You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Information
  • Editor’s Choice
  • Review
  • Open Access

29 March 2021

Low-Cost Automatic Weather Stations in the Internet of Things

,
,
,
and
1
Hellenic Agricultural Organization “DEMETER”, Forest Research Institute, Vasilika, 57006 Thessaloniki, Greece
2
Industrial and Educational Embedded Systems Lab, Department of Computer Science, International Hellenic University, 65403 Kavala, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
This article belongs to the Special Issue The Usage of Information Tools and MCDA for the Application of Environmental Policy and Sustainable Development

Abstract

Automatic Weather Stations (AWS) are extensively used for gathering meteorological and climatic data. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) provides publications with guidelines for the implementation, installation, and usages of these stations. Nowadays, in the new era of the Internet of Things, there is an ever-increasing necessity for the implementation of automatic observing systems that will provide scientists with the real-time data needed to design and apply proper environmental policy. In this paper, an extended review is performed regarding the technologies currently used for the implementation of Automatic Weather Stations. Furthermore, we also present the usage of new emerging technologies such as the Internet of Things, Edge Computing, Deep Learning, LPWAN, etc. in the implementation of future AWS-based observation systems. Finally, we present a case study and results from a testbed AWS (project AgroComp) developed by our research team. The results include test measurements from low-cost sensors installed on the unit and predictions provided by Deep Learning algorithms running locally.

1. Introduction

The study of weather phenomena as a method for predicting weather changes started from ancient Greece. Aristotle, in his work Meteorologica attempted to explain atmospheric phenomena in a philosophical and speculative manner. However, the first weather instruments were invented at the end of the sixteenth century: the thermometer in late 1600, the barometer in 1643, and the hygrometer (for measuring humidity) in the late 1700s [1]. As more instruments were developed, weather measurement became more precise and reliable. The invention of the telegraph in 1843 allowed the transmission of weather observations. Another major leap forward was made in 1950 with the usage of computers for solving complex mathematical equations describing the atmospheric behavior and the usage of Doppler Radars, which provided the ability to peer into severe thunderstorms and unveil the phenomena taking place inside [1].
In a series of International Meteorological Conferences (starting in 1873), instructions were issued regarding meteorological data acquisition, which included measurements as well as the exchange of data between Meteorological Services. Additional guidelines were issued for the analysis, forecasting, and map creation of these data. The International Meteorological Organization was founded in 1878, with main goal the improvement of the organization between national meteorological services. It was renamed the World Meteorological Organization in 1950 [2].
The usage of the measured data as well as the guidelines for collecting them is the responsibility of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), and during the years, various methods and observing systems (Aeronautical, Marine, Aircraft-based, and Terrestrial) became available to the research community and agencies. WMO is also interested in systems capable of retrieving meteorological data as well as environmental observations automatically by Automatic Weather Stations (AWS) and collecting data from a network through various communications channels. The implementation, installation and operation of AWS is a task that is analytically described in the World Meteorological Organization’s publications and guidelines [3,4].
An AWS is defined by WMO as a meteorological station at which observations are made and transmitted automatically. An AWS is used in order to increase the number and reliability of surface observations [4]. According to WMO, there are four (4) categories of AWS:
  • Light AWS for measurement of few variables (precipitation and/or air temperature).
  • Basic AWS for the measurement of basic meteorological measurements (air temperature, relative humidity, wind speed and direction, precipitation, and atmospheric pressure).
  • Extended AWS that measure additionally solar radiation, sunshine duration, soil temperature, and evaporation.
  • AWS with automation of visual observations (cloud base height and present weather).
All the categories provide the capability of logging data using a proprietary data logger as well as the ability of transmitting data using a variety of methods. Additionally, to the aforementioned categories of AWS, WMO recognizes another type of weather station briefly entitled as Automatic Weather Station—Low Cost (AWS-LC). This type of station is characterized by their low cost of usage and purchase as well as the low power consumption, the capability of data transmission in real time (with or without logging), and finally their size, which is small and compact. However, due to their consumer market orientation and the usage of electronics and sensors produced by vendors without extensive experience in meteorological measurements, the gathered data quality quickly becomes unknown, and AWS-LC stations are not standardized at this moment [4].
Generally, three (3) types of AWS-LC are recognized by WMO: Compact, All in One, and Stand-Alone. Compact and All in One are basic types that are mainly aimed toward hobbyist users who want to gather information regarding the weather locally. These two types sometimes provide the capability to transmit limited volumes of data locally but generally lack the capability of logging data. The third type (Stand-Alone instruments) uses a network of individual intelligent instruments, transmitting information using low-power and low bandwidth interfaces via Wi-Fi and Bluetooth to centralized processing servers [4]. This type of weather stations is optimized for siting and individual measuring instruments selection. The most common layout used to deploy the various instruments is star topology. In this case, every host (in the case of AWS-LC, every measuring device) is connected to a central hub. This hub acts as a conduit to store and transmit the messages [5].
There are numerous advantages using AWS and AWS-LC systems instead of the more traditional manned stations; these advantages include the ability to monitor data in sparse and rural areas, cost reduction, reduction of random errors, increased reliability, measurement accuracy, etc. [3,4]. However, there are also some disadvantages that must be considered prior to the installation of these types of meteorological stations. These disadvantages mainly include the difficulty of installation, the occasional disagreement of professional meteorological observers regarding the automatic interpretation of the measured data (especially in the case of precipitation, cloud cover, and cloud base), transmission costs, etc. [3,4,5,6].
This paper firstly aims at reviewing the methodologies and technologies used for the implementation of AWS observing systems. Secondly, we make an extensive presentation of new and innovative usages of current computer science trends such as Edge computing, Internet of Things, and Low-Power Wide-Area Networks on the implementation and operation of an AWS-based observation system. Additionally, a case study is presented regarding a patented low-cost AWS and future improvements. All things considered, we discuss AWS in the Internet of Things and future work.

3. Case Study

3.1. The AgroComp Project

Based on the literature review, the efforts that have been taken toward the design and implementation of AWSs are evident and characterized from the diversity of the solutions used. Another effort in creating a measuring station is the AgroComp project, which is a research activity funded by the Stavros Niarchos foundation aiming at the creation of a low-cost measurement station with the additional characteristic of evolvement. Thus, the station is upgradeable (in terms of sensors and other characteristics) to fulfill the changing needs in terms of measurements. Additionally, the units are expandable with new technologies that could emerge during their usage period. This is caused mainly because the researchers used COTS hardware and not proprietary solutions for the implementation of the units. The units are completely energy independent based on a combination of Solar Energy Panels and batteries to support their operation. Finally, the software needed for their operation is either Open Source or developed by the researchers under the GNU/General Public License. The AgroComp unit is presented in Figure 3.
Figure 3. AgroComp Units: (a) Testbed Unit, (b) Production Unit.
The unit consists of an installation mast 2.20 m high, on top of which a 50 W photovoltaic panel is installed. The meteorological box is located at a height of 1.20 m above the ground and is specifically designed to allow air flow inside. Inside, the data logger is installed, as well as various sensors that do not require direct contact with the environment. The case also contains the energy storage battery as well as the voltage converters, one from 18 to 12 V for battery energy storage and one from 12 to 5 V for the operation of the device.
For data logging purposes, the researchers used the Raspberry Pi Zero (RPi-0) system board. RPi-0 is a complete low-cost computing unit equipped with a powerful ARM processor (ARM1176JZ—1 GHz single core processor) with 512 MB of RAM coupled with a 16 GB SD card for storage purposes. Additionally, the board is equipped with Wi-Fi wireless connectivity and is using Linux as an Operating System (Raspbian OS). Each Raspberry includes a General-Purpose Input Output (GPIO) bus. GPIO is a common characteristic of this type of board and allows the communication with external devices. The generic pin on an integrated circuit or computer board behavior is controllable by the user at run time including whether it is an input or output pin. The number of pins in an RPi-0 is forty (40) and can supply power (3.3 Volts and 5 Volts) to connected external devices.
On top of the data logger, a specifically designed expansion board was installed (a Hat in Raspberry terminology, more details in Figure 4), which was specifically designed for the interconnection of the sensors. The board included special sockets with JST connectors (Japan Solderless Terminal—electrical connectors manufactured to the design standards originally developed by J.S.T. Mfg. Co., Osaka, Japan) to which the sensors are interconnected. The incorporation of these connectors allows the end user to add and remove sensors easily, and at the same time, it reduces the errors caused by reverse polarity connections.
Figure 4. The expansion board (Hat) developed for the RPi: (a) PCB schematic on the left, (b) Drilled PCB in the center, and (c) final Hat prototype.
Additionally, on the hat, an analog-to-digital signal (ADC) converter was installed (MCP3008). The ADC allows eight different inputs from different analog sensors at a sampling rate of 10 bit. It is possible to change the ADC with another providing more communication ports or higher sampling rates, thus increasing the number of sensors or the accuracy of measuring a phenomenon. The reason for using the ADC is because RPi-0 does not support analog input from any GPIO pin. The analog measurements are transformed to digital using the ADC converter assuming a proportional variation in incoming signal voltage between the minimum and maximum values.
The measuring sensors used by the platform are located either inside the box, on the ground, or on the perimeter. These sensors were:
  • Soil Humidity (Adafruit STEMMA Soil Sensor—I2C)
  • Soil Temperature (DS18b20)
  • Air Temperature (SHT-10/DHT22/BMP180)
  • Air Humidity (SHT-10 or DHT22)
  • Atmospheric Pressure (BMP180)
  • Wind Vane (Analog)
  • Wind Direction (Analog)
  • Rain Gauge (Analog)

3.2. Area Measurement Using Wireless Nodes

AcroComp is also capable of receiving additional measurements from the surrounding area. The RPi-0 built in Wi-Fi module acts as an Access Point to allow the connection of the unit to other sensors located in the area. For this reason, the ESP32 and ESP8266 modules were used (Figure 5). These two modules include a System on a Chip (SoC) solution with Wi-Fi capabilities (Bluetooth and BLE are also included in the ESP32 module), and a full TCP/IP stack. The boards have 32-bit architecture, storage memory of 1 MB (4 MΒ in the case of ESP32 module), and the capability to enter deep sleep in order to save energy. In the case of the AgroComp project, the ESP32 module was used connected with the DHT12 air temperature/humidity sensor and a set of two 18650 Li-On battery inside weatherproof cases.
Figure 5. The ESP32S development board used.
The module was programmed to wake up, take four measurements, and connect to the Access Point every hour. Afterwards, the system will enter deep sleep. During this time, the system minimized its power consumption to approximately 0.1 mA. During the power on and measurement cycle, power consumption reaches 3 mA for 2 min. The average autonomy provided from the battery is approximately 1.5 months.
The station’s data logger raw processing power allowed the researchers to implement on site a Web Server using a MySQL server and perform simultaneously various file tasks. Each sensor’s collected data were prior to storage filtered for any abnormal values caused by errors in measurements. These values are rejected, and the remaining values are stored locally in text files as well as in a MySQL database. In the database, each sensor is represented with different tables, which are relationally interconnected using either the timestamp of the measurement or other key fields. A variety of calculations were performed to the unit based on the collected data. Among these calculations are the Fire Risk Index, Rainfall predictions using Artificial Neural Networks, and Draught Index calculations.
The collected data are available to the end user through the local network (either Ethernet or Wi-Fi depending on the installation) or remotely through the Internet using the Web Server installed on the station. The unit is connected to the internet using either a Wi-Fi connection (when not acting as an Access Point), the Ethernet Port, or a pre-installed GSM modem. This implementation provides the users many advantages: real-time access to data, the ability to make calculations on site and thus reduce the workload on the central computer, the ability to change sampling rates, etc. [40].

3.3. Results, Measurement Accuracy of Low-Cost Sensors

An important factor affecting the selection procedure among AWS is the provided measurement accuracy. In the case of the AgroComp project, in order to test the measurement accuracy of the sensors, we collected temperature data from three different sensors and compared the measurements with a typical mercury thermometer as well as with data supplied from the Hellenic National Meteorological Service—H.N.M.S [41], as illustrated in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Location of the two weather stations (Basemap from Greek National Cadastre).
For this reason, we used three (3) different sensors capable of measuring temperature. These sensors were the MCP9808 from Microchip Technology Inc, Chandler USA, BMP180 from Bosch (currently replaced by BMP280) and DHT 22 from Adafruit industries. These three sensors have different measuring limit capabilities, and they offer different measurement accuracy. However, it is widely accepted that in case of agricultural usage, a difference of 1 degree dose now constitutes a problem [41].
In the applied experiment, the three sensors were installed simultaneously on an RPi platform, and the unit was receiving hourly measurements for 17 days. At the same time, measurements have also been taken from a mercury thermometer, installed at the same location, using the RPi installation and a web camera and from the network of H.N.M.S.
In an effort to determine the most efficient sensor (i.e., the sensor with the most accurate measurements), we divided the sensors in pairs as follows: MCP9808 and BMP180, MCP9808 and DHT22, and BMP180 and DHT22, and we calculated the correlation between their measured values and the regression between measurement values (Figure 7, Table 1). Additionally, we also performed a two-sided t-tests in order to check whether there is a difference between the two population means. Finally, we investigated the behavior of the sensors toward the maximum and minimum values as well as the mean measurement per day.
Figure 7. Regression line and residuals for temperature values of MCP9808 and BMP180 sensors (a), MCP9808 and DHT22 (b), and BMP180 and DHT22 sensors (c).
Table 1. Mean and standard deviation of differences of paired values between mercury thermometer and each sensor.
Regarding the comparisons between the sensor measured values and the typical mercury thermometer, in order to investigate whether the measurements received from the BMP180, MCP9808, and DHT22 are statistically identical to the distribution of actual values, we examined whether the sensor values follow a normal distribution (Oneway ANOVA); otherwise, a Kruskal–Wallis H-test was carried out when the sensor values were not normally distributed. Furthermore, regression analysis for each sensor was also conducted to determine the correlation with the mercury thermometer (Figure 8).
Figure 8. Regression lines for each sensor values MCP9808 (a), BMP180 (b), DHT22 (c), and a mercury thermometer.
Finally, the standard error of estimation for the paired values (sensor measurement values and values measured by H.N.M.S.) was calculated (Table 2). From the extensive statistical analysis, it was found that regarding the comparison with the measurements from the mercury thermometer, the BMP180 sensor measures values whose distribution more closely approximates the distribution of the actual values compared with the values returned by the MCP9808 sensor. Moreover, the distribution of the DHT22 sensor values less closely approximates the distribution of a typical mercury thermometer compared with sensors BMP180 and MCP9808. When compared with values from H.N.M.S. in more detail, the BMP180 sensor provides a standard error of estimation of 1.3 degrees Celsius. Thus, the array can be used for any application that requires a temperature accuracy of 1.3 degrees or smaller. At this point, it must be also pointed out that the closest H.N.M.S. station was located approximately 12 km away at an altitude of 86.91 m. Thus, the measurement of H.N.M.S might vary from the actual in the location of the RPi installation. Finally, the results have also shown us that the accuracy of measurements is not affected by the unit used (in our case the RPi-0) for logging them. This is due to the fact that the logging unit is used for data synchronization and storage during collection. The variations from the H.N.M.S unit can be further reduced if we use other sensors (better quality).
Table 2. Regression lines and standard errors of estimation between H.N.M.S data and each sensor.

3.4. Future Improvements Using AI

As mentioned earlier, in the short-term, AWS units will support Edge computing tasks because of the IoT environment and the increased number of end devices. In our testbed, we tested on hardware the deployment and inferencing behavior of a DL weather forecasting algorithm and the possibility of it being applied in devices at the edge.
A Deep Neural Network was implemented because it works efficiently with time-series data. A 10-year weather dataset (15 MB size) was used from Kaggle [42,43,44]. During the training, eight (8) input signals were used (temperature, pressure, etc.) to train the neural network (model). The model predicts an hourly forecast of the next day including three (3) output signals: temperature, pressure, and wind speed.
In more detail, Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) is a Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) [38,39] feedback architecture designed to approach and model time sequences and their broader dependencies more accurately than other RNN types. LSTM is highly effective for predicting and classifying length sequences. The architecture of our model is an LSTM with 40 units and a Dense Layer with three (3) units, which are the output signals, as presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Deep Learning model architecture, parameters, and training and test results.
The LSTM model was trained with the Keras and Tensorflow. For the training of our model, the RMSprop algorithm used for optimization, and the loss value was evaluated via RMSE. As the activation function, the sigmoid was used instead of the tanh. The test accuracy of our model reaches 88% in accuracy, and the test loss is 0.009 (Table 3). The model was trained with several numbers of units, but the highest accuracy was captured with 40 units. As presented in Table 4, the implemented model was trained using Google Colab in the Cloud, and the training time was 195 s using the available GPU infrastructure. The inferencing time in Colab was 2 s. In addition, we applied the trained model at the edge devices, and the Raspberry hardware executes the task in 6 s.
Table 4. Training and inferencing results in three different computing platforms.

4. Discussion

In this new emerging environment, two scenarios are viable for future AWS systems: (a) the Edged IoT AWS and (b) the Cloud-based virtual AWS. In the first scenario, it is a truth that the Internet of Things technology and the intelligent End devices will change the characteristics of the modern surface observing systems, and new capabilities at the edge will transform AWS into a crucial and important component of a modern terrestrial observing system, especially in a transition period from a classical AWOS to a new one. It will be a reality that intelligent sensors (approved by WMO) will be producers of massive data, and Edged IoT AWS devices will act as Edge Processing Systems playing a significant role to collect, process, store, and offer the data to end users or upper computing layers. A concept view of a Low-Cost Automatic Weather Stations in the era of the Internet of Things is illustrated in Figure 9 [20,21].
Figure 9. Low-Cost Automatic Weather Stations in the Internet of Things: (a) Mesh collections of sensors, (b) Wireless networks (Low-Power Wide-Area Network (LPWAN), 4G, 5G, etc.), (c) Advanced computing capabilities and algorithms, (d) Advanced hardware features, and (e) Intelligent sensors and measurement devices.
According to us, the next generation of AWS will have complex capabilities and will be programmable to act either as an End device or Edge server. The advanced computing capabilities and new telecommunication technologies will offer new services to the end users and national agencies. We are certain that advances in hardware will offer processing units with low-cost, low-power, and computing capabilities at the edge. Modern technologies in CPU design offer new processors in single board computers, and at the microcontroller level multicore processors (ESP32, RP2040) and embedded wireless connectivity. These new advancements will enable the market to offer new products that will affect the AWS system design and implementation. The increased edge computing power will enable AI inference engines (such as ARMNN, Tensorflow), which will execute various equations (Fire Risk Index, Flood Risk Index, etc.) and more advanced AI algorithms (or parts/layers of the algorithm) to perform computations in real time at the edge.
On the other hand, based on the WMO report in the near future, the disruptive technologies in telecom and computing may eliminate the need for exclusive AWS systems [4]. In this case, if we adopt the second scenario, the deployment of observing networks in wide areas with hundreds or even thousands of nodes with measurement equipment based on new LPWAN technologies, such as LoRa or Narrow Band-IoT, will provide to the end users the ability to create “virtual AWS” based on their specific needs or research interests. In the implementation of this scenario, all of an End node device’s locations in an area are depicted using a map service. The map also contains information regarding the status of the End device as well as the number and type of sensors connected to the node and the measurement frequency of each sensor [2,3,4].
The researcher/user will select a subset of the available nodes based on his needs, the area of interest, as well as the data requirements, thus creating a virtual AWS. Unlike standard AWS that require the installation of special equipment in an area for their operation, a virtual AWS is simply a collection of nodes that are selected based on the aforementioned characteristics and do not require any type of prior installation [38]. This new type of AWS provides a series of advantages:
  • Fast and Low-Cost setup: The user selects the preinstalled nodes based on the research demands.
  • Multiuser services: The same nodes can also provide data to other researchers as they can simultaneously be active parts of several virtual AWS.
  • Measurement Accuracy and redundancy: The existence of several nodes measuring the same variable (temperature, humidity, etc.) ensures the quality of the measurements. Any sensor malfunction can be easily detected, and the node can be removed from the virtual AWS.
Additionally, the existence of Cloud services allows the implementation of various equations and AI algorithms (Fire Risk Index, Flood Risk Index, etc.), which can be calculated using the enormous Cloud computing power. These calculations are based on numerous nodes, thus allowing the uninterrupted supply of measurements even during catastrophic events that can put a part of the network out of operation [26,27,28,38,39]. The main reason for the resilience to catastrophic events is the ability of the sensors that constitute the network to directly communicate with the Internet, wirelessly exploiting the IoT infrastructure. In contrast with other implementations (classic topologies such as Bus or Star) and the centralization on which they rely (and which is prone to failure if the central node is destroyed), a virtual AWS will be implemented using a full mesh topology. It is not required for the users of the virtual AWS to know which routes the data follow to receive them (IoT can be implemented using a variety of wireless protocols, Wi-Fi, LoRa, Bluetooth, etc.). Therefore, these networks are by their topology designed to be able to continue to work even when some of their infrastructure is completely off line, because the data can be routed to the remaining portion of the network.
A subsequent advantage based on LPWAN characteristics is the ability of the deployed networks to monitor remote and rural areas. This advantage is mainly because the network’s devices require limited resources in terms of energy and data bandwidth, allowing limited post-installation resources. Thus, the strategic placement of antennas/gateways in remote areas can easily provide extensive coverage for intelligent nodes equipped with multiple sensors. The installation location can be easily determined using a combination of Digital Elevation Maps, ESRI ArcMap 3DAnalyst Visibility tools, and Multicriteria Decision Analysis. Furthermore, the incorporation of Edge computing solutions in these remote networks can further reduce data transferred throughout the network [38,39].
In each scenario, it is important to mention that AWS systems will play a key role for meteorological measurements in the era of Internet of Things. Most WMO reports and conference proceedings [45] admit that in each country, the national agencies implement various AWS systems using combinations of all the available technological solutions. In the near future, complex AWS systems will operate worldwide, implementing new technologies and providing advanced surface observing systems. These systems will have a positive impact on the achievement of the common goal to monitor existing climate change.

5. Conclusions

It is well known that the constant need for measurements is nowadays a requirement for many sciences. The application of precision agriculture, forest management, ecophysiology, and other disciplines can provide far better results when real-time measurements are used. Furthermore, climate change has increased the need to calculate risk indexes in order to alert the population as well as local authorities for extreme phenomena.
Automatic Weather Stations, as their name implies, are devices capable of performing measurements without the need of human intervention, providing data regardless of time and without the possibility of human errors during capture. Therefore, they can be used by many researchers for data collection speed, accuracy, and efficiency. Our research has shown that a variety of AWS implementations has been developed throughout the years. The main difference between these implementations is the method used to transmit data. At the beginning, the most common method was the usage of wired means. During the next years, the usage of leased lines (using modems and PSTN/ISDN networks) proved to be an efficient mean of data transmission with the major disadvantage of high cost in cases where there were no prior installations and therefore there could be no exploitation of existing infrastructure.
However, nowadays, the emergence of a variety of wireless communications protocols (Wi-Fi, High-Speed GSM networks in the form of 4G and 5G, LoRa, Bluetooth, and even the upcoming StarLink network) has allowed the development of a series of AWS and End Nodes capable of communicating from remote and secluded areas.
In this work, apart from the current trends and technologies in AWS, we present a case study based on a patented work, the AgroComp units.
These units are far more evolved than a typical AWS. We have incorporated the wireless technologies and other COTS hardware (ARM SoCs, sensors etc.) to create a versatile multipurpose device with raw processing power, which can provide accurate measurements. Unlike typical AWS, which are designed to serve as single purpose machines, these units can be re-programmed and re-equipped in order to follow the user’s needs. The usage of ARM SoC technology allows the transfer of data processing to the field. Furthermore, we have also demonstrated that the measurement accuracy is not affected by the usage of RPi-0. Similarly, the usage of other platforms such as Arduino for the implementation of similar projects will also have no effect on data quality.
So, someone may ask, are these units capable of solving all problems? The answer is no, but they can help solve a lot. According to our research and knowledge, units such as this demonstrate the way things will evolve. The era of dedicated one-task proprietary units has passed. Scientists and end users in general need to gather data in real time with techniques that are fast, accurate, and from many locations. Furthermore, they need to be able to reinstall the same unit and reprogram it in order to fulfill new requirements. In essence, they need to have personal AWS capable of performing everywhere. According to us, this period might be similar to the period the computer industry faced in the early 1980s, when the industry moved from the mainframe model of computing to that of personal and versatile computing with the introduction of the IBM Personal Computer.
In the future, the units can be further enhanced with the design of new expansion boards capable of including both LoRa network capability and sensor interconnection as well as the incorporation of data received from altitude. This can be achieved by using either drones equipped with sensor arrays or using weather balloons. Furthermore, the units can be enhanced using cameras and Infra-Red sensors to monitor cloud formation and detect extreme temperatures, which can be caused by wildfires. The incorporation of the sensors to a dedicated software platform also containing tools for the determination of the whereabouts of civil protection units as well as fire trucks can help in the creation of an overall solution for the protection of citizens from extreme weather phenomena. Finally, the implementation of Edge and Cloud computing technologies will allow everybody to access and consume all the available data.

6. Patents

A part of the reported work resulted to a patent entitled: “Computational and Measuring Unit for Forest, Agricultural and Geotechnical Applications”, Hellenic Industrial Property Organization Patent Number: 20180100109.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.I. and D.K.; methodology, K.I. and D.K.; software, K.I., P.A. and. V.A.; validation, K.I. and D.K.; data curation, K.I., D.K., P.A. and I.K.; writing—original draft preparation, I.K.; writing—review and editing, D.K., P.A. and K.I.; visualization, D.K. and K.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was partially funded by Stavros Niarchos Foundation and Technological Educational Institute of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace, Project “Fellowships”, grant number 2708/12-11/2015”.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ahrens, C.D. Meterorology Today, 9th ed.; Brooks, Cole, Cengage Learning: Belmont, CA, USA, 2009; ISBN 0-495-55573-8. [Google Scholar]
  2. Flokas, A. Lessons in Meteorology and Climatology; Ziti Publications: Thessaloniki, Greece, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bagiorgas, H.S.; Assimakopoulos, M.N.; Patentalaki, A.; Konofaos, N.; Matthopoulos, D.P.; Mihalakakou, G. The Design, Installation and Operation of a Fully Computerized, Automatic Weather Station for High Quality Meteorological Measurements. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2007, 16, 948–962. [Google Scholar]
  4. Guide to Instruments and Methods of Observation; Volume III—Observing Systems; World Meteorological Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018; Available online: https://community.wmo.int/activity-areas/imop/wmo-no_8 (accessed on 29 March 2021).
  5. Roberts, L.G.; Wessler, B.D. Computer Network Development to Achieve Resource Sharing. In Proceedings of the May 5–7, 1970, Spring Joint Computer Conference; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 1970; pp. 543–549. [Google Scholar]
  6. Nitu, R.; Wong, K. Measurement of Solid Precipitation at Automatic Weather Stations, Challenges and Opportunities. Meteorol. Serv. Can. 2010, 4905, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  7. Groth, D.; Skandier, T. Network+ Study Guide, 4th ed.; Sybex: Sedona, AZ, USA, 2005; ISBN 978-0-7821-4406-2. [Google Scholar]
  8. Genere, B. Tropicalisation of Automatic Weather Stations and Initial Results for Improved Irrigation Water Management in Reunion Island. Agric. Water Manag. 1990, 17, 141–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Strangeways, I.C. A Cold Regions Automatic Weather Station. J. Hydrol. 1985, 79, 323–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Nsabagwa, M.; Byamukama, M.; Kondela, E.; Otim, J.S. Towards a Robust and Affordable Automatic Weather Station. Dev. Eng. 2019, 4, 100040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Abbate, S.; Avvenuti, M.; Carturan, L.; Cesarini, D. Deploying a Communicating Automatic Weather Station on an Alpine Glacier. In Proceedings of the Procedia Computer Science, Barcelona, Spain, 5–7 June 2013. [Google Scholar]
  12. Mestre, G.; Ruano, A.; Duarte, H.; Silva, S.; Khosravani, H.; Pesteh, S.; Ferreira, P.M.; Horta, R. An Intelligent Weather Station. Sensors 2015, 15, 31005–31022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Strigaro, D.; Cannata, M.; Antonovic, M. Boosting a Weather Monitoring System in Low Income Economies Using Open and Non-Conventional Systems: Data Quality Analysis. Sensors 2019, 19, 1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Villagrán, V.; Montecinos, A.; Franco, C.; Muñoz, R.C. Environmental Monitoring Network along a Mountain Valley Using Embedded Controllers. Meas. J. Int. Meas. Confed. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Alliance, L. LoRaWANTM 1.1 Specification; LoRa Alliance: Fremont, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  16. Lee, C.-J.; Ki-Seon, R.; Beum-Joon, K. Periodic Ranging in a Wireless Access System for Mobile Station in Sleep Mode. U.S. Patent 8,514,757, 20 August 2013. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kochhar, A.; Kumar, N. Wireless Sensor Networks for Greenhouses: An End-to-End Review. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2019, 163, 104877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sinha, R.S.; Wei, Y.; Hwang, S.-H. A Survey on LPWA Technology: LoRa and NB-IoT. ICT Express 2017, 3, 14–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Adityawarman, Y.; Matondang, J. Development of Micro Weather Station Based on Long Range Radio Using Automatic Packet Reporting System Protocol. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Information Technology Systems and Innovation (ICITSI), Bandung, Indonesia, 22–26 October 2018; pp. 221–224. [Google Scholar]
  20. Pietrosemoli, E.; Rainone, M.; Zennaro, M. On Extending the Wireless Communications Range of Weather Stations Using LoRaWAN. In Proceedings of the 5th EAI International Conference on Smart Objects and Technologies for Social Good, Valencia, Spain, 25–27 September 2019; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 78–83. [Google Scholar]
  21. Rahman, N.H.A.; Yamada, Y.; Husni, M.H.; Aziz, N.H.A. Analysis of Propagation Link for Remote Weather Monitoring System through LoRa Gateway. In Proceedings of the 2018 2nd International Conference on Telematics and Future Generation Networks (TAFGEN), Kuching, Malaysia, 24–26 July 2018; pp. 55–60. [Google Scholar]
  22. Lee, H.; Ke, K. Monitoring of Large-Area IoT Sensors Using a LoRa Wireless Mesh Network System: Design and Evaluation. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 2018, 67, 2177–2187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hossinuzzaman, M.D.; Dahnil, D.P. Enhancement of Packet Delivery Ratio during Rain Attenuation for Long Range Technology. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 2019, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bezerra, N.S.; Ahlund, C.; Saguna, S.; de Sousa, V.A. Temperature Impact in LoraWAN—A Case Study in Northern Sweden. Sensors 2019, 19, 4414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Cardell-Oliver, R.; Hübner, C.; Leopold, M.; Beringer, J. Dataset: LoRa Underground Farm Sensor Network. In Proceedings of the DATA 2019, 2nd ACM Workshop on Data Acquisition To Analysis, Part of SenSys 2019, New York, NY, USA, 10 November 2019. [Google Scholar]
  26. Xue-fen, W.; Yi, Y.; Jian, C. Wireless Sensor Node with Lightning and Atmospheric Pressure Detection for Severe Convective Weather Warning Networks. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Symposium in Sensing and Instrumentation in IoT Era (ISSI), Shanghai, China, 6–7 September 2018; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  27. Malhi, G.S.; Kaur, M.; Kaushik, P. Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture and Its Mitigation Strategies: A Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. European Environment Agency. Progress of the European Union towards Its Renewable Energy Targets. 2017. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/climate/trends-and-projections-in-europe/trends-and-projections-in-europe-2016/4-progress-of-the-european (accessed on 29 March 2021).
  29. Shi, W.; Cao, J.; Zhang, Q.; Li, Y.; Xu, L. Edge Computing: Vision and Challenges. IEEE Internet Things J. 2016, 3, 637–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Tsai, C.W.; Lai, C.F.; Vasilakos, A.V. Future Internet of Things: Open Issues and Challenges. Wirel. Netw. 2014, 20, 2201–2217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chen, J.; Ran, X. Deep Learning With Edge Computing: A Review. Proc. IEEE 2019, 107, 1655–1674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Seferagić, A.; Famaey, J.; De Poorter, E.; Hoebeke, J. Survey on Wireless Technology Trade-Offs for the Industrial Internet of Things. Sensors 2020, 20, 488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lagkas, T.; Argyriou, V.; Bibi, S.; Sarigiannidis, P. UAV IoT Framework Views and Challenges: Towards Protecting Drones as “Things”. Sensors 2018, 18, 4015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Li, H.; Ota, K.; Dong, M. Learning IoT in Edge: Deep Learning for the Internet of Things with Edge Computing. IEEE Netw. 2018, 32, 96–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Galanopoulos, A.; Iosifidis, G.; Salonidis, T. Cooperative Analytics for the Internet of Things. In Proceedings of the Twentieth ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing, Catania, Italy, 2–5 July 2019; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 395–396. [Google Scholar]
  36. Chavan, G.; Momin, B. An Integrated Approach for Weather Forecasting over Internet of Things: A Brief Review. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on I-SMAC (IoT in Social, Mobile, Analytics and Cloud) (I-SMAC), Palladam, India, 10–11 February 2017. [Google Scholar]
  37. Yazici, M.T.; Basurra, S.; Gaber, M.M. Edge Machine Learning: Enabling Smart Internet of Things Applications. Big Data Cogn. Comput. 2018, 2, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Guillén-Navarro, M.Á.; Pereñíguez-García, F.; Martínez-España, R. IoT-Based System to Forecast Crop Frost. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Intelligent Environments (IE), Seoul, Korea, 21–25 August 2017; pp. 28–35. [Google Scholar]
  39. Nguyen Gia, T.; Qingqing, L.; Pena Queralta, J.; Zou, Z.; Tenhunen, H.; Westerlund, T. Edge AI in Smart Farming IoT: CNNs at the Edge and Fog Computing with LoRa. In Proceedings of the IEEE AFRICON Conference, Accra, Ghana, 25–27 September 2019. [Google Scholar]
  40. Ioannou, K.; Emmanouloudis, D.; Xenitidis, K. Low Cost Computer Platforms for Environmental Monitoring the Case of the AgroComp Project. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies in Agriculture, Food and Environment, Crete, Greece, 21–24 September 2017; CEUR: Chania, Greece, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  41. Ioannou, K.; Emmanouloudis, D.; Xenitidis, K. A Comparative Analysis among Three Commercial Temperature Sensors. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies in Agriculture, Food and Environment, Crete, Greece, 21–24 September 2017; CEUR: Chania, Greece, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  42. Muthukumar, J. Kaggle—Weather Dataset. Available online: https://www.kaggle.com/muthuj7/weather-dataset (accessed on 21 January 2021).
  43. Huang, Z.Q.; Chen, Y.C.; Wen, C.Y. Real-Time Weather Monitoring and Prediction Using City Buses and Machine Learning. Sensors 2020, 20, 5173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Staudemeyer, R.C.; Morris, E.R. Understanding LSTM—A Tutorial into Long Short-Term Memory Recurrent Neural Networks. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1909.09586. [Google Scholar]
  45. WMO International Conference on Automatic Weather Stations. Automatic Weather Stations for Environmental Intelligence—The AWS in the 21st Century, ICAWS 2017 Proceedings; WMO Report No.127; WMO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.