Archaeological Surveying of Subarctic and Arctic Landscapes: Comparing the Performance of Airborne Laser Scanning and Remote Sensing Image Data

What can remote sensing contribute to archaeological surveying in subarctic and arctic landscapes? The pros and cons of remote sensing data vary as do areas of utilization and methodological approaches. We assessed the applicability of remote sensing for archaeological surveying of northern landscap...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Sustainability
Main Authors: Alma Elizabeth Thuestad, Ole Risbøl, Jan Ingolf Kleppe, Stine Barlindhaug, Elin Rose Myrvoll
Format: Text
Language:English
Published: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute 2021
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041917
id ftmdpi:oai:mdpi.com:/2071-1050/13/4/1917/
record_format openpolar
spelling ftmdpi:oai:mdpi.com:/2071-1050/13/4/1917/ 2023-08-20T04:04:19+02:00 Archaeological Surveying of Subarctic and Arctic Landscapes: Comparing the Performance of Airborne Laser Scanning and Remote Sensing Image Data Alma Elizabeth Thuestad Ole Risbøl Jan Ingolf Kleppe Stine Barlindhaug Elin Rose Myrvoll agris 2021-02-10 application/pdf https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041917 EN eng Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute Tourism, Culture, and Heritage https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13041917 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Sustainability; Volume 13; Issue 4; Pages: 1917 cultural heritage LiDAR satellite image aerial image High North Text 2021 ftmdpi https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041917 2023-08-01T01:03:14Z What can remote sensing contribute to archaeological surveying in subarctic and arctic landscapes? The pros and cons of remote sensing data vary as do areas of utilization and methodological approaches. We assessed the applicability of remote sensing for archaeological surveying of northern landscapes using airborne laser scanning (LiDAR) and satellite and aerial images to map archaeological features as a basis for (a) assessing the pros and cons of the different approaches and (b) assessing the potential detection rate of remote sensing. Interpretation of images and a LiDAR-based bare-earth digital terrain model (DTM) was based on visual analyses aided by processing and visualizing techniques. 368 features were identified in the aerial images, 437 in the satellite images and 1186 in the DTM. LiDAR yielded the better result, especially for hunting pits. Image data proved suitable for dwellings and settlement sites. Feature characteristics proved a key factor for detectability, both in LiDAR and image data. This study has shown that LiDAR and remote sensing image data are highly applicable for archaeological surveying in northern landscapes. It showed that a multi-sensor approach contributes to high detection rates. Our results have improved the inventory of archaeological sites in a non-destructive and minimally invasive manner. Text Arctic Subarctic MDPI Open Access Publishing Arctic Sustainability 13 4 1917
institution Open Polar
collection MDPI Open Access Publishing
op_collection_id ftmdpi
language English
topic cultural heritage
LiDAR
satellite image
aerial image
High North
spellingShingle cultural heritage
LiDAR
satellite image
aerial image
High North
Alma Elizabeth Thuestad
Ole Risbøl
Jan Ingolf Kleppe
Stine Barlindhaug
Elin Rose Myrvoll
Archaeological Surveying of Subarctic and Arctic Landscapes: Comparing the Performance of Airborne Laser Scanning and Remote Sensing Image Data
topic_facet cultural heritage
LiDAR
satellite image
aerial image
High North
description What can remote sensing contribute to archaeological surveying in subarctic and arctic landscapes? The pros and cons of remote sensing data vary as do areas of utilization and methodological approaches. We assessed the applicability of remote sensing for archaeological surveying of northern landscapes using airborne laser scanning (LiDAR) and satellite and aerial images to map archaeological features as a basis for (a) assessing the pros and cons of the different approaches and (b) assessing the potential detection rate of remote sensing. Interpretation of images and a LiDAR-based bare-earth digital terrain model (DTM) was based on visual analyses aided by processing and visualizing techniques. 368 features were identified in the aerial images, 437 in the satellite images and 1186 in the DTM. LiDAR yielded the better result, especially for hunting pits. Image data proved suitable for dwellings and settlement sites. Feature characteristics proved a key factor for detectability, both in LiDAR and image data. This study has shown that LiDAR and remote sensing image data are highly applicable for archaeological surveying in northern landscapes. It showed that a multi-sensor approach contributes to high detection rates. Our results have improved the inventory of archaeological sites in a non-destructive and minimally invasive manner.
format Text
author Alma Elizabeth Thuestad
Ole Risbøl
Jan Ingolf Kleppe
Stine Barlindhaug
Elin Rose Myrvoll
author_facet Alma Elizabeth Thuestad
Ole Risbøl
Jan Ingolf Kleppe
Stine Barlindhaug
Elin Rose Myrvoll
author_sort Alma Elizabeth Thuestad
title Archaeological Surveying of Subarctic and Arctic Landscapes: Comparing the Performance of Airborne Laser Scanning and Remote Sensing Image Data
title_short Archaeological Surveying of Subarctic and Arctic Landscapes: Comparing the Performance of Airborne Laser Scanning and Remote Sensing Image Data
title_full Archaeological Surveying of Subarctic and Arctic Landscapes: Comparing the Performance of Airborne Laser Scanning and Remote Sensing Image Data
title_fullStr Archaeological Surveying of Subarctic and Arctic Landscapes: Comparing the Performance of Airborne Laser Scanning and Remote Sensing Image Data
title_full_unstemmed Archaeological Surveying of Subarctic and Arctic Landscapes: Comparing the Performance of Airborne Laser Scanning and Remote Sensing Image Data
title_sort archaeological surveying of subarctic and arctic landscapes: comparing the performance of airborne laser scanning and remote sensing image data
publisher Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
publishDate 2021
url https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041917
op_coverage agris
geographic Arctic
geographic_facet Arctic
genre Arctic
Subarctic
genre_facet Arctic
Subarctic
op_source Sustainability; Volume 13; Issue 4; Pages: 1917
op_relation Tourism, Culture, and Heritage
https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13041917
op_rights https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
op_doi https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041917
container_title Sustainability
container_volume 13
container_issue 4
container_start_page 1917
_version_ 1774714711868178432