An Algorithm to Detect Endangered Cultural Heritage by Agricultural Expansion in Drylands at a Global Scale
Abstract
:1. Introduction
Remote Detection and Monitoring of Endangered Archaeological Sites
2. Materials and Methods
- It requires an external site location database as the main data input, in common vector formats, and calculates a buffer distance for each site.
- It calculates a spectral index over a sequence of Sentinel-2 images within an area of interest (AOI) and returns a multi-temporal aggregate of the maximum annual index values.
- It applies an index threshold to discriminate the occurrence of crops and seasonal phenology among local vegetation land cover types.
- It returns the AgriExp output classified raster, showing the first date (in years) on which each pixel within a site distance buffer was classified as being above the given threshold and has potentially been encroached by agricultural expansion.
- If any of the newly classified pixels falls within any of the site buffers, the algorithm produces aggregated spatial statistics and it outputs a list of sites in danger and in need of urgent monitoring.
- Additionally, the algorithm is set to display index-based time series for inspecting and validating land cover trends at any given location within the AOI.
2.1. User-Uploaded Vector Table
2.2. Definition of Protected Areas and Buffer Mapping
2.3. Sentinel-2 Image Collection
2.4. Use of Multi-Temporal NDVI Aggregates to Map Yearly Agricultural and Vegetation Trends
- Filter the harmonised Sentinel-2 collection to a specific AOI.
- Filter the image collection with a predefined date range. In our case, the starting date was set to 1 January 2017 to account for the last 5 natural years of change in agricultural land cover.
- Calculate the maximum yearly NDVI value for a given pixel along the annual maxima of the temporal collection of imagery.
- Apply a specific cut-off threshold to the yearly NDVI maximum values. In this case, a value of 0.4 was selected after a semi-automated evaluation of the local conditions and the desert’s phenology (see Section 2.7).
- Apply a morphological kernel filter to reduce the potential detection of isolated pixels classified as being above the given threshold.
- Return the AgriExp output raster.
2.5. Classified Site Database
- Area (in ha) of the buffered feature;
- Binary (yes/no) categorical classification of the impacted buffers; the algorithm recalculates if any of the pixels newly categorised as passing the threshold falls within the buffered feature;
- Endangered surface area (as a percentage, representing the total surface encroached and impacted by agricultural expansion;
- Categorical classification of the percentage of the total impacted surface according to the following endangerment levels: none (0%), low (<25%), moderate (<50%), high (<75%) and extreme impact (>75%) (see also a similar categorical definition in [68]);
- The first year of agricultural impact by buffer encroachment (note that the first year marked the start of our observations, i.e., the first date in the filtered Sentinel-2 image collection, and that, in some instances, pixels classified as “2017” might reflect agricultural trends that have been initiated previously, and the first year date was set by default to 1 January 2017);
- Most recent year (last year) of agricultural encroachment. Note that this takes into account the date, in years, of the last available Sentinel-2 scene within the AOI boundaries included in the GEE. This is an important feature of the algorithm, as the combined Sentinel-2 constellation presents revisiting times of 5–6 days [69] and therefore AgriExp’s outputs are kept updated at every new run with the constant inclusion of new scenes, unless stated otherwise (e.g., by filtering the image collection with a specific end date). In our case, the last computed scene in our Sentinel-2 collection was selected to be 4 November 2022;
- Most abundant year (mode) of agricultural encroachment (total number of buffer pixels impacted by year).
2.6. GIS Integration and Visualisation
2.7. Time Series and Validation of the Algorithm
3. Results
3.1. The Algorithm’s Performance
3.2. Large-Scale Mapping of Vegetation Trends over Time
3.3. Endangered Site Buffers
4. Discussion
4.1. Evaluation of Crop Seasonality and New Agricultural Trends
4.2. Effects of the Abnormally Massive Summer Monsoon of 2022
4.3. Cultural Landscapes and Archaeological Mounds at Risk of Disappearance
4.4. Systematic Implementation of Protective Buffer Areas
4.5. Adaptation and Reuse of the Algorithm
- The combination of one or more spectral indices (e.g., the Enhanced Vegetation Index or Normalised Difference Water Index, to name a few) to explore trends over time for distinct land cover types and hazards, such as seasonal flooding and urban expansion;
- The creation of custom-based and locally adapted multi-temporal seasonal indices, including yearly, monthly or even short spans of weekly filtered collections [91];
- The synergetic application of Copernicus data, including the use of Sentinel-2’s L2A harmonised datasets and the combined use of optical data with Sentinel-1’s radar imagery;
- The application of AgriExp in other long-term image collections included in GEE, such as the Landsat archive, or in combination with global land cover datasets, such as Dynamic World [92];
- The systematic application of the algorithm as a first exploratory step to determine the data selection and training for AgriExp’s adaptation to machine and deep learning approaches to land use and land cover classification;
- Convenient export of the original algorithm to other GEE-support platforms such as Python and other Copernicus-based cloud computing platforms.
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Opitz, R.; Herrmann, J. Recent Trends and Long-Standing Problems in Archaeological Remote Sensing. J. Comput. Appl. Archaeol. 2018, 1, 19–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tapete, D. Earth Observation, Remote Sensing, and Geoscientific Ground Investigations for Archaeological and Heritage Research. Geosciences 2019, 9, 161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tapete, D.; Cigna, F. Satellite Technologies for Monitoring Archaeological Sites at Risk. Antichistica 2021, 20, 155–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gorelick, N.; Hancher, M.; Dixon, M.; Ilyushchenko, S.; Thau, D.; Moore, R. Google Earth Engine: Planetary-Scale Geospatial Analysis for Everyone. Remote Sens. Environ. 2017, 202, 18–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mughal, M.R. Ancient Cholistan: Archaeology and Architecture; Ferozsons Ltd.: Lahore, Pakistan, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Petrie, C.; Lynam, F. Revisiting Settlement Contemporaneity and Exploring Stability and Instability: Case Studies from the Indus Civilisation. J. Field Archaeol. 2018, 45, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Orengo, H.A.; Conesa, F.C.; Garcia-Molsosa, A.; Lobo, A.; Green, A.S.; Madella, M.; Petrie, C.A. Automated Detection of Archaeological Mounds Using Machine-Learning Classification of Multisensor and Multitemporal Satellite Data. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 202005583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Planet Team. Planet Application Program Interface: In Space for Life on Earth; Planet Team: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2017; Available online: https://api.planet.com (accessed on 21 November 2022).
- Agapiou, A.; Lysandrou, V.; Hadjimitsis, D.G. A European—Scale Investigation of Soil Erosion Threat to Subsurface Archaeological Remains. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Marchetti, N.; Valeri, M.; Zaina, F.; Al-hussainy, A.A. Assessing Endangered Cultural Heritage in Central Iraq. Methods and Perspectives of the QADIS Survey Project. J. Archaeol. Iraq 2018, 64, 11–35. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, J.; Xu, Z.; Chen, F.; Chen, F.; Zhang, L. Flood Hazard Mapping and Assessment on the Angkor World Heritage Site, Cambodia. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tapete, D.; Cigna, F. Poorly Known 2018 Floods in Bosra UNESCO Site and Sergiopolis in Syria Unveiled from Space Using Sentinel-1/2 and COSMO-SkyMed. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 12307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fattore, C.; Abate, N.; Faridani, F.; Masini, N.; Lasaponara, R. Google Earth Engine as Multi-Sensor Open-Source Tool for Supporting the Preservation of Archaeological Areas: The Case Study of Flood and Fire Mapping in Metaponto, Italy. Sensors 2021, 21, 1791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Andreou, G.M.; Nikolaus, J.; Westley, K.; el Safadi, C.; Blue, L.; Smith, A.; Breen, C. Big Data in Maritime Archaeology: Challenges and Prospects from the Middle East and North Africa. J. Field Archaeol. 2022, 47, 131–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tapete, D.; Fanti, R.; Cecchi, R.; Petrangeli, P.; Casagli, N. Satellite Radar Interferometry for Monitoring and Early-Stage Warning of Structural Instability in Archaeological Sites. J. Geophys. Eng. 2012, 9, S10–S25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicu, I.C. Tracking Natural and Anthropic Risks from Historical Maps as a Tool for Cultural Heritage Assessment: A Case Study. Environ. Earth Sci. 2017, 76, 330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lombardo, L.; Tanyas, H.; Nicu, I.C. Spatial Modeling of Multi-Hazard Threat to Cultural Heritage Sites. Eng. Geol. 2020, 277, 105776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pastonchi, L.; Barra, A.; Monserrat, O.; Luzi, G.; Solari, L.; Tofani, V. Satellite Data to Improve the Knowledge of Geohazards in World Heritage Sites. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Agapiou, A.; Lysandrou, V.; Hadjimitsis, D.G. Earth Observation Contribution to Cultural Heritage Disaster Risk Management: Case Study of Eastern Mediterranean Open Air Archaeological Monuments and Sites. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Marchetti, N.; Curci, A.; Gatto, M.C.; Nicolini, S.; Mühl, S.; Zaina, F. A Multi-Scalar Approach for Assessing the Impact of Dams on the Cultural Heritage in the Middle East and North Africa. J. Cult. Herit. 2019, 37, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaina, F.; Tapete, D. Satellite-Based Methodology for Purposes of Rescue Archaeology of Cultural Heritage Threatened by Dam Construction. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rayne, L.; Bradbury, J.; Mattingly, D.; Philip, G.; Bewley, R.; Wilson, A. From above and on the Ground: Geospatial Methods for Recording Endangered Archaeology in the Middle East and North Africa. Geosciences 2017, 7, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zerbini, A. Developing a Heritage Database for the Middle East and North Africa. J. Field Archaeol. 2018, 43, S9–S18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flohr, P.; Bradbury, J.; ten Harkel, L. Tracing the Patterns: Fields, Villages, and Burial Places in Lebanon. Levant 2021, 53, 315–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tapete, D.; Cigna, F. Detection of Archaeological Looting from Space: Methods, Achievements and Challenges. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 2389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Contreras, D.A.; Brodie, N. The Utility of Publicly-Available Satellite Imagery for Investigating Looting of Archaeological Sites in Jordan. J. Field Archaeol. 2010, 35, 101–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lasaponara, R.; Masini, N. Facing the Archaeological Looting in Peru by Using Very High Resolution Satellite Imagery and Local Spatial Autocorrelation Statistics. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 2010, 6016, 254–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casana, J.; Panahipour, M. Notes on a Disappearing Past Satellite-Based Monitoring of Looting and Damage to Archaeological Sites in Syria. J. East. Mediterr. Archaeol. Herit. Stud. 2014, 2, 128–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tapete, D.; Cigna, F.; Donoghue, D.N.M. ‘Looting Marks’ in Space-Borne SAR Imagery: Measuring Rates of Archaeological Looting in Apamea (Syria) with TerraSAR-X Staring Spotlight. Remote Sens. Environ. 2016, 178, 42–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Caspari, G. Assessing Looting from Space: The Destruction of Early Iron Age Burials in Northern Xinjiang. Heritage 2018, 1, 320–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Agapiou, A.; Lysandrou, V.; Hadjimitsis, D. Optical Remote Sensing Potentials for Looting Detection. Geosciences 2017, 7, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Masini, N.; Lasaponara, R. Remote and Close Range Sensing for the Automatic Identification and Characterization of Archaeological Looting. The Case of Peru. J. Comput. Appl. Archaeol. 2021, 4, 126–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laugier, E.J.; Abdullatif, N.; Glatz, C. Embedding the Remote Sensing Monitoring of Archaeological Site Damage at the Local Level: Results from the “Archaeological Practice and Heritage Protection in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq” Project. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0269796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rayne, L.; Sheldrick, N.; Nikolaus, J. Endangered Archaeology in Libya: Tracking damage and destruction. Libyan Stud. 2017, 48, 23–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hanson, W.S.; Oltean, I.A. Archaeology from Historical Aerial and Satellite Archives; Hanson, W.S., Oltean, I.A., Eds.; SPIE: New York, NY, USA, 2013; ISBN 9781461445050. [Google Scholar]
- Pappu, S.; Akhilesh, K.; Ravindranath, S.; Raj, U. Applications of Satellite Remote Sensing for Research and Heritage Management in Indian Prehistory. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2010, 37, 2316–2331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conesa, F.C.; Devanthéry, N.; Balbo, A.L.; Madella, M.; Montserrat, O. Use of Satellite SAR for Understanding Long-Term Human Occupation Dynamics in the Monsoonal Semi-Arid Plains of North Gujarat, India. Remote Sens. 2014, 6, 11420–11443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rayne, L.; Gatto, M.C.; Abdulaati, L.; Al-Haddad, M.; Sterry, M.; Sheldrick, N.; Mattingly, D. Detecting Change at Archaeological Sites in North Africa Using Open-Source Satellite Imagery. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agapiou, A. Optimal Spatial Resolution for the Detection and Discrimination of Archaeological Proxies in Areas with Spectral Heterogeneity. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Agapiou, A. Vegetation Extraction Using Visible-Bands from Openly Licensed Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Imagery. Drones 2020, 4, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galiatsatos, N. Assessment of the CORONA Series of Satellite Imagery for Landscape Archaeology. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Durham, Durham, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Conesa, F.C.; Madella, M.; Galiatsatos, N.; Balbo, A.L.; Rajesh, S.V.; Ajithprasad, P.; Rajesh, S.V.; Ajithprasad, P.; Rajesh, S.V.; Ajithprasad, P.; et al. CORONA Photographs in Monsoonal Semi-Arid Environments: Addressing Archaeological Surveys and Historic Landscape Dynamics over North Gujarat, India. Archaeol. Prospect. 2015, 22, 75–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plekhov, D.; Levine, E.I. Assessing the Effects of Severe Weather Events through Remote Sensing on Samothrace, Greece: Applications for the Management of Cultural Resources. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 2018, 21, 810–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rayne, L.; Donoghue, D. A Remote Sensing Approach for Mapping the Development of Ancient Water Management in the near East. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 2042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tapete, D.; Traviglia, A.; Delpozzo, E.; Cigna, F. Regional-Scale Systematic Mapping of Archaeological Mounds and Detection of Looting Using COSMO-SkyMed High Resolution DEM and Satellite Imagery. Remose Sens. 2021, 13, 3106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orengo, H.A.; Krahtopoulou, A.; Garcia-Molsosa, A.; Palaiochoritis, K.; Stamati, A. Photogrammetric Re-Discovery of the Hidden Long-Term Landscapes of Western Thessaly, Central Greece. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2015, 64, 100–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hammer, E.; FitzPatrick, M.; Ur, J. Succeeding CORONA: Declassified HEXAGON Intelligence Imagery for Archaeological and Historical Research. Antiquity 2022, 96, 679–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orengo, H.A.; Petrie, C.A. Large-Scale, Multi-Temporal Remote Sensing of Palaeo-River Networks: A Case Study from Northwest India and Its Implications for the Indus Civilisation. Remote Sens. 2017, 9, 735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Agapiou, A. UNESCO World Heritage Properties in Changing and Dynamic Environments: Change Detection Methods Using Optical and Radar Satellite Data. Herit. Sci. 2021, 9, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liss, B.; Howland, M.D.; Levy, T.E. Testing Google Earth Engine for the Automatic Identification and Vectorization of Archaeological Features: A Case Study from Faynan, Jordan. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 2017, 15, 299–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Agapiou, A. Remote Sensing Heritage in a Petabyte-Scale: Satellite Data and Heritage Earth Engine© Applications. Int. J. Digit. Earth 2017, 10, 85–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Garcia, A.; Orengo, H.A.; Conesa, F.C.; Green, A.S.; Petrie, C.A. Remote Sensing and Historical Morphodynamics of Alluvial Plains. The 1909 Indus Flood and the City of Dera Gazhi Khan (Province of Punjab, Pakistan). Geosciences 2019, 9, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Agapiou, A. Multi-Temporal Change Detection Analysis of Vertical Sprawl over Limassol City Centre and Amathus Archaeological Site in Cyprus during 2015–2020 Using the Sentinel-1 Sensor and the Google Earth Engine Platform. Sensors 2021, 21, 1884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, O.; Piatti, G. (Eds.) 2009 World Heritage and Buffer Zones; UNESCO World Heritage Centre: Paris, France, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Kono, T. The Significance of the Buffer Zone under the World Heritage Convention. Art Antiq. Law 2000, 5, 177–186. [Google Scholar]
- Chyla, J.M. How Can Remote Sensing Help in Detecting the Threats to Archaeological Sites in Upper Egypt? Geosciences 2017, 7, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jazeb Ajmal, M. Current Status of Management and Protection of Rani Ghat Buddhist Complex, Pakistan. Front. Archaeol. 2017, 10–14, 371–390. [Google Scholar]
- Mughal, M.R. Legislations for the Protection and Management of Archaeological Heritage of Pakistan; Department of Archaeology and Museums, Governtment of Pakistan: Karachi, Pakistan, 1995.
- Coningham, R.; Lewer, N. (Eds.) Archaoelogy, Cultural Heritage Protection and Comunity Engagement in South Asia; Durjam University: Durham, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Gupta, E.; Das, S.; Suganya, K.; Balan, C.; Kumar, V.; Rajani, M.B.; Balan, K.S.C.; Kumar, V.; Rajani, M.B. The Need for a National Archaeological Database. Curr. Sci. 2017, 113, 1961–1973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rajangam, K.; Rajani, M.B. Applications of Geospatial Technology in the Management of Cultural Heritage Sites—Potentials and Challenges for the Indian Region. Curr. Sci. 2017, 113, 1948–1960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawrence, D.; Altaweel, M.; Philip, G. (Eds.) New Agendas in Remote Sensing and Landscape Archaeology in the Near East. Studies in Honour of Tony J. Wilkinson; Archaeopress Archaeology: Oxford, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- ESA Deployment of Sentinel-2 Processing Baseline 04.00 and Provision of New Sample Products. Available online: https://sentinels.copernicus.eu/web/sentinel/-/deployment-of-sentinel-2-processing-baseline-04.00/1.6 (accessed on 15 September 2022).
- Segarra, J.; Buchaillot, M.L.; Araus, J.L.; Kefauver, S.C. Remote Sensing for Precision Agriculture: Sentinel-2 Improved Features and Applications. Agronomy 2020, 10, 641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, S.; Tang, L.; Hupy, J.P.; Wang, Y.; Shao, G. A Commentary Review on the Use of Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) in the Era of Popular Remote Sensing. J. For. Res. 2021, 32, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caiserman, A.; Dumas, D.; Bennafla, K.; Faour, G.; Amiraslani, F. Application of Remotely Sensed Imagery Andsocioeconomic Surveys to Map Crop Choices in the Bekaa Valley (Lebanon). Agriculture 2019, 9, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Caspari, G.; Betts, A.; Jia, P. The Bronze Age in the Western Tianshan, China: A New Model for Determining Seasonal Use of Sites. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 2017, 14, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hammer, E.; Seifried, R.; Franklin, K.; Lauricella, A. Remote Assessments of the Archaeological Heritage Situation in Afghanistan. J. Cult. Herit. 2018, 33, 125–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Guo, H. Big Earth Data: A New Frontier in Earth and Information Sciences. Big Earth Data 2017, 1, 4–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gómez, C.; White, J.C.; Wulder, M.A. Optical Remotely Sensed Time Series Data for Land Cover Classification: A Review. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2016, 116, 55–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Petrie, C.A.; Bates, J. ‘Multi-Cropping’, Intercropping and Adaptation to Variable Environments in Indus South Asia. J. World Prehist. 2017, 30, 81–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Department of Meteorology. State of Pakistan’s Climate in 2020; Department of Meteorology: Karachi, Pakistan, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- COPERNICUS Emergency Management Service. EMSR629: Floods in Pakistan. Available online: https://emergency.copernicus.eu/mapping/list-of-components/EMSR629 (accessed on 15 September 2022).
- Malik, S.; Rahman, F.; Ali, A. Sustainability of Subsistence Livelihoods of Agro-Pastoralists in Changing Socioeconomic Environment of Cholistan Desert-Pakistan. Pakistan J. Commer. Soc. Sci. 2017, 11, 1100–1133. [Google Scholar]
- Soharwardi, M.; Ali, K.; Arshad, M. Migration of Cholistani People from Desert Areas toward Irrigated Areas: Causes and Consequence (A Case Study of Cholistan, Pakistan). Int. J. Soc. Sci. Educ. 2011, 1, 262–271. [Google Scholar]
- Akhter, R.; Arshad, M. Arid Rangelands in the Cholistan Desert (Pakistan). Sécheresse 2006, 17, 210–217. [Google Scholar]
- Arshad, M.; Rao, A.; Akbar, G. Masters of Disaster in Cholistan Desert, Pakistan: Pattern of Nomadic Migration. Desertif. Control Bull. 1999, 35, 33–38. [Google Scholar]
- Mughal, M.R. The Harappan Nomads of Cholistan. In Living Traditions. Studies in the Ethnoarchaeology of South Asia; Allchin, B., Ed.; Oxford & IBH Publishing: New Delhi, India, 1994; pp. 53–68. [Google Scholar]
- Haq, I. Illegal Excavation Goes Unchecked at ‘Ancient Site’. Dawn. 17 February 2021. Available online: https://www.dawn.com/news/1607781 (accessed on 15 September 2022).
- Agnihotri, I. Ecology, Land Use and Colonisation: The Canal Colonies of Punjab. Indian Econ. Soc. Hist. Rev. 1996, 33, 37–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gillespie, J. Buffering for Conservation at Angkor: Questioning the Spatial Regulation of a World Heritage Property. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2012, 18, 194–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foster, S.; Linge, L. World Heritage Site Buffer Zones: Statements of Fact or Aspiration? Conserv. Manag. Archaeol. Sites 2002, 5, 141–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edwards, B.; Frasch, T.; Jeyacheya, J. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Land-Use Zoning for the Protection of Built Heritage in the Bagan Archaeological Zone, Myanmar—A Satellite Remote-Sensing Approach. Land Use Policy 2019, 88, 104174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mughal, M.R. Heritage Preservation in Pakistan. From National and International Perspectives. In State Vandalism of History in Pakistan; Zaman, M., Ed.; Vanguard Books: Lahore, Pakistan, 2011; pp. 104–127. [Google Scholar]
- Somuncu, M.; Khan, A. Current Status of Management and Protection of Taxila World Heritage Site, Pakistan. Ankara Üniv. Çevrebilimleri Derg. 2010, 2, 45–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sayn-Wittgenstein, A.; Shams, S. Report on the Joint UNESCO-ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring Mission to Fort and Shalamar Gardens in Lahore (Pakistan); UNESCO: Paris, France, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Glekas, E.; Ibrahim, K. Heritage and Urban Development in Pakistan. In Place Meaning and Attachment; Routledge: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Khan, N.A.; Nuti, C.; Monti, G.; Micheli, M. Critical Review of Pakistani Current Legislation on Sustainable Protection of Cultural Heritage. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lasaponara, R.; Fattore, C.; Abate, N.; Masini, N. On the Use of Big Earth Data in the Copernicus Era for the Investigation and the Preservation of the Human Past. New Metrop. Perspect. 2022, 482, 2122–2131. [Google Scholar]
- Green, A.S. An Interdisciplinary Framework for Using Archaeology, History and Collective Action to Enhance India’s Agricultural Resilience and Sustainability. Environ. Res. Lett. 2019, 15, 105021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Potapov, P.; Turubanova, S.; Hansen, M.C.; Tyukavina, A.; Zalles, V.; Khan, A.; Song, X.P.; Pickens, A.; Shen, Q.; Cortez, J. Global Maps of Cropland Extent and Change Show Accelerated Cropland Expansion in the Twenty-First Century. Nat. Food 2022, 3, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, C.F.; Brumby, S.P.; Guzder-Williams, B.; Birch, T.; Hyde, S.B.; Mazzariello, J.; Czerwinski, W.; Pasquarella, V.J.; Haertel, R.; Ilyushchenko, S.; et al. Dynamic World, Near Real-Time Global 10 m Land Use Land Cover Mapping. Sci. Data 2022, 9, 251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Buffer Area | Distance | Protection Status |
---|---|---|
Protected area | Visible site/monument boundaries | No development and complete conservation |
Prohibited area | 100 m | Development under strict adherence to heritage by-laws |
Regulated area | 200 m | Slightly relaxed heritage by-laws |
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. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Conesa, F.C.; Orengo, H.A.; Lobo, A.; Petrie, C.A. An Algorithm to Detect Endangered Cultural Heritage by Agricultural Expansion in Drylands at a Global Scale. Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 53. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15010053
Conesa FC, Orengo HA, Lobo A, Petrie CA. An Algorithm to Detect Endangered Cultural Heritage by Agricultural Expansion in Drylands at a Global Scale. Remote Sensing. 2023; 15(1):53. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15010053
Chicago/Turabian StyleConesa, Francesc C., Hector A. Orengo, Agustín Lobo, and Cameron A. Petrie. 2023. "An Algorithm to Detect Endangered Cultural Heritage by Agricultural Expansion in Drylands at a Global Scale" Remote Sensing 15, no. 1: 53. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15010053
APA StyleConesa, F. C., Orengo, H. A., Lobo, A., & Petrie, C. A. (2023). An Algorithm to Detect Endangered Cultural Heritage by Agricultural Expansion in Drylands at a Global Scale. Remote Sensing, 15(1), 53. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15010053