Surveys in Geophysics

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-020-09611-7

Geoscientists in the Sky: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

Responding to Geohazards

R. Antoine1 · T. Lopez2,3 · M. Tanguy4 · C. Lissak5 · L. Gailler6 · P. Labazuy6 ·

C. Fauchard1

Received: 10 March 2020 / Accepted: 6 August 2020

© Springer Nature B.V. 2020

Abstract
This article presents a review of the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in the con-
text of geohazards. The pluri-disciplinary role of UAVs is outlined in numerous studies
associated with mass earth movements, volcanology, flooding events and earthquakes. Sci-
entific advances and innovations of several research teams around the world are presented
from pre-events investigations to crisis management. More particularly, we emphasize the
actual status of technology, methodologies and different applications that have emerged
with the use of UAVs for each domain. It is shown that the deployment of UAVs in the
geohazards context has experienced a tremendous increase during the last 10 years, with
the development of more and more miniaturized, flexible and reliable systems. The use
of such technology (UAV platform, instrumentation, methodologies) is different for each
domain, depending on the spatial extent and the time scale of the observed phenomenon,
but also on the practical constraints associated with the civil aviation agencies regulations
(outside or within urban areas, before or during a crisis…). This paper also highlights the
use of recent methodologies associated with semi-automatic/automatic segmentation or
deep learning for the processing of important amounts of data provided by UAVs. Finally,
although still sparse, the joint use of UAVs and satellite data is progressing and remains a
challenge for future studies in the context of geohazards.

Keywords UAV · Geohazards · Mass earth movements · Volcanology · Flooding events ·

Earthquakes

* R. Antoine
[email protected]
1
Cerema, ENDSUM Team, 10 chemin de la Poudrière, 76121 Le Grand-Quevilly, France
2
Géosciences Environnement Toulouse (GET), Institut de Recherche Technologique (IRT) Saint-
Exupéry, 14 avenue Edouard Belin, 31400 Toulouse, France
3
International Space Science Institute (ISSI), Hallerstrasse 6, 3012 Bern, Switzerland
4
GEOEND, Université Gustave Eiffel, Route de Bouaye - CS 5004, 44344 Bouguenais Cedex,
France
5
UNICAEN, CNRS, LETG, Normandie Université, 14000 Caen, France
6
CNRS, IRD, OPGC, Laboratoire Magmas et Volcans, Université Clermont Auvergne,
63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Surveys in Geophysics

1 Introduction

Robots flying through the sky are no longer a matter of science fiction. Unmanned aerial vehi-
cles (UAVs), or drones, are usually considered as toys, mass surveillance tools or military
systems. Besides, this technology is being increasingly implemented into many innovative
projects worldwide, for sustainable development goals (Kitonsa and Kruglikov 2018), medi-
cal deliveries (Scott and Scott 2019), humanitarian purposes (Sandvik and Lohne 2014) or
disaster mitigation (Erdelj et al. 2017). According to the United Nations, for the period 1998-
2017, disasters associated with natural hazards killed 1.3 million people and affected 4.4 bil-
lion people (Wallemacq et al. 2018), along with economic losses of $2.9 trillion. In recent
years, information provided by manned aircraft and satellites has demonstrated their efficiency
during disasters over various temporal and spatial resolutions (from tens of m to km), due
to constant up-to-date data availability and efficient GIS (geographical information system)
solutions (Voigt et al. 2016). In this frame, UAVs provide an important opportunity to support
disaster reliefs and make low-cost observations at the local scale, complementing aircraft and
satellites when their deployment remains expensive (for instance, for kilometric size areas).
Moreover, in the context of climate change, with extreme weather events increasing in fre-
quency and amplitude, the use of UAVs may be of major interest to improve pre-disaster stud-
ies, crisis management and recovery. For example, the August 2017 extreme flood in Sierra
Leone, in which the United Nations used drones to complement satellite data over landslides
and flooded areas demonstrated how UAVs may assist emergency agencies (http://www.fao.
org/sierra-leone/news/detail-events/en/c/1032705/). Indeed, for hazard studies, it is essential
to investigate areas that are difficult to access. But, it is also necessary to easily change scales
of analysis, from local to regional scales. UAV technology can be useful for the mitigation of
natural hazards in several ways:

• A huge variety of civil drones as fixed-wing aircraft, multi-copters, rugged UAVs or

waterproof systems may be provided for different scales studies and situations,
• Drones can collect multiple types of high-resolution data (from remote sensing to geo-
physical imagery) to improve early detection and crisis management,
• They can provide access to the web in damaged zones by extension of Wi-Fi,
• These systems can fly over damaged infrastructures, carrying low-weight supplies,
• They can collect massive amounts of data in a limited time (for instance, 15–20 min).

This article provides a review of the literature by examining the role of UAVs in geohazard
responses and emphasizing the actual status of the technology. The recent developments from
early detection to crisis management, using remote sensing, geochemical or geophysical data
of several teams are presented in four different sections. The first section is dedicated to mass
earth movements, the second to volcanology, the third to floods, and the last section focuses
on earthquakes. The complementarity between data provided by UAVs and satellite imagery
is discussed in the last part of this article.

2 UAVs Description

Numerous articles highlight the use of UAVs for detailed morphostructural studies
(Gonçalves and Henriques 2015; Cawood et al. 2017; Chesley et al. 2017; Cook 2017),
hazard researches (Gomez and Purdie 2016; Giordan et al. 2018) and landslide studies

13
Surveys in Geophysics

(Mokhtar et al. 2014; Balek and Blahůt 2017; Casagli et al. 2017; Yu et al. 2017), as
support of other remote sensing techniques and field monitoring. Indeed, UAVs provide
low-cost aerial surveys, operational flexibility and a better spatial and temporal resolu-
tion (Agüera-Vega et al. 2017a). Moreover, the miniaturization of different sensors is
underway (Fig. 1), as for the example of magnetic sensors for the measurement of the
total magnetic field or of its three components. On-board radars are also in full develop-
ment. Reflections from around mobile gravimetric sensors dedicated to density measure-
ments are in progress (Limo-G system) (de Saint Jean 2008), with promising prospects
for implementation on drones via microelectromechanical system (MEMS) technology
(Middlemiss et al. 2016). Thanks to this development, many UAVs platforms as hexa-
copter (Hastaoğlu et al. 2019), quadcopter (Niethammer et al. 2012; Cook 2017; Peter-
nel et al. 2017) and octocopter (e.g., Turner et al. 2015; Lindner et al. 2016) have been
developed for science and civil applications (e.g., DJI Phantom and Mavic quadcopters
are very famous). They can acquire a large number of high-spatial-resolution images,
defined by their pixel size (0.03–0.08 m/pixel in Niethammer et al. (2012); 0.02 m/pixel
in Rossi et al. (2018)) or ground sampling distance (GSD). GSD, generally expressed in
cm/pixel, represents the distance between the centres of two consecutive pixels in the
image on the ground that can be expressed with the simplified following function:
GSD = H ∗ P∕f

where H is the height of the UAV (m), P is the pixel size of the sensor (micro), and f is the
focal length (mm). The bigger the value of the GSD, the lower the spatial resolution of the
image and the less visible are details. These images are then used to obtain very quickly
(a few minutes per flights), at heights generally lower than 100 m, different digital models
as digital surface models (DSM), digital terrain models (DTM, which is a DSM with fil-
tered vegetation), digital elevation models (DEM) with a spatial resolution of 0.02 m/pixel
in Rossi et al. (2018) or orthophotographs with a spatial resolution ranging from 0.02 to
0.04 m/pixel (Niethammer et al. 2012; Rossi et al. 2018).

Fig. 1 Some examples of miniaturized sensors for drone applications, operational or in development in the
field of imaging, sampling and geophysics

13
 Surveys in Geophysics

3 Methodology

One of the major interests of UAVs lies in the fact that several sensors can be simultane-
ously operated with RGB (red, green, blue), multi-spectral, or thermal sensors (Berni et al.
2009; Zarco-Tejada et al. 2012; Casana et al. 2014; Rossi et al. 2018; Antoine et al. 2019)
and LiDAR. However, topographic surveys are possible through the simple use of a set
of RGB aerial images with photogrammetric algorithms. Consequently, UAVs developed
for fundamental or applied scientific research are traditionally used as a complementary
tool to other ground investigations. For example, in morphometric studies, slope kinemat-
ics quantification or landslide detection, results from drone imagery interpretation must be
calibrated by ground surveys. Concerning data acquisition, several protocols are possible
with various parameters: number of photos, flight height, overlap between images, number
of ground control points (GCPs). The choice mainly depends on the size of the study area
(Chesley et al. 2017) and the expected resolution of the final 3D point cloud. Data acqui-
sition protocols are variable in the bibliography (see Appendices 1 to 4). For 3D model
construction, various Structure from Motion (SfM) software packages are now available
for creating 3D models from photographs (Cook 2017). Among them, free solutions such
as Visual SfM (Wu 2011, 2013) or MicMac (Rupnik et al. 2017) provide accurate solutions
for data processing, but a commercial bundle such as Agisoft Metashape (2016) is the most
frequently used software for image correlation and generation of 3D point clouds (Turner
et al. 2015; Lindner et al. 2016; Balek and Blahůt 2017; Cook 2017). Detailed descrip-
tions of the Metashape workflow (formerly called Photoscan) may be found in Turner et al.
(2015).
Nevertheless, the geometric accuracy of 3D models and derived DEMs/DSMs also
depends on the acquisition of GCPs by dGPS (Walter et al. 2009; Turner et al. 2015;
Thiebes et al. 2016) or theodolite (Peternel et al. 2017). These GCPs are essential for geo-
referencing the images (Lucieer et al. 2014), and their homogenous distribution on both
sides of the study area will influence the accuracy of the obtained point cloud (Agüera-
Vega et al. 2017a). With these GCPs, photographs acquired by the drone will be georefer-
enced and processed in order to obtain a 3D point cloud of the area overflown, but some
solutions of direct georeferencing without GCPs exist (Turner et al. 2014; Gabrlik 2015;
Mian et al. 2015). Indeed, the SfM and multi-view-stereo (MVS) photogrammetric tech-
niques for airborne or ground images processing are the most widely used photogrammetry
techniques in topography studies, to generate high-resolution DEMs and orthophotographs
(Turner et al. 2015). This technique allows for a fairly flexible and inexpensive 3D recon-
struction of photos acquired by UAV (Westoby et al. 2012; Valkaniotis et al. 2018). The
aim is to model a real object or landscape in 3D from a multitude of 2D images, using
various algorithms that can detect and identify similar elements between two pictures (i.e.
“scale-invariant feature transform”) (Lowe 1999, 2004). As a result, a photogrammetric 3D
point cloud created from drone photographs can be interpolated into DEMs/DSMs. These
datasets are essential for landslide studies (Casagli et al. 2017). The SfM technique is based
on multi-view stereopsis (MSV) techniques that provide 3D structure from overlapping
photography (at least a 60% overlap in both horizontal and vertical directions) acquired
from multiple angles and heights. SfM/MSV techniques are particularly useful and provide
dense 3D point cloud and high-resolution digital terrain models with high-spatial resolu-
tion (with centimetric to sub-decimetric accuracy) with a possible high temporal resolu-
tion. Mesh models (DSMs) generated by triangulation of the dense point clouds can be

13
Surveys in Geophysics

created using various algorithms, such as inverse distance weighted (IDW) ones (Comert
et al. 2019).

4 Mass Earth Movements

4.1 What Do We Consider as Landslides and How Can We Study Them?

Mass earth movements frequently occur in many disasters involving people and the dam-
age or the destruction of many infrastructures. Every year, mass earth movements (whether
landslides, debris flows, mudflows…) trigger in urban or rural areas in various geographi-
cal contexts (coastal, mountain). These phenomena can be extremely rapid or slow, in vari-
ous geological contexts, in saturated or unsaturated materials, in steep channels or without
confinement in established channels. Triggering factors are numerous, as they can be asso-
ciated with external forcing (e.g., meteorological event), or internal forcing (e.g., earth-
quake) or combination of both (Tang et al. 2019). Nevertheless, the predominant factor is
hydro-climatic forcing. In that case, instabilities can be triggered either by accumulated
rainfall inducing the progressive saturation of the soil and the rise of the water tables, or by
high intensity rainfall events such as thunderstorms and/or tropical storms. Therefore, in a
context of global change where precipitation (rates and nature) may change, several studies
have focused attention on effects of global warming on heavy rainfall frequency or tropical
cyclones intensity (Edenhofer et al. 2014). Consequently, we wonder about the impact of
these changes on the occurrence of hydro-gravitational phenomena (frequency, intensity,
location). Several types of mass movement exist (Hungr et al. 2014) and their complexity
involves a large number of approaches and methods. In order to reduce damages caused
by landslides, it is therefore essential to have a precise knowledge of the hazard, especially
by mapping its extension and intensity to identify vulnerable areas where elements at risk
exist (Graff et al. 2019). In this context, and for operational intervention for risk manage-
ment, UAVs are essential for many applications. Widely used for hazard inventory map-
ping and identification of unstable areas (Comert et al. 2019), as ground investigation can
be time-consuming, UAVs make possible a fast intervention in post-hazard events. Thanks
to high-resolution digital cameras (RGB, but also other sensors such as multi-spectral sys-
tems), we can easily obtain high detailed 3D point clouds, DEMs/DSMs and orthomosaics,
orthophotographs to easily get a lot of information of the studied areas.
In landslide studies, UAVs facilitate rapid identifications of instabilities after major
events with accurate data over areas of several km2. The use of UAVs is consequently very
effective during crisis situations, when quick identification of affected areas (e.g., road
blockages linked to sediment flows for rescue operations) is necessary but can be tedious
for very large areas (several hundred km2). In this case, very high-resolution (VHR) sat-
ellite imagery will be favoured. Indeed, various satellite systems (e.g., Pleiades system)
provide last-minute requests for images acquisition. These data are essential for precision
mapping and intervention for public safety (Voigt et al. 2016; Lang et al. 2018). However,
according to the geographical context (e.g., slope orientation, tropical area), the acquisition
of high spatial, temporal and spectral resolution imagery just after a crisis can be useless.
For instance, in tropical/subtropical areas, instabilities mainly occur during rainy (and thus
cloudy) season (Saito et al. 2014), when optical imagery is difficult to implement. To over-
come this problem, interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR), airborne light detec-
tion and ranging (LiDAR) or airborne laser scanning (ALS) can be good alternatives for

13
 Surveys in Geophysics

risk assessment and landslide monitoring (Delacourt et al. 2007; Jaboyedoff et al. 2012;
Scaioni et al. 2014). Indeed, InSAR offers frequent and free solutions for landslide assess-
ment (e.g., Sentinel-1) (Barra et al. 2016) with image acquisition during day and night
and all weather conditions. However, this technique is not applicable everywhere because
it depends on the landslide kinematics (inappropriate for slow moving landslide), and its
orientation (Casagli et al. 2017). The other solution is ALS, a highly adaptable technique
providing high-resolution 3D point clouds (Delacourt et al. 2007; Jaboyedoff et al. 2012),
which is a great advantage for landslide detection (Mezaal et al. 2018). One of the major
drawbacks of LiDAR technology is the cost of data acquisition, especially with manned
aircraft. Drones are now equipped with LiDAR sensors, and also multi- and hyperspectral
sensors (Morsdorf et al. 2017), but their operational use is still not straightforward (Piégay
et al. 2020). In this context, UAVs equipped with optical sensors provide valuable infor-
mation for hazard identification and disaster assessment with a high potential to replace
expensive or time-consuming tasks. This is why the use of UAVs, among landslide moni-
toring techniques, is spreading widely (Giordan et al. 2020).
With a Google Scholar search for keywords “UAV, landslide,” over 6000 items pub-
lished since 2015 were returned. For our review, a body of 28 articles have been selected
from articles found by a search by keywords in Google Scholar, and Science Direct data-
base (i.e. “UAV, drone, photogrammetry, mass movement, landslide, remote sensing”). In
the present cases, implementation of UAVs for landslide survey deals with three main sci-
entific issues: (1) hazard mapping, (2) morphological analysis and (3) landslide physical
evolution (Appendix 2).

4.1.1 Landslide Hazard Mapping and Morphological Analysis

Hazard mapping is possible at a medium or large scale, in order to carry out inventories
of mass earth movements just after a specific event triggering (Valkaniotis et al. 2018;
Comert et al. 2019; Tang et al. 2019), or to locate historical landslides of a region. In
both cases, landslide identification can be conducted by manual analysis of orthoimages
and 3D models (point clouds, 3D meshes, DEMs) from UAVs. Thus, a simple 3D visu-
alization of a coloured point clouds can help to identify morphological features associ-
ated with landslides. Numerous studies are also based on topographic, landscape change
detection performed on DEMs (Van Den Eeckhaut et al. 2012; Aditian et al. 2018; Bunn
et al. 2019) and/or 3D point clouds acquired at different times. The landscape change
detection is usually performed automatically using algorithms developed to compare 3D
point clouds. Among them, Cloud-to-Mesh distance (C2M)/Cloud-to-Cloud distance
(C2C) tools (Girardeau-Montaut et al. 2005) and M3C2 algorithm (Lague et al. 2013),
implemented in the CloudCompare software (CloudCompare v.2.5.4 and newer), are the
most used for 3D point cloud analysis (Valkaniotis et al. 2018). Indeed, by comparison
of multi-temporal datasets (before and post-failure 3D point cloud or DEM), it is then
possible to quantify the amount of removed sediments (Valkaniotis et al. 2018). Land-
slide inventory maps are essential for risk assessment to avoid the exposure of goods
and people to hazard. Inventory maps provide quantitative and qualitative information on
landslide hazard such as boundaries, main and secondary scarps, shape, size and depth.
Inventories are traditionally based on manual interpretation of aerial images/orthopho-
tographs interpretation and DEM derivatives (Görüm 2019). Several derivatives [e.g.,
local dominance, positive openness, negative openness, terrain ruggedness index (TRI),
local relief model (Fig. 2)] can be exploited from DEM dataset, to extract information

13
Surveys in Geophysics

Fig. 2 UAV-based map inventory of multiple shallow landslides triggered in July 2017, Kyushu Island,
Japan (photogrammetry process C. Gomez, Kobe University 2017) (Reproduced with the permission of the
authors C.Lissak, V. Siccard 2020, Caen University) (Lissak et al. 2019)

on terrain morphologies from topographic anomalies. However, manual interpretation

and analysis have been progressively replaced by the automation of landslide recognition
with pixel-based image analysis (PBIA) of orthophotographs, or by object-based image
analysis (OBIA) of orthophotographs or DEMs and DEM derivatives (Stumpf and Kerle
2011; Lahousse et al. 2011; Rau et al. 2012; Van Den Eeckhaut et al. 2012; Moosavi
et al. 2014; Comert et al. 2019). OBIA is based on multi-data combination with met-
rics analysis with spectral (e.g., Green–Red Vegetation Index-RGVI for RGB images),
geometric, contextual, and textural information of image objects defined, DEM deriv-
atives (e.g., slopes, curvature) (Fig. 2) and seems to be a robust method for landslide
recognition or microtopography assessment (Rau et al. 2012; Stumpf et al. 2013). At
a local scale (1:2000–1:10,000), UAV datasets (orthophotographs, DEMs) associated
with field observations (e.g., geotechnical, geophysical, (geo)morphological, geological,
hydro(geo)logical surveys), provide high-resolution data to detect and characterize land-
slides. For example, high-resolution imagery from UAVs makes it easier to locate and
provide details of cracks and fissure structures (Walter et al. 2009; Stumpf et al. 2013)
by photo interpretation, image and/or 3D point clouds analysis (Akcay 2015), and gain
knowledge of slope morphology associated with landslide activity. Such methods may
be especially useful for large area analysis, where several hundreds of landslides must be
mapped. Comert et al. (2019) show the OBIA can recognize the number and the area of

13
 Surveys in Geophysics

the landslide with accuracy rate of ca. 83%. Despite good results for landslide detection
by OBIA approach, PBIA approach is still the predominant method (Casagli et al. 2017;
Bunn et al. 2019). In this context, the employment of multi-spectral images can be useful
to automatically detect landslides, especially with the use of spectral vegetation indices
such as NDVI values (Lin et al. 2004; Yang et al. 2013) to distinguish the vegetation
from the soil (Berni et al. 2009). Whereas collecting RGB-images by UAV is simple and
cost effective, integrating other remote sensing sensors on UAVs, such as thermal cam-
eras (Guilbert et al. 2020) or micro-hyperspectral imagers, may be a good solution, but
more expensive.

4.1.2 Quantification of Slope Deformation and Volumetric Changes Over Time

Remote sensing approaches are frequently applied for landslide assessment and monitor-
ing (Petley et al. 2002; Delacourt et al. 2007; Jaboyedoff et al. 2012; Tofani et al. 2013;
Casagli et al. 2017). To quantify landslide kinematics, airborne observations with UAV and
SfM techniques give the possibility to investigate landslides in high temporal resolution
with repeated flight campaigns from several days or months (Lindner et al. 2016) to several
years (Turner et al. 2015).
To quantify displacement rates and acquire information in magnitude and direction of
displacement vectors, a visual interpretation of the morphological changes with time can
be useful with observation of specific objects such as, for example, the locations of blocks
(Walter et al. 2009) and/or tree locations (Fernandez Galarreta et al. 2015; Peternel et al.
2017). However, for an exhaustive mapping of surface displacements and the characteriza-
tion of the landslide evolution, several other techniques are possible:

1. image correlation of multi-temporal orthophotographs (Torrero et al. 2015; Hastaoğlu

et al. 2019),
2. comparison of 3D point clouds (Stumpf et al. 2015) based on automatic process of
Cloud-to-cloud differences (Cook 2017; Eker et al. 2018) and using an open-source
algorithms such as the M3C2 algorithm,
3. by comparison of DEM (DEM of Difference, DoD) (Fernandez Galarreta et al. 2015;
Lindner et al. 2016; Thiebes et al. 2016; Rossi et al. 2018).

The multi-temporal model analysis can be based on DEMs created from UAVs pho-
togrammetric surveys (Fig. 3) (Lucieer et al. 2014; Turner et al. 2014; Lindner et al.
2016; Rothmund et al. 2017; Tanteri et al. 2017; Eker et al. 2018; Rossi et al. 2018)
but also compared with models created by airborne or terrestrial LiDAR surveys (Rossi
et al. 2016; Thiebes et al. 2016). The interpretation of data obtained from drones must
be calibrated with ground surveys and monitoring campaigns because, according to
image or 3D point cloud resolution, statistical differences are possible. Various studies
combine airborne techniques for landslide kinematics and field monitoring with terres-
trial laser scanner (TLS), terrestrial SfM photogrammetry combined with permanent
GNSS (Thiebes et al. 2016), theodolite surveys (Peternel et al. 2017) and inclinometers
(Rossi et al. 2016).

13
Surveys in Geophysics

Fig. 3 Surface deformation map generated using the software COSI-corr and two different DSMs of the
same area representing the surfaces at different times (from Turner et al. 2015)

5 UAVs for Volcanology

5.1 Why Use UAV Measurements to Reinforce the Monitoring of Volcanoes?

Because volcanic phenomena integrate various spatiotemporal scales, multi-disciplinary

and complementary approaches are necessary. Volcanic field observations and analyses are
essential, including photos, videos of eruptive phenomena, physicochemical sampling and
geophysical imagery. However, in situ data acquisition remains difficult or even impossible
due to complex settings (e.g., topographic barriers and danger due to eruptions). Using
UAVs as instrumentation vectors will overcome these limitations by providing a more
homogeneous, extensive, safer and faster prospecting. Today, this is an essential advance to
improve our understanding of volcanic systems and to efficiently monitor them.
The choice of the UAV is, at the first order, a question of scale: measurements carried
out at high altitude will cover regional and deep structures or atmospheric phenomena,
whereas measurements close to the ground will focus on local and more shallow systems

13
 Surveys in Geophysics

or phenomena at even higher resolution. It will also be greatly conditioned by the sensi-
tivity and weight of the sensor(s) that should be mounted, and that depends on the vol-
canic issues to be addressed (e.g., measurements of surface, internal and atmospheric phe-
nomena) (Gonzalez Toro and Tsourdos 2018). Amongst these problems, it is fundamental
to map and characterize active volcanic structures on the surface, such as lava flows (De
Beni et al. 2019), intrusions (Dering et al. 2019), volcano-tectonics features and deforma-
tion (Bonali et al. 2019). Repeated UAV measurements over time enable quantification of
the temporal evolution of these structures (Derrien et al. 2015; Darmawan et al. 2018).
Another important issue in volcanoes monitoring is to quantify heat flux associated with
volcanic activity at the surface and in near-real-time through mapping the spatial distribu-
tion of thermal expressions (Walter et al. 2020). More in-depth information on fluid trans-
fers and magmatic dynamics is now provided thanks to the development of UAV geophysi-
cal measurements such as, for example, magnetism (Catalán et al. 2014) and/or gravity
(Middlemiss et al. 2016). Sampling and analysing volcanic products and gas emissions
dynamics through UAV physicochemical measurements could also be envisioned with ded-
icated sensors (Gomez and Kennedy 2018; Rüdiger et al. 2018; Terada et al. 2018; James
et al. 2020). The ultimate goal is to perform combined approaches including simultaneous
and complementary measurements (e.g., Mori et al. 2016).
We now present a (non-exhaustive) list of vectors and sensors (operational or in devel-
opment) commonly used or that could be used for volcanology, and some applications and
developments.

5.2 UAV and Physicochemical Sensors for Studying Volcanoes

Vectors: The emergence of UAV, together with rapid and continuous technological pro-
gress, now offers an intermediate detection scale between regional satellite and local
ground observations (Kreye et al. 2006). It opens the doors to high-resolution measure-
ments, at both spatial and temporal scales, to enhance volcanic systems imaging and moni-
toring (Fig. 1). Different vectors exist, each with specific characteristics and performance
(flight altitude, time and payload). As an example, the U.S. Department of Defense has pro-
vided a categorization into five groups (Marshall et al. 2015) and various syntheses have
been proposed (Fahlstrom and Gleason 2012; Watts et al. 2012; Villa et al. 2016).
Sounding balloons have been designed to make measurements at high altitude in the
stratosphere (Everaerts 2008). They are of main interest to study the volcanic products into
the atmosphere (gas and particles) for meteorological, socio-economic and aeronautical
issues. Fixed-wing drones such as long-range flying systems have basically limited payload
but offer the possibility of flying for several hours for homogeneous investigation of large
areas (Saggiani et al. 2006). Big rotor wing drones (octopters or hexacopters) have more
limited flight times, but larger payload and could be used as multi-method platforms. The
lightest quadcopter-type drones (see Villa et al. 2016 for details) have even more limited
capacities in terms of flight time and payload, but have the advantage of being very easy
and rapid to implement in the field. For given applications, a swarm of UAVs flying on
similar or complementary trajectories could also be deployed (Techy et al. 2010). More
recently, unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) have been developed to operate, among
others, in submarine volcanic contexts (Caratori Tontini et al. 2019). UUV can be remotely
controlled in real time (remotely operated vehicles, ROVs) or not (autonomous underwater
vehicles, AUVs).

13
Surveys in Geophysics

Sensors: A large range of applications may be envisioned for volcanoes imaging and
monitoring (Fig. 1). For several years, UAV photogrammetry has now been fully opera-
tional for imaging volcanic structures and their evolution on the ground surface (e.g., Der-
rien et al. 2015; Bonali et al. 2019; De Beni et al. 2019). On-board cameras acquire pho-
tos from different points of view to derive an orthophotography (e.g., geometry, colour,
texture, relief) of a selected volcanic target. One of the most interesting applications is to
generate high-resolution DEMs (i.e. multi-centimetric; Harvey et al., 2016 and references
therein). UAV LiDAR (light detection and ranging) surveys are also commonly used to
construct DTMs at infra-metric resolution (e.g., Jones et al. 2009; Assali et al. 2014; Casini
et al. 2016). The miniaturization of infrared (IR) cameras (< 500 g) also offers the oppor-
tunity to carry out acquire thermal images rapidly (e.g., Wessels et al. 2013; Walter et al.
2020). Temperature information on the scale of an entire eruptive site in areas otherwise
inaccessible such as active eruptive centres (Mori et al. 2016), lava flows (Spampinato
et al. 2011; Blackett 2017 and references therein) and/or fracturing centres (Schneider et al.
2005) can be acquired.
UAV geophysical measurements and physical parameters characterization are also in
development to monitor volcanic activity at greater depth. Magnetic sensors progressively
become operational (Funaki et al. 2014); the development of gravity sensors is also in full
swing for the last few years Middlemiss et al. 2016).
Regarding UAV sensors for sampling of volcanic products, in situ measurements remain
challenging for physical and chemical characterizations of volcanic emissions (plumes of
gas and ashes). Based on the in-depth knowledge of atmospheric teams, custom sensors
(Hervo et al. 2012; Picard et al. 2019) are now being developed in order to: (1) measure
the total concentration of particles and their size spectrum, (2) sample particle aggregates,
(3) sample ashes with a collector for quantifying the flux of particles within the plume and
their size distribution and (4) quantify major volatile components (H20, CO2, H2S and SO2)
with a MultiGas system and a [P, T, RH] (pressure, temperature, relative humidity) probe.

5.3 Some Examples of Application

At the scale of volcanic edifices, various phenomena interact at different spatiotemporal

scales (e.g., stress variations, deformation, fracturing, fluids transfer, thermal variations).
Those phenomena are driving a large variability of physical properties in volcanic reser-
voirs, shallow structures and emitted products that could be efficiently addressed thanks to
UAVs measurements. Some of the most striking examples of applications are presented in
the following sections.

5.3.1 Imaging Volcano‑Tectonic Structures and Their Temporal Evolution

Deformations linked to volcanic activity are commonly due to magma transfers, precursors
of eruptions, and require almost real-time monitoring to better follow and prevent erup-
tions. UAV photogrammetry has great potential in monitoring such dynamic processes
(lava flows monitoring) (Favalli et al. 2018; De Beni et al. 2019). Right now, most of the
drones are equipped with high-resolution cameras. The advantage of UAV photogramme-
try is to repeat surveys and, therefore, to rapidly emphasize the evolution of structures with
successive photogrammetric models (e.g., before and after an eruption). A recent striking

13
 Surveys in Geophysics

Fig. 4 Changes to the caldera area of Kilauea Volcano on Hawaii Island due to 2018 eruption: a May 05
and b July 16 (extract from GIF, JAXA). c Drone survey for photogrammetry and sampling. d 3D model
from aerial photographs. Credit: U.S. Geological Survey

example of the potential of UAV photogrammetry was the monitoring of the evolution of
Kilauea volcano (Hawaii), all along its main eruptive crisis in 2018 (Fig. 4a and b) (Patrick
et al. 2019). Successive flights were carried out with an octocopter (Fig. 4c) by the USGS-
Hawaiian Volcano Observatory scientists (https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/volcanoes/kilauea/
multimedia_chronology.html), to build a 3D model and to follow the evolution of the vol-
cano-tectonic structures at Kilauea’s summit (Fig. 4d) (Patrick et al. 2019). It also enables
to follow the water pond level evolution that appeared one year after the collapse event in
the deepest portion of the crater.

5.3.2 Quantifying Heat Flux, Thermal Anomalies and Mass Transfers in Near Real Time

a. Infrared imagery
Mapping thermal anomalies, fluid movements, and quantifying the associated heat
fluxes is commonly performed through IR thermal imaging at large scale by satellites
(Bato et al. 2016), by helicopters or in situ by hand-held ground IR cameras (Harris
et al. 2005; Antoine et al. 2017) and more recently on UAVs (e.g., Mori et al. 2016;
Thiele et al. 2017). Following variations in the distribution and intensity of thermal
anomalies thanks to the repetition of IR measurements enables to quickly and evenly
image active areas: volcanic vents (e.g., Harris and Stevenson 1997), domes (e.g.,

13
Surveys in Geophysics

Fig. 5 a Eruption of Etna in July 2014 on the northeast crater (©R. Paris, LMV) and associated with b IR
thermal imaging by drone (OPTRIS PI 450, ©Technivue and P. Labazuy, LMV-OPGC). c Kilometric high-
resolution visible orthoimage (1.3 cm/px @ 50 m height) of the Northern Part of Dolomieu crater super-
imposed with Google Earth data (©R. Antoine, CEREMA/ENDSUM, SlideVOLC ANR project) and d IR
thermal orthoimage (FLIR Vue Pro, 9.4 cm/px @ 50 m height), superimposed with the drone and Google
Earth Data (©R. Antoine, CEREMA/ENDSUM, SlideVOLC ANR project)

Pallister et al. 2013), lava flows (e.g., Calvari et al. 2003; James et al. 2006) or even
fumarolic zones (e.g., Harris and Baloga 2009). The thermal state of an overall eruptive
site and ejectas (Turner et al. 2015) as well as the channelization of a lava flow (Patrick
et al. 2017) could be accurately imaged. As an example, the IR airborne survey carried
out using an octocopter during the 2014 eruption at Mount Etna has provided a high-
resolution map of the active vent and associated products, otherwise invisible in surface
(Fig. 5a, b) (Labazuy 2015). 3D temperature maps are now developed for IR thermal
data, using the principle of photogrammetry and producing a so-called thermogravimet-
ric model (Fig. 5c,d) (Peltier et al. 2018). This survey was done in 2018 at a kilometre
scale on Piton de la Fournaise, using a DJI Phantom 4, highlighting the main thermal
characteristics of the Northern part of the Dolomieu crater. Such a thermal photogram-
metric approach could also be used to monitor dome eruptions (Thiele et al. 2017).
b. UAV magnetic measurements
Beyond visible and infrared measurements, UAVs are also dedicated to conduct geo-
physical measurements for more in-depth studies. Magnetic field measurements are
particularly relevant in volcanology to map structural contacts between formations of
different ages or nature. They are also a powerful tool for imaging deep thermal anom-
alies and intrusive systems because there is a strong influence of temperature on the

13
 Surveys in Geophysics

Fig. 6 Monitoring of the cooling of the Kilauea Iki lava lake (Hawaii, 1959) using reiteration of magnetic
measurements along the profile located on the left. ©Photo: USGS-HVO; Composite terrain: USGS-HVO,
opentopo.org

measurements of the magnetic field and associated local magnetic anomalies. Since
magma and basaltic rocks above the Curie temperature (~ 580 °C) are paramagnetic
(i.e. null magnetization), a loss of magnetization of volcanic formations will occur in
response to heat transfers or hydrothermal alteration (Gailler et al. 2016). The advan-
tage is to detect and follow heat transfers at depth through time, thanks to measure-
ments reiteration. Such an approach was applied at the scale of the lava lake of Kilauea
Iki (Hawaii), where the evolution of magnetic anomalies has enabled reconstructing the
evolution of the still thermally active magmatic lens from 1959 to 2015 (Fig. 6) (Gail-
ler and Kauahikaua 2017). Thanks to the miniaturization of magnetic sensors, it is now
possible to conduct such magnetic surveys using UAVs in order to detect efficiently any
temporal changes in magnetic signals due to volcanic activity (Catalán et al. 2014).
c. Future developments: UAV gravity measurements
UAV gravity measurements are even more challenging due to a strong effect of in-
flight acceleration on such measurements. They are, however, in full development with the
MEMS technology (Middlemiss et al. 2016). These measurements will complete magnetic
measurements, help to better characterize magmatic systems (Magee et al. 2018) and eval-
uate mass transfers in depth at the scale of intrusions, conduits and reservoirs (Blaikie et al.
2014).

5.3.3 Physicochemical Measurements for Analysing Volcanic Gases

Another main natural hazard of volcanoes explosive activity concerns ash plumes and
related products (gases, primary aerosols), within and in the vicinity of volcanic plumes,
fumarolic zones or eruptive vents. Among them, knowledge of the composition and con-
centration of particles and gases from volcanic plumes is essential for understanding the
processes related to their evolution in the atmosphere and associated climatic issues. Their
importance was highlighted during the eruption of the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull
(April–May 2010), in particular for the management of the aeronautical crisis in real
time by the VAACs (Volcanic Ash Advisory Centers) (Labazuy et al. 2012; Millington
et al. 2012). Such measurements are performed mainly by means of satellite or ground
remote sensing in the infrared domain and may now be envisioned thanks to UAVs in situ

13
Surveys in Geophysics

measurements (see Gonzalez Toro and Tsourdos 2018 and references therein). Here, one of
the major scientific goals is to quantify the composition and dynamics of volcanic plumes
(particle concentration flux and mass, velocity field) (Pieri et al. 2002) to monitor the gas
emission rate inside plumes (Rüdiger et al. 2018) and the interactions between all of these
key parameters.
All these complementary techniques will considerably improve our knowledge of vol-
canic dynamics (deformation, fracturing, landslides, magmatic and hydrothermal transfers)
to better prevent eruptive precursors, associated hazards and their management, in real
time.

6 Flood Monitoring and Management

Satellite remote sensing has been extensively used over the last 30 years for detecting,
monitoring or modelling flood events (Smith 1997; Klemas 2015; Domeneghetti et al.
2019). However, the temporal and spatial resolutions of data acquired by space-borne sen-
sors are not always adapted to fast evolving events and to fine-scale analysis (Schumann
and Domeneghetti 2016; Ridolfi and Manciola 2018). Satellite data may also be affected
by cloud cover, often dense and persistent during flooding. Manned aircraft can overcome
these constraints. Flying below clouds, they do not have revisit limitations, and produce
higher accuracy and resolution data (Feng et al. 2015). Nonetheless, their important cost,
the time needed to plan and validate a flight, as well as flight restrictions, have limited their
implementation for flood related studies.
Conversely, UAVs have gained increased interest over the last few years (Appendix 3).
Cheaper to operate and more flexible than manned aircraft, they can be deployed for rapid
monitoring and mapping of flooded areas, along with routine studies (Feng et al. 2015;
Popescu et al. 2017). In addition, their ability to operate at low altitude ensures the acquisi-
tion of accurate data and meets the requirements of pre- and post-crisis flood monitoring
and management. This section presents examples of the use of UAVs for flood manage-
ment support.

6.1 Flood Observations and Flood Extent Mapping

One of the first examples of UAV deployment in response to a flooding disaster occurred
during Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Small multi-copters and fixed-wing UAVs, equipped
with RGB video cameras, were deployed immediately in the aftermath of the hurricane
(Murphy et al. 2016). The video feeds were used to locate people and to determine poten-
tial threats of the Pearl River. Since then, drones equipped with RGB or IR thermal sensors
have been frequently used worldwide for flood observation and to help to rescue people
during or right after the peak of flooding (Fernandes et al. 2018). The main interest of
digital cameras on drones during the emergency lies in the supply of real-time video scenes
transmitted to ground operators or crisis management services. Visual assessment of the
flood extent, debris and damage is indeed often enough for experts to make the first deci-
sions and to deploy first emergency responses (Murphy et al. 2016).
Accurate mapping of inundated areas is also particularly important to prioritize and bet-
ter organize the response actions on the impacted areas. Surprisingly, to our knowledge, no
operational tool, allowing for real-time or near-real time flood extent mapping using UAVs,

13
 Surveys in Geophysics

and tested under real conditions, is available at this time. Nonetheless, results from the few
studies that have specifically addressed this topic are rather promising. For instance, Pope-
scu et al. (2017) have reached an accuracy of 99% in detecting flooded areas using an inno-
vative segmentation approach in a set of 50 images acquired over a small rural flooded area
in Romania, using a RGB digital camera mounted on a fixed-wing UAV. More recently,
Gebrehiwot et al. (2019) has presented results obtained using a deep learning classification
approach, based on convolutional neural networks (CNN). The approach has been tested
on three sets of data (two sets of 30 images and one set of 70 images), acquired over three
different urban flooded areas in the USA, using RGB cameras mounted on fixed-wing and
multi-copter UAVs. It achieved about 97.5% accuracy in extracting flooded areas. Feng
et al. (2015) have also used a RGB sensor to monitor serious waterlogging in a complex
urban environment, in Yuyao (China). A large set of 400 images was processed using a
hybrid method combining grey-level co-occurrence matrix texture features and random
forest classifier. The approach showed good performance in urban flood mapping, with an
overall accuracy of 87.3% (Fig. 7). Despite its high accuracy in flood extent mapping, the
machine learning approach faces the issue of the time required to pre-process and analyse
sets of several tens of very high-resolution images [e.g., up to thirteen hours in Gebrehiwot
et al., (2019); nine hours in Feng et al. (2015)]. This is an important barrier to the opera-
tional use of such methods for crisis management. If multi-spectral visible sensors are the
most frequently used over flooded areas, examples of flood detection using active micro-
wave or infrared sensors, which have already proved useful for flood extent mapping from
space or airplanes (Smith 1997; Sanyal and Lu 2004; Klemas 2015) are extremely scarce.
Visible sensors being only efficient during the day, there is currently no solution allowing
for flood extent mapping using UAVs at night.
Imam et al. (2019) considered an alternative approach, using data collected by UAV-
based global navigation satellite systems (GNSS) passive radar sensor to detect water bod-
ies on ground. Their approach has been tested in Northern Italy on water surfaces (rivers,
lakes, ponds, etc.) from small to large sizes, using a custom-made GNSS-R sensor and a
multi-copter. It proved successful at detecting the boundaries between ground and water
with few tens of metres accuracy and at estimating the surface water extension with an
extremely high accuracy (about 92%). However, the capacity of this approach to generate

Fig. 7 a, b Orthoimage and flood extent map (right) using a hybrid method combining grey-level co-occur-
rence matrix texture features and random forest classifier, applied to an orthomosaic of RGB images (left)
acquired after a flood in Yuyao (China). Modified from Feng et al. (2015)

13
Surveys in Geophysics

instantaneous maps, and not to provide measurements in the form of surface tracks, which
have less value for flood monitoring operations, has not yet been demonstrated.

6.2 Data Acquisition for Numerical Flow Modelling

The potential of UAVs systems to provide accurate data for flood modelling at fine scale
and in complex environments has also been investigated (Leitão et al. 2016; Langhammer
et al. 2017; Yalcin 2018; Rinaldi et al. 2019). Their results agree on the following points:
(1) topographic data derived from UAV-on-board RGB camera are comparable to DEMs
generated from traditional aerial LiDAR data in term of accuracy and (2) such topographic
results are appropriate for fluvial modelling in both rural and urban landscapes, which
opens the way towards the use of low-cost sensors for such applications.
Research on water level estimation using UAVs systems is less documented in the lit-
erature (Bandini et al. 2017; Ridolfi and Manciola 2018). Bandini et al. (2017) have tested
the capacity of three different payloads (a radar, a sonar and an in-house developed camera-
based laser distance sensor) to estimate water levels on a small lake in Denmark. Water
level estimations were obtained by subtracting the measured range to water surface from
the vertical position retrieved by the on-board GNSS receiver. Interesting performances
were obtained using the radar sensor, with measurements accuracies better than 5 cm. The
approach proposed by Ridolfi and Manciola (2018) substantially differs. A RGB camera
mounted on a multi-copter was used to retrieve water levels on a dam site in Italy. Water
edge along the dam is extracted from a mosaic of orthorectified and calibrated images,
using a supervised classification procedure accounting for edges and pixels colour, tex-
ture and contextual information. Water levels are then estimated by determining the dis-
tance between GCPs placed on the dam and the edge of water. Again, experimental results
proved appropriate for flood modelling, with accuracies around 5 cm.
Lastly, it is also worth mentioning the interest given by authors to quantitative surface
velocity measurements using UAVs and video cameras. The algorithms commonly used
for this purpose include the large-scale particle image velocimetry (LSPIV) algorithm
(e.g., Tauro et al. 2016), the Particle Tracking Velocimetry (PTV) algorithm (Eltner et al.
2020; Koutalakis et al. 2019), or the Kanade–Lucas–Tomasi (KLT) algorithm (e.g., Perks
et al. 2016). The main challenge faced by these studies is the image pre-processing (co-
registration and motion correction) extracted from video frames. Despite these difficulties,
flow velocity estimations obtained using these algorithms are relevant and generally stay
within an acceptable range of error from reference measurements, when available [around
0.15 m s−1 in Perks et al. (2016); around 0.25 m s−1 in Tauro et al. (2016) and around
0.03 m s−1 in Eltner et al. (2020); no reference measurements are available in Koutalakis
et al. (2019)].

6.3 Monitoring of Flood Protection Structures

Fluvial and coastal structures such as levees, sea dikes and dams are frequently subjected
to high loads, violent flows or debris flow impacts. On structures with pre-existing struc-
tural deficiencies, this may result in the development of major disorders and to their failure.
Monitoring of such structures, before, during and after severe events enable the implemen-
tation of adequate, and often less costly repairs, before major failures occur (King et al.

13
 Surveys in Geophysics

2017). Several studies have recently examined the use of cameras mounted on drones to
perform noninvasive and time efficient monitoring of these structures, at reasonable cost.
For instance, King et al. (2017) used a commercial multi-copter UAV to perform a
survey of a 25-km length complex coastal structure at Byron Bay, Australia. A set of
455 images was processed using the SfM algorithm, helped by GCPs georeferencing.
The authors reported some difficulties during the photogrammetric processing of the
images, due to the presence of waves not handled by the SfM algorithm. Nevertheless,
the obtained orthophotograph and DEM (RMSE of 0.068 m) were precise enough to
reveal structures not observed from a classical land-based visual inspection. Brauneck
et al. (2016) recorded the beginning and the evolution of a levee failure along the Elbe
river (Germany), using a UAV-on-board video camera. Sets of images were extracted
from five video frames and were processed into 4 DSMs, after masking their dynamic
parts (flowing water areas). The main issue faced by the authors was the absence of
georeferenced GCPs, which could not be positioned before the flight due to the risks
involved in the area. Instead, GCPs were created by extracting the coordinates of static
objects present on the images. The obtained DSMs and orthomosaics were combined
to characterize the evolution of the breach and of the flow discharge within it, using a
numerical 1-D hydrogeological model.
It is of note that the use of LiDAR data for DSMs generation of fluvial or sea protection
structures remains less frequent. This may be explained by the important cost of LiDAR
sensors compared to RGB cameras. However, optical images fail to identify disorders on a
dike covered by vegetation, and accuracy of generated DSM (usually, several centimetres)
are not suitable for the characterization of disorders such as dike settlement or initiation of
slope sliding (Tournadre et al. 2014). For this last point, Zhou (2019) developed an innova-
tive approach in order to generate a very high precision DSM (1 cm vertical accuracy) of
such structures using a combination of oblique and nadir optical images plus embedded
GNSS and only one GCP. The inclusion of oblique images helps decrease image deforma-
tions. It compensates the effects of focal lengths drifting on nadir images, which leads to
more accurate camera pose estimation, and it also decreases the effects of focal lengths
variations due to camera temperature changes. A camera readout time calibration method
is also integrated to the approach, in order to correct the rolling shutter effect of the camera
on the image measurements.
Important efforts have been made very recently for the development of operational sys-
tems for dike monitoring using UAVs. The DiDRO project (DIke monitoring by DROnes)
aims at developing a solution for routine and crisis monitoring of dikes, using UAVs carry-
ing multiple remote sensing, aquatic and geophysical equipment (Antoine et al. 2019). The
routine monitoring mode includes a LiDAR, IR thermal, near-infrared and visible sensors,
and provides high-resolution data of the surface. These sensors, never combined before
on a UAV for this type of survey, allow the detection of many surface indicators of inter-
nal and external dike disorders. They can be carried out whatever the UAV (helicopters or
multi-copters), using a structure specifically developed for these needs (Fig. 8).
Data are processed to generate 3D information of the dike (multi-spectral points clouds,
DSMs, DEMSs, orthophotographs, profiles) and will be available for interpretation in a
dedicated GIS web platform (Fig. 8d). The crisis monitoring mode uses a fixed-wing UAV
equipped with a visible and IR thermal camera with a 360° rotation capacity. It allows day
and night in-flight video transmission to the emergency services. This mode can be com-
plemented by aquatic measurements, which consist (1) in surface velocity measurements
using floating targets dropped in water by the UAV and (2) in water turbidity estimation

13
Surveys in Geophysics

Fig. 8 a, b DiDRO unmanned helicopter equipped with LiDAR, HR IR thermal, near-infrared and visible
cameras payload developed for routine surveys (Photo: R. Antoine ©Survey Copter/DiDRO consortium),
c Fixed-wing drone used for crisis management (©SurveyCopter/DiDRO consortium) and d 3D thermal
point cloud generated from IR thermal data, acquired over a dike along the Loire river (France) and super-
imposed with meshed DSM. Squared area: cold thermal anomaly associated with an artificial resurgence on
the river-side slope of the dike observed in summer (©R. Antoine and Jonathan Lisein/DiDRO consortium)

towed by the UAV. This system is particularly useful for the detection of erosion during a
flood.
The SAFEDAM project (Weintrit et al. 2018) shares some similarities with the previ-
ously mentioned system. The preventive mode includes a multi-rotor platform, specifically
developed for the purposes of the system and equipped with a LiDAR sensor and a digital
camera. The data are processed to obtain a DTM and an orthomosaic, both with high accu-
racies, and are integrated into a dedicated GIS. The embankment condition can then be
assessed through visual interpretation of the data, be helped by archived data and by simple
processing tools (e.g., differential DTM, change detection, etc.). When deployed during a
crisis, the UAV is equipped with a video camera providing emergency services with in-fly
video streaming in the optical and in the thermal infrared spectrum. A camera also allows
the acquisition of nadir optical images, transmitted to the GIS after landing of the UAV.
These images are automatically processed into an orthomosaic, using only the georeferenc-
ing information provided by the on-board GNSS platform of the UAV.

13
 Surveys in Geophysics

7 From Tectonophysics Studies to Post‑earthquakes Disaster

Management

7.1 Paleoseismology and Neotectonics Pre‑disaster Studies

When making an extensive paper research on Web of Science scientific database

using « uav earthquakes » keywords, the use of drones in a seismic context is relatively
recent and is essentially focused on post-event imagery and LiDAR collection (monitoring,
damage evaluation and mapping, communication improvements, etc.). Nevertheless, some
developments have been achieved for pre-disasters studies, in order to understand paleo-
seismicity, map folds, faults and fractures, quantify slip rates on faults or interseismic shal-
low deformations. As for flood studies, photogrammetry is currently preferred to LiDAR,
but relatively recent in the fields of paleoseismology and neotectonics (Johnson et al. 2014;
Angster et al. 2016). Visible images are collected at various heights (< 120 m, due to regu-
lation limitations), with diverse cameras and essentially using multi-copters. The character-
istics of the flights described in this section are brought together in Appendix 4.
Bemis et al. (2014) made a review paper based on terrain and UAV observations for
structural geology and paleo-seismicity. They show that centimetric 3D points clouds and
orthophotographs of exposed stratigraphy or deformation features (like sigmoidal veins)
may be now easily obtained using multi-copters, as they are very stable (compared to
fixed-wing systems) and can fly at very low altitude along complex surfaces (vertical faces,

Fig. 9 a Orthorectified photomosaic obtained by UAV for a portion of an outcrop at Piccaninny Point. Pixel
resolution 1 pixel ¼ 10 mm and b Structural interpretation of fault and associated damage zone, show-
ing dextral (red), sinistral (blue) and unidentified offset faults (grey) developed around a large fault (black
dash), superimposed over the DEM (modified from Bemis et al. 2014)

13
Surveys in Geophysics

corners, etc.…). The calculated 3D models then serve for 1) sedimentary interpretation, 2)
paleo-seismic offsets characterization (Gao et al. 2017) and 3) extraction of crack direction
or bedding orientation to assess the geometrical characteristics of folds and faults (Fig. 9)
(Vollgger and Cruden 2016; Menegoni et al. 2018). Drones can also be deployed for active
tectonics studies: Giletycz et al. (2017) built a DSM of the active Hengchun fault (Southern
Taiwan) using a very small DJI Mavic Pro, to analyse the deformation patterns of active
fault cracks and its possible mechanisms. Deffontaines et al. (2017) use the same approach
combined with field work to update the geological mapping of the active fault located at
the Pingting Terraces area. In that case, the use of fixed-wing Skywalker X5-X8 UAVs was
appropriated, given the large area to investigate (~ 40 km2, see Appendix 4 for details).
If the works presented in this section produce 3D models for structural or geological
mapping, kinematics studies along faults or during a seismic event have also been derived
from UAVs results. Following the processing workflow of Johnson et al. (2014), Angster
et al. (2016) propose a refined evaluation of the slip rate of the Pyramid Lake 50-km-long
Fault Zone in Nevada (USA). The obtained DEMs permit quantification of the displaced
geomorphological features (offsets) at seven chosen sites, with a resolution ranging from
5 to 9 cm (Appendix 4) and a RMS from 7 cm to 50 cm. The observed offsets (8 to 21 m)
yield slip rates ranging from 0.5 to 1.9 mm yr−1 along the fault. If the errors calculated in
this paper are significantly less than the observed offset values, it is important to keep in
mind that the accuracy of such observations drastically depends on different factors affect-
ing the photogrammetric process: quality of the photos (blurring), overlap percentage,
camera calibration, acquisition angle and precision of the georeferencing strategy (target
numbers and location, GPS accuracy) (Agüera-Vega et al. 2017a, b; Sanz-Ablanedo et al.
2018)

7.2 Post‑earthquake Disaster Observations

7.2.1 Immediate Support During Emergency

Recent earthquakes have seen the use of single or multiple UAV systems for immediate
support just after an earthquake, in complement with aircraft and satellites (Michael et al.
2014; Nedjati et al. 2016). As for flooding events, drones are usually used (1) to obtain
quick local information about a situation (emergency, offset mapping during mainshocks,
damage degree evaluation of facades, etc.) and (2) to complement space-borne data when
the weather is too cloudy. UAVs can then be implemented with imagery and LiDAR sys-
tems for safety missions (Lee et al. 2016), geological mapping (Jiang et al. 2014) and struc-
tures and infrastructure surveying (Yamazaki and Liu 2016). For instance, the Chinese
authorities used for the first time drones after the magnitude 7.9 May 2008 Sichuan earth-
quake to assess damages to buildings and infrastructures, or to optimize the deployment of
rescue teams by observing the extent of damaged roads and/or traffic jams (https://www.
wired.com/2017/01/chinas-launching-drones-fight-back-earthquakes/). Recently, the mag-
nitude 7.5 earthquake Sulawesi earthquake and its subsequent tsunami in September 2018
caused widespread damages in the city of Palu. Under the leadership of the Indonesian
emergency services, data acquired by drones were combined with satellite observations
to create aerial maps evaluating damages to buildings, roads, bridges and other infrastruc-
tures. It was also possible to produce real-time HD imagery analysis and offline near-
real-time 3D mapping without ground targets, using recent software platforms (DroneD-
eploy, Pix4D, Agisoft Metashape, etc.…). Indeed, in emergency conditions, a “rough”

13
 Surveys in Geophysics

georeferencing of the scene only taking into account the GPS metadata available in the
photos (with a horizontal accuracy of 1-5 metres) may be sufficient to analyse most of the
situations within a GIS software.

7.2.2 Geological Reconnaissance and Building Surveys

Various papers also investigated the utility of UAVs for geologic and geotechnical early
reconnaissance after a seismic event, usually difficult to realize during the emergency
phase (Gong et al. 2010; Rathje and Franke 2016; Gori et al. 2018; Saroglou et al. 2018)
and damage degree evaluation of the buildings that will serve to reconstruction planning
(Baiocchi et al. 2013; Sui et al. 2014; Fernandez Galarreta et al. 2015; Li et al. 2015;
Yamazaki and Liu 2016; Duarte et al. 2018; Mavroulis et al. 2019). Gori et al. (2018)
present field and aerial works achieved just after each of the three mainshock events that
occurred in August and October 2016 in Central Italy. In this highly complex situation,
geologists and remote sensing scientists worked together to locate and monitor the extent
of the rupture zones. The multi-disciplinary approach using both conventional field meth-
ods and an original combination of UAV/LiDar sensing capabilities allowed (1) to find

Fig. 10 a Surface ruptures caused by the M6.5 30 October event along the Mt. Vettore western slope, indi-
cated by white arrows and b UAV-based orthomosaic model of the SW face of the Mt. Vettore Massif,
showing fault traces as mapped by UAV. Yellow lines denote primary fault rupture. White line indicates
rupture of the mid-slope splay (modified from Gori et al. 2018)

13
Surveys in Geophysics

additional rupture zones over large areas and steeply sloping ground, (2) to observe the
co-seismic vertical offsets along the fault, ranging from 0–35 cm and 70–200 cm for the 24
and 30 August, respectively (Fig. 10). Saroglou et al. (2018) present an original kinematic
study of co-seismic rockfall in Greece, using a DTM, an orthophotograph and numerical
modelling of the boulder movements down the slope, that successfully described the roll-
ing and bouncing section of the trajectory. The detection of impact marks from the rock
trajectory was first identified on the orthophotograph. Then, an analytical reconstruction of
the rockfall is realized, with initial conditions derived from the earthquake characteristics.
Another advantage of UAVs in a post-earthquake scenario is their capacity to map the
state of structures and infrastructures degraded during the seismic event, for instance, using
classification methods (Xu et al. 2018) or change detection algorithms (Sui et al. 2014).
Building damage detection methods traditionally focus on 2D changes detection (Chesnel
et al. 2008; Brunner et al. 2010), while 3D data provide information on the height of the
scene and enrich the interpretation of the experts. For instance, Fernandez Galarreta et al.
(2015) propose a classification tool for the survey of buildings affected by earthquakes.
They develop an object-based technique (OBIA, see Sect. 1), to evaluate the damage
degree of the structures (following the European Macroseismic Scale of 1998), with pho-
togrammetric 3D point clouds obtained by an UAV. The damaged structures are identified
on the 3D point cloud and provide object-based damage indicators that are then used as
auxiliary information by building analysts. Nex et al. (2019) propose a solution for autono-
mous building damage mapping in near real time, using a commercial UAV. The fast on-
the-fly processing workflow combines photogrammetric methods with deep learning algo-
rithms to show the location of the damages directly on an orthophotograph. In this case,
the algorithms are optimized to fulfil the near-real-time conditions. Finally, when multi-
resolution data are available (satellite, aerial and/or terrestrial), an interesting approach
consists in merging observations to enrich classification and segmentation (Zhang 2010;
Fu et al. 2017; Vetrivel et al. 2018). Duarte et al. (2018) propose deep learning (CNN) for
the classification of building damages (rubble piles and debris), using fused multi-resolu-
tion imagery coming from sensors mounted on different platforms (satellite and manned/
unmanned aircraft). Using thousands of images, they show that the fusing methodology is
particularly powerful compared to the traditional classification of building damage, being
able to capture both high-resolution degradation patterns (using UAV data) and contex-
tual information (with satellite). The performance of the CNN drastically depends on the
number of images, the quality of the fusion module, able to merge and blend the multi-
resolution feature maps.

8 Discussion and Conclusions

The preceding sections share some common considerations: (1) the use of massive 3D
UAV-based datasets to obtain 3D point clouds or orthophotographs, popularized by the
development of user-friendly photogrammetric softwares and georeferencing methods, (2)
the production of centimetric resolution photogrammetric products, also possible using
low-cost UAV platforms and sensors, (3) the widespread use of small commercial low-cost
multi-copters or fixed-wing drones with high safety guarantees, although self-made UAV
are also used and (4) a considerable strengthening of the use of RGB data (either with pho-
tos or videos), compared to other observations (near-infrared, thermal infrared, hyperspec-
tral, geophysical imagery or chemical sampling). Besides, some differences can be noticed:

13
 Surveys in Geophysics

new modes of acquisition in geophysical sampling using UAVs are tested for pre-disaster
studies in volcanology, while to our knowledge, such observations are difficult to find in
another natural hazard domain. This is probably due to two phenomena: (1) depending on
the country, it may be easier to obtain flight permissions from the regulation authority to
make experiments in an unpopulated volcanic/geothermal area and (2) given the amplitude
of volcanic processes, the actual resolution and accuracy of geophysical and sampling by
UAV may be sufficient to observe a phenomenon. Post-disaster methodologies have been
rather developed during/after huge and frequent events (landslides, earthquakes or floods),
in conjunction with authorities, to ease rescue operations or assess damages in buildings
and infrastructures. This article also shows that the use of UAVs is different depending on
the studied domain, as it involves phenomena with different temporal scales, spatial extents
and magnitudes. For the first time, drones give access to very high-resolution spatialized
observations and open new research paths. In this context, one of the most important chal-
lenges will consist in combining different observation scales to understand geological pro-
cesses. Combination of UAVs and space-based data has already been done in coastal line
evolutions (Nikolakopoulos et al. 2019), ground deformations (Cigna et al. 2017) and on
landslide surveys (Voigt et al. 2016) and after the Mw 6.5 Lefkada earthquake (Zekkos
et al. 2017). These studies obtained interesting results as (1) a good estimation of the land-
slide volume and enabled to precisely distinguish different generation of landslides (Zek-
kos et al. 2017), (2) an excellent georeferencing of coarse satellite images (Nikolakopou-
los et al. 2019) and (3) information about very localized deformations (Cigna et al. 2017).
However, while different applications of UAVs in preventing and reducing the risks associ-
ated with natural hazards as landslides, floods, volcanic eruptions and earthquakes exist, a
few studies taking advantages of a multi-resolution data based on multi-platform sensors
in post-disasters management have been made (Kakooei and Baleghi 2017; Zekkos et al.
2017; Duarte et al. 2018). The main advantage of both UAVs and space-based sensors in
hazards studies is that they can provide images quickly after the disaster. Depending on the
sensor (optical or radar), space-based images can be dependent on atmospheric conditions,
but the high number of very high-resolution (VHR) satellites constellations increases the
chance to acquire cloud-free images, while UAVs are mainly sensible to winds, depending
on the type of machine (8-10 m/s for a multi-copter, 12.5 m/s for a fixed-wing aircraft).
On the one hand, UAVs partial advantages rely on the multi-function portability, the high
spatial and temporal resolution low-cost sensors (Casagli et al. 2017), and the possibility to
consider collaboration, coordination and cooperation between UAVs when several of them
are available (Pajares 2015). On the other hand, space-borne sensors are not vulnerable to
the hazard itself and thus can provide pre-/co-/post-disaster images with a daily tempo-
ral resolution that cover wider areas. The drastic development of the monitoring of post-
disaster areas provides precise information that may help stakeholders to react adequately.
Post-disaster management may have already relied on the International Charter “Space and
Major disasters,” founded in 2000 by the European, French and Canadian space agencies
(ESA, CNES and CSA, respectively) for major disasters (Bally et al. 2018). Once activated
by national authorities, it provides and delivers at no cost a unified system of space-borne
acquisition data at HR to VHR to those affected by hazards (Bally et al. 2018). One can
imagine in the near-future a systematic combined workflow between space-based data that
might be provided by the activation of the International Charter and UAVs based on the
example provided by the use of UAVs inside the Copernicus Emergency Management Ser-
vice (EMS).

13
Surveys in Geophysics

Acknowledgements This paper arose from the International Workshop on “Natural and man-made hazards
monitoring by the Earth Observation missions: current status and scientific gaps” held at the International
Space Science Institute (ISSI), Bern, Switzerland, on April 15-18, 2019. The thermal survey of Piton de La
Fournaise in 2018 was supported by the SlideVOLC French ANR project. We thank all the authors whose
illustrations are presented in this article.

Appendix 1

Bibliographic overview of case studies for mass movements

13
 Surveys in Geophysics

Appendix 2

Bibliographic overview on developments around sensors mounted on drone and volcanoes

case studies.

13
Surveys in Geophysics

Appendix 3

Main characteristics of the studies cited on the bibliographic overview on flood monitor-
ing and management using UAVs. Information not provided by the authors in the reviewed
studies is marked by the symbol “?”.

13
 Surveys in Geophysics

Appendix 4

Technical overview of the flights described in Sect. 7 “From tectonophysics studies to post-
earthquakes disaster management.”

References
Aditian A, Kubota T, Shinohara Y (2018) Comparison of GIS-based landslide susceptibility models using
frequency ratio, logistic regression, and artificial neural network in a tertiary region of Ambon, Indo-
nesia. Geomorphology 318:101–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2018.06.006
Agisoft Metashape (2016) AgiSoft PhotoScan Professional. Version 1.2.6
Agüera-Vega F, Carvajal-Ramírez F, Martínez-Carricondo P (2017a) Assessment of photogrammetric map-
ping accuracy based on variation ground control points number using unmanned aerial vehicle. Meas-
urement 98:221–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2016.12.002
Agüera-Vega F, Carvajal-Ramírez F, Martínez-Carricondo P (2017b) Accuracy of digital surface models
and orthophotos derived from unmanned aerial vehicle photogrammetry. J Surv Eng. https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)SU.1943-5428.0000206
Akcay O (2015) Landslide fissure inference assessment by ANFIS and logistic regression using UAS-based
photogrammetry. ISPRS Int J Geo-Inf 4:2131–2158. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi4042131
Angster S, Wesnousky S, Huang W et al (2016) Application of UAV photography to refining the slip
rate on the Pyramid Lake Fault Zone, Nevada. Bull Seismol Soc Am 106:785–798. https://doi.
org/10.1785/0120150144
Antoine R, Finizola A, Lopez T et al (2017) Electric potential anomaly induced by humid air convec-
tion within Piton de La Fournaise volcano, La Réunion Island. Geothermics 65:81–98. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2016.01.003
Antoine R, Tanguy M, Palma Lopes S, Sorin J-L (2019) DIDRO—an innovative multi-sensor UAV system
for routine and crisis monitoring of dikes. AGUFM 2019:
Assali P, Grussenmeyer P, Villemin T et al (2014) Surveying and modeling of rock discontinuities by ter-
restrial laser scanning and photogrammetry: semi-automatic approaches for linear outcrop inspection.
J Struct Geol 66:102–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2014.05.014
Baiocchi V, Dominici D, Mormile M (2013) UAV application in post-seismic environment. Int Arch Photo-
gramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci 1:W2
Balek J, Blahůt J (2017) A critical evaluation of the use of an inexpensive camera mounted on a recrea-
tional unmanned aerial vehicle as a tool for landslide research. Landslides 14:1217–1224. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10346-016-0782-7

13
Surveys in Geophysics

Bally P, Papadopoulou T, Tinel C, Danzeglocke J, Wannop S, Kuklin A (2018) The 17th annual report:
international charter space and major disasters, p 72. https://disasterscharter.org/documents/10180
/188210/Annual-Report-17.pdf
Bandini F, Butts M, Jacobsen TV, Bauer-Gottwein P (2017) Water level observations from unmanned
aerial vehicles for improving estimates of surface water–groundwater interaction. Hydrol Processes
31:4371–4383
Barra A, Monserrat O, Mazzanti P et al (2016) First insights on the potential of Sentinel-1 for landslides
detection. Geomat Nat Hazards Risk 7:1874–1883. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2016.1171258
Bato MG, Froger JL, Harris AJL, Villeneuve N (2016) Monitoring an effusive eruption at Piton de la Four-
naise using radar and thermal infrared remote sensing data: insights into the October 2010 eruption
and its lava flows. Geol Soc Lond Spec Publ 426:533–552. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP426.30
Bemis SP, Micklethwaite S, Turner D et al (2014) Ground-based and UAV-based photogrammetry: a
multi-scale, high-resolution mapping tool for structural geology and paleoseismology. J Struct Geol
69:163–178
Berni JAJ, Zarco-Tejada PJ, Suárez L et al (2009) Remote sensing of vegetation from UAV platforms using
lightweight multispectral and thermal imaging sensors. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf
Sci 38:6
Blackett M (2017) An overview of infrared remote sensing of volcanic activity. J Imaging 3:13. https://doi.
org/10.3390/jimaging3020013
Blaikie TN, Ailleres L, Betts PG, Cas RAF (2014) Interpreting subsurface volcanic structures using geo-
logically constrained 3-D gravity inversions: examples of maar-diatremes, Newer Volcanics Province,
southeastern Australia. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 119:3857–3878. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013J
B010751
Bonali FL, Tibaldi A, Marchese F et al (2019) UAV-based surveying in volcano-tectonics: an example from
the Iceland rift. J Struct Geol 121:46–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2019.02.004
Brauneck J, Pohl R, Juepner R (2016) Experiences of using UAVs for monitoring levee breaches. IOP Conf
Ser Earth Environ Sci 46:012046. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/46/1/012046
Brunner D, Lemoine G, Bruzzone L (2010) Earthquake damage assessment of buildings using VHR opti-
cal and SAR imagery. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 48:2403–2420. https://doi.org/10.1109/
TGRS.2009.2038274
Bunn M, Leshchinsky B, Olsen M, Booth A (2019) A simplified, object-based framework for efficient land-
slide inventorying using LIDAR digital elevation model derivatives. Remote Sens 11:303. https://doi.
org/10.3390/rs11030303
Calvari S, Neri M, Pinkerton H (2003) Effusion rate estimations during the 1999 summit eruption on Mount
Etna, and growth of two distinct lava flow fields. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 119:107–123. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0377-0273(02)00308-6
Caratori Tontini F, Tivey MA, Ronde CEJ, Humphris SE (2019) Heat flow and near-seafloor magnetic
anomalies highlight hydrothermal circulation at Brothers Volcano Caldera, Southern Kermadec Arc,
New Zealand. Geophys Res Lett 46:8252–8260. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL083517
Casagli N, Frodella W, Morelli S et al (2017) Spaceborne, UAV and ground-based remote sensing tech-
niques for landslide mapping, monitoring and early warning. Geoenviron Disasters 4:9. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s40677-017-0073-1
Casana J, Kantner J, Wiewel A, Cothren J (2014) Archaeological aerial thermography: a case study at the
Chaco-era Blue J community, New Mexico. J Archaeol Sci 45:207–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jas.2014.02.015
Casini G, Hunt DW, Monsen E, Bounaim A (2016) Fracture characterization and modeling from virtual
outcrops. AAPG Bull 100:41–61. https://doi.org/10.1306/09141514228
Catalán M, Martos YM, Galindo-Zaldívar J, Funaki M (2014) Monitoring the evolution of Deception Island
volcano from magnetic anomaly data (South Shetland Islands, Antarctica). Glob Planet Change
123:199–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2014.07.018
Cawood AJ, Bond CE, Howell JA et al (2017) LiDAR, UAV or compass-clinometer? Accuracy, coverage
and the effects on structural models. J Struct Geol 98:67–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2017.04.004
Chesley JT, Leier AL, White S, Torres R (2017) Using unmanned aerial vehicles and structure-from-motion
photogrammetry to characterize sedimentary outcrops: an example from the Morrison Formation,
Utah, USA. Sediment Geol 354:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2017.03.013
Chesnel A-L, Binet R, Wald L (2008) Damage assessment on buildings using multisensor multimodal very
high resolution images and ancillary data. In: IGARSS 2008—2008 IEEE international geoscience
and remote sensing symposium. IEEE, Boston, MA, USA, pp 1252–1255

13
 Surveys in Geophysics

Cigna F, Banks VJ, Donald AW et al (2017) Mapping ground instability in areas of geotechnical infrastruc-
ture using satellite InSAR and Small UAV surveying: a case study in Northern Ireland. Geosciences
7:51. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences7030051
Comert R, Avdan U, Gorum T, Nefeslioglu HA (2019) Mapping of shallow landslides with object-based
image analysis from unmanned aerial vehicle data. Eng Geol 260:105264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enggeo.2019.105264
Cook KL (2017) An evaluation of the effectiveness of low-cost UAVs and structure from motion for
geomorphic change detection. Geomorphology 278:195–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomo
rph.2016.11.009
Darmawan H, Walter TR, Brotopuspito KS et al (2018) Morphological and structural changes at the Merapi
lava dome monitored in 2012–15 using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). J Volcanol Geotherm Res
349:256–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2017.11.006
De Beni E, Cantarero M, Messina A (2019) UAVs for volcano monitoring: a new approach applied on an
active lava flow on Mt. Etna (Italy), during the 27 February–02 March 2017 eruption. J Volcanol
Geotherm Res 369:250–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2018.12.001
de Saint Jean B (2008) Étude et développement d’un système de gravimétrie mobile. Ph.D. thesis, Observa-
toire de Paris
Deffontaines B, Chang K-J, Champenois J et al (2017) Active interseismic shallow deformation of
the Pingting terraces (Longitudinal Valley—Eastern Taiwan) from UAV high-resolution topo-
graphic data combined with InSAR time series. Geomat Nat Hazards Risk 8:120–136. https://doi.
org/10.1080/19475705.2016.1181678
Delacourt C, Allemand P, Berthier E et al (2007) Remote-sensing techniques for analysing landslide kin-
ematics: a review. Bull Soc Géol France 178:89–100. https://doi.org/10.2113/gssgfbull.178.2.89
Dering GM, Micklethwaite S, Thiele ST et al (2019) Review of drones, photogrammetry and emerging sen-
sor technology for the study of dykes: Best practises and future potential. J Volcanol Geotherm Res
373:148–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2019.01.018
Derrien A, Villeneuve N, Peltier A, Beauducel F (2015) Retrieving 65 years of volcano summit deformation
from multitemporal structure from motion: the case of Piton de la Fournaise (La Réunion Island).
Geophys Res Lett 42:6959–6966. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL064820
Domeneghetti A, Schumann GJ-P, Tarpanelli A (2019) Preface: remote sensing for flood mapping and mon-
itoring of flood dynamics. Remote Sens 11:943. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11080943
Duarte D, Nex F, Kerle N, Vosselman G (2018) Multi-resolution feature fusion for image classification of
building damages with convolutional neural networks. Remote Sens 10:1636. https://doi.org/10.3390/
rs10101636
Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y et al (2014) Summary for policymakers. In: Climate change
2014: mitigation of climate change. IPCC Working Group III Contribution to AR5. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press
Eker R, Aydın A, Hübl J (2018) Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)-based monitoring of a landslide: Gallen-
zerkogel landslide (Ybbs-Lower Austria) case study. Environ Monit Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10661-017-6402-8
Eltner A, Sardemann H, Grundmann J (2020) Flow velocity and discharge measurement in rivers using
terrestrial and unmanned-aerial-vehicle imagery. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci. https://doi.org/10.5194/
hess-24-1429-2020
Erdelj M, Natalizio E, Chowdhury KR, Akyildiz IF (2017) Help from the sky: leveraging UAVs for disaster
management. IEEE Pervasive Comput 16:24–32. https://doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2017.11
Everaerts J (2008) The use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for remote sensing and mapping. Int Arch
Photogramm Remote Sens Sp Inf Sci 37(2008):1187–1192
Fahlstrom P, Gleason T (2012) Introduction to UAV systems. Wiley, Hoboken
Favalli M, Fornaciai A, Nannipieri L et al (2018) UAV-based remote sensing surveys of lava flow fields: a
case study from Etna’s 1974 channel-fed lava flows. Bull Volcanol 80:29
Feng Q, Liu J, Gong J (2015) Urban flood mapping based on unmanned aerial vehicle remote sensing and
random forest classifier—a case of Yuyao, China. Water 7:1437–1455. https://doi.org/10.3390/w7041
437
Fernandez Galarreta J, Kerle N, Gerke M (2015) UAV-based urban structural damage assessment using
object-based image analysis and semantic reasoning. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 15:1087–1101. https
://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-15-1087-2015
Fernandes O, Murphy R, Adams J, Merrick D (2018) quantitative data analysis: CRASAR small unmanned
aerial systems at hurricane Harvey. In: 2018 IEEE international symposium on safety, security, and
rescue robotics (SSRR). IEEE, Philadelphia, PA, pp 1–6

13
Surveys in Geophysics

Fu G, Liu C, Zhou R et al (2017) Classification for high resolution remote sensing imagery using a fully
convolutional network. Remote Sens 9:498. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9050498
Funaki M, Higashino S-I, Sakanaka S et al (2014) Small unmanned aerial vehicles for aeromagnetic sur-
veys and their flights in the South Shetland Islands, Antarctica. Polar Sci 8:342–356. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.polar.2014.07.001
Gabrlik P (2015) The use of direct georeferencing in aerial photogrammetry with micro UAV. IFAC-Paper-
sOnLine 48:380–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.07.064
Gailler L, Kauahikaua J (2017) Monitoring the cooling of the 1959 Kīlauea Iki lava lake using surface mag-
netic measurements. Bull Volcanol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-017-1119-7
Gailler L-S, Lénat J-F, Blakely RJ (2016) Depth to Curie temperature or bottom of the magnetic sources
in the volcanic zone of la Réunion hot spot. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 324:169–178. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2016.06.005
Gao M, Xu X, Klinger Y et al (2017) High-resolution mapping based on an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
(UAV) to capture paleoseismic offsets along the Altyn-Tagh fault, China. Sci Rep 7:1–11
Gebrehiwot A, Hashemi-Beni L, Thompson G et al (2019) Deep convolutional neural network for flood
extent mapping using unmanned aerial vehicles data. Sensors 19:1486. https://doi.org/10.3390/s1907
1486
Giletycz SJ, Chang C-P, Lin AT-S et al (2017) Improved alignment of the Hengchun Fault (southern Tai-
wan) based on fieldwork, structure-from-motion, shallow drilling, and levelling data. Tectonophysics
721:435–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2017.10.018
Giordan D, Hayakawa Y, Nex F et al (2018) The use of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPASs) for natu-
ral hazards monitoring and management. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 18:1079–1096. https://doi.
org/10.5194/nhess-18-1079-2018
Giordan D, Adams MS, Aicardi I et al (2020) The use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for engineering
geology applications. Bull Eng Geol Environ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-020-01766-2
Girardeau-Montaut D, Roux M, Marc R, Thibault G (2005) Change detection on points cloud data acquired
with a ground laser scanner. Int Arch Photogramme Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci 36:W19
Gomez C, Kennedy B (2018) Capturing volcanic plumes in 3D with UAV-based photogrammetry at
Yasur Volcano—Vanuatu. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 350:84–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores
.2017.12.007
Gomez C, Purdie H (2016) UAV-based photogrammetry and geocomputing for hazards and disaster risk
monitoring—a review. Geoenviron Disasters. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40677-016-0060-y
Gonçalves JA, Henriques R (2015) UAV photogrammetry for topographic monitoring of coastal areas.
ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 104:101–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2015.02.009
Gong J, Wang D, Li Y et al (2010) Earthquake-induced geological hazards detection under hierarchi-
cal stripping classification framework in the Beichuan area. Landslides 7:181–189. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10346-010-0201-4
Gonzalez Toro F, Tsourdos A (2018) UAV or drones for remote sensing applications. MDPI Books, Basel
Gori S, Falcucci E, Galadini F et al (2018) Surface faulting caused by the 2016 central Italy seismic
sequence: field mapping and LiDAR/UAV imaging. Earthq Spectra 34:1585–1610. https://doi.
org/10.1193/111417EQS236MR
Görüm T (2019) Landslide recognition and mapping in a mixed forest environment from airborne LiDAR
data. Eng Geol 258:105155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2019.105155
Graff K, Lissak C, Thiery Y et al (2019) Analysis and quantification of potential consequences in multirisk
coastal context at different spatial scales (Normandy, France). Nat Hazards 99:637–664. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11069-019-03763-5
Guilbert V, Antoine R, Heinkele C et al (2020) Fusion of thermal and visible point clouds : application to
the Vaches Noires landslide, Normandy, France. In: Accepted for the international archives of the
photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences (ISPRS Archives). Nice, France,
p6
Harris AJL, Baloga SM (2009) Lava discharge rates from satellite-measured heat flux. Geophys Res Lett.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL039717
Harris AJL, Stevenson DS (1997) Thermal observations of degassing open conduits and fumaroles at
Stromboli and Vulcano using remotely sensed data. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 76:175–198. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0377-0273(96)00097-2
Harris A, Dehn J, Patrick M et al (2005) Lava effusion rates from hand-held thermal infrared imagery: an
example from the June 2003 effusive activity at Stromboli. Bull Volcanol 68:107–117. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00445-005-0425-7

13
 Surveys in Geophysics

Hastaoğlu KÖ, Gül Y, Poyraz F, Kara BC (2019) Monitoring 3D areal displacements by a new methodol-
ogy and software using UAV photogrammetry. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 83:101916. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jag.2019.101916
Hervo M, Quennehen B, Kristiansen NI et al (2012) Physical and optical properties of 2010 Eyjafjallajökull
volcanic eruption aerosol: ground-based, Lidar and airborne measurements in France. Atmos Chem
Phys 12:1721–1736. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-1721-2012
Hungr O, Leroueil S, Picarelli L (2014) The Varnes classification of landslide types, an update. Landslides
11:167–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-013-0436-y
Imam R, Pini M, Marucco G et al (2019) Data from GNSS-based passive radar to support flood monitoring
operations. In: 2019 international conference on localization and GNSS (ICL-GNSS). IEEE, Nurem-
berg, Germany, pp 1–7
Jaboyedoff M, Oppikofer T, Abellán A et al (2012) Use of LIDAR in landslide investigations: a review. Nat
Hazards 61:5–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-010-9634-2
James MR, Robson S, Pinkerton H, Ball M (2006) Oblique photogrammetry with visible and thermal
images of active lava flows. Bull Volcanol 69:105–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-006-0062-9
James MR, Carr B, D’Arcy F et al (2020) Volcanological applications of unoccupied aircraft systems
(UAS): developments, strategies, and future challenges. Volcanica 3:67–114
Jiang H, Su Y, Jiao Q et al (2014) Typical geologic disaster surveying in Wenchuan 8.0 earthquake zone
using high resolution ground LiDAR and UAV remote sensing. In: Lidar remote sensing for environ-
mental monitoring XIV. International Society for Optics and Photonics, p 926219
Johnson K, Nissen E, Saripalli S et al (2014) Rapid mapping of ultrafine fault zone topography with struc-
ture from motion. Geosphere 10:969–986. https://doi.org/10.1130/GES01017.1
Jones RR, Kokkalas S, McCaffrey KJW (2009) Quantitative analysis and visualization of nonplanar fault
surfaces using terrestrial laser scanning (LIDAR)—The Arkitsa fault, central Greece, as a case study.
Geosphere 5:465–482
Kakooei M, Baleghi Y (2017) Fusion of satellite, aircraft, and UAV data for automatic disaster damage
assessment. Int J Remote Sens 38:2511–2534. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2017.1294780
King S, Leon J, Mulcahy M et al (2017) Condition survey of coastal structures using UAV and photogram-
metry. Australasian Coasts & Ports 2017: Working with Nature 704
Kitonsa H, Kruglikov SV (2018) Significance of drone technology for achievement of the United
Nations sustainable development goals. R-Economy 4(3):115–120. https://doi.org/10.15826/recon
.2018.4.3.016
Klemas V (2015) Remote sensing of floods and flood-prone areas: an overview. J Coast Res 31:1005–1013.
https://doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-14-00160.1
Koutalakis P, Tzoraki O, Zaimes G (2019) UAVs for hydrologic scopes: application of a low-cost UAV to
estimate surface water velocity by using three different image-based methods. Drones 3:14. https://
doi.org/10.3390/drones3010014
Kreye C, Hein GW, Zimmermann B (2006) Evaluation of airborne vector gravimetry using GNSS and
SDINS observations. In: Flury J, Rummel R, Reigber C et al (eds) Observation of the earth system
from space. Springer, Berlin, pp 447–461
Labazuy P (2015) Unmaned aerial vehicles (UAVs)-based remote sensing applications for studying and
monitoring volcanic environments
Labazuy P, Gouhier M, Harris A et al (2012) Near real-time monitoring of the April-May 2010 Eyjafjal-
lajökull ash cloud: an example of a web-based, satellite data-driven, reporting system. Int J Environ
Pollut 48:262. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEP.2012.049673
Lague D, Brodu N, Leroux J (2013) Accurate 3D comparison of complex topography with terrestrial laser
scanner: application to the Rangitikei canyon (N-Z). ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 82:10–26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2013.04.009
Lahousse T, Chang KT, Lin YH (2011) Landslide mapping with multi-scale object-based image analysis—a
case study in the Baichi watershed, Taiwan. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 11:2715–2726. https://doi.
org/10.5194/nhess-11-2715-2011
Lang S, Füreder P, Rogenhofer E (2018) Earth observation for humanitarian operations. In: Al-Ekabi C,
Ferretti S (eds) Yearbook on space policy 2016. Springer, Cham, pp 217–229
Langhammer J, Bernsteinová J, Miřijovský J (2017) Building a high-precision 2D hydrodynamic flood
model using UAV photogrammetry and sensor network monitoring. Water 9:861. https://doi.
org/10.3390/w9110861
Lee S, Har D, Kum D (2016) Drone-assisted disaster management: finding victims via infrared camera and
lidar sensor fusion. In: 2016 3rd Asia-Pacific world congress on computer science and engineering
(APWC on CSE), pp 84–89

13
Surveys in Geophysics

Leitão JP, Moy de Vitry M, Scheidegger A, Rieckermann J (2016) Assessing the quality of digital elevation
models obtained from mini unmanned aerial vehicles for overland flow modelling in urban areas.
Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 20:1637–1653. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-1637-2016
Li S, Tang H, He S et al (2015) Unsupervised detection of earthquake-triggered roof-holes from UAV
images using joint color and shape features. IEEE Geosci Remote Sens Lett 12:1823–1827. https://
doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2015.2429894
Lin C-Y, Lo H-M, Chou W-C, Lin W-T (2004) Vegetation recovery assessment at the Jou-Jou Mountain
landslide area caused by the 921 Earthquake in Central Taiwan. Ecol Model 176:75–81. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2003.12.037
Lindner G, Schraml K, Mansberger R, Hübl J (2016) UAV monitoring and documentation of a large land-
slide. Appl Geomat 8:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12518-015-0165-0
Lissak C, Gomez C, Shimizu M et al (2019) Drifted wood distribution in Asakura (Kyushu) following the
2017 rain-triggered Debris-flows and Landslides. In: Geophysical research abstracts
Lowe DG (1999) Object recognition from local scale-invariant features. In: Proceedings of the seventh
IEEE international conference on computer vision, pp 1150–1157
Lowe DG (2004) Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. Int J Comput Vis 60:91–110.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:VISI.0000029664.99615.94
Lucieer A, de Jong SM, Turner D (2014) Mapping landslide displacements using Structure from Motion
(SfM) and image correlation of multi-temporal UAV photography. Progress Phys Geogr Earth Envi-
ron 38:97–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133313515293
Magee C, Stevenson CTE, Ebmeier SK et al (2018) Magma plumbing systems: a geophysical perspective. J
Petrol 59:1217–1251. https://doi.org/10.1093/petrology/egy064
Marshall DM, Barnhart RK, Shappee E, Most MT (2015) Introduction to unmanned aircraft systems. CRC
Press, Boca Raton
Mavroulis S, Andreadakis E, Spyrou N-I et al (2019) UAV and GIS based rapid earthquake-induced build-
ing damage assessment and methodology for EMS-98 isoseismal map drawing: the June 12, 2017
Mw 6.3 Lesvos (Northeastern Aegean, Greece) earthquake. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 37:101–169.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101169
Menegoni N, Meisina C, Perotti C, Crozi M (2018) Analysis by UAV digital photogrammetry of folds and
related fractures in the Monte Antola Flysch Formation (Ponte Organasco, Italy). Geosciences 8:299.
https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8080299
Mezaal M, Pradhan B, Rizeei H (2018) Improving landslide detection from airborne laser scanning data
using optimized Dempster–Shafer. Remote Sens 10:1029. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10071029
Mian O, Lutes J, Lipa G et al (2015) Direct georeferencing on small unmanned aerial platforms for
improved reliability and accuracy of mapping without the need for ground control points. ISPRS Int
Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci XL-1/W4:397–402. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchi
ves-XL-1-W4-397-2015
Michael N, Shen S, Mohta K et al (2014) Collaborative mapping of an earthquake damaged building via
ground and aerial robots. In: Yoshida K, Tadokoro S (eds) Field and service robotics: results of the
8th international conference. Springer, Berlin, pp 33–47
Middlemiss RP, Samarelli A, Paul DJ et al (2016) Measurement of the Earth tides with a MEMS gravimeter.
Nature 531:614–617. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17397
Millington SC, Saunders RW, Francis PN, Webster HN (2012) Simulated volcanic ash imagery: a method to
compare NAME ash concentration forecasts with SEVIRI imagery for the Eyjafjallajökull eruption in
2010. J Geophys Res Atmos. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016770
Mokhtar MRM, Matori AN, Yusof KW et al (2014) Assessing UAV landslide mapping using unmanned
aerial vehicle (UAV) for landslide mapping activity. Appl Mech Mater 567:669–674. https://doi.
org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.567.669
Moosavi V, Talebi A, Shirmohammadi B (2014) Producing a landslide inventory map using pixel-based and
object-oriented approaches optimized by Taguchi method. Geomorphology 204:646–656. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2013.09.012
Mori T, Hashimoto T, Terada A et al (2016) Volcanic plume measurements using a UAV for the 2014 Mt.
Ontake eruption. Earth Planets Space 68:49. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-016-0418-0
Morsdorf F, Eck C, Zgraggen C et al (2017) UAV-based LiDAR acquisition for the derivation of high-reso-
lution forest and ground information. Lead Edge 36:566–570. https://doi.org/10.1190/tle36070566.1
Murphy R, Dufek J, Sarmiento T et al (2016) Two case studies and gaps analysis of flood assessment for
emergency management with small unmanned aerial systems. In: 2016 IEEE international sympo-
sium on safety, security, and rescue robotics (SSRR), pp 54–61
Nedjati A, Izbirak G, Vizvari B, Arkat J (2016) Complete coverage path planning for a multi-UAV response
system in post-earthquake assessment. Robotics 5:26. https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics5040026

13
 Surveys in Geophysics

Nex F, Duarte D, Steenbeek A, Kerle N (2019) Towards real-time building damage mapping with low-cost
UAV solutions. Remote Sens 11:287. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11030287
Niethammer U, James MR, Rothmund S et al (2012) UAV-based remote sensing of the Super-Sauze land-
slide: evaluation and results. Eng Geol 128:2–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2011.03.012
Nikolakopoulos K, Kyriou A, Koukouvelas I et al (2019) Combination of aerial, satellite, and UAV photo-
grammetry for mapping the diachronic coastline evolution: the case of Lefkada Island. ISPRS Int J
Geo-Inf 8:489. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi8110489
Pajares G (2015) Overview and current status of remote sensing applications based on unmanned aerial vehi-
cles (UAVs). Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 81:281–330. https://doi.org/10.14358/PERS.81.4.281
Pallister JS, Diefenbach AK, Burton WC et al (2013) The Chaitén rhyolite lava dome: eruption sequence,
lava dome volumes, rapid effusion rates and source of the rhyolite magma. Andean Geol. https://doi.
org/10.5027/andgeoV40n2-a06
Patrick M, Orr T, Fisher G et al (2017) Thermal mapping of a pāhoehoe lava flow, Kīlauea Volcano. J Vol-
canol Geotherm Res 332:71–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2016.12.007
Patrick MR, Younger EF, Tollett W (2019) Lava level and crater geometry data during the 2018 lava lake
draining at Kīlauea Volcano, Hawaii. U.S. Geological Survey data release. https://doi.org/10.5066/
P9MJY24N
Peltier A, Fontaine FJ, Finizola A et al (2018) Volcano destabilizations: from observations to an integrated
model of active deformation. In: AGU fall meeting abstracts, p 23
Perks MT, Russell AJ, Large ARG (2016) Advances in flash flood monitoring using UAVs. Hydrol
Earth Syst Sci 20:4005–4015. https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/20/4005/2016/doi:10.5194/
hess-20-4005-2016
Peternel T, Kumelj Š, Oštir K, Komac M (2017) Monitoring the Potoška planina landslide (NW Slove-
nia) using UAV photogrammetry and tachymetric measurements. Landslides 14:395–406. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10346-016-0759-6
Petley DN, Crick WD, Hart AB (2002) The use of satellite imagery in landslide studies in high mountain
areas. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Asian conference on remote sensing (ACRS 2002), Kathmandu
Picard D, Attoui M, Sellegri K (2019) B3010: a boosted TSI 3010 condensation particle counter for air-
borne studies. Atmos Measur Tech. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-2531-2019
Piégay H, Arnaud F, Belletti B et al (2020) Remotely sensed rivers in the Anthropocene: state of the art and
prospects. Earth Surf Processes Landf 45:157–188. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.4787
Pieri D, Ma C, Simpson JJ et al (2002) Analyses of in situ airborne volcanic ash from the February 2000
eruption of Hekla Volcano, Iceland. Geophys Res Lett 29:191–194. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001G
L013688
Popescu D, Ichim L, Stoican F (2017) Unmanned aerial vehicle systems for remote estimation of flooded
areas based on complex image processing. Sensors 17:446. https://doi.org/10.3390/s17030446
Rathje EM, Franke K (2016) Remote sensing for geotechnical earthquake reconnaissance. Soil Dyn Earthq
Eng 91:304–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.09.016
Rau JY, Jhan JP, Lo CF, Lin YS (2012) Landslide mapping using imagery acquired by a fixed-wing UAV.
ISPRS Int Arch the Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci XXXVIII-1/C22:195–200. https://doi.
org/10.5194/isprsarchives-XXXVIII-1-C22-195-2011
Ridolfi E, Manciola P (2018) Water level measurements from drones: a pilot case study at a dam site. Water
10:297. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10030297
Rinaldi P, Larrabide I, D’Amato JP (2019) Drone based DSM reconstruction for flood simulations in small
areas: a pilot study. In: Rocha Á, Adeli H, Reis LP, Costanzo S (eds) New knowledge in information
systems and technologies. Springer, Cham, pp 758–764
Rossi G, Nocentini M, Lombardi L et al (2016) Integration of multicopter drone measurements and ground-
based data for landslide monitoring. In: Aversa et al. (eds) Landslides and engineered slopes. Experi-
ence, theory and practice, Rome, Italy, p 6
Rossi G, Tanteri L, Tofani V et al (2018) Multitemporal UAV surveys for landslide mapping and characteri-
zation. Landslides 15:1045–1052. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-018-0978-0
Rothmund S, Vouillamoz N, Joswig M (2017) Mapping slow-moving alpine landslides by UAV—opportu-
nities and limitations. Lead Edge 36:571–579. https://doi.org/10.1190/tle36070571.1
Rüdiger J, Tirpitz J-L, de Moor JM et al (2018) Implementation of electrochemical, optical and denuder-
based sensors and sampling techniques on UAV for volcanic gas measurements: examples from
Masaya, Turrialba and Stromboli volcanoes. Atmos Measur Tech. https://doi.org/10.5194/
amt-11-2441-2018
Rupnik E, Daakir M, Pierrot Deseilligny M (2017) MicMac—a free, open-source solution for photogram-
metry. Open Geospat Data Softw Stand. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40965-017-0027-2

13
Surveys in Geophysics

Saggiani G, Ceruti A, Amici S et al (2006) UAV systems volcano monitoring: first test on Stromboli on
October 2004. In: Geophysical research abstracts. Munich, Germany, p 1
Saito H, Korup O, Uchida T et al (2014) Rainfall conditions, typhoon frequency, and contemporary land-
slide erosion in Japan. Geology 42:999–1002. https://doi.org/10.1130/G35680.1
Sandvik KB, Lohne K (2014) The rise of the humanitarian drone: giving content to an emerging concept.
Millennium 43:145–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829814529470
Sanyal J, Lu XX (2004) Application of remote sensing in flood management with special reference to mon-
soon Asia: a review. Nat Hazards 33:283–301. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:NHAZ.0000037035.65105
.95
Sanz-Ablanedo E, Chandler JH, Rodríguez-Pérez JR, Ordóñez C (2018) Accuracy of unmanned aerial vehi-
cle (UAV) and SfM photogrammetry survey as a function of the number and location of ground con-
trol points used. Remote Sens 10:1606. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10101606
Saroglou C, Asteriou P, Zekkos D et al (2018) UAV-based mapping, back analysis and trajectory modeling
of a coseismic rockfall in Lefkada island, Greece. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 18:321–333. https://doi.
org/10.5194/nhess-18-321-2018
Scaioni M, Longoni L, Melillo V, Papini M (2014) Remote sensing for landslide investigations: an overview
of recent achievements and perspectives. Remote Sens 6:9600–9652. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs610
9600
Schneider DJ, Vallance JW, Logan M et al (2005) Airborne thermal infrared imaging of the 2004–2005
eruption of Mount St. Helens. In: AGU fall meeting abstracts 24
Schumann GJ-P, Domeneghetti A (2016) Exploiting the proliferation of current and future satellite observa-
tions of rivers. Hydrol Processes 30:2891–2896. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10825
Scott JE, Scott CH (2019) Models for drone delivery of medications and other healthcare items. In:
Unmanned aerial vehicles: breakthroughs in research and practice. IGI Global, pp 376–392
Smith LC (1997) Satellite remote sensing of river inundation area, stage, and discharge: a review. Hydrol
Processes 11:1427–1439. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1085(199708)11:10%3c1427:AID-
HYP473%3e3.0.CO;2-S
Spampinato L, Calvari S, Oppenheimer C, Boschi E (2011) Volcano surveillance using infrared cameras.
Earth-Sci Rev 106:63–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2011.01.003
Stumpf A, Kerle N (2011) Combining Random Forests and object-oriented analysis for landslide mapping
from very high resolution imagery. Procedia Environ Sci 3:123–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proen
v.2011.02.022
Stumpf A, Malet J-P, Kerle N et al (2013) Image-based mapping of surface fissures for the investigation
of landslide dynamics. Geomorphology 186:12–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.12.010
Stumpf A, Malet J-P, Allemand P et al (2015) Ground-based multi-view photogrammetry for the monitoring
of landslide deformation and erosion. Geomorphology 231:130–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomo
rph.2014.10.039
Sui H, Tu J, Song Z et al (2014) A novel 3D building damage detection method using multiple overlapping
UAV images. ISPRS Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci XL–7:173–179. https://doi.
org/10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-7-173-2014
Tang C, Tanyas H, van Westen CJ et al (2019) Analysing post-earthquake mass movement volume dynamics
with multi-source DEMs. Eng Geol 248:89–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2018.11.010
Tanteri L, Rossi G, Tofani V et al (2017) Multitemporal UAV survey for mass movement detection and
monitoring. In: Mikos M, Tiwari B, Yin Y, Sassa K (eds) Advancing culture of living with landslides.
Springer, Cham, pp 153–161
Tauro F, Porfiri M, Grimaldi S (2016) Surface flow measurements from drones. J Hydrol 540:240–245.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.06.012
Techy L, Schmale DG, Woolsey CA (2010) Coordinated aerobiological sampling of a plant pathogen in the
lower atmosphere using two autonomous unmanned aerial vehicles. J Field Robot 27:335–343. https
://doi.org/10.1002/rob.20335
Terada A, Morita Y, Hashimoto T et al (2018) Water sampling using a drone at Yugama crater lake,
Kusatsu-Shirane volcano, Japan. Earth Planets Space. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-018-0835-3
Thiebes B, Tomelleri E, Mejia Aguilar A et al (2016) Assessment of the 2006 to 2015 Corvara landslide
evolution using a UAV-derived DSM and orthophoto. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 1897–1902
Thiele ST, Varley N, James MR (2017) Thermal photogrammetric imaging: A new technique for moni-
toring dome eruptions. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 337:140–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores
.2017.03.022
Tofani V, Segoni S, Agostini A et al (2013) Technical note: use of remote sensing for landslide studies in
Europe. Natural Hazards Earth Syst Sci 13:299–309. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-13-299-2013

13
 Surveys in Geophysics

Torrero L, Seoli L, Molino A et al (2015) The use of micro-UAV to monitor active landslide scenarios. In:
Lollino G, Manconi A, Guzzetti F et al (eds) Engineering geology for society and territory -, vol 5.
Springer, Cham, pp 701–704
Tournadre V, Pierrot-Deseilligny M, Faure PH (2014) UAV photogrammetry to monitor dykes-calibration
and comparison to terrestrial lidar. ISPRS Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci XL-3/
W1:143–148. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-3-W1-143-2014
Turner D, Lucieer A, Wallace L (2014) Direct georeferencing of ultrahigh-resolution UAV imagery. IEEE
Trans Geosci Remote Sens 52:2738–2745. https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2013.2265295
Turner D, Lucieer A, de Jong S (2015) Time series analysis of landslide dynamics using an unmanned aerial
vehicle (UAV). Remote Sens 7:1736–1757. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs70201736
Valkaniotis S, Papathanassiou G, Ganas A (2018) Mapping an earthquake-induced landslide based on UAV
imagery; case study of the 2015 Okeanos landslide, Lefkada, Greece. Eng Geol 245:141–152. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2018.08.010
Van Den Eeckhaut M, Kerle N, Poesen J, Hervás J (2012) Object-oriented identification of forested land-
slides with derivatives of single pulse LiDAR data. Geomorphology 173–174:30–42. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.05.024
Vetrivel A, Gerke M, Kerle N et al (2018) Disaster damage detection through synergistic use of deep learn-
ing and 3D point cloud features derived from very high resolution oblique aerial images, and mul-
tiple-kernel-learning. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 140:45–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprs
jprs.2017.03.001
Villa T, Gonzalez F, Miljievic B et al (2016) An overview of small unmanned aerial vehicles for air qual-
ity measurements: present applications and future prospectives. Sensors 16:1072. https://doi.
org/10.3390/s16071072
Voigt S, Giulio-Tonolo F, Lyons J et al (2016) Global trends in satellite-based emergency mapping. Science
353:247–252. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad8728
Vollgger SA, Cruden AR (2016) Mapping folds and fractures in basement and cover rocks using UAV pho-
togrammetry, Cape Liptrap and Cape Paterson, Victoria, Australia. J Struct Geol 85:168–187. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2016.02.012
Wallemacq P, Below R, McLean D (2018) UNISDR and CRED report: economic losses, poverty & disas-
ters (1998–2017), Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters – CRED. https://urldefense
.proof point .com/v2/url?u=https -3A__www.cred.be_unisd r-2Dand -2Dcre d-2Drep ort-2Deco nomic
-2Dlosses-2Dpoverty-2Ddisasters-2D1998-2D2017&d=DwIDaQ&c=vh6FgFnduejNhPPD0fl_yRaSf
Zy8CWbWnIf4XJhSqx8&r=r2aSgYn6PHMQXXmeBiKsnvfFG9T9U5fmdQ67xEVmgo0&m=ktrJ0
pKA6V D69oYCBwKu Reprk s4SwD gxCLb HGC58 tXE&s=nIlLe OALPX Px1QX rUvFd uk1NN
9dxWEFl_0H4nHiDH4&e=
Walter M, Niethammer U, Rothmund S, Joswig M (2009) Joint analysis of the Super-Sauze (French Alps)
mudslide by nanoseismic monitoring and UAV-based remote sensing. Near Surf Geosci 27:8
Walter TR, Jousset P, Allahbakhshi M et al (2020) Underwater and drone based photogrammetry reveals
structural control at Geysir geothermal field in Iceland. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 391:106282. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2018.01.010
Watts AC, Ambrosia VG, Hinkley EA (2012) Unmanned aircraft systems in remote sensing and scientific
research: classification and considerations of use. Remote Sens 4:1671–1692. https://doi.org/10.3390/
rs4061671
Weintrit B, Bakuła K, Jędryka M et al (2018) Emergency rescue management supported bu UAV remote
sensing data. ISPRS Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci XLII-3/W4:563–567. https://
doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-3-W4-563-2018
Wessels RL, Vaughan RG, Patrick MR, Coombs ML (2013) High-resolution satellite and airborne ther-
mal infrared imaging of precursory unrest and 2009 eruption at Redoubt Volcano, Alaska. J Volcanol
Geotherm Res 259:248–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2012.04.014
Westoby MJ, Brasington J, Glasser NF et al (2012) ‘Structure-from-Motion’ photogrammetry: a low-cost,
effective tool for geoscience applications. Geomorphology 179:300–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geomorph.2012.08.021
Wu C (2011) VisualSFM: a visual structure from motion system. http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/
ccwu/vsfm
Wu C (2013) Towards linear-time incremental structure from motion. In: 2013 International conference on
3D vision. IEEE, Seattle, WA, USA, pp 127–134
Xu Z, Wu L, Zhang Z (2018) Use of active learning for earthquake damage mapping from UAV photogram-
metric point clouds. Int J Remote Sens 39:5568–5595. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2018.14660
83

13
Surveys in Geophysics

Yalcin E (2018) Generation of high-resolution digital surface models for urban flood modelling using UAV
imagery. In: WIT transactions on ecology and the environment, WIT Press. Lightning Source, UK,
Great Britain, pp 357–366
Yamazaki F, Liu W (2016) Remote sensing technologies for post-earthquake damage assessment: a case
study on the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake. Philippines, Cebu City
Yang W, Wang M, Shi P (2013) Using MODIS NDVI time series to identify geographic patterns of land-
slides in vegetated regions. IEEE Geosci Remote Sens Lett 10:707–710. https://doi.org/10.1109/
LGRS.2012.2219576
Yu M, Huang Y, Zhou J, Mao L (2017) Modeling of landslide topography based on micro-unmanned aerial
vehicle photography and structure-from-motion. Environ Earth Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1266
5-017-6860-x
Zarco-Tejada PJ, González-Dugo V, Berni JAJ (2012) Fluorescence, temperature and narrow-band indices
acquired from a UAV platform for water stress detection using a micro-hyperspectral imager and a
thermal camera. Remote Sens Environ 117:322–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.10.007
Zekkos D, Clark M, Cowell K, Medwedeff W, Manousakis J, Saroglou H, Tsiambaos G (2017) Satellite and
UAV-enabled mapping of landslides caused by the November 17th 2015 Mw 6.5 Lefkada earthquake.
In Proc. 19th Int. Conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, pp. 17–22
Zhang J (2010) Multi-source remote sensing data fusion: status and trends. Int J Image Data Fusion 1:5–24.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19479830903561035
Zhou Y (2019) 100% automatic metrology with UAV photogrammetry and embedded GPS and its applica-
tion in dike monitoring. PhD thesis, Université Paris-Est

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

13