Introduction
The last two decades have seen tremendous technological advances in the field of remote sensing, especially in sensor developments, such as considerable improvements in onboard processing, miniaturization of hardware and more efficient modes of communication and data connectivity. This significant technological progress has led to not only a proliferation of satellite Earth observation data, from both public missions and commercial missions operated by the private sector industry, but also a massive increase in big data acquired by airborne sensors, in particular onboard remotely piloted systems (unmanned aerial vehicles–UAVs or drones).
At the same time, compute processing power and computing infrastructure, especially online cloud computing, have greatly advanced, making high-performance computing now available at affordable and supported services to almost anyone connected to the internet. This development, coupled with the open data policies of many governments, organizations, and EO programs, has resulted in a quick and steady rise of research studies and downstream business applications that use remote sensing data at the core of their applications.
For remote sensing applications, particularly for satellite remote sensing, microwave sensors are of particular interest and growing rapidly in popularity for many applications. The reason for this is because, physically speaking, the microwave signals can easily penetrate clouds, are independent of daylight and remain largely unaffected by rain. However, many challenges related to different environments and applications remain, and just a few major ones are outlined hereafter.
Sensor Technology
Many applications still present a number of important technological and methodological challenges, such as soil moisture retrieval from (passive) radiometry or active synthetic aperture radar (SAR) or the generation of topographic datasets that are accurate enough for given application requirements. For example, Global Navigation Satellite Systems-Reflectometry (GNSS-R) is an emerging remote sensing technique that makes use of navigation signals to map global soil moisture fields and vegetation characteristics (Camps et al., 2016) and has even shown promise for tropical wetland mapping (Rodriguez-Alvarez et al., 2019) or potential for operational flood mapping (Chew et al., 2018). Despite these first demonstrations of success, the methods are far from ready to be used for developing robust downstream applications.
In addition, radar sensing technology developed for very specific applications, such as the Ka-band sensor onboard the upcoming Surface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT) mission that will measure river width, slope, water level, and discharge measurements (Frasson et al., 2019) as well as fine-scale detail in the global ocean surface topography (Morrow et al., 2019), still need to be more fully investigated in terms of their accuracy and limitations for the target applications.
Application Environments
The most widely used radar frequencies on SAR sensors onboard civil satellites (C- and X-band) cannot fully penetrate vegetation cover, which for many applications, such as wetland conservation and ecological studies as well as flood mapping and monitoring water changes, would be highly desirable. In the case of SAR, vegetation typically causes diffusive and volume scattering and at short wavelengths (C- or X-band), most signals do not penetrate dense vegetation cover (Schumann and Moller, 2015). At longer radar wavelengths (e.g., L- or P-band), however, several successful approaches have been developed and been demonstrated [see for example, Hess et al. (1990) for an extensive review], although satellites carrying L-band sensors are fewer and images are currently not freely available. Even at shorter, more commonly used wavelengths, such as C- or X-band, approaches have been published (Pierdicca et al., 2017; Plank et al., 2017; El Hajj et al., 2019; Grimaldi et al., 2020) but their application has only seen limited success. Multi-satellite data, including passive microwave, have also been used successfully to map global wetland inundation dynamics (Prigent et al., 2012) and recent innovative approaches have looked at GNSS-R technology to improve the mapping of flooded forests (Rodriguez-Alvarez et al., 2019).
Another challenging environment for SAR is in urban areas. For example, most people and valuable assets at risk from flooding are located in urban areas, so it is obviously desirable to map flooding in those areas. However, urban areas in flood present important challenges: inadequate spatial resolution; high building density obstructing street view; many different building types and a large variety of other man-made features which cause a lot of signal distortion; obstruction by cloud cover; and mixing of many different land cover types that are flooded and non-flooded. In fact due to these challenges, at present, accurate remote sensing of urban flooding seems restricted either to aerial photography (Yu and Lane, 2006), dGPS-generated wrack marks (McMillan and Brasington, 2007; Neal et al., 2009) or the use of high resolution LiDAR intensity data (Hoefle et al., 2009). Some successes have been shown using space-borne fine resolution SAR particularly sensors like TerraSAR-X or COSMO-SkyMed (Mason et al., 2010; Chini et al., 2012; Giustarini et al., 2013). However, more fundamental research is required into understanding the complex interactions between building structure and SAR signal processing as well as noise reduction and shadow/layover effects. Parts of those complex issues can be solved by employing a theoretical scattering model (Franceschetti et al., 2003) as demonstrated by Mason et al. (2014) or by making use of complementary SAR signal information contained in signal polarization modes or signal coherence (Chini et al., 2016; Chaabani et al., 2018), which has been shown recently to hold most promise for reliable operational urban flood mapping (Chini et al., 2019).
Processing Algorithms
Within the application environments challenges described above, there are some pitfalls that can significantly limit the success for solutions or indeed make robust and reliable solutions difficult to develop. For instance, the rapidly and constantly changing nature of urban landscapes and vegetation dynamics over different spatial and temporal scales poses a difficult problem to addressing the challenge of mapping inundation below vegetation canopy and in urban areas. Although characterizing and simulating or predicting the various signal interactions in these complex and dynamic environments is possible and the theoretical basis of doing so is known and robust [see for example, Pulvirenti et al. (2011)], practical application of the mathematical models that need to be part of the solution requires expert SAR signal knowledge. Therefore, at least for the moment, promising operational solutions that have been proposed, for example, for flood mapping from SAR under different types of vegetation or urban areas are limited to only a few papers as outlined in the previous section. This is particularly true for urban flood mapping that received only recently the attention it deserves using complex SAR signal coherence processing (Chini et al., 2019; Li et al., 2019a; Li et al., 2019b).
More recently, machine learning algorithms have gained hugely in popularity and have seen much progress, despite their application to satellite images dating back at least 25 years, even for SAR imagery (Chen et al., 1996; Kubat et al., 1998). Recent applications of machine learning models to SAR imagery include methods to map oil spills (Chen et al., 2017) and sea ice (Lee et al., 2016), detect ships (Schwegmann et al., 2016), and monitor floods in urban areas (Li et al., 2019a), just to name a few. However, one of the main challenges that needs to be urgently addressed with respect to machine learning and SAR in particular, is that of open-access image archives being relatively short in record length but image volumes are prohibitively large, thus making open data sharing across online cloud compute platforms running machine learning algorithms rather difficult and, consequently, progress may be slower than expected. Moreover, microwave data are complex and images are not easily interpretable, compared to optical imagery which the human eye is much more accustomed to. Nevertheless, there have been some notable efforts in the past year to prepare SAR datasets specifically for machine learning applications and make them as well as labels easily available (Wang et al., 2019; Bonafilia et al., 2020).
Outlook
Microwave remote sensing, whether passive or active sensors onboard satellite or airborne platforms, has kept its promise to be an inviting alternative to optical and thermal remote sensing for many applications, especially to measure and monitor Earth surface and even sub-surface processes when those are obscured by clouds or vegetation. With the proliferation of current and planned satellite missions, including commercial satellites, carrying microwave sensors and providing high-repeat big data, there is a growing need to overcome existing technological challenges, improve methods and facilitate data sharing and compute processing, so that data can be turned into actionable information more seamlessly and become available to end-users at an adequate operational readiness level. It is clear that, to achieve this, many challenges still need to be addressed, of which many are related to the development of robust, sharable and interoperable operational algorithms that are independent of satellite and image type and can be applied in a variety of environments (Schumann and Moller, 2015).
Statements
Author contributions
I confirm that I have written all of this article myself and it only expresses my opinion and views.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
1
BonafiliaD.TellmanB.AndersonT.IssenbergE. (2020). “Sen1Floods11: a georeferenced dataset to train and test deep learning flood algorithms for Sentinel-1,” in 2020 IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops (CVPRW), Seattle, WA, June 14–19, 2020. 10.1109/cvprw50498.2020.00113
2
CampsA.ParkH.PablosM.FotiG.GommengingerC. P.LiuP. W.et al (2016). Sensitivity of GNSS-R spaceborne observations to soil moisture and vegetation. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens.9, 1–13. 10.1109/igarss.2016.7729511
3
ChaabaniC.ChiniM.AbdelfattahR.HostacheR.ChokmaniK. (2018). Flood mapping in a complex environment using bistatic TanDEM-X/TerraSAR-X InSAR coherence. Remote Sens.10, 1873. 10.3390/rs10121873
4
ChenG.LiY.SunG.ZhangY. (2017). Application of deep networks to oil spill detection using polarimetric synthetic aperture radar images. Appl. Sci.7, 968. 10.1109/ist.2017.8261559
5
ChenK. S.HuangW. P.TsayD. H.AmarF. (1996). Classification of multifrequency polarimetric SAR imagery using a dynamic learning neural network. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens.34, 814–820. 10.1109/36.499786
6
ChewC.ReagerJ. T.SmallE. (2018). CYGNSS data map flood inundation during the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season. Sci. Rep.8, 9336. 10.1109/igarss.2018.8517971
7
ChiniM.PapastergiosA.PulvirentiL.PierdiccaN.MatgenP.ParcharidisI. (2016). “SAR coherence and polarimetric information for improving flood mapping,” in International geoscience and remote sensing symposium (IGARSS), Beijing, China, July 10–15, 2016 (IEEE).
8
ChiniM.PelichR.PulvirentiL.PierdiccaN.HostacheR.MatgenP. (2019). Sentinel-1 InSAR coherence to detect floodwater in urban areas: Houston and Hurricane Harvey as a test case. Remote Sens.11, 107. 10.3390/rs11020107
9
ChiniM.PulvirentiL.PierdiccaN. (2012). Analysis and interpretation of the COSMO-SkyMed observations of the 2011 Japan tsunami. Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. IEEE.9, 467–471. 10.1109/lgrs.2011.2182495
10
El HajjM.BaghdadiN.BazziH.ZribiM. (2019). Penetration analysis of SAR signals in the C and L bands for wheat, maize, and grasslands. Remote Sens.11, 31. 10.3390/rs11010031
11
FranceschettiG.IodiceA.RiccioD.RuelloG. (2003). SAR raw signal simulation for urban structures. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens.41, 1986–1995. 10.1109/tgrs.2003.814626
12
FrassonR. P. de. M.PavelskyT. M.FonstadM. A.DurandM. T.AllenG. H.SchumannG.et al (2019). Global relationships between river width, slope, catchment area, meander wavelength, sinuosity, and discharge. Geophys. Res. Lett.46, 3252–3262. 10.1029/2019GL082027
13
GiustariniL.HostacheR.MatgenP.SchumannG. J.-P.BatesP. D.MasonD. C. (2013). A change detection approach to flood mapping in urban areas using TerraSAR-X. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens.51, 2417–2430. 10.1109/tgrs.2012.2210901
14
GrimaldiS.XuJ.LiY.PauwelsV. R. N.WalkerJ. P. (2020). Flood mapping under vegetation using single SAR acquisitions. Remote Sens. Environ.237, 111582. 10.1016/j.rse.2019.111582
15
HessL. L.MelackJ. M.SimonettD. S. (1990). Radar detection of flooding beneath the forest canopy: a review. Int. J. Remote Sens.11, 1313–1325. 10.1080/01431169008955095
16
HoefleB.VetterM.PfeiferN.MandlburgerG.StoetterJ. (2009). Water surface mapping from airborne laser scanning using signal intensity and elevation data. Earth Surf. Process. Landf.34, 1635–1649. 10.1002/esp.1853
17
KubatM.HolteR. C.MatwinS. (1998). Machine learning for the detection of oil spills in satellite radar images. Mach. Learn.30, 195–215. 10.1023/a:1007452223027
18
LeeS.ImJ.KimJ.KimM.ShinM.KimH.-C.et al (2016). Arctic sea ice thickness estimation from CryoSat-2 satellite data using machine learning-based lead detection. Remote Sens.8, 698. 10.3390/rs8090698
19
LiY.MartinisS.WielandM. (2019a). Urban flood mapping with an active self-learning convolutional neural network based on TerraSAR-X intensity and interferometric coherence. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens.152, 178–191. 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2019.04.014
20
LiY.MartinisS.WielandM.SchlafferS.NatsuakiR. (2019b). Urban flood mapping using SAR intensity and interferometric coherence via Bayesian network fusion. Remote Sens.152, 178. 10.3390/rs11192231
21
MasonD. C.GiustariniL.Garcia-PintadoJ.ClokeH. L. (2014). Detection of flooded urban areas in high resolution synthetic aperture radar images using double scattering. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf.28, 150–159. 10.1016/j.jag.2013.12.002
22
MasonD. C.SpeckR.DevereuxB.SchumannG. J.-P.NealJ. C.BatesP. D. (2010). Flood detection in urban areas using TerraSAR-X. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens.48, 882–894. 10.1109/tgrs.2009.2029236
23
McMillanH. K.BrasingtonJ. (2007). Reduced complexity strategies for modelling urban floodplain inundation. Geomorphology90, 226–243. 10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.10.031
24
MorrowR.FuL. L.ArdhuinF.BenkiranM.ChapronB.CosmeE.et al (2019). Global observations of fine-scale ocean surface topography with the Surface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT) mission. Front. Mar. Sci.6, 232. 10.3389/fmars.2019.00232
25
NealJ. C.BatesP. D.FewtrellT. J.HunterN. M.WilsonM. D.HorrittM. S. (2009). Distributed whole city water level measurements from the Carlisle 2005 urban flood event and comparison with hydraulic model simulations. J. Hydrol.368, 42–55. 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.01.026
26
PierdiccaN.PulvirentiL.BoniG.SquicciarinoG.ChiniM. (2017). Mapping flooded vegetation using COSMO-SkyMed: comparison with polarimetric and optical data over rice fields. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens.10, 2650–2662. 10.1109/igarss.2017.8128184
27
PlankS.JüssiM.MartinisS.TweleA. (2017). Mapping of flooded vegetation by means of polarimetric sentinel-1 and ALOS-2/PALSAR-2 imagery. Int. J. Remote Sens.38, 3831–3850. 10.1109/igarss.2017.8128303
28
PrigentC.PapaF.AiresF.JimenezC.RossowW. B.MatthewsE. (2012). Changes in land surface water dynamics since the 1990s and relation to population pressure. Geophys. Res. Lett.39, L08403. 10.1029/2012gl051276
29
PulvirentiL.PierdiccaN.ChiniM.GuerrieroL. (2011). An algorithm for operational flood mapping from synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data using fuzzy logic. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.11, 529–540. 10.5194/nhess-11-529-2011
30
Rodriguez-AlvarezN.PodestE.JensenK.McDonaldK. C. (2019). Classifying inundation in a tropical wetlands complex with GNSS-R. Remote Sens.11, 1053. 10.1109/igarss.2019.8900166
31
SchumannG. J.-P.MollerD. K. (2015). Microwave remote sensing of flood inundation. Phys. Chem. Earth Parts A/B/C83–84, 84–95. 10.1016/j.pce.2015.05.002
32
SchwegmannC. P.KleynhansW.SalmonB. P.MdakaneL. W.MeyerR. G. V. (2016). “Very deep learning for ship discrimination in Synthetic Aperture Radar imagery,” in International geoscience and remote sensing symposium (IGARSS), Beijing, China, July 10–15, 2016 (IEEE).
33
WangY.WangC.ZhangH.DongY.WeiS. (2019). A SAR dataset of ship detection for deep learning under complex backgrounds. Remote Sens.11, 765. 10.3390/rs11070765
34
YuD.LaneS. N. (2006). Urban fluvial flood modelling using a two-dimensional diffusion-wave treatment, part 1: mesh resolution effects. Hydrol. Process.20, 1541–1565. 10.1002/hyp.5935
Summary
Keywords
remote sensing, radar, technology development, processing, challenges, application
Citation
Schumann GJ-P (2020) Grand Challenges in Microwave Remote Sensing. Front. Remote Sens. 1:603650. doi: 10.3389/frsen.2020.603650
Received
07 September 2020
Accepted
24 September 2020
Published
15 October 2020
Volume
1 - 2020
Edited and reviewed by
Jose Antonio Sobrino, University of Valencia, Spain
Updates
Copyright
© 2020 Schumann.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Guy Jean-Pierre Schumann, gjpschumann@gmail.com
This article was submitted to Microwave Remote Sensing, a section of the journal Frontiers in Remote Sensing
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.