Content uploaded by Patricia Ferreira Lopes
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Patricia Ferreira Lopes on Oct 07, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XLII-4, 2018
ISPRS TC IV Mid-term S ymposium “3D Spatial Information Science – The Engine of Change”, 1–5 October 2018, Delft, The Netherlands
ACHIEVING THE STATE OF RESEARCH PERTAINING TO GIS APPLICATIONS FOR
CULTURAL HERITAGE BY A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW
P. Ferreira-Lopes 1*
1 IUACC, HUM799, Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura, Universidad de Sevilla, 41012 Seville, Spain – pwanderley@us.es
Commission IV, WG IV/3
KEY WORDS: Geographic Information Systems, GIS, Cultural Heritage, Systematic Literature Review, State of the art.
ABSTRACT:
During the last decade, we have witnessed an increased interest in Geographic Information Systems (GIS), including the so-called
“Historical GIS”, 3D GIS heritage and its subcategory of “SDI for cultural heritage”. Specific literature reviews, gathering and
analysing the scientific production for Culture Heritage and GIS based research questions, are currently lacking. Therefore, the
overall goal of this article is to provide an objective summary of the current state -of-the-art concerning how GIS has been used and
what methods and analysis have been applied in the field of cultural heritage. In this sense, a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) of
the literature on the application of GIS in cultural heritage is carried out. To do so, the WOS and Scopus databases were considered.
The results show that the dominant application of GIS is in the realisation of inventory and cataloguing of archaeological and
architectural heritage. As a result of the quantitative analysis, we also verify the principal sources in which most studies have been
published, highlighting the "ISPRS Archives" with 14 publications, the "Lecture Notes in Computer Science" with 9, and
"Proceedings of Digital Heritage" with 6 publications. These data show that the sources that most publis h mainly belong to the field
of IT and Computer Science. In addition, the SLR shows that in the last three years there has been a greater tendency to use GIS to
solve more specific problems of heritage through its use in conjunction with other tools such as BIM and photogrammetry.
1. INTRODUCTION
Information Technologies (ITs) offer a huge variety of
applications in the heritage field. Geographic Information
System (GIS) have been especially and increasingly more used
in the last two decades, and adopted as a tool for the
identification, documentation and registering, valuing,
intervention and conservation, dissemination, knowledge and
management of heritage. When heritage data are incorporated
and treated in GIS they create a great opportunity to understand
processes from a spatiotemporal and multi-scalar perspective as
well as their inter-relations with other elements, whether they
are physical, documentary, material or immaterial. However, the
growing body of research works ends up by generating a great
quantity of isolated heritage data which are unable to be inter-
related with other investigations and/or disciplines, thus
hindering the integral reading of the heritage and the creation of
new knowledge. In particular, the application of GIS in most
works of the cultural heritage area is limited to the
georeferencing of information, leaving aside their enormous
potential in the analysis process.
There is currently a lack of specific reviews of the literature and
scientific summaries of the production concerning the use of
GIS in the heritage area. The main aim of this article is
therefore to contribute to the research community an objective
and systematic study of the state-of-the-art concerning the use
of GIS with the aim of responding to questions such as: in what
heritage categories and domains is it most applied? What types
of analysis are carried out? And what are the other ITs or tools
which have been used in conjunction with GIS? The articles
reviewed have enabled a detailed evaluation of GIS and the
focuses of current research. The current systematic review also
contributes a summary of the most common challenges and
problems in research. Another key section of this systematic
review is to identify where the results are more solid and in
which fields more research is still needed. The article finishes
by providing some recommendations and future research lines.
1.1 Brief overview of GIS
Geographic Information Systems are computational systems
which enable handling information about location-linked
phenomenon or characteristics. They have the functionality of a
conventional database with the added particularity of the data’s
spatial component. This allows a space for the alphanumeric and
graphic data to be explicitly dealt with. Therefore, it is a
question of a computerised information system that endeavours
to capture, store, manipulate, analyse and exhibit spatial data to
solve complex research planning or management problems
(Fischer and Nijkamp, 1992). With GIS, users can carry out
innumerable analyses, such as exploring the distribution of
patterns and specific characteristics, investigating inter-
relations, juxtaposing layers of different information, etc. The
analyses done can either be only visual or consultations,
parameters or more complex calculations.
The GIS phenomenon emerges during the ’60s simultaneously
in Canada (Canada Land Inventory) and in the United States
(Harvard Laboratory for Computer Graphics). In the USA GIS
* Corresponding author
This contribution has been peer-reviewed.
https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-4-169-2018 | © Authors 2018. CC BY 4.0 License.
169
The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XLII-4, 2018
ISPRS TC IV Mid-term S ymposium “3D Spatial Information Science – The Engine of Change”, 1–5 October 2018, Delft, The Netherlands
began to be applied for the automatised creation of maps, while
in Canada its application was more focused on the management
of water, vegetation and ground uses (Foresman, 1997).
Following the line of these two initiatives, in the last decade the
advances in GIS have directed their use potentially as a tool of
analysis, management and visualisation of a great mass of data
for decision making. Likewise, their expansion has gone from
specific works initially carried out in geography and science to
other disciplines such as economics, archaeology, social
sciences, history, etc.
In the heritage area, GIS begins to be applied more significantly
in archaeology studies during the ’90s (Kvamme, 1990a, 1990b;
Van Leusen, 1993, 1999; CIDOC, 1995; Fischer et al. 1997).
The various initial application experiences then lead to an
important publication “GIS and Cultural Resource
Management”, an introduction manual for the use of GIS in the
management of cultural resources on both a local and national
scale (BOX, 1999). From then, the use of GIS has grown
considerably as the registering, compilation and treatment of the
documentation and the management of the information are
fundamental activities in all the phases of heritage work.
Likewise, in the last years, the development of web applications
has provided a broader accessibility and interaction between
users and GIS, enabling a greater dissemination of their use and
a reduction in costs of maintenance and investment in software.
1.2 Previous literature reviews
The search for literature reviews with the terms “GIS AND
literature review” and “Geographic Information Systems AND
literature review” was carried out in the Scopus and Web of
Science (WOS) databases with a limit of the publication date
and without a language restriction. Non-systematic reviews
were found (Bone and Johnson, 2007; Opolot, 2013; Maina et
al., 2014) and systematic reviews (Malczewski, 2006; Akkus
and Ozdenerol 2014; Butler et al., 2011; Gajos and Sierka,
2012; Sharma et al., 2015). It is surprising that there are quite
few reviews, only 8, and they fundamentally deal with studies
which apply GIS in disciplines such as environmental sciences,
health, geography and anthropology (Table 01). This
preliminary result underlines the need to carry out a review of
the literature of GIS in Humanities and especially in the cultural
heritage field.
Table 1: Relation of publications which deal with the review
of the GIS literature and its categorisation.
Through the study of a compendium of publications of a
specific subject, the researchers can find out their state-of-the-
art with more ease and clarity. Likewise, a continuous
examination of the literature will enable an integral view and
will show the weaknesses and full potential of these areas. In
this sense, this review offers the opportunity to check
shortcomings, show where research has been insufficient, reveal
trends and contribute to the development of knowledge in, in
our case, cultural heritage.
2. REVIEW METHOD
This systematic literature review (SLR) was carried out in
accordance with the guidelines of Gough et al. (2013, 2012) and
divided into 10 phases: 1) Verification of the need to review the
literature; 2) Definition of the questions. These will contribute
to the particular structure of each review and are going to
determine the key decisions, for example what type of studies to
include, where to do the search, how to access them and how to
bring together the findings; 3) Definition of the inclusion
criteria of the publications for the sample, for example,
language, location and date; 4) Choice of the bibliographical
databases for the search of the publications; 5) Carrying out the
screening process. This phase checks if the publications meet
the inclusion criteria and the requirements to respond to the
questions of phase 2; 6) Codification and selection of the
relevant information of the studies to answer the questions of
phase 2; 7) Mapping, classification and categorisation of the
information of the publications with a view to completing
phases 8 and 9; 8) Valuing of the quality and relevance of the
studies; 9) Synthesising of the codified data to answer the
questions; 10) Dissemination of the results.
The empirical corpus was compiled through searches in the
WOS and Scopus databases with the aim of identifying the
publications which specifically dealt with GIS and cultural
heritage. Although these bibliometric databases are often used
to carry out analyses and literature reviews, it is important to
note that they have some characteristics to consider: they are
predisposed to a greater quantity of publications in the area of
natural sciences, engineering and biomedicine in comparison
with social sciences, art and humanities; they tend to be in
English; they have mainly publications in journals or
proceedings - there are few monographs included. Nevertheless,
both WOS and Scopus cover the publications of Elsevier,
Taylor and Francis, Sage and important proceedings of
congresses such as the International Archives of the
Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information
Sciences (ISPRS Archives), in which a good part of the
publications on heritage and ITs can be found.
Two search terms combination were used i) “Geographic
Information Systems AND heritage” and ii) “GIS AND
heritage”. The searches were carried out by title, abstract and
keywords in both databases. The inclusion criteria were: i)
works published between 2010 and 2017; ii) works written in
English, Spanish and Portuguese. The last searches were done in
September 2017 and a total of 366 publications were identified,
157 in WOS and 209 in Scopus.
After defining the inclusion criteria and carrying out the
compilation, a generic analysis was done of the material to
define the questions which we sought to answer (Table 02). In
an SLR the questions are a key part of the methodology as
This contribution has been peer-reviewed.
https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-4-169-2018 | © Authors 2018. CC BY 4.0 License.
170
The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XLII-4, 2018
ISPRS TC IV Mid-term S ymposium “3D Spatial Information Science – The Engine of Change”, 1–5 October 2018, Delft, The Netherlands
these will guide the screening phases, mapping, valuing and
synthesis. As the review’s aim is to determine what type of
application GIS has had in the area of cultural heritage, the
following questions were defined:
Q1. What has the study aim’s object/heritage category been? 3
categories were considered: Immovable Heritage
(subcategories: archaeology, architectural and landscape),
movable heritage (subcategories: documents, objects, etc.) and
intangible heritage. Some publications cover more than one
category.
Q2. What domains are the GIS applied to? These have been
grouped into 5 domains: Inventory and Cataloguing; Analysis
and Research; Development of management and protection
plans; Prediction and evaluation of impacts; Dissemination
(Box, 2009).
Q3. What analyses were done?
Q4. What other digital technologies were used?
Table 02: Definition of the Inclusion (IC) and exclusion criteria
(EC) for the qualitative review.
A total of 366 publications were found, of which 35 were in
both databases, so the duplicates were excluded. A total of 198
remained in the sample after the first screening, which was done
via analysing the title and the abstract of the publications
compiled. Of these, 25 could not be accessed to read the
complete text (they were not included in the subscriptions of the
University of Seville and the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam or
were not open-access), so they were excluded from the sample.
During the 2nd. screening process, in which we completely read
the 173 publications, 65 were excluded. The sample for the
quantitative and qualitative analyses had a total of 108
publications. The details of the flow of the review process can
be observed in the diagram in Figure 1 and are part of the
external technical report (Figure 1 and Table 03).
To carry out the review process a database was designed with a
structure of calculation sheets in the .xls format in which each
publication contains a series of attributes related with the basic
information of the publications (author, date, source published,
abstract, keywords, DOI, number citations) and with the
questions. This was in order to facilitate the codification
process. For all of the articles that were not false positives, a set
of codes was developed to draw classification patterns and
answer the questions. Therefore, true-false type codes are used
(1 or 0) and those of words or short phrases which correspond
to the classification established by the questions. As a support
for the Valuation and Synthesis phases a field for observations
was also incorporated.
Table 3: Papers included and excluded during the Systematic
review.
Figure 1: Flow diagram of the SLR methodology, number of
publications included and excluded in each phase.
3. REVIEW RESULTS
Analysing the years of all the publications, a greater number is
noted in 2015. Between the years 2014 and 2017 their number
increases almost 45% when compared with the period 2010 to
2013, going from 147 to 219. The growth trend is repeated
when we analyse the publications included in the review, going
from 43 to 66 (Figure 2). As a result of a quantitative analysis,
we can also check the sources in which most articles been
published. The sources that stand out are “ISPRS Archives”
with 14 publications, “Lecture Notes in Computer Science” with
9 and “Proceedings of the Digital Heritage” with 6 (Table 04).
These data demonstrate that the sources which most publish
mainly belong to the area of ITs and Computer Science.
This contribution has been peer-reviewed.
https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-4-169-2018 | © Authors 2018. CC BY 4.0 License.
171
The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XLII-4, 2018
ISPRS TC IV Mid-term S ymposium “3D Spatial Information Science – The Engine of Change”, 1–5 October 2018, Delft, The Netherlands
Figure 2: Graph showing comparison of the number of
publications per year.
Table 04: List of sources of publications with more than three
articles.
In the next sections we will answer the research questions.
3.1 Q1: What heritage object/category has been the study
aim?
The study aims were analysed and categorised to discover in
which heritage category (Immovable, Movable, Immaterial) the
GIS tool has been most applied. 92% of the publications have
immovable heritage as their study aim, only 6% correspond to
publications which apply GIS in research into movable heritage
and hardly 2%, immaterial heritage. In just one case the study of
immovable and movable heritage occurs (Soler, Melero, and
Luzon, 2017). As to the categorisation of the heritage object,
52% of the publications apply GIS in architectural heritage,
30% in archaeological, 10% in landscape and 2% in immaterial
heritage (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Quantitative graph of the representation of the
different categories and classifications (Q1).
3.2 Q2: In which domains does the application of GIS
predominate?
The application domains were analysed via the inclusion of the
codification in the tables of the .xml list. In each publication and
for each domain a value “0” or “1” has been introduced,
negative or positive, respectively. The same publication can
obtain two or more positive domains. All those publications
which have created a spatial database for heritage registering
and identification are classified as positive in the domain
Inventory and Cataloguing. For the domain “Analysis and
Research” those publications were classified as positive which
have developed analysis through GIS for heritage knowledge,
such as: density, heat maps, viewsheds, comparison and
juxtaposition of layers and data, queries, influence area,
stratigraphic analysis, thematic maps, time analysis, etc. Those
which have elaborated a monitoring, control and management
system of a heritage object or centre are in the Development of
protection and management plans domain. In the Prediction and
evaluation of impacts domain are those which try to detect or
predict risks caused by phenomena which endanger the
preservation of the heritage, such as: floods, earthquakes, fires,
pollution, and anthropic actions, among others. And lastly, those
publications which focus on actions of transmission of heritage
knowledge are in the Dissemination domain.
68,5% of the publications have used GIS to carry out an
inventory and cataloguing, 66,7% for Analysis and research,
28,7% for heritage dissemination, 23,1% for the development of
protection and management plans and 18,5% for the prediction
and evaluation of impacts (Figure 4). In this sense, we can
verify that the application of the tool has been centred
significantly in works of heritage inventory, analysis and
research which, in a certain manner, correspond to the first
phases of the “heritage chain” (Azkarate et al., 2009) as an
integral management model: identification, documentation,
registering and signification.
Figure 4: Graph of the application domains of GIS in heritage.
3.3 Q3: What were the analyses carried out?
The analyses carried out with GIS heavily depend on the
heritage category and on the domain in which the works have
been developed. The aim of the codification is to obtain greater
detail about the types of analysis done. 14 types were codified,
the same study being able to present more than one type of
analysis: 1) Alphanumeric analysis and/or queries, SQL
Analysis; 2) Thematic maps; 3) Time analysis; 4) Visualisation
in 3D; 5) Geometric analysis; 6) Juxtaposition in layers; 7)
Density analysis; 8) Pathology; 9) Visibility analysis (visual
This contribution has been peer-reviewed.
https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-4-169-2018 | © Authors 2018. CC BY 4.0 License.
172
The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XLII-4, 2018
ISPRS TC IV Mid-term S ymposium “3D Spatial Information Science – The Engine of Change”, 1–5 October 2018, Delft, The Netherlands
connectivity); 10) Multicriteria analysis; 11) Image processing;
12) Accessibility; 13) Stratigraphic; 14) Sun/shade orientation
(Figure 5). The most frequent analyses are those that are
alphanumeric (50 publications) and thematic maps (58
publications). The publications analyse the heritage information
via attributes, consulting and/or filtering and generating, from
this, thematic maps which will be used for the visualisation of
the analysis. Of the 108 articles only 20 carry out 3D
visualisations. This data can be explained by both the
development of the GIS tool itself in the last years and by a
greater accessibility to techniques such as photogrammetry and
scanning.
Figure 5: Types of analysis in GIS which have been done in the
studies.
Likewise, the results of the codification of the analyses carried
out indicate a trend in recent years of the use of GIS to solve
more specific heritage problems, such as the analysis of
pathology (8 publications) and stratigraphic analysis (3
publications). As to the analysis of pathology, three
methodologies or procedures are observed: 1) via the table of
attributes which is associated with the geometric entity (Lazzari
et al., 2014); 2) through the association of a scale of the
pathological level with the elements of parts of the building
defined in the table of attributes (Chatzigrigoriou, 2016); and
3) the quantitative analysis of deterioration in the element
(André et al., 2014).
When the interest of the study lies in the analysis of visual
connectivity, the viewshed and observer points have been
analysed to help in urban planning decision making (Cassatella
and Carlone, 2013), or to understand the system of visual
connection of a specific object or heritage centre (De Montis
and Caschili, 2012; Salvador and Vitti, 2011).
With relation to image processing (7 publications) three
applicabilities are noted: for systematisation, the creation of
new information and generation of hypotheses or prediction,
such as in Lamenza (Lamenza, 2015), which uses images of
Landasat, of GoogleEarth and of the DEM model; to visualise
the evolution from historic air images; and to identify new
elements from algorithms, such as in Abrate (Abrate et al.,
2013).
3.4 Q4: Which other Digital Technologies were used?
We have analysed three other technologies or tools used in
conjunction with GIS: Photogrammetry, Laser/Scanner, and
BIM (Fig. 6). Eighteen of the publications reviewed have used
Laser Scanner, the majority being applied in archaeology. The
great usefulness and the potential of the use of scanning,
especially the utilisation of LIDAR, lies in the registering and
prediction of new archaeological sites (Stein et al., 2017; Smith
et al., 2013). In other cases, it is used to get a greater precision
of the DTM, as in Paolini et al. (2013) or for virtual
reconstruction, as in Berthelot et al. (2015) (Figure 6).
Figure 6: Quantitative analysis of the technologies/tools which
were applied in conjunction with GIS in the publications
included in the systematic review.
4. CONCLUSIONS
This article has presented a systematic literature review of the
literature on the state-of-the-art concerning GIS applications in
the heritage area. The systematic review method proposed
considers and combines the results of searches in two
heterogenous digital databases and enables an evaluation which
can be applied to other studies and analysis. Via the
implementation of a search based on equations of keywords and
taking into account the results of the analysis of the metadata of
the publications, it is possible to minimise the risk of bias during
the process of the literature review. We have answered the
initial research questions and provide new statistics and analysis
of the state- of-the-art of GIS in heritage.
During the SLR process an increase of publications from 2014
has been noted. This data reflects the growth of the development
and interest in ITs, and the rise of multidisciplinary
investigations. Nonetheless, most studies are limited to
processing the alphanumeric information linked to the heritage
entity for the generation of thematic maps. Thus, the use of GIS
for carrying out inventories and cataloguing predominates Some
reasons for this limitation could be a lack of training and
professional updating, questions which have already been
tackled in the field of humanities (Ayers, 2010). There is a
noticeable need for new research which dominates the GIS tool
to capitalise on its potential of analysis focused on the
knowledge and management of heritage information.
Also, the paucity of studies which consider the maintenance and
sustainability of information has been observed. In some cases,
new platforms have been created to diffuse and facilitate the
accessibility of the information generated in the investigation.
However, over time they have ceased to work, due to a lack of
either the project’s continuity or of financing. In this sense,
there still exists a huge gap to be studied and a void regarding
the strategy of sustainability and accessibility of data. Where do
all the data generated in the research remain? Has some policy
or protocol been applied for its use, re-use and enhancement in
the future? These and other questions have not
This contribution has been peer-reviewed.
https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-4-169-2018 | © Authors 2018. CC BY 4.0 License.
173
The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XLII-4, 2018
ISPRS TC IV Mid-term S ymposium “3D Spatial Information Science – The Engine of Change”, 1–5 October 2018, Delft, The Netherlands
been contemplated in any of the publications analysed and may
perfectly well be a future research line: the maintenance and
sustainability of heritage data.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This article has been carried out in the framework of the
R&D&i Projects HAR2016–78113-R and HAR2016–76371-P
funded by the government of Spain’s Ministry of Economy and
Competitiveness. Moreover, I wish to thank all the researchers
and professionals who have been contacted to clarify data or
methodologies during the process of the systematic review.
REFERENCES
Abrate, M., Bacciu, C., Hast, A., Marchetti, A., Minutoli, S.,
Tesconi, M. 2013. GeoMemories-A Platform for Visualizing
Historical, Environmental and Geospatial Changes in the
Italian Landscape. Int. J. Geo-Inf., 2(2), pp. 432-455,
doi:10.3390/ijgi2020432.
Akkus, C., Ozdenerol, E. 2014. Exploring Childhood Lead
Exposure through GIS: A Review of the Recent Literature. Int
J Environ Res Public Health, 11(6), pp. 6314–6334,
doi.org/10.3390/ijerph110606314.
André, M-F., Vautier F., Voldoire, O., Roussel, E. 2014.
Accelerated stone deterioration induced by forest clearance
around the Angkor temples. Science of the Total Environment,
493(15), pp. 98-108, doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.05.141.
Azkarate, A., Barreiro, D., Criado, F., García Camino, I.,
Gutiérrez Lloret, S., Quirós, J.A., Salvatierra, V. 2009. La
Arqueología hoy. In: Actas Congreso: Medio siglo de
arqueología en el cantábrico oriental y su entorno. Vitoria-
Gasteiz, pp. 599-615.
Ayers, L. E. 2010. Turning toward Place, Space and Time. In:
The spatial humanities: GIS and the future of humanities
scholarship, Indiana University Press, pp. 1-13.
Berthelot, M., Nony, N., Gugi, L., Bishop, A., De Luca, L.
2015. The Avignon bridge: a 3D reconstruction project
integrating archaeological, historical and gemorphological
issues. In: Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf.
Sci, Vol. XL 5/W4 (5), pp. 223-227,
doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-5-W4-223-2015
Bone, T., Johnson, D. 2007. Human Factors in GIS Use: A
Review and Suggestions for Research. In: Proceedings of the
Information Systems Education Conference – ISECON, 24, pp.
1-15.
Box, P. 1999. GIS and Cultural Resource Management: A
manual for Heritage Managers. UNESCO, Bangkok.
Butler, E. N., Ambs, A.M., Reedy, J., Bowles H.R. 2011.
Identifying GIS measures of the physical activity-built
environment through a review of the literature. J Phys Act
Health 1(S9), pp. 1-7.
Cassatella C., Carlone G. 2013. GIS-based visual analysis for
planning and designing historic urban landscapes: The case of
Turin. In: Digital Heritage International Congress, Vol. 1, pp.
45-52, doi.org/10.1109/DigitalHeritage.2013.6744728.
Chatzigrigoriou P. 2016. Taking the next step in digital
documentation of historic cities: How HERMeS evolved in an
open data digital library of historic buildings. Lecture Notes in
Computer Science LNCS, 10058, pp. 144-156,
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48496-9_12
CIDOC. 1995. Draft International Core Data Standard for
Archaeological Sites and Monuments. International
Documentation Committee, International Council of Museums.
De Montis, A., Caschili, S. 2012. Nuraghes and landscape
planning: Coupling viewshed with complex network analysis.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 105(3), pp. 315-324,
doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.01.005.
Fischer, M. M., Nijkamp, P. 1992. Geographic information
System and spatial analysis. The Annals of Regional Science
26 (1), pp. 3-17, doi.org/ 10.1007/BF01581477
Fischer, P. F., Farrelly, C., Maddocks, A., Ruggles, C. L. N.
1997. Spatial analysis of visible areas from the Bronze Age
cairns of Mull. Journal of Archaeological Science, 24, pp.
581–592, doi.org/ 10.1006/jasc.1996.0142.
Foresman, T. W., Ed. 1997. The History of Geographic
Information Systems: Perspectives from the Pioneers. Prentice
Hall PTR Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Gajos, M., Sierka, E. 2012. GIS Technology
in Environmental Protection: Research Directions Based on
Literature Review. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies
21 (2), pp. 241-248.
Gough, D., Oliver, S., Thomas, J. 2012. An Introduction to
Systematic Reviews. SAGE Publications, London.
Gough, D., Oliver, S., Thomas, J. 2013. Learning from
research: Systematic reviews for informing policy decisions: A
quick guide. Nesta, London.
Kvamme, K. L. 1990a. GIS algorithms and their effects on
regional archaeological analyses. In: Interpreting Space: GIS
and Archaeology, Taylor & Francis, pp. 112–125.
Kvamme, K. L. 1990b. One-sample tests in regional
archaeological analysis: new possibilities through computer
technology. American Antiquity, 55, pp. 367–381,
doi.org/10.2307/281655.
Lamenza, G.N. 2015. SIG y teledetectacción en investigaciones
del Chaco argentino. Arqueología Iberoamericana, 27, pp. 40-
54.
Lazzari M., Patriziano M.S., Aliano G.A. 2014. GIS assessment
and planning of conservation priorities of historical centers
through quantitative methods of vulnerability analysis: An
example from southern Italy. Lecture Notes in Computer
Science LNCS, 8580 (2), pp. 677-692, doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
319-09129-7_49
This contribution has been peer-reviewed.
https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-4-169-2018 | © Authors 2018. CC BY 4.0 License.
174
The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XLII-4, 2018
ISPRS TC IV Mid-term S ymposium “3D Spatial Information Science – The Engine of Change”, 1–5 October 2018, Delft, The Netherlands
Maina, M.M., Amin, M.S.M., Yazid, M.A. 2014. Web
geographic information system decision support system for
irrigation water management: a review. Acta Agriculturae
Scandinavica, Section B - Soil & Plant Science, 64(4), pp. 283-
293, doi.org/10.1080/09064710.2014.896935
Malczewski, J. 2006. GIS‐based multicriteria decision
analysis: a survey of the literature. International Journal of
Geographical Information Science, 20 (7), pp. 703-726,
doi.org/10.1080/13658810600661508
Opolot, E. 2013. Application of Remote Sensing and
Geographical Information Systems in Flood Management: A
Review. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering
and Technology, 6(10), pp. 1884-1894,
doi.org/10.1023/B:NHAZ.0000037035.65105.95.
Paolini P., Allegrini Simonetti F., Forti G., Corrao A. 2013.
Ancient Rome worldwide links: Sharing knowledge to preserve
the roots. In: Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf.
Sci, XL5/W2, pp. 465-470, doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-
5-W2-465-2013
Salvador I., Vitti A. 2011. Survey, representation and analysis
of a world war I complex system of surface and underground
fortifications in the Gresta Valley – Italy. In: Int. Arch.
Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci, XXXVIII-5W16,
pp. 319-325, doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-XXXVIII-5-W16-
319-2011.
Sharma, B., Brandes, E., Khanchi, A., Birrell, S., Heaton, E.,
Miguez, F. E. 2015. Evaluation of Microalgae Biofuel
Production Potential and Cultivation Sites Using Geographic
Information Systems: A Review. Bioenergy Research, 8(4),
pp. 1714-1734, doi.org/10.1007/s12155-015-9623-0.
Smith N.G., Knabb K., Defanti C., Weber P., Schulze J.,
Prudhomme A., Kuester F., Levy T.E., Defanti T.A. 2014.
ArtifactVis2: Managing real-time archaeological data in
immersive 3D environments. In: Digital Heritage International
Congress, 1, pp.363-370,
doi.org/10.1109/DigitalHeritage.2013.6743761.
Soler, F., Melero, F.J., Luzon, M.V. 2017. A complete 3D
information system for cultural heritage documentation.
Journal of Cultural Heritage, 23, pp. 49-57,
doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2016.09.008.
Stein S., Malone S., Knight D., J. Howard A., Carey C. 2017.
New Approaches to Mapping and Managing Paleochannel
Resources in the Light of Future Environmental Change: A
Case Study from the Trent Valley, UK. The Historic
Environment: Policy and Practice, 8(2), pp.113-124,
doi.org/10.1080/17567505.2017.1317086.
Van Leusen, P. M. 1993. Cartographic modelling in a cell-
based GIS. In: Computing the Past: Computer Applications
and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. Aarhus University
Press, Aarhus, pp. 105–123.
Van Leusen, P. M. 1999. Viewshed and Cost Surface Analysis
Using GIS (Cartographic Modelling in a Cell-Based GIS II). In:
New Techniques for Old Times: Computer Applications and
Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, Aarhus University
Press, Aarhus, pp. 215-224.
This contribution has been peer-reviewed.
https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-4-169-2018 | © Authors 2018. CC BY 4.0 License.
175
