators demonstrate this: temperatures are rising, sea levels are rising, glaciers and ice caps are melting, the water cycle is changing, permafrost is warming and degrading, and ecosystems are struggling and increasingly under pressure. The observed climate changes are largely attributable to greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. With a further increase in emissions, the effects will worsen.
The report “Global Climate Highlights” [1], based mainly on data from the Copernicus Program, presents a general summary of the most significant climate extremes of 2023 and the main factors that determine them, such as greenhouse gas concentrations, El Niño, and other natural variations. Greenhouse gas concentrations in 2023 were at the highest levels ever recorded in the atmosphere, and the trend is still increasing. A recently released forecast for 2024 suggests that this year could be even warmer than 2023, with a reasonable chance that the calendar year will end with an average temperature of 1.5 °C above the pre-industrial level, according to several datasets. Extreme events around the world in 2023 had significant impacts on human life, ecosystems, nature, and infrastructure. Exceptional cases included floods, droughts, and extreme heat. High-impact flood events ranged from flash floods caused by heavy rainfall to large-scale flooding caused by atmospheric rivers (such as in California in January and March and Chile in July), monsoon rains, large low-pressure systems, and tropical cyclones. Cyclone Freddy affected southeastern Africa (February, March), Cyclone Mocha affected south and southeastern Asia (May), Hurricane Hilary affected Mexico and the western United States (August), Hurricane Otis affected Mexico (October–February), Storm Daniel affected the Mediterranean (September), and post-tropical Cyclone Jasper affected Australia (December), among others. In some cases, such as in the Horn of Africa during the fall, flooding may have been exacerbated by particularly low soil moisture levels that promoted and accelerated runoff.
Many other regions of the world suffered from a prolonged lack of rain, particularly in North America (Mexico), South America (Amazon Basin, Pantanal wetlands, Argentina, Uruguay), and West Africa. Heatwaves occurred across the world in 2023, often breaking national or local temperature records. Noteworthy events in southern Europe, North Africa, and parts of North America and Asia were followed in seasonal progression by similar events in other parts of the world (South America, southern Africa, Australia). Hot and dry conditions in some regions also contributed to the desertification of regional areas, particularly in southern Europe, Canada, South America, and Australia. Some things are certain—the progressive melting of ice caps and glaciers will make the flow of rivers irregular and the rising seas uncontrollable, submerging many cities and entire regions; desertification and intolerable temperatures will make large parts of several continents unlivable. Other phenomena such as floods, fires, and hurricanes are random, but they will multiply in frequency, extension, and intensity. Mechanisms have been triggered that will continue to produce and multiply their adverse effects for decades.
In this general context, it is clear that climate change can also cause serious risks to the heritage of the cultural sites. On the UNESCO website, alarm declarations have been proposed for some time, stating that in order to save cultural heritage, climate change must be mitigated as soon as possible. Cultural heritage, in fact, is a fundamental element not only as a witness to history but also as a foundational element of the identity and collective memory of society. Each cultural site or artifact embodies values and knowledge handed down over time, contributing to strengthening the sense of belonging and social cohesion. All this leads to understanding how the loss or partial and total loss of these assets, inevitably accelerated by climate change, risks irreparably compromising these cultural resources. In an article proposed in the WIREs journal [2], the authors present a state of the art on the topic of the impact of climate change on cultural heritage in the international literature. They argue that climate change is already affecting cultural heritage sites. Consequently, there is a growing body of research on the impacts of climate change on cultural heritage. The article proposes risk impact diagrams, focusing particularly on the impacts of gradual climate change on cultural heritage exposed to the external environment, the interiors of buildings, and the works contained therein. A third diagram is associated with climate change and the impacts of sudden changes in the natural physical environment (e.g., storm surges, floods, landslides, fires), as well as sea level rise, thawing permafrost, desertification, and changes in ocean properties.
In 2022, the European Commission published a report entitled “Strengthening the resilience of cultural heritage to climate change. Where the European Green Deal meets cultural heritage”. The report [3] was written for the Commission by 50 experts from 28 European countries. It proposes, among other things, a collection of 83 good practices related to all types of cultural heritage, including buildings, landscapes, underwater heritage, archeological sites, etc. These best practices are examples of approaches that can inspire climate change decision-makers, as well as heritage professionals, artisans, and educators, in addressing the threats posed by climate change to cultural heritage. It is noted that improving the resilience of heritage to climate change implies a strategic shift towards investments in new forms of development. The report highlights the importance of investing in awareness-raising, education, training, and the development of innovative policies. In other words, it is essential to base decision-making strategies on the results of energy efficiency and climate change mitigation assessments, as well as on adaptation opportunities, research, and innovation. Numerous recommendations are proposed, divided into three categories, namely awareness-raising, education and training, and development policies.
Also noteworthy is the document developed by the IPCC [4], which suggests guidelines for policymakers in addressing the crisis arising from climate change.
Among other recent contributions of the international literature concerning the relationship between climate change and cultural heritage, some interesting ones are here highlighted. In particular, the paper of Higgins N. [5] analyses how the international legal framework can potentially address the impact of climate change on Indigenous intangible assets. It also examines recent efforts by UNESCO to address climate change and its consequences on cultural heritage. The paper by Nguyen K.N. and Baker S. [6] proposes a systematic review of 58 articles published in 2008–2021 and retrieved from Scopus and Google Scholar that address the relationship between climate change and UNESCO’s cultural heritage. In particular, this last paper highlights the need for greater collaboration between STEM disciplines (such as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) and humanities and social sciences in order to adequately address the impact of climate change on cultural heritage. Equally interesting is the contribution of [7], which explores in detail the atmospheric factors that influence the conservation of built cultural heritage, with particular attention to historic building materials. The specific mechanisms of deterioration and how these can be measured or modeled are analyzed. In fact, increased precipitation combined with a warmer climate can accelerate the deterioration of materials, such as the recession of the surfaces of glass and limestone stones; it can also damage historic materials and can cause them to expand and contract. Together with precipitation, soil moisture fluctuation and salt crystallization cause the faster aging of materials, while gasses such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone can determine an acidic mixture that accelerates the corrosion process. Other factors examined by the authors are the phenomena of microcracking, thermal stress, and erosion due to wind action. A similar study is conducted in [8]. This work aims to study the hygrothermal behavior of buildings in relation to cultural heritage and analyze the possible energy requalification challenges. In fact, the energy requalification of historic buildings must take into account the needs of long-term conservation. The article also highlights the importance of designing heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems for cultural heritage exhibitions and passive management of the microclimate to avoid damage to objects. It is clear, therefore, how it is essential to analyze these effects and, even more importantly, to monitor sites and monuments in order to design suitable interventions and verify their results [9,10]. For this aspect, geomatics techniques, characterized by speed and precision, can help in this important aspect that can affect any type of artifact and manufactured item.
In this context, this research work aims to provide a detailed and comprehensive review of the methods and techniques of geomatics most effectively used in the literature for monitoring and safeguarding cultural heritage. The article will be divided into sections; the first section (Section 1) will be introductory, addressing the threat of climate change to cultural heritage. In the second section (Section 2), an international literature review concerning the relationship between climate change and cultural heritage will be introduced, highlighting the methods of geomatics for the monitoring of cultural heritage, the contributions most significant in this literature field, and the existing safeguarding methods; and illustrating challenges and limitations related to the application of these techniques. Section 3 will be dedicated to the analysis of the vulnerabilities of cultural heritage and the analysis of how factors related to climate change can accelerate the deterioration of ancient structures, frescoes, and historical artifacts. In Section 4, some international and national (particularly local) case studies will be presented, where geomatics methodologies have been successfully applied. Finally, in Section 5, future directions and recommendations will be proposed, particularly the creation of collaborative databases and international networks that share geomatics data, climate models, and information on cultural sites at risk.

2. Methodological Approaches Using Geomatics: A Literature Review

This review aims to provide a balanced and comprehensive overview of current knowledge, research gaps, and future directions related to the protection of cultural heritage in relation to climate change, with a particular focus on the practical applications of geomatics techniques. Geomatics is, in fact, a highly versatile discipline that is not only well-suited for monitoring territories and environments but is also effectively applied to cultural heritage through various methodologies (non-invasive and non-destructive) that allow for a detailed sustainable analysis and continuous monitoring of structural transformations in the investigated object.
To this end, a total of 58 scientific articles identified across different databases were analyzed, using the following keywords: “cultural heritage” and “climate change”, alternatively with “geomatics”, “GIS”, “3D scanning”, “Remote Sensing”, “Drones”, and “GPR”. The searches focused on a 5-year time period and 58 articles were selected among reviews, conceptual papers, and case studies. The reviews provided an overview of emerging technologies and general challenges in cultural heritage conservation in relation to climate change. The conceptual papers offered insights into the theoretical models and interpretative frameworks used by scholars to connect geomatics, cultural heritage, and climate change. Finally, the case studies illustrated practical and methodological applications, highlighting the results obtained and lessons learned. In the literature, the most used (not exhaustive) geomatics methodologies for monitoring and acquiring information about cultural heritage are remote sensing, laser scanners, drones, and GIS.

2.1. Remote Sensing for Cultural Heritage

Remote sensing is a fundamental tool for monitoring and safeguarding cultural heritage. Its ability to detect and monitor environmental and anthropogenic changes on spatial and temporal scales makes it particularly suitable for the conservation of historical and archeological sites [11,12]. In the research conducted, the study by Luo L. et al. [13] stands out. The authors discuss the importance of archeological and cultural heritage (ACH) as essential elements for cultural diversity and the sustainable development of humanity, and they emphasize the shared responsibility to document and protect these heritages. This is supported by UNESCO and the scientific community, which promote the use of advanced and non-invasive techniques. In particular, the text explores the growing use of remote sensing, a non-destructive tool, for the rapid analysis and monitoring of ACH sites. Airborne and satellite remote sensing (ASRS) is examined, including techniques such as photography and the use of multispectral, hyperspectral, radar (SAR), and LiDAR images. The review presents case studies, mainly from the Mediterranean and East Asia, to illustrate how these techniques allow heritage to be investigated and monitored at various scales. In particular, remote sensing is very useful in large-scale analyses. An example is the work of Wang M. et al. [14] conducted on the East Rennell site in the Solomon Islands. The authors monitor forest cover both inside and outside the site using satellite data collected since 1998. From this important work, it was possible to observe how this natural site (UNESCO World Heritage) experienced a gradual decrease in vegetation cover from 2000 to 2015.
In addition to monitoring territories and cultural heritage on land, remote sensing is also of significant importance in marine areas. A study by Strydom S. et al. [15] demonstrated how the use of satellite imagery and field surveys enabled researchers to identify marine heat waves affecting seagrass beds in Western Australia. The researchers mapped seagrass cover before (2002 and 2010) and after the heatwave (2014 and 2016), documenting a substantial loss of 1310 km2 of dense seagrass, the largest loss ever recorded globally.
Based on the various reviews analyzed [16], it emerges that the most commonly used technologies and satellites include Landsat, MODIS, and Ikonos (Figure 1a,b), while the primary themes focus on detecting environmental changes, conserving biodiversity, and assessing the impact of climate change on cultural artifacts. The figures given as an example show the possibility of segmenting and therefore precisely identifying historical centers and discretely separating archeological sites for subsequent analysis within structured GIS.
Among various studies, several articles discuss the use of different satellite platforms, including those from the Copernicus Earth observation program and national space missions like COSMO-SkyMed. An interesting contribution in this field is that of Tapete, D. and Cigna, F., 2019 [18]. The article examines the use of synthetic aperture radar (SAR) images from the Italian Space Agency (ASI) COSMO-SkyMed mission for applications in archeological and cultural heritage conservation. While SAR imagery has been used in archeology since the 1980s, the COSMO-SkyMed mission offers advanced features that are particularly useful for monitoring cultural sites thanks to its high spatial resolution, daily revisit capability, and extensive archive of images on historical sites worldwide. The paper presents case studies from Peru, Syria, Italy, and Iraq, demonstrating how COSMO-SkyMed data enable the identification of underground and buried archeological features through the interpretation of SAR backscatter, spatial and temporal changes, and interferometric coherence. Additionally, digital elevation models (DEMs) obtained from SAR data have been used to map surface archeological features. The case studies also show how high-revisit-frequency SAR time series can support the monitoring of environmental processes affecting archeological landscapes and site conservation, in relation to both natural and anthropogenic impacts, such as agriculture, mining, and looting. The paper also anticipates the potential of the next generation of COSMO-SkyMed satellites, which promise further improvements in SAR data quality and its applications for the conservation and monitoring of cultural heritage. In this field, other authors highlighted the importance of assessing the stability and safety of the area and of the archeological asset by conducting depth analysis with a dynamic control, applying the classical DInSAR (differential interferometric synthetic aperture radar) method or the new PSInSAR (permanent scatter interferometric synthetic aperture radar).
Another possibility offered by remote sensing is to use polarimetric images for the identification of buried elements. As known, SAR polarimetric sensors transmit horizontal (H) or vertical (V) electromagnetic waves and receive return energy with polarizations in H and V, allowing for the creation of four possible combinations (HH, VV, VH, HV). The radar systems can therefore be single polarized, dual polarized, with alternating polarization, or polarimetric (HH, VV, VH, HV). Specifically, it is possible to extract useful information from the parameters obtained H (entropy, which represents the degree of randomness of the scattering process) and angle α (which is an angle related to the physical parameters that influence the process of scattering).
The interpretation of the data is based on the joint analysis of the values of H and α. As a function of the value of H and α, the membership of the examined pixel is established within suitable areas represented in the matrix T (mathematical parameter that defines the complex set of interaction phenomena between the target and the incident wave) in the H/α floor. By superimposing the 3D model on the image representative of the value of α or H, respectively, it is possible to have additional information in relation to the presence of “archeological traces”. Then, applying suitable filters to the SAR images, it is possible to observe the polarimetric data in each polarization and subsequently reconstruct an RGB image with R = HH, G = HV, B = VV and superimpose a “photoreturn” of the area with the RGB image and with the parameters H and α, respectively; thus, this RGB image can be constructed. From this series of operations, a contribution can be made to the identification of archeological objects.
Although remote sensing represents an innovative and powerful technology for protecting cultural heritage, it has significant limitations that deserve consideration. First, the quality and accuracy of remote sensing data can be affected by atmospheric conditions, such as cloud cover and humidity, as well as the acquisition angle, which may compromise image resolution and clarity. Furthermore, remote sensing technologies require extensive data processing and advanced technical skills, making it challenging for many cultural institutions—often limited in resources—to implement and manage such systems effectively. Another issue is related to data interpretation; while satellite and aerial imagery provide valuable information about the distribution and condition of resources, they may not capture the historical, cultural, and social complexities that characterize heritage, potentially leading to inadequate or non-contextualized conservation decisions. Lastly, reliance on external technologies raises concerns about the sustainability and autonomy of institutions, limiting their ability to respond quickly and independently to emergencies that threaten cultural heritage. It is thus essential to consider these disadvantages to ensure a responsible and effective integration of geomatics technologies in cultural heritage conservation. Several studies highlight that atmospheric conditions, such as clouds and pollution, can indeed impact the quality of satellite and aerial imagery, with factors like lighting and surrounding vegetation compromising image quality [19]. The challenge of interpreting remote sensing data in the specific context of cultural heritage has also been identified as a problematic aspect of using satellite imagery [20].

2.2. Laser Scanning and BIM Model for Cultural Heritage

In relation to the use of laser scanners (Figure 2a,b and Figure 3a,b), several contributions focus on comparative analyses of the performance of different software [21]. An example is the contribution by Rahaman [22]. The authors describe comparative analyses of various FOSS software, examining characteristics, workflows, 3D processing times, and the accuracy of results. In particular, this study uses two datasets to compare the point clouds generated by the FOSS software with reference data produced by Metashape (formerly PhotoScan) (version 1.3.3), a commercial 3D modeling software. Deviations between the two were measured using Cloud Compare software (version 2.10.2). Below, some examples highlighting the ability of 3D restitution software to capture minimal details with extremely high resolution are shown, allowing for the identification (as in Figure 3a) of damage to the artifact and subsequently also of the remains (via Georadar) beneath the central nave.
In the literature, the characteristics of laser scanners are emphasized and highlighted. Laser scanners capture microscopic details, such as cracks, erosion, and deformations that may result from deterioration phenomena linked to climate change, such as rising temperatures, fluctuating humidity, and extreme weather events. These tools offer millimetric precision, allowing for an accurate representation of the current condition of a cultural site and facilitating long-term analyses and comparative studies over time. This is also highlighted in several contributions [26,27,28,29]. An example is the work by Mulahusić et al. [30], which also discusses the limitations and technical challenges of laser scanning for complex objects within the context of cultural heritage. The text emphasizes that laser scanning systems have a minimum and maximum operating range and scanning outside these limits can lead to significant errors in the point cloud restitution process. For this reason, an interesting comparative analysis of different terrestrial laser scanners is conducted, underscoring the importance of identifying the instrument that most accurately reconstructs the condition of buildings and monuments in this specific field [31,32,33]. In this context, 3D modeling software (building information modeling) can provide essential information on the health status of artifacts or cultural sites in relation to the effects of climate change. This tool is particularly valuable for cultural heritage conservation, as it enables detailed, comprehensive, and highly precise documentation of the structures and various artifacts present at a site. BIM is used for the collection of data and information useful for the implementation of a structural model, as well as for a maintenance manual of the same, and therefore can be inserted to all intents and purposes within the monitoring and control methodologies. By applying BIM methodologies to existing buildings, it is possible to manage all phases of the building’s life in a coherent and coordinated manner according to a life-cycle approach. In this context, it is crucial to use the peculiarities of BIM for existing buildings, as the documentation of locations, technologies, and materials is becoming increasingly important for the preservation of historical and cultural heritage. HBIM is therefore not intended to apply BIM to already constructed buildings but to apply different methodologies to obtain simplified models from a survey. To date, there are two main methods for reconstructing HBIM models from photogrammetric or laser scanner acquisitions. The first compares the point cloud with a database of objects already in the libraries, searching for the most similar ones; the second uses surface information (from the point clouds) to perform another type of classification.

2.3. UAVs for Cultural Heritage

When it comes to monitoring architectural structures and monuments, UAVs prove particularly effective and useful. These systems can collect critical details regarding structural changes that may occur in archeological and cultural heritage sites. UAVs are versatile tools that can be employed to monitor small sections of buildings or entire archeological sites (Figure 4 and Figure 5), enabling 3D reconstruction [34,35,36,37,38]. A particularly noteworthy and effective example is the study conducted by Frodella et al. [39], which focuses on the rock-cut site of Vardzia in Georgia, a significant example of cultural heritage carved into rock from the Byzantine era. The paper details the implementation of a site-specific methodology that combines advanced remote sensing techniques, such as infrared thermography (IRT) and drone-based digital photogrammetry (UAV-DP), with traditional surveys and laboratory analyses. This integrated approach allows for the mapping of critical areas within the rock complex and the identification of sectors prone to degradation, such as areas affected by humidity and infiltration related to the surface drainage network. This methodology has proven especially effective in pinpointing vulnerable sections of the tuff cliff, providing valuable data for the design of mitigation measures and site management plans.
The advantages of using this technology are highlighted in several contributions; in particular, Sestras et al. [42] analyze the potential of using drones (UAVs) for surveying and feasibility assessments in the restoration of an old noble residence from the 19th century in the Transylvania region of Romania. In a context where many historical structures are left in a state of abandonment, the use of drones represents a significant advancement for geomatics applied to cultural heritage. The paper describes a workflow that seamlessly integrates topographic measurements and building information modeling (BIM) for heritage conservation and architectural reconstruction. The assessment of site accessibility is performed through a vector and raster database, which underscores the central position of the cultural heritage relative to the main communication axes and local tourist circuits. This technical approach not only enables the collection of highly accurate metrics from the field but also contributes to planning for the improvement of social inclusion.
Moreover, one of the main advantages of drones is their versatility. The article [43], for example, discusses the combined use of photogrammetry and aerial vehicles for the topographic and geometric recording of archeological, historical, and ethnographic sites, located in coastal or shallow aquatic environments and where traditional techniques could be difficult or impossible to be applied. Also in this case, structure from motion and multiview stereo (SfM-MVS) techniques are applied to obtain detailed restitutions and surveys of coastal and shallow aquatic areas, highlighting the advantages and costs of using UAVs for seabed mapping. Another fundamental aspect captured by some authors, such as those of [44], is the concept of the level of detail for the collection, analysis, processing, and visual presentation of data. The application of CityGML LoD standards improves the performance of restitutions and reduces the geometric complexity of objects, allowing users to view the model in the desired detail. This visualization standard is also of fundamental importance for integration with other typical 3D modeling formats.

2.4. GIS for Cultural Heritage

GIS is configured as the main tool for the storage and organization of geospatial data, capable of managing and allocating different data in a functional manner for subsequent interpretation [45,46]. In this sense, it stands out as a tool for the collection of the aforementioned data acquired through previous technologies, constituting a means for detailed analysis and for the spatialization of cultural heritage artifacts and sites. In this context, the reviews analyzed underline the versatility of this tool, with applications that can also be used via the web. An interesting contribution is that of [47,48,49], in which the need to address aspects related to climate change is mentioned to strengthen existing management strategies and build resilience. ICT solutions are proposed and, in particular, a WebGIS platform (Figure 6) is suggested as a decision support tool. This last tool is extremely interesting and is treated by several authors as essential for assessing risk and allowing for the sustainable protection of cultural heritage in environments that are continuously changing. Several authors have highlighted the advantages of building a WebGIS of potentially at-risk sites, with the dual purpose of raising awareness among the population about the risks associated with climate change and serving as a decision support tool.
At the same time, GIS is also used for forecasts regarding extreme events that can affect cultural sites, such as landslides and floods [50,51]. A study conducted by Jiao et al. [52] describes landslide susceptibility mapping, considered essential for the prevention and mitigation of risks in mountainous areas prone to landslides. In particular, the investigation focuses on the Hani Rice Terraces of Honghe, a World Heritage site in Yuanyang County in southwestern China.
It is evident that this technology is particularly useful for data visualization, spatial analysis, integration with different geospatial data, decision support, and environmental monitoring that can affect any historical and cultural/natural site. For example, the article [53] analyses a very innovative approach for the growing use of geographic information systems (GISs) and remote sensing (RS) in archeology and cultural heritage. The article presents methodologies that effectively integrate spatial data from various sources, adopting multidisciplinary approaches. On the other hand, as can be seen from other studies conducted with the same technique, the management and analysis of large volumes of data can be complicated and may require advanced technical skills; problems related to data reliability and geographical limitations may arise [54,55,56,57,58]. Despite that, the peculiarity of an information system is the ability to relate information and provide comprehensive knowledge synthesis frameworks for different users’ needs. In this context, the geo-reference of cultural assets in the territory plays an important role, whether it is a building or artifact. The latter can also be placed spatially through the relationship they have with the “container”, that is, the structure that preserves them (museums, monuments, sites, buildings of worship, deposits, etc.).
Finally, a summary table (Table 1) is provided, in which some of the fundamental parameters that influence the choice of one methodology over another, as highlighted in the various articles collected in this review, have been summarized.
In order to make the methodological approach proposed in this research clearer and more accessible, it is of fundamental importance to provide a detailed overview of the software resources and techniques used, since the choice of the most advanced software and technological methods is an important step in determining the effectiveness and replicability of the results, even in this particular and constantly evolving sector. The following table (Table 2) summarizes the main tools used, specifying not only the category to which they belong and the names of the most commonly used software in the field of cultural heritage conservation but also the methods of use and links to additional resources that offer practical insights for interested readers.

3. Vulnerabilities of Cultural Heritage to Climate Change

The climate changes underway are now evident on a global scale. Several international institutions have recognized the importance of establishing structured databases to monitor climate variations over time and space.
In-depth knowledge of climate factors and environmental risks is essential to anticipate and prevent damage. By integrating this knowledge with a comprehensive conservation strategy, it is possible to ensure the long-term survival of historical and architectural heritage, allowing it to continue bearing witness to the achievements of the civilizations that built it.
The ability to reconstruct the trends in climatic components through the processing of collected data enables us to re-create the contextual conditions and make assessments not only of the existing degradation but also of its progression over time.
The following three types of manifestations of climate variations can be identified:
(A)
Long-term trends with gradual variations;
(B)
Cyclical manifestations of phenomena;
(C)
Extreme events.

3.1. Long-Term Trends with Gradual Variations

Some effects of climate change on cultural heritage emerge slowly; it is possible to observe decadal trends. The increasing global temperature is a reality, and it influences other climate factors, with different impacts in distinct parts of the world. For example, the desertification of some regions produces worse life conditions and the migration of peoples, with the consequent abandon of historical vestiges, old villages, and cities. The melting of traditionally frozen areas such as some Siberian regions or mountain ranges breaks geological balances, and the strength of historic building materials is undermined. The disruption of seasonal cycles is now noticeable in many countries, including Italy; there is increasing talk of shortening the mild seasons, spring, and autumn, therefore lengthening the hot and cold seasons—yet there are unusual heat peaks. Climate changes are no longer gradual, and this implies negative effects on cultural assets, especially those exposed outdoors.
To be able to read these trends, it is necessary to build historical series with primary weather data to cover at least the last 30 years (1990–2020); there are now databases made available by specialized bodies and public institutions.

3.2. Cyclical Manifestations of Phenomena (Annual Trend)

On the annual horizon, it is possible to read the variations in the climatic data on different cyclical dimensions (annual trend), such as seasons, months, weeks, days, or hours.
Climate variations in temperature, humidity, and precipitation can induce various forms of deterioration over time due to thermal expansion and contraction, particularly on surfaces most exposed and sensitive to temperature changes. Humidity levels can promote biological growth, such as lichens on surfaces, contributing to physical erosion as roots penetrate the stone, as well as chemical alterations. Cycles of rain followed by drought periods can cause the delamination and chipping of surfaces, accelerating degradation; this phenomenon can be exacerbated by the formation of cracks that further weaken the structure during freeze–thaw cycles.
Marine aerosols play a significant role in the deterioration of buildings in coastal areas. Marine aerosol is formed during storms, where a certain amount of sea salt is transferred into the atmosphere by waves breaking on the coast. The salt particles suspended in the air can be carried by the wind and deposited on artifacts, attacking their component materials. Degradation mechanisms on stone surfaces of a building are activated in the presence of water and foreign material. These impurities are introduced onto the stone surface by wet or dry deposits in the atmosphere or result from chemical reactions with these atmospheric materials. Dry deposition consists of the accumulation of air pollutants on the stone surface, transported by the wind, while wet deposition involves the incorporation of trace substances into cloud droplets and subsequent precipitation (rain).

3.3. Extreme Events

Extreme events could be defined as unpredictable and violent manifestations of short duration such as floods, landslides, and large-scale fires, and they can cause the destruction of cultural heritage assets.
It is necessary to classify these events by categories, regions of the earth, duration, intensity, harmful effects in general, and damaging effects on cultural heritage in particular. Indeed, there are now databases developed by specialized agencies based on satellite surveys covering at least the last 40 years, but the relationship between extreme events and cultural heritage has been little explored.

4. Case Studies

In the current context of increasing risks related to climate change, it is essential to adopt innovative strategies to safeguard cultural heritage. Geomatics, a discipline that integrates technologies for sensing, analysis, and the spatial management of information, is proving to be a valuable tool for monitoring and protecting works of art and historical sites. Through environmental data analysis and spatial modeling, it is possible to better understand the risks to which cultural heritage is exposed and develop effective solutions to mitigate them. Geomatics techniques are in fact precise, accurate, and fast, and allow for reconstructions and fundamental analyses to identify problems and areas of intervention in cultural heritage damaged by the effects of climate change. From the restitutions and processing of the collected data, in fact, it is possible to identify with high accuracy signs of problems or structural changes due to sudden changes in temperature or variations in humidity caused by extreme events. SAR satellite images, for example, are essential to identify subsidence due to deformative movements of the ground, while GIS is used to monitor, even in real time, the changes that occur over time in a particular site or monument. This review has the purpose of highlighting the innovative aspects of geomatics techniques in order to obtain rapid diagnoses of problems and possible interventions to be implemented. In this work, three case studies are proposed that illustrate the possible interventions to mitigate climate change and the possible application of geomatics technologies to preserve cultural heritage in vulnerable situations, analyzing specific initiatives that demonstrate the effectiveness of these approaches. From the conservation of the Riace Bronzes to the creation of urban forests in Paris and to the transformation of Pontevedra into a car-free city and reforestation initiatives in Brazil, these examples highlight how technological innovation can be a key ally in the fight against environmental challenges that threaten our cultural heritage.
It is evident that the examples proposed are quite heterogeneous and relate to quite different contexts, in relation to sites, regions of the world, types of actions taken to mitigate the impacts of climate change, and the risks of further environmental degradation.
At the regional level, for example, the effects of climate change on historical monuments and cultural heritage can be particularly marked in areas characterized by extreme microclimates or by local phenomena such as soil erosion or seasonal variations in temperature and humidity. In coastal contexts, rising sea levels and increased erosion and salinization are among the main risks for the conservation of stone assets and sensitive building materials. In these areas, monitoring must include not only the analysis of atmospheric conditions but also of local environmental factors, such as relative humidity and salinity, which can accelerate the degradation processes of materials. Here, the use of high-resolution remote sensing data combined with field environmental sensors allows for the real-time monitoring of variables such as humidity, temperature, and salt concentration in the air, providing precise information for conservation management.
At the national and international level, however, climate change has varying impacts based on the different climate zones. In temperate areas, such as much of Central Europe, the main challenges include the increase in extreme events such as storms, hailstorms, and rapid temperature variations that cause expansion and contraction cycles in building materials, resulting in structural damage. On the contrary, in drier environments, such as those of the southern Mediterranean, the intensification of drought phenomena and high summer temperatures can favor the deterioration of organic materials, such as wood or plasters, through evaporation and dehydration. Examples of historical monuments and ancient statues have been reported, which present specific vulnerabilities with respect to climate change. In some areas, direct exposure to atmospheric agents and the presence of air pollutants accelerates the degradation of stone and metal materials. In other cases, changes in temperature and air humidity can stimulate the production of bacteria and lichens, which contribute to the surface degradation of cultural heritage. These events need a continuous monitoring activity that employs modern sensors and technologies to collect data in real time and enable prompt actions.

4.1. Riace Bronzes

The conservation of works of art in museums can be interpreted both as the prevention of damage due to human and environmental factors and as a restoration action. Regarding the prevention of damage, it is now well known that the degradation of materials is accelerated by unsuitable environmental conditions, such as air pollution, temperature, and relative humidity that vary over time. These conditions often characterize Italian museums located in historic buildings. Although the transformations connected with the degradation process are inevitable and irreversible, they can be strongly limited by placing the works of art in “safe” environments from an environmental point of view; therefore, the control of thermo-hygrometric parameters and the purity of internal air is fundamental for any museum or art gallery. At the National Archaeological Museum of Reggio Calabria, the famous Riace Bronzes (Figure 7) are exhibited in a room with a controlled climate. The humidity remains at 40–50%, and the temperature is constantly maintained between 21 and 23 °C. The sculptures are supported by advanced structures with anti-seismic insulation.

4.2. Place de Catalogne a Parigi

Limiting heat is essential to preserving the quality of life in cities. The Paris city council has taken note of this after the succession of summer heatwaves that hit the city and has decided to create five urban forests. The creation of urban forests in Paris will transform the face of the city and allow residents and visitors to enjoy new green spaces in which to relax, have fun, and cool off. In addition to promoting health and psychological well-being, trees help reduce air pollution and will allow Parisians and tourists to breathe better air. Beyond mitigating the effects of global warming and improving the biodiversity of the land, this project for the creation of green spaces and decarbonization promotes a new urban paradigm that favors the quality of life of residents.
Place de Catalogne, following a project undertaken in 2023, is now planted with 470 trees, including 270 large and medium-sized trees and 200 young trees between 2 and 4 years old. The concrete has thus given way to more than 4000 m2 of forest, including 860 m² of clearing. This urban forest is inspired by the natural forests of Île-de-France and includes species such as hornbeam and oak, which are naturally present in the region. Other species that grow there include holm oaks, downy oaks, and Montpellier maples, which are more resistant to climate change. Large, medium, and small trees are densely planted in the modeled and slightly raised terrain. Part of the urban forest is located approximately 1.20 m above the level of the clearing, allowing it to be visually isolated from traffic. This creates a complete and living ecosystem that includes soil, vegetation, and fauna.

4.3. Pontevedra, Car-Free City

Every year, thousands of people die in traffic accidents in European cities. None of those deaths occur in Pontevedra. Over the past two decades, cars have been responsible for fewer than a dozen deaths in the northwestern Spanish city of 85,000. The explanation for Pontevedra’s record is simple—it banned cars in much of the city in 1999.
“We decided to redesign the city for people instead of cars, and we’ve been reaping the benefits ever since”, said Pontevedra Mayor Miguel Anxo Fernández Lores, who took to office with plans for a car-free city more than 20 years ago. “Not only have we not had a single road-related death in over a decade, but air pollution has been reduced by 67 percent, and our overall quality of life in the city has improved dramatically”, he said. About 15,000 people have moved to the city since it became a car-free city, he added.
As cities seek to meet ambitious climate goals, many are considering or already implementing measures to eliminate cars as a means of reducing emissions and protecting residents from pollution. During the pandemic, cities including London, Paris, and Brussels built new networks of cycle paths and created more space for pedestrians. Between 2019 and 2022, the number of low-emission zones—which limit access to certain types of polluting traffic—in European cities increased by 40% according to the Clean Cities campaign. In 2020, more than 960 EU cities participated in International Car-Free Day, with dozens more instituting policies that ban cars from city centers once a month.

4.4. Targeted Reforestation

In an area of Brazil, the initiative of Sebastião Salgado and Lélia Deluiz Wanick has favored the planting of over 2 million trees, bringing back to light a lost forest. A report by the United Nations highlights an alarming fact, that from 1990 to today, 129 million hectares of forest have been lost in the world (an area almost equivalent to South Africa), and 15% of all greenhouse gas emissions are caused by deforestation.
Faced with this scenario, many individuals feel small and helpless, thinking of the small impact that a single action could generate. Yet not everyone thinks the same way; proof of this is Sebastião Salgado, a well-known Brazilian photographer, and his wife, Lélia Deluiz Wanick, who, as reported in an article published by Meteoweb.eu, have decided to respond to deforestation with reforestation. The couple founded the Terra Institute, a small organization that planted 2 million trees and revived the forest from 2001 to 2019. “There is only one being that can transform carbon dioxide into oxygen, and that is the tree. We must replant the forests”. After taking great care to ensure that all the plants used were local, the area flourished significantly, and the fauna returned in the following 20 years. In total, 172 species of birds, 33 species of mammals, 293 species of plants, 15 species of reptiles, and 15 species of amphibians returned, an entire ecosystem rebuilt from scratch.

5. Conclusions and Future Directions

For the protection of cultural heritage, it is necessary to acquire information aimed at reconstructing a detailed cognitive framework (anamnesis) to develop an adequate diagnostic plan and then adopt appropriate strategies and methodological procedures for conservation and possible restoration actions. The reconstruction of the anamnestic framework also involves the collection and analysis of current and historical environmental and climatic data from official sources, constituting organic parts of a database.
Geomatics methodologies can certainly provide a significant contribution for monitoring and interpreting the damage caused by climate change. It is clear how the tools and methodologies of geomatics can significantly contribute to the protection of cultural heritage; in particular, drones and GIS are configured as fundamental tools for monitoring and mapping, representing versatile and, in some respects, inexpensive means for damage assessment and the spatialization of data and artifacts.
The literature review highlights the need to create collaborative databases (also at an international level) that share geomatics data, climate models, and useful information on cultural sites at risk and to have a single repository for this important information. To facilitate the interpretation of the collected data, a database management system (DBMS) can be used to relate the information and to support a modeling approach.
This database building process (mainly in a GIS environment, with databases like PostgreSQL with PostGIS) consists of several phases. First, a good database design is needed (whether relational or non-relational), through which it is possible to define the relationships between the main entities and the relationships between them (for example, a given asset can be associated with a specific conservation condition and with different and heterogeneous historical data). It is then necessary to build tables for each of these identified entities, each with an ID that can be used to associate it with separate attribute tables that store the conservation conditions. After the appropriate data import (possibly with an automated process), the next innovative step would be to apply modeling techniques to analyze the information and draw conclusions for concrete interventions. One solution could be to use static models to correlate the variables or predictive models (using Python libraries like scikit-learn, TensorFlow, or Keras) to estimate the duration of the conservation of the cultural asset based on the results of the model used. To facilitate interaction with data and interpretation, intuitive interfaces can be created that include advanced search capabilities and the ability to generate reports. Of course, the DBMS can be integrated with machine learning algorithms to automate the pattern detection process and forecasting capacity.
On the other hand, the problems related to the use of geomatics techniques are many and concern distinct aspects. In particular, remote sensing techniques (satellite, drone, and LiDAR) have limitations in terms of spatial and temporal resolution, which are often not sufficient to detect small structural changes or the deterioration of cultural heritage, especially in small areas. Furthermore, there is often a lack of accurate historical data, not allowing for long-term comparisons and analyses. The available data are often affected by various uncertainties, resulting in being incomplete or non-standardized. Furthermore, in the literature, evident difficulties emerge in integrating environmental data with those relating to the physical and historical characteristics of cultural heritage. Finally, a further problem concerns the lack of adequate structures for data management and storage, as well as for their accessibility in view of future analyses.
Despite this, since the effects of climate change are constantly growing, possible directions for research may involve the use and integration of artificial intelligence, particularly machine learning, for the predictive analysis of the effects of climate change on cultural heritage. While the authors focus on automatic methods for identifying lesions, cracks, and damage to buildings or monuments, it would also be interesting to see more AI methods and models used to predict future damage based on specific trends in the model in order to establish strategies that prevent such damage from occurring, both in the short and long term.
From the review carried out, it is clear how the tools and methodologies of geomatics can significantly contribute to the protection of cultural heritage; in particular, drones and GIS are configured as fundamental tools for monitoring and mapping, representing versatile and, in some respects, inexpensive means for damage assessment and the spatialization of data and artifacts.
In the context of cultural heritage threatened by climate change, it is clear how collaborations between different sectors—such as engineering, architecture, environmental sciences, and social sciences—are of fundamental importance. Together, they can develop regulations and guidelines that govern the use of geomatics technologies and artificial intelligence in the monitoring and conservation of cultural sites.
In conclusion, advanced remote sensing, drones with advanced sensing capabilities, and IoT sensors are emerging technologies to improve heritage monitoring and management. In particular, the IoT, which refers to the interconnection of physical devices via the Internet, allows for the collection and exchange of data in real time. IoT sensors can measure environmental parameters such as temperature, humidity, air pollution, and CO2 levels, which can be used to evaluate and optimize the conservation conditions of cultural heritage and historical sites. Finally, the collected data (in a specific database) can be analyzed with machine learning algorithms to identify patterns and trends, supporting informed decisions for the management of cultural heritage. Ultimately, the need for integration of the new technologies emerges to promote an integrated and multidisciplinary approach to the management of cultural heritage, providing a holistic view of the conditions of a cultural site and facilitating timely and targeted interventions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.B., C.G. and E.G.; methodology, V.B., C.G. and E.G.; software, V.B., C.G. and E.G.; validation, V.B., C.G. and E.G.; formal analysis, V.B., C.G. and E.G.; investigation, V.B., C.G. and E.G.; resources, V.B., C.G. and E.G.; data curation, V.B., C.G. and E.G.; writing—original draft preparation, V.B., C.G. and E.G.; writing—review and editing, V.B., C.G. and E.G.; visualization, V.B., C.G. and E.G.; supervision, V.B., C.G. and E.G.; project administration, V.B., C.G. and E.G.; funding acquisition, V.B., C.G. and E.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

This contribution is the result of ongoing research under the PNRR National Recovery and Resilience Plan, Mission 4 “Education and Research”, funded by Next Generation EU within the Innovation Ecosystem project “Tech4You” Technologies for climate change adaptation and quality of life improvement, SPOKE 4 Technologies for resilient and accessible cultural and natural heritage, and Goal 4.6 Planning for Climate Change to boost cultural and natural heritage, using demand-oriented ecosystem services based on enabling ICT and AI technologies.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. European Commission. Global Climate Highlights. 2024. Available online: https://climate.copernicus.eu/global-climate-highlights-2023 (accessed on 8 December 2024).
  2. Sesana, E.; Gagnon, A.S.; Ciantelli, C.; Cassar, J.; Hughes, J.J. Climate change impacts on cultural heritage: A literature review. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 2021, 12, e710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. European Commission. Strengthening the resilience of cultural heritage to climate change. In Where the European Green Deal Meets Cultural Heritage; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2022; ISBN 978-92-76-48205-5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. IPCC, 2023: Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Core Writing Team; Lee, H.; Romero, J. (Eds.) IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Higgins, N. Changing Climate; Changing Life—Climate Change and Indigenous Intangible Cultural Heritage. Laws 2022, 11, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Nguyen, K.N.; Baker, S. Climate Change and UNESCO World Heritage-Listed Cultural Properties: A Systematic Review, 2008–2021. Heritage 2023, 6, 2394–2420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Esteban-Cantillo, O.J.; Menendez, B.; Quesada, B. Climate change and air pollution impacts on cultural heritage building materials in Europe and Mexico. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 921, 170945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Dias Pereira, L.; Saraiva, N.B.; Soares, N. Hygrothermal behavior of cultural heritage buildings and climate change: Status and main challenges. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 3445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Matyukira, C.; Mhangara, P. Advancement in the Application of Geospatial Technology in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage in South Africa: A Scientometric Review. Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Paschalidou, E.; Fafet, C.; Milios, L. A Strong Sustainability Framework for Digital Preservation of Cultural Heritage: Introducing the Eco-Sufficiency Perspective. Heritage 2022, 5, 1066–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sesana, E.; Gagnon, A.S.; Bonazza, A.; Hughes, J.J. An integrated approach for assessing the vulnerability of World Heritage Sites to climate change impacts. J. Cult. Herit. 2020, 41, 211–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Levin, N.; Ali, S.; Crandall, D.; Kark, S. World Heritage in danger: Big data and remote sensing can help protect sites in conflict zones. Glob. Environ. Change 2019, 55, 97–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Luo, L.; Wang, X.; Guo, H.; Lasaponara, R.; Zong, X.; Masini, N.; Wang, G.; Shi, P.; Khatteli, H.; Chen, F.; et al. Airborne and spaceborne remote sensing for archaeological and cultural heritage applications: A review of the century (1907–2017). Remote Sens. Environ. 2019, 232, 111280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wang, M.; He, G.; Ishwaran, N.; Hong, T.; Bell, A.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, G.; Wang, M. Monitoring vegetation dynamics in East Rennell Island World Heritage Site using multi-sensor and multi-temporal remote sensing data. Int. J. Digit. Earth 2020, 13, 393–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Strydom, S.; Murray, K.; Wilson, S.; Huntley, B.; Rule, M.; Heithaus, M.; Bessey, C.; Kendrick, G.A.; Burkholder, D.; Fraser, M.W.; et al. Too hot to handle: Unprecedented seagrass death driven by marine heatwave in a World Heritage Area. Glob. Change Biol. 2020, 26, 3525–3538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Paladini, A.; Dhanda, A.; Reina Ortiz, M.; Weigert, A.; Nofal, E.; Min, A.; Gyi, M.; Su, S.; Van Balen, K.; Santana Quintero, M. Impact of virtual reality experience on accessibility of cultural heritage. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2019, 42, 929–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bilotta, G.; Nocera, R.; Barone, P.M. Cultural heritage and OBIA. WSEAS Trans. Environ. Dev. 2021, 17, 449–465. [Google Scholar]
  18. Tapete, D.; Cigna, F. COSMO-SkyMed SAR for detection and monitoring of archaeological and cultural heritage sites. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sousa, J.J.; Lin, J.; Wang, Q.; Liu, G.; Fan, J.; Bai, S.; Zhao, H.; Pan, H.; Wei, W.; Rittlinger, V.; et al. Using machine learning and satellite data from multiple sources to analyze mining, water management, and preservation of cultural heritage. Geo-Spat. Inf. Sci. 2024, 27, 552–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Duan, P.; Wang, Y.; Yin, P. Remote sensing applications in monitoring of protected areas: A bibliometric analysis. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kingsland, K. Comparative analysis of digital photogrammetry software for cultural heritage. Digit. Appl. Archaeol. Cult. Herit. 2020, 18, e00157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Rahaman, H.; Champion, E. To 3D or not 3D: Choosing a photogrammetry workflow for cultural heritage groups. Heritage 2019, 2, 1835–1851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Barrile, V.; Bernardo, E.; Bilotta, G. An experimental HBIM processing: Innovative tool for 3D model reconstruction of morpho-typological phases for the cultural heritage. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Barrile, V.; Fotia, A.; Bilotta, G.; De Carlo, D. Integration of geomatics methodologies and creation of a cultural heritage app using augmented reality. Virtual Archaeol. Rev. 2019, 10, 40–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Barrile, V.; Fotia, A. A proposal of a 3D segmentation tool for HBIM management. Appl. Geomat. 2022, 14 (Suppl. 1), 197–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Pepe, M.; Costantino, D.; Alfio, V.S.; Restuccia, A.G.; Papalino, N.M. Scan to BIM for the digital management and representation in 3D GIS environment of cultural heritage site. J. Cult. Herit. 2021, 50, 115–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Saha, A.; Pal, S.C.; Santosh, M.; Janizadeh, S.; Chowdhuri, I.; Norouzi, A.; Roy, P.; Chakrabortty, R. Modelling multi-hazard threats to cultural heritage sites and environmental sustainability: The present and future scenarios. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 320, 128713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Grilli, E.; Remondino, F. Classification of 3D digital heritage. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Dawson, T.; Hambly, J.; Kelley, A.; Lees, W.; Miller, S. Coastal heritage, global climate change, public engagement, and citizen science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 8280–8286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mulahusić, A.; Tuno, N.; Gajski, D.; Topoljak, J. Comparison and analysis of results of 3D modelling of complex cultural and historical objects using different types of terrestrial laser scanner. Surv. Rev. 2020, 52, 107–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Liritzis, I.; Korka, E. Archaeometry’s role in cultural heritage sustainability and development. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Di Stefano, F.; Chiappini, S.; Gorreja, A.; Balestra, M.; Pierdicca, R. Mobile 3D scan LiDAR: A literature review. Geomat. Nat. Hazards Risk 2021, 12, 2387–2429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Trier, Ø.D.; Cowley, D.C.; Waldeland, A.U. Using deep neural networks on airborne laser scanning data: Results from a case study of semi-automatic mapping of archaeological topography on Arran, Scotland. Archaeol. Prospect. 2019, 26, 165–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Manajitprasert, S.; Tripathi, N.K.; Arunplod, S. Three-dimensional (3D) modeling of cultural heritage site using UAV imagery: A case study of the pagodas in Wat Maha That, Thailand. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Russo, M.; Carnevali, L.; Russo, V.; Savastano, D.; Taddia, Y. Modeling and deterioration mapping of façades in historical urban context by close-range ultra-lightweight UAVs photogrammetry. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2019, 13, 549–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Pepe, M.; Alfio, V.S.; Costantino, D. UAV platforms and the SfM-MVS approach in the 3D surveys and modelling: A review in the cultural heritage field. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bakirman, T.; Bayram, B.; Akpinar, B.; Karabulut, M.F.; Bayrak, O.C.; Yigitoglu, A.; Seker, D.Z. Implementation of ultra-light UAV systems for cultural heritage documentation. J. Cult. Herit. 2020, 44, 174–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Templin, T.; Popielarczyk, D. The use of low-cost unmanned aerial vehicles in the process of building models for cultural tourism, 3D webs and augmented/mixed reality applications. Sensors 2020, 20, 5457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Frodella, W.; Elashvili, M.; Spizzichino, D.; Gigli, G.; Adikashvili, L.; Vacheishvili, N.; Kirkitadze, G.; Nadaraia, A.; Margottini, C.; Casagli, N. Combining infrared thermography and UAV digital photogrammetry for the protection and conservation of rupestrian cultural heritage sites in Georgia: A methodological application. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Barrile, V.; Genovese, E. Gis-Like Environments and Hbim Integration For Ancient Villages Management And Dissemination. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2024, 48, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Barrile, V.; Genovese, E.; Favasuli, F. Development and Application of an Integrated BIM-GIS System for the Energy Management of Buildings. WSEAS Trans. Power Syst. 2023, 18, 232–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sestras, P.; Roșca, S.; Bilașco, Ș.; Naș, S.; Buru, S.M.; Kovacs, L.; Spalević, V.; Sestras, A.F. Feasibility assessments using unmanned aerial vehicle technology in heritage buildings: Rehabilitation-restoration, spatial analysis and tourism potential analysis. Sensors 2020, 20, 2054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gil-Docampo, M.; Peña-Villasenín, S.; Bettencourt, A.M.; Ortiz-Sanz, J.; Peraleda-Vázquez, S. 3D geometric survey of cultural heritage by UAV in inaccessible coastal or shallow aquatic environments. Archaeol. Prospection. 2023, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ergun, B.; Sahin, C.; Bilucan, F. Level of detail (LoD) geometric analysis of relief mapping employing 3D modeling via UAV images in cultural heritage studies. Herit. Sci. 2023, 11, 194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kittipongvises, S.; Phetrak, A.; Rattanapun, P.; Brundiers, K.; Buizer, J.L.; Melnick, R. AHP-GIS analysis for flood hazard assessment of the communities nearby the world heritage site on Ayutthaya Island, Thailand. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020, 48, 101612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ma, Y.P. Extending 3D-GIS district models and BIM-based building models into computer gaming environment for better workflow of cultural heritage conservation. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lafrenz Samuels, K.; Platts, E.J. An ecolabel for the world heritage brand? Developing a climate communication recognition scheme for heritage sites. Climate 2020, 8, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Themistocleous, K. The use of UAVs for cultural heritage and archaeology. In Remote Sensing for Archaeology and Cultural Landscapes: Best Practices and Perspectives Across Europe and the Middle East; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 241–269. [Google Scholar]
  49. Ravankhah, M.; de Wit, R.; Argyriou, A.V.; Chliaoutakis, A.; Revez, M.J.; Birkmann, J.; Žuvela-Aloise, M.; Sarris, A.; Tzigounaki, A.; Giapitsoglou, K. Integrated assessment of natural hazards, including climate change’s influences, for cultural heritage sites: The case of the historic centre of Rethymno in Greece. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 2019, 10, 343–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Reale, D.; Noviello, C.; Verde, S.; Cascini, L.; Terracciano, G.; Arena, L. A multi-disciplinary approach for the damage analysis of cultural heritage: The case study of the St. Gerlando Cathedral in Agrigento. Remote Sens. Environ. 2019, 235, 111464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Skublewska-Paszkowska, M.; Milosz, M.; Powroznik, P.; Lukasik, E. 3D technologies for intangible cultural heritage preservation—Literature review for selected databases. Herit. Sci. 2022, 10, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Jiao, Y.; Zhao, D.; Ding, Y.; Liu, Y.; Xu, Q.; Qiu, Y.; Liu, C.; Liu, Z.; Zha, Z.; Li, R. Performance evaluation for four GIS-based models purposed to predict and map landslide susceptibility: A case study at a World Heritage site in Southwest China. Catena 2019, 183, 104221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Yao, Y.; Wang, X.; Luo, L.; Wan, H.; Ren, H. An overview of GIS-RS applications for archaeological and cultural heritage under the DBAR-heritage mission. Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 5766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Cacciotti, R.; Kaiser, A.; Sardella, A.; De Nuntiis, P.; Drdácký, M.; Hanus, C.; Bonazza, A. Climate change-induced disasters and cultural heritage: Optimizing management strategies in Central Europe. Clim. Risk Manag. 2021, 32, 100301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Orr, S.A.; Richards, J.; Fatorić, S. Climate change and cultural heritage: A systematic literature review (2016–2020). Hist. Environ. Policy Pract. 2021, 12, 434–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. García, B.M. Resilient cultural heritage for a future of climate change. J. Int. Aff. 2019, 73, 101–120. [Google Scholar]
  57. Sardella, A.; Palazzi, E.; von Hardenberg, J.; Del Grande, C.; De Nuntiis, P.; Sabbioni, C.; Bonazza, A. Risk mapping for the sustainable protection of cultural heritage in extreme changing environments. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Barrile, V.; Fotia, A.; Candela, G.; Bernardo, E. Geomatics techniques for cultural heritage dissemination in augmented reality: Bronzi di riace case study. Heritage 2019, 2, 2243–2254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Heritage 07 00325 g001
Figure 1. (a) Segmentation in eCognition of Ikonos imagery; (b) pixel-based and object-based image analysis classification [17].
Figure 1. (a) Segmentation in eCognition of Ikonos imagery; (b) pixel-based and object-based image analysis classification [17].
Heritage 07 00325 g001
Heritage 07 00325 g002
Figure 2. (a) Survey with laser scanner [23]; (b) reconstruction of building information modeling.
Figure 2. (a) Survey with laser scanner [23]; (b) reconstruction of building information modeling.
Heritage 07 00325 g002
Heritage 07 00325 g003
Figure 3. (a) Laser scanner point cloud [24]; (b) Vitrioli house portal 3D model [25].
Figure 3. (a) Laser scanner point cloud [24]; (b) Vitrioli house portal 3D model [25].
Heritage 07 00325 g003
Heritage 07 00325 g004
Figure 4. Three-dimensional reconstruction from UAV survey [40].
Figure 4. Three-dimensional reconstruction from UAV survey [40].
Heritage 07 00325 g004
Heritage 07 00325 g005
Figure 5. Three-dimensional model of Precacore Complex [41].
Figure 5. Three-dimensional model of Precacore Complex [41].
Heritage 07 00325 g005
Heritage 07 00325 g006
Figure 6. WebGis.
Figure 6. WebGis.
Heritage 07 00325 g006
Heritage 07 00325 g007
Figure 7. Riace Bronzes at the National Archaeological Museum of Reggio Calabria, Italy [47].
Figure 7. Riace Bronzes at the National Archaeological Museum of Reggio Calabria, Italy [47].
Heritage 07 00325 g007
Table 1. Limits and advantages of geomatics techniques for the protection of cultural heritage.
Table 1. Limits and advantages of geomatics techniques for the protection of cultural heritage.
TechnologyPrecisionCostApplicationsLimitsAdvantages
Remote SensingHigh (varies, from 1 m to 30 m)Variable (low for satellite data, high for aircraft)Environmental monitoring, vegetation analysis, archeologyDifficulty in analyzing fine details, requires expert interpretationLarge-scale coverage, time-based monitoring, non-invasive
Laser ScanningMillimetric (up to 1 mm)High (significant initial investment)Detailed documentation of structures and artifacts, creation of 3D modelsSensitivity to environmental conditions, problems on complex objectsHigh resolution, microscopic detail, precise historical documentation
UAVHigh (up to 2–5 cm)Moderate (affordable long-term)Architectural surveys, mapping, site monitoringTime and autonomy limitations, legal restrictions in some areasFlexibility, access to difficult areas, rapid data acquisition
GISVariable (depends on data)Variable (open source or commercial software)Spatial analysis, data management, land use planningNeed for high quality data, complexity of useIntegration of different data sources, advanced analysis, visualization of results
Table 2. Specific software, methods of use, and teaching websites of geomatics technologies used for monitoring climate change effects on cultural heritage.
Table 2. Specific software, methods of use, and teaching websites of geomatics technologies used for monitoring climate change effects on cultural heritage.
Tools CategorySoftwareTechnologyMethods of UseTeaching Website
Remote
Sensing		ENVI, ERDAS IMAGINE, QGIS, SNAP, eCognitionSatellite imagery, hyperspectral sensors, radar sensorsImage processing, change detection, spectral analysis, classificationhttps://www.nv5geospatialsoftware.com/Learn/Training/Self-Paced-Training accessed on 3 October 2024
Laser
Scanning		Leica Cyclone, Faro Scene, Riegl RiSCAN ProLiDAR (light detection and ranging)3D scanning, topographic surveys, point cloud analysishttps://leica-geosystems.com/services-and-support/training accessed on 20 September 2024
UAVPix4D, DroneDeploy, Agisoft MetashapeUAV (unmanned aerial vehicles) for photogrammetryAerial mapping, 3D modeling, site inspectionshttps://training.pix4d.com/ accessed on 15 October 2024
GISArcGIS, QGIS, GRASS GIS, MapInfoGeographic information systems (GISs)Spatial analysis, mapping, data visualizationhttps://www.esri.com/training/ accessed on 30 September 2024
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Barrile, V.; Gattuso, C.; Genovese, E. Review of Geomatics Solutions for Protecting Cultural Heritage in Response to Climate Change. Heritage 2024, 7, 7031-7049. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage7120325

AMA Style

Barrile V, Gattuso C, Genovese E. Review of Geomatics Solutions for Protecting Cultural Heritage in Response to Climate Change. Heritage. 2024; 7(12):7031-7049. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage7120325

Chicago/Turabian Style

Barrile, Vincenzo, Caterina Gattuso, and Emanuela Genovese. 2024. "Review of Geomatics Solutions for Protecting Cultural Heritage in Response to Climate Change" Heritage 7, no. 12: 7031-7049. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage7120325

APA Style

Barrile, V., Gattuso, C., & Genovese, E. (2024). Review of Geomatics Solutions for Protecting Cultural Heritage in Response to Climate Change. Heritage, 7(12), 7031-7049. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage7120325

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop