Copernicus services in support to cultural heritage : final report.
Date: 2019-05-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs
Subjects: EU programme, cultural heritage, data transmission, environmental monitoring, heritage protection, man-made disaster, natural disaster, observation, open data, remote sensing, satellite communications, space technology

Copernicus services in support to 
Cultural Heritage 

Written by PwC 
October 2018 

 
                                                                   
  
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (GROW) 
Directorate I — Space Policy, Copernicus and Defence 
Unit I.1 — Space policy and research 

Contact: Salvatore Pignataro, Policy Officer 
E-mail: salvatore.pignataro@ec.europa.eu 
European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Copernicus services in support to Cultural 
Heritage 

Final report 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the 
Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019 

ISBN: 978-92-76-01370-9 
doi: 10.2873/795267 

© European Union, 2019 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4 

 
 
Table of content 

Table of content ........................................................................................................... i 

Executive Summary .................................................................................................... v 

Context and approach ............................................................................................... v 

Phase 1 – Collection of Cultural Heritage user needs and requirements and match analysis 

with Copernicus capabilities ....................................................................................... vi 

User needs and requirements identification ............................................................ vi 

Matching user requirements with Copernicus capabilities ........................................ viii 

Phase 2 – Impacts derived from the implementation of intervention options .................... ix 

Option 1 – List of Copernicus products suitable for Cultural Heritage applications ........ ix 

Option 2 – Cultural Heritage as part of one or more existing services ........................ xi 

Option 3 – Creation of a new Copernicus service dedicated to Cultural Heritage ......... xiii 

Conclusion ............................................................................................................. xv 

1 

Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 

1.1 

1.2 

1.3 

1.4 

Rationale for the study ................................................................................ 1 

Objectives of the study ............................................................................... 1 

Taxonomy and definitions ............................................................................ 2 

Introduction to Cultural Heritage .................................................................. 5 

1.4.1 

From Cultural Heritage conservation to Cultural Heritage valorisation ........... 6 

1.5 

Impacts of Cultural Heritage ...................................................................... 10 

1.5.1 

1.5.2 

1.5.3 

Economic impacts ................................................................................. 10 

Societal impacts ................................................................................... 12 

Environmental impacts .......................................................................... 14 

1.6 

The Copernicus programme ....................................................................... 14 

2 

Detailed methodological approach for the study ............................................. 17 

2.1 

Phase 1 – Matching Cultural Heritage user needs with Copernicus capabilities .. 17 

2.1.1 

2.1.2 

2.1.3 

2.1.4 

2.1.5 

Value chain characterisation .................................................................. 18 

High level user needs and user needs identification .................................. 19 

User requirements analysis .................................................................... 19 

Technical specifications identification ...................................................... 19 

Matching the analysis with Copernicus capabilities .................................... 20 

2.2 

Phase 2 – Evaluation of the impacts resulting from the options ...................... 25 

2.2.1 

2.2.2 

2.2.3 

2.2.4 

2.2.5 

Option characterisation ......................................................................... 26 

Impact identification ............................................................................. 27 

Impact evaluation ................................................................................ 29 

Option comparison ............................................................................... 30 

Conclusions and recommendations ......................................................... 31 

3 

User needs assessment ................................................................................... 32 

i 

 
 
 
3.1 

3.2 

3.2.1 

3.2.2 

3.2.3 

3.2.4 

Cultural Heritage value chain and user communities ..................................... 32 

Mapping of activities, user needs, and user requirements .............................. 35 

Creation segment ................................................................................. 35 

Production segment .............................................................................. 48 

Transmission segment........................................................................... 57 

Overall conclusion of high level and specific user needs ............................. 64 

4 

Copernicus capabilities in response to user requirements .............................. 67 

4.1 

4.2 

4.3 

Characterisation of user requirements ......................................................... 67 

Translation of user requirements into technical specifications ......................... 68 

Matching user requirements with Copernicus capabilities ............................... 69 

4.3.1 

Phase 1 – Match analysis between user requirements and Copernicus core 

service products ................................................................................................. 70 

4.3.2 

Phase 2 – Match analysis between user requirements and Sentinels capabilities

76 

4.3.3 

Phase 3 – Match analysis between user requirements and Copernicus 

Contributing missions ......................................................................................... 76 

4.3.4 

Conclusion of the match analysis ............................................................ 77 

4.4 

Specific capabilities offered by the Copernicus programme for security & 

emergency purposes ............................................................................................... 80 

4.4.1 

Security purpose: the protection and safeguarding of Cultural Heritage from 

man-made destruction ........................................................................................ 80 

4.4.2 

Emergency purpose: Protection and safeguarding of Cultural Heritage from geo-

hazards  82 

5 

Options for an intervention from the European Commission .......................... 84 

5.1 

5.2 

5.3 

5.4 

Option 1: List of Copernicus products suitable for Cultural Heritage applications84 

Option 2: Cultural Heritage as part of one or more existing services ............... 85 

Option 3: Creation of a new Copernicus service dedicated to Cultural Heritage . 87 

Summary of the main differences between options ....................................... 89 

6 

Impacts derived from the implementation of the different option .................. 91 

6.1 

Presentation of impacts ............................................................................. 91 

6.1.1 

6.1.2 

6.1.3 

6.1.4 

Assumptions ........................................................................................ 93 

Impact evaluation of option 1 ................................................................. 93 

Impact evaluation of option 2 ............................................................... 100 

Impact evaluation of option 3 ............................................................... 107 

6.2 

Summary and comparison of the impacts per options ................................. 115 

7 

Conclusion and recommendations ................................................................ 117 

7.1 

7.2 

7.3 

Cultural Heritage user needs & requirements and Copernicus capabilities ...... 117 

Impact evaluation ................................................................................... 118 

Recommendations .................................................................................. 119 

Annex A - Consultation activities ............................................................................ 124 

ii 

 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Types of stakeholders consulted ............................................................................. 124 

Types of consultation activities ............................................................................... 124 

Online survey .................................................................................................. 124 

Interviews ....................................................................................................... 125 

Results of the stakeholder consultation .................................................................... 125 

Representation of user communities ................................................................... 127 

Distribution along the value chain ...................................................................... 128 

Level of expertise of the stakeholders in Earth Observation ................................... 128 

Nature of interventions within the CH land covers and environments ...................... 129 

Results of the questionnaire .............................................................................. 131 

Annex B – Bibliography ........................................................................................... 155 

Annex C – Land cover of interest for Cultural Heritage user communities ............... 159 

Annex D – Copernicus capabilities in response to CH user requirements (detailed 

matching analysis) .................................................................................................. 161 

Table of figures ....................................................................................................... 218 

Table of tables ........................................................................................................ 220 

Acronyms ................................................................................................................ 222 

iii 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Page left intentionally blank 

iv 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Executive Summary 

Context and approach 

The  “Copernicus  services  in  support  to  Cultural  Heritage”  study  aims  to  support  the 
European Commission in  its  assessment  on the possibility of initiating  an institutional 
action  for  promoting  the  use  of  Copernicus  data  for  Cultural  Heritage  preservation, 
monitoring and management.  

The  Copernicus  programme  is  one  of  the  European  flagship  programmes,  providing 
free and open data and information relying on satellite-based imagery, models and in-
situ  data.  Beyond  merely  data  and  information,  the  Copernicus  programme  relies  on 
state-of-the-art  models  to  be  used  for  societal  and  environmental  purposes.  The 
Copernicus  programme  is  a  public  service  designed  to  respond  to  policy  and  public 
administrations, as well as foster economic growth in Europe by: 

•  Supporting public users at local, national and European level; 

•  Helping Europe to maintain a prominent role in the international context; 

•  Strengthening intermediate users, downstream companies and value-added service providers. 

2018  has  been  selected  as  the  European  Year  of  Cultural  Heritage  to  celebrate  the 
diversity  of  Cultural  Heritage  across  Europe  and  reinforce  a  sense  of  belonging  to  a 
common  European  space1.  Cultural  Heritage  has  a  universal  value  for  humankind  as 
individuals, communities and societies that deserve to be protected and preserved for 
the next generations. The notion of Cultural Heritage includes2: 

•  Tangible  Heritage:  buildings  and  historic  places,  monuments,  artefacts,  etc.,  which  are 
considered  worthy  of  preservation  for  the  future.  These  include  objects  significant  to  the 
archaeology, architecture, science or technology of a specific culture. Tangible Heritage does 
not include “Movable Cultural Heritage” (all Cultural Heritage that constitutes objects, such as 
paintings, sculptures, coins and manuscripts).  

•  Natural Heritage: natural features consisting of physical and biological formations or groups 
of  such  formations,  which  are  of  outstanding  universal  value  from  the  aesthetic  or  scientific 
point  of  view;  geological  and  physiographical  formations  and  precisely  delineated  areas, 
which  constitute  the  habitat  of  threatened  species  of  animals  and  plants  of  outstanding 
universal  value  from  the  point  of  view  of  science  or  conservation;  natural  sites  or  precisely 
delineated  natural  areas  of  outstanding  universal  value  from  the  point  of  view  of  science, 
conservation  or  natural  beauty.  Moreover,  the  focus  of  the  study  includes  both  land  and 
underwater Cultural Heritage. 

The study is structured around three main phases, as represented in the figure below: 

1 European Commission, consulted on May 22, 2018 [ONLINE] Available at:   https://ec.europa.eu/culture/policy/culture-policies/cultural-
heritage_en  
2 IBID 

v 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Figure 1: Study logic 

1.  Phase  1  –  A  characterization  of  the  Cultural  Heritage  value  chain  offering  a  global 
overview  on  the  main  challenges  and  user  communities  involved  in  Cultural  Heritage 
activities. This characterization aims at identifying and collecting user community needs 
and  requirements 
to  Cultural  Heritage  preservation,  monitoring  and 
management,  and  at  performing  a  match  analysis  exercise  between  Cultural  Heritage 
user  needs  and  requirements,  and  Copernicus  capabilities  (Copernicus  core  services 
products, Sentinels data, Copernicus contributing missions data); 

related 

2.  Phase  2  –  An  evaluation  of  the  potential  impacts  from  different  types  of  institutional 
interventions  for  promoting  the  use  of  Copernicus  for  Cultural  Heritage  preservation, 
monitoring and management. This last phase also includes recommendations on the way 
forward to stimulate such an intervention. 

Phase  1  –  Collection  of  Cultural  Heritage  user  needs 
and requirements and match analysis with Copernicus 
capabilities 

User needs and requirements identification 

Cultural  Heritage  is  structured  around  three  segments  that  represent  its  value  chain:  the 
Creation  segment;  the  Production  segment;  and  the  Transmission  segment.  Each  segment  is 
composed of a certain number of activities that are broken down into tasks.  

  The Creation segment comprises: (i) prospection and exploration activities; (ii) operations 

activities; and (iii) recognition as Heritage activities. 

  The Production segment comprises: (i) Tangible Heritage conservation activities; and (ii) 

Natural Heritage preservation activities. 

  The  Transmission segment comprises: (i) site  management  activities; (ii) aggregation of 
scientific knowledge activities; and (iii) development of commercial products activities. 

These  activities  are  performed  by  six  different  user  communities:  (i)  the  Cultural  Heritage 
professional  user  community;  (ii)  the  Natural  Sciences  user  community;  (iii)  the  National, 
Regional  or  Local  authority  user  community;  (iv)  the  site  operator  user  community;  (v)  the 
urban  planner  user  community;  and  (vi)  the  intermediate  user  community.  These  communities 
may  intervene  in  a  single  segment  of  the  value  chain  but  are  usually  transverse  (e.g.  the  site 
operator user community intervenes in all three segments, though not necessarily in all types of 
activities per segment).  

vi 

User needs and requirements identification1Definition of the value chain and user communitiesMatch with Copernicus capabilities2Review of Copernicus capabilitiesMatch analysisOptions characterisation3Evaluation of high level impacts4Comparison of options & recommendations5Translation into technical specificationsIdentification of user needs & requirementsPhase 1Phase 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

The  Cultural  Heritage  user  communities  have  different  demands  for  performing  their  activities. 
These  demands  have  been  aggregated  into  nine  high  level  user  needs  –  an  overarching 
statement which describes the desire or wish of a user – that are split along the Cultural Heritage 
value chain and that address the trends taken by communities intervening along the value chain. 
These high level user needs are presented below. 

Table 1: High level user needs per segment of the Cultural Heritage value chain 

Creation 
segment 

High level user need 

Study of the natural environment of the site for the detection of underground 
archaeological features 

Non-destructive analysis of the underground/underwater positioning of the CH 
features 

Non-destructive analysis of the surface positioning of the CH features 

Mapping of the cultural landscape of the site and identification of the specific 
risks it is exposed to 

Monitoring the evolution of the natural environment of the Tangible Heritage 
site 

Production 
segment 

Monitoring the evolution of the natural environment of the Natural Heritage 
site 

Observation of damage on the built structure of a Cultural Heritage site 

Drawing of conclusions to facilitate an emergency intervention 

Transmission 
segment 

Enable public access to the site 

Each high level user need is composed of several user needs that are the type of information and 
data required by the Cultural Heritage user communities. These user needs are often cross-field; 
that is, they are useful for both Tangible and  Natural Heritage or  for  both land and underwater 
environments.  In  total,  the  nine  high level  user  needs  are  split  into  83  user  needs  identified 
through  stakeholder  consultation  and  literature  review.  In  order  to  define  the  Cultural  Heritage 
community  user  needs,  specific  focus  has  been  given  to  the  tasks  and  activities  within  the 
Cultural Heritage value chain but also to the current developments and challenges faced by each 
segment. The consultation has also enabled the collection of CH user requirements, which refers 
to  the  user  needs  described  by  desired  performances  and  attributes  (type  of  land  cover, 
geographic coverage and revisit time). The 83 user needs, split among 9 high level user needs, 
have led to the identification of 373 user requirements expressed by CH user communities. 

Those  user  requirements  have  then  been  translated  into  technical  specifications  to  enable  the 
matching analysis with Copernicus capabilities. Technical specifications refer to the translation of 
user  requirements  into  existing  Earth  Observation  technical  solutions  including  sensors  (e.g. 
multispectral,  Synthetic  Aperture  Radar  (SAR),  hyperspectral,  etc.),  wavelength  (e.g.  near-
infrared,  C-band,  X-band,  etc.)  and  spatial  resolution  specifications.  Sensors  and  wavelengths 
are only the first step in a long processing chain where models and other sources of data, such 
as  in-situ  data,  are  required  to  fully  translate  identified  user  requirements  into  real  technical 
responses.  Spatial  resolution  required  by  the  user  had  to  be  translated  to  a  range  of  spatial 
resolution specification by an external pool of experts (i.e. experts in remote sensing for Cultural 
Heritage)  to  mitigate  responding  biases  (e.g.  stakeholders  tend  to  require  the  highest  spatial 
resolution  possible;  not  all  stakeholders  were  expert  in  remote  sensing)  and  to  take  in 

vii 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

consideration the specific context of each user requirement, assessing the original user need and 
it  context  and  purpose  (i.e.  high  level  user  need).  This  range  of  spatial  resolution  specification 
was  necessary  to  support  the  match  analysis  between  user  requirements  and  Copernicus 
capabilities.  

Matching user requirements with Copernicus capabilities 

The  mapping  of  CH  user  requirements,  and  their  respective  technical  specifications,  with 
Copernicus  capabilities  has  been  carried  out  on  three  different  levels:  Copernicus  core  services 
products, Sentinels capabilities and Copernicus contributing mission capabilities, as presented in 
the figure below. 

Figure 2: Match analysis process 

The  first  step  consisted  of  assessing  if  there  exists  a  Copernicus  core  service  product  that  can 
cover the user requirement under study. The user requirement is considered covered if both the 
product  resolution  and  timeliness  match  the  user  requirement  (since  the  other  attributes  no 
different  between  the  various  user  requirements).  Should  it  not  be  the  case,  Sentinels 
capabilities  are  assessed  to  see  if  they  can  respond  to  the  requirement  even  if  it  is  not  fully 
covered (i.e. with resolution, timeliness or both). If the user requirement cannot be covered by 
Sentinels, the analysis is further expanded to  Contributing Missions, on which the same type of 
evaluation  is  performed.  This  assessment  has  been  undertaken  thanks  to  expert-targeted 
consultation and PwC analysis. 

Following  this  analysis,  a  rating  is  given  to  the  ability  of  Copernicus  to  respond  to  a  user 
requirement  and  its  technical  specifications:  (i)  fully  responding  if  both  the  timeliness  and 
resolution  required  are  covered  by  a  Copernicus  core  product,  Sentinels  capabilities  or 
Contributing  Missions  capabilities;  (ii)  partially  responding  if  the  current  Copernicus 
capabilities only partly respond to the attributes (e.g. a 5-day revisit time is required and only a 
6-day revisit time is currently available); (iii) not responding if one or two of the attributes (i.e. 
timeliness or spatial resolution) are not fully covered. 

Considering  Cultural  Heritage  is  not  currently mentioned  in  the  Delegation  Agreements 
of the Entrusted Entities in charge of the six Copernicus core services, no product has currently 
been  developed  specifically  for  Cultural  Heritage  activities.  Nevertheless,  Copernicus  core 
services  already  have  access  to  the  relevant  EO  data  sources  (Sentinels  and/or  contributing 
missions),  models  and  in-situ  data  sources,  to  enable  them  to  respond  to  a  large  extent  of 
Cultural  Heritage  user  requirements.  Moreover,  all  six  services  can  contribute  to  the  user 

viii 

Sentinels capabilitiesContributing missionsCopernicus core services(including in-situ data)User requirementsTechnical specificationsCopernicus capabilities mappingFrequency of monitoringSpatial resolutionWavelengthSpatial resolutionSensorsUser needsMatch analysisGeographic coverageHigh level user needs identificationUser need identification along the CH value-chain 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

requirements,  though  some  services  are  more  key  than  others  (e.g.  a  majority  of  relevant 
products come from the Land service). 

Indeed, the analysis emphasised that 7.5% of the Cultural Heritage user requirements are 
already  fully  covered  by  Copernicus  core  services  products  in  their  current  form,  and  an 
additional  19.0%  of  user  requirements  are  partially  covered  by  existing  Copernicus  core 
services  products  without  adaptation.  With  the  support  of  Sentinels  and  Contributing  Missions 
capabilities, 50% of the user requirements could be fully covered, while an additional 14% 
could  be  partially  covered.  Those  partially  covered  user  requirements  could  potentially  be 
supported by the downstream industry that has access to very high resolution data and/or very 
high revisiting time imagery not available in the pool of Copernicus Contributing Missions. 

By using all Copernicus capabilities (core services products, Sentinels and Contributing missions), 
64.1% of CH user requirements could be covered. Nevertheless, 35.9% of CH user requirements 
will  not  be  covered  by  the  Copernicus  programme  (core  services  products,  Sentinels  and 
Contributing missions). First, 7% of the user requirements cannot be covered because the spatial 
or  temporal  resolution  needed  is  not  available  within  Copernicus.  Second,  12.9%  of  the  user 
requirements  cannot  be  covered  because  they  require  specific  sensors  and/or  wavelengths  that 
are not available in the scope of the Copernicus programme (e.g. hyperspectral, lidar). However, 
such  sensors  and  wavelengths  exist  on  the  commercial  market,  especially  by  using  airborne 
sensors (e.g. UAV), hence downstream industries could then fully cover those user requirements. 
Finally,  16.1%  of  the  Cultural  Heritage  user  requirements  cannot  be  covered  by  satellite-based 
imagery  at  all,  as  they  require  very  specific  in-situ  measurements  (e.g.  Ground  Penetrating 
Radar  (GPR),  in-situ  bathymetric  surveys,  etc.)  or  complex  value-added  products  (e.g. 
assessment of sites frequentation pattern). 

Phase 2 – Impacts derived from the implementation of 
intervention options 

An  intervention  from  the  European  Commission  could  prove  useful  in  enhancing  the  ability  of 
Copernicus  to  respond  to  Cultural  Heritage  user  requirements.  These  three  options  have  been 
analysed through the lens of seven impacts split into several KPIs in order to compare them. The 
impacts  were  either  categorised  as  economic  (cost  of  the  options,  option  implementation 
process,  competitiveness,  employment),  strategic  (EU  leadership)  or  social  (valorisation  of 
Cultural Heritage, support to European knowledge).  

The  characterisation  of  these  options  and  the  expected 
implementation have been summarised in the next sections.  

impacts  derived 

from  their 

Option 1 – List of Copernicus products suitable for Cultural 
Heritage applications 

Option 1 characterisation 

Option 1 is relying on existing core products, data and information that are currently suitable for 
Cultural  Heritage  applications,  but  emphasising  the  existence  of  such  products  by  raising 
awareness. The chart below summarises the scope of Option 1. 

ix 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Figure 3: Detailed description of Option 1 

As  the  governing  body  of  the  Copernicus  programme,  the  European  Commission  would  be  in 
charge of investing money in communication and outreach activities. The European Commission 
would dedicate a budget for the implementation of Cultural Heritage promotion activities in order 
to  raise  awareness  of  the  availability  of  Copernicus  data  and  information  that  are  suitable  for 
specific  Cultural  Heritage  activities  and  explain  where  and  how  users  can  find  those  products, 
data and information.  

Under this option, management of the Copernicus data and products useful for Cultural Heritage 
would  remain  under  the  purview  of  each  of  the  Copernicus  services.  The  Copernicus  services 
have currently developed products that can be used for Cultural Heritage activities, but that are 
tailored for other domains. As such, these products are not emphasised by the service platform 
through  a  specific  category  of  Cultural  Heritage  products  but  are  to  be  found  among  existing 
categories. In this context, the option would mostly respond to user communities with a certain 
level  of  technical  knowledge,  who  are  able  to  access  and  find  relevant  data  and  information  on 
existing Copernicus core services and on the Scientific Data Hub. No budget would be dedicated 
to product development or tailoring of existing products to specific Cultural Heritage needs under 
option 1.  

Under  option  1,  the  Cultural  Heritage  communities  can  therefore  either  rely  directly  on  existing 
Copernicus data and information or on value-added information products that rely on Copernicus 
data  and  information  that  has  been  transformed  and  enhanced  by  intermediate  users  (i.e. 
downstream companies). 

Option 1 expected impacts 

Option 1 would not provide a budget to develop new products tailored for Cultural Heritage user 
needs.  As  such,  7.5%  of  the  Cultural  Heritage  user  requirements  would  be  fully  covered  by 
existing  Copernicus  core  services  products  (an  additional  3.2%  of  the  Cultural  Heritage  user 
requirements could be covered by the Copernicus programme thanks to the Sentinels capabilities 
but  this  could  only  be  done  by  downstream  companies  and  technical  Cultural  Heritage  user 
communities,  as  the  Sentinels  data  would  need  to  be  processed  and  transformed  )  and  an 
additional  20%  of  the  Cultural  Heritage  user  requirements  would  be  partially  covered  by  those 
products. 

x 

End-usersIntermediate usersCULTURAL HERITAGE USER COMMUNITIESUsage of core Copernicus products for the development of value-added product and service  Industrial stakeholders as an intermediate user of core Copernicus productsIndustry player 1Industry player 2Industry player n…OrganisationCopernicus Core servicesExisting productsProvision of existing Core products suitable for Cultural Heritage purposeNo additional budget invested for product adaptationCould be…Public organisationsIndustrial companiesAcademiaData from space component(Sentinels & Contributing Missions)Data from in-situ component 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

The economic impacts of option 1 would be rather marginal considering the low investment (EUR 
75K per year) implied by this option (e.g. very few jobs would be supported, negligible enabled 
revenues  over  the  period  under  scrutiny).  Moreover,  no  strategic  impact  would  arise  from  this 
option,  whether  positive  or  negative.  Similarly,  social  impacts  would  be  very  marginal,  as  only 
European knowledge would be supported but to a lesser extent.  This option presents one major 
advantage: it would be the most interesting in terms of cost and of easiness of implementation. 
These results are presented in the figure below. 

Figure 4: Summary of the impact evaluation results for option 1 

Option 2 – Cultural Heritage as part of one or more existing 
services 

Option 2 characterisation 

Option  2  aims  at  setting  up  a  specific  user  interface  in  the  form  of  a  web-based  platform  (i.e. 
web-based  front-end)  fully  dedicated  to  Cultural  Heritage,  where  user  communities  could  find 
existing  Copernicus  data  and  information  suitable  for  Cultural  Heritage  activities,  together  with 
additional  existing  products  from  core  services  that  have  been  adapted  to  Cultural  Heritage 
needs. 

The chart below summarises the scope of Option 2. 

xi 

EconomicImpact evaluationCost of the optionsAdvantages derived from the optionsCompetitivenessEmploymentEU leadershipValorisation of CHSupport to European knowledgeSocialStrategicOption implementation processCapabilities matching•Development and operation costs•Percentage of user requirements covered by the option•Complexity of option implementation•Administrative burden•Partnership and collaboration between Member States•Enabled revenues for the downstream sector•Wider economic and societal impacts•R&D•Competitive downstream sector•Indirect and induced jobs•Direct jobs•Partnership and collaboration with third countries and IO•Data standardisation•Positioning of EU at a leader in the field of CH•Increased visibility of CH through digitisation and online access•Centralisation of data access•Academia + Education and knowledge sharingOption 1List of Copernicus products suitable for CH applicationsBetween EUR 540 K and EUR 750 K for 2019-2025EUR 75 K per yearBetween 7,5 & 11% fully covered20% partially coveredBetween 4.33 and 6.01 jobs supported for 2019-2025Between EUR 2.95 M and EUR 5.3 M for 2019-2025Between 6.19 and 11.14 jobs supported for 2019-2025 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Figure 5: Detailed description of option 2 

As the governing body of the European Earth Observation programme, the European Commission 
would be in charge of funding the creation of an interface that would centralise the access to all 
Copernicus data and information suitable for Cultural Heritage activities. The products  found via 
this  front-end  would  come  from  the  six  service  platforms  that  offer  accessible  and  relevant 
products  for  Cultural  Heritage.  This  platform  should  benefit  from  the  development  of  the  DIAS 
platform, expected to be operational in the near future.  Such an investment could have indirect 
impacts  on  Copernicus  user  uptake  from  Cultural  Heritage  communities,  as  this  would  ease 
access to Copernicus data and information. 

The  management  of  the  Cultural  Heritage  platform  would  either  be  under  the  European 
Commission or from one of the existing Entrusted Entities. The Entrusted Entities would provide 
all the products that would feed the platform: they would either be proposed as is currently on 
the service website or be available in a way that makes them adaptable to the specific needs of 
Cultural Heritage user communities. The European Commission, under option 2, would provide a 
specific  budget  dedicated  to  product  tailoring  for  each  Copernicus  core  service,  based  on  those 
products  that  are  of  interest  for  Cultural  Heritage  but  require  some  adaptations.  This  option 
should also enable the European Commission to  unlock specific grants and funding mechanisms 
to  support  R&D  and  knowledge  creation  in  the  field  of  Earth  Observation  applied  to  Cultural 
Heritage activities. 

Under  option  2,  the  Cultural  Heritage  communities  can  therefore  either  rely  directly  on 
Copernicus  data  and  information  provided  by  the  platform  (existing  and  tailored  Copernicus 
products) or  on value-added information products that rely on Copernicus  data and information 
extracted  from  the  Cultural  Heritage  platform  that  have  been  transformed  and  enhanced  by 
intermediate users (i.e. downstream companies). 

Option 2 expected impacts 

Option 2 would dedicate a budget to the tailoring of existing products to Cultural Heritage user 
needs. As such, up to 49.8% of the Cultural Heritage user requirements could be covered under 
this  option.  An  additional  14.2%  of  the  Cultural  Heritage  user  requirements  could  also  be 
partially covered. 

xii 

End-usersIntermediate usersData from in-situ componentCULTURAL HERITAGE USER COMMUNITIESUsage of core Copernicus products for the development of value-added product and service  Industrial stakeholders as an intermediate user of core Copernicus productsData from space component(Sentinels & Contributing Missions)Industry player 1Industry player 2Industry player n…OrganisationCopernicus Core servicesExisting productsProvision of existing Core products suitable for Cultural Heritage purposeProvision of Core products adapted to Cultural Heritage purposeDissemination of all Copernicus products dedicated to Cultural Heritage purposeCultural Heritage platformBudget investedfor productadaptationCould be…Public organisationsIndustrial companiesAcademia 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

This option would present moderate to  strong impacts,  whether societal, economic or strategic. 
On  the  economic  side,  competitiveness  of  the  downstream  sector  would  be  strong,  and 
partnership and collaboration between Member States reinforced. However, this option would be 
quite  complex  to  implement  considering  the  great  effort  to  achieve  the  expected  process  of 
centralisation of products and data.  On the strategic level, this option would favour a  European 
leadership on Cultural Heritage questions. As for social stakes, Cultural Heritage would rather be 
strongly  valorised  and  European  knowledge  would  also  be  largely  supported.  These  results  are 
presented in the figure below. 

Figure 6: Summary of the impact evaluation’ results for option 2 

Option 3 – Creation of a new Copernicus service dedicated 
to Cultural Heritage 

Option 3 characterisation 

Option  3  aims  at  creating  a  Copernicus  Service,  in  addition  to  the  existing  ones  (e.g.  Land 
Monitoring  service,  Marine  Monitoring  service,  etc.),  which  would  be  exclusively  dedicated  to 
Cultural Heritage. The chart below summarises the scope of Option 3. 

xiii 

EconomicImpact evaluationCost of the optionsAdvantages derived from the optionsCompetitivenessEmploymentEU leadershipValorisation of CHSupport to European knowledgeSocialStrategicOption implementation processCapabilities matching•Development and operation costs•Percentage of user requirements covered by the option•Complexity of option implementation•Administrative burden•Partnership and collaboration between Member States•Enabled revenues for the downstream sector•Wider economic and societal impacts•R&D•Competitive downstream sector•Indirect and induced jobs•Direct jobs•Partnership and collaboration with third countries and IO•Data standardisation•Positioning of EU at a leader in the field of CH•Increased visibility of CH through digitisation and online access•Centralisation of data access•Academia + Education and knowledge sharingOption 2Cultural Heritage as part of oneor more existing servicesBetween EUR 58.9 M and EUR 106.1 M for 2019-2025EUR 1.5 M per yearUp to 50% fully covered14% partially coveredBetween EUR 10.8 M and EUR 15.0 M for 2019-2025Between 86.5 and 120.1 jobs supported for 2019-2025Between 123.7 and 222.7 jobs supported for 2019-2025 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Figure 7: Detailed description of option 3 

The European Commission would be funding the creation of an additional Copernicus service fully 
dedicated  to  Cultural  Heritage.  The  European  Commission  would  need  to  issue  a  Delegation 
Agreement  summarising  all  the  activities  expected  from  the  Entrusted  Entity  that  would  be  in 
charge of the Cultural Heritage service and the budget that would be dedicated to operation and 
management activities. Under option 3, the European Commission would be in charge of a long 
administrative process  going from the choice of the appointed Entrusted Entity to the signature 
of the Delegation Agreement. The Cultural Heritage service would be either  managed by one of 
the current Entrusted Entities (e.g. EEA) or by a new one.  

The creation of a new service not only implies the appointment of an Entrusted Entity, but also of 
a  consortium  of  companies,  that  would  be  in  charge  of  the  development  of  new  Cultural 
Heritage  products  whereas  the  existing  services  would  receive  additional  budgets  for  tailoring 
some of their products to Cultural Heritage needs. The Cultural Heritage user communities would 
be able to turn to a dedicated service providing specific products, data and information, together 
with  a  permanent  feed-back  loop  from  users  to  monitor  the  evolution  of  their  needs.  Such  a 
service  would  be  one-of-a-kind,  implying  that  the  more  interesting  Cultural  Heritage  products, 
data  and  information  become  available,  the  bigger  the  interest  would  be  from  the  international 
community  to  turn  to  Copernicus.  Moreover,  as  an  Entrusted  Entity  would  be  in  charge  of  the 
Copernicus Cultural Heritage service, it would benefit from additional funding to develop call for 
tenders through R&D tools in order to foster the development of Value-Added Services (VAS).  

Option 3 expected impacts 

Option 3 would provide a budget to tailor existing products to Cultural Heritage user needs but 
also funding to develop new products to respond to current needs not already covered. As such, 
up to 49.8%  of the Cultural Heritage user  requirements could be covered under this option. An 
additional  12.9%  could  potentially  be  fully  covered  thanks  to  the  availability  of  additional 
capacity through the intermediary of the setting up of a Cultural Heritage service (e.g. additional 
sources of data from airborne sensors such as UAV to access hyperspectral or lidar capabilities). 
As for option 2, 14.2% of the Cultural Heritage user requirements would also be partially covered 
by the Copernicus programme. 

xiv 

Consortium supporting the provision of Copernicus core productsPrime contractor Sub contractor 1Sub contractor 2Sub contractor …End-usersIntermediate usersData from in-situ componentUsage of core Copernicus products for the development of value-added product and service  Intermediate user of core Copernicus productsData from space component(Sentinels & Contributing Missions)New Copernicus products dedicated to Cultural Heritage purposePublic organisationPrivate organisationsAcademiaOrganisationExisting productsProvision of existing Core products suitable for Cultural Heritage purposeProvision of Core products adapted to Cultural Heritage purposeDissemination of all Copernicus products dedicated to Cultural Heritage purposeRaw dataCould be…Public organisationsIndustrial companiesAcademiaCopernicus Service dedicated to Cultural Heritage(Entrusted Entity(ies))CULTURAL HERITAGE USER COMMUNITIESBudget investedfor productadaptationCopernicus Core services 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

This option would present strong to very strong impacts, whether societal, economic or strategic. 
Indeed,  in  terms  of  economic  impacts,  the  competitiveness  of  the  downstream  sector  would  be 
very strong as well as the enabled revenues that can be expected by the downstream sector and 
the wider economic and societal impacts, which should be in the order of EUR 150 M and EUR 1 B 
respectively.  As  for  strategic  impact,  the  main  difference  with  option  2  is  the  fact  that  data 
standardisation and the positioning of the EU as a leader in the field of Cultural Heritage would 
be  even  stronger.  Similarly,  social impacts  would  be  slightly  more  developed  than  for  option  2, 
notably with a gain in importance of digitisation. As a result, this option would be more complex 
and more costly to implement than option 2, but would generate significant benefits overall. 

These results are presented in the figure below. 

Figure 8: Summary of the impact evaluation’ results for option 3 

Conclusion 

In  conclusion,  it  appears  that  the  impacts  resulting  from  option  1  would  be  drastically  different 
from  the  ones  of  option  2  and  3,  whereas  option  2  and  3  appear  to  be  closer,  with  slight 
modifications in terms of results magnitude. Nevertheless, each option encompasses advantages 
and drawbacks: 

•  Option 1 would be the most interesting in terms of the budget and legal ease; 

•  Option 2 would be the most interesting in terms of cost to benefit ratio; 

•  Option 3 would be the most interesting in terms of overall benefits generated. 

The main strength and weaknesses of each option with respect to one another are presented in 
the chart below: 

xv 

EconomicImpact evaluationCost of the optionsAdvantages derived from the optionsCompetitivenessEmploymentEU leadershipValorisation of CHSupport to European knowledgeSocialStrategicOption implementation processCapabilities matching•Development and operation costs•Percentage of user requirements covered by the option•Complexity of option implementation•Administrative burden•Partnership and collaboration between Member States•Enabled revenues for the downstream sector•Wider economic and societal impacts•R&D•Competitive downstream sector•Indirect and induced jobs•Direct jobs•Partnership and collaboration with third countries and IO•Data standardisation•Positioning of EU at a leader in the field of CH•Increased visibility of CH through digitisation and online access•Centralisation of data access•Academia + Education and knowledge sharingOption 3Creation of a new Copernicus servicededicated to Cultural HeritageEUR 14.7 M then EUR 20.9 M per yearBetween 50% & 63% fully covered14% partially coveredBetween EUR 137.6 M and EUR 191.1 M for 2019-2025Between EUR 749.5 M and EUR 1.35 B for 2019-2025Between 1.1 K and 1.5 K jobs supported for 2019-2025Between 1.6 K and 2.8 K jobs supported for 2019-2025 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Figure 9: Comparison of the three different intervention options under scrutiny 

xvi 

Option 1List of Copernicus products suitable for CH applicationsOption 2Cultural Heritage as part of oneor more existing servicesEconomicImpact evaluationOption 3Creation of a new Copernicus servicededicated to Cultural HeritageCost of the optionsAdvantages derived from the optionsCompetitivenessEmploymentEU leadershipValorisation of CHSupport to European knowledgeBetween EUR 540 K and EUR 750 K for 2019-2025Between EUR 58.9 M and EUR 106.1 M for 2019-2025SocialStrategicOption implementation processCapabilities matching•Development and operation costs•Percentage of user requirements covered by the option•Complexity of option implementation•Administrative burden•Partnership and collaboration between Member States•Enabled revenues for the downstream sector•Wider economic and societal impactsEUR 75 K per yearEUR 1.5 M per yearEUR 14.7 M then EUR 20.9 M per yearBetween 7,5 & 11% fully covered20% partially coveredUp to 50% fully covered14% partially coveredBetween 50% & 63% fully covered14% partially covered•R&D•Competitive downstream sector•Indirect and induced jobs•Direct jobsBetween 4.33 and 6.01 jobs supported for 2019-2025•Partnership and collaboration with third countries and IO•Data standardisation•Positioning of EU at a leader in the field of CH•Increased visibility of CH through digitisation and online access•Centralisation of data access•Academia + Education and knowledge sharingBetween EUR 2.95 M and EUR 5.3 M for 2019-2025Between 6.19 and 11.14 jobs supported for 2019-2025Between EUR 10.8 M and EUR 15.0 M for 2019-2025Between 86.5 and 120.1 jobs supported for 2019-2025Between 123.7 and 222.7 jobs supported for 2019-2025Between EUR 137.6 M and EUR 191.1 M for 2019-2025Between EUR 749.5 M and EUR 1.35 B for 2019-2025Between 1.1 K and 1.5 K jobs supported for 2019-2025Between 1.6 K and 2.8 K jobs supported for 2019-2025 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

1 Introduction 

1.1  Rationale for the study 

2018  has  been  selected  as  the  European  Year  of  Cultural  Heritage  to  celebrate  the  diversity  of 
Cultural  Heritage  across  Europe  and  reinforce  a  sense  of  belonging  to  a  common  European 
space3.  Cultural  Heritage  has  a  universal  value  for  humankind  as  individuals,  communities  and 
societies  that  deserve  to  be  protected  and  preserved  for  the  next  generations.  The  notion  of 
Cultural Heritage includes3: 

•  Tangible  Heritage:  various  categories  of  monuments  and  sites,  from  cultural  landscapes 
and  sacred  sites  to  archaeological  complexes,  individual  architectural  or  artistic  monuments 
and historic urban centres; 

•  Intangible  Heritage:  practices,  representations,  expressions,  knowledge,  skills  -  and  the 
associated  instruments,  objects  and  cultural  spaces  -  that  people  value.  This  includes 
language and oral traditions, performing arts, social practices and traditional craftsmanship; 

•  Natural Heritage: landscapes, flora and fauna; 

•  Digital Heritage: digital art, animation but also Heritage that has been digitalised in images, 

videos or records. 

Cultural  Heritage  (CH)  has  been  recognized  as  a  strategic  asset  for  a  sustainable  and  peaceful 
Europe4,  stimulating  the  interest  of  the  European  Union  (EU)  and  its  Member  States  in  the 
development of data and information to support Cultural Heritage conservation, monitoring and 
management. The protection and safeguarding of Cultural Heritage is also a key challenge faced 
by the  EU, protecting European Heritages from damage derived from  pollution, climate change, 
geo-hazards  and  armed  conflicts,  which  requires  very  specific  sets  of  data  and  products.  More 
than only free and open data and information relying on satellite-based imagery and in-situ data, 
the  Copernicus  programme  also  offers  state-of-the-art  models  to  be  used  for  societal  and 
environmental purposes. 

In  this  context  of  the  European  Year  of  Cultural  Heritage,  the  European  Commission  (EC)  is 
seeking  to  explore  how  its  Earth  observation  programme  Copernicus  could  provide  support  to 
Cultural Heritage communities. It is the first time that such an initiative targets an EO non-expert 
domain. 

1.2  Objectives of the study 

This  study  aims  to  support  the  European  Commission  in  its  assessment  on  the  possibility  of 
starting  an  institutional  action  for  promoting  the  use  of  Copernicus  for  Cultural  Heritage 
preservation,  monitoring  and  management.  Several  options  of  intervention  are  investigated  in 
this  study  through  the  assessment  of  high  level  impacts.  More  specifically,  the  study  has  five 
main objectives: 

•  Characterisation of Cultural Heritage value-chain;  

•  Collection of Cultural Heritage communities user needs; 

3 European Commission, consulted on May 22, 2018 [ONLINE] Available at:   https://ec.europa.eu/culture/policy/culture-policies/cultural-
heritage_en  
4  CHCFE.  Cultural  Heritage  counts  for  Europe.  2015  .[ONLINE]  see:  http://blogs.encatc.org/culturalheritagecountsforeurope/wp-
content/uploads/2015/06/CHCfE_FULL-REPORT_v2.pdf 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

•  Matching  of  Cultural  Heritage  user  needs  with  current  Copernicus  capabilities  through  the 

translation of user needs into user requirements and technical specifications;  

•  Characterisation  of  several  intervention  options  for  a  structured  Copernicus  solution  for 

Cultural Heritage; 

• 

Identification and evaluation of high level impacts derived from these options;  

•  Presentation of recommendations on the way forward in implementing an EC intervention to 

support Cultural Heritage, within the frame of the Copernicus programme. 

1.3  Taxonomy and definitions 

A  common  terminology  is  required  to  facilitate  the  reader’s  comprehension.  The  following  table 
presents  subject  matter  definitions  (non-exhaustive).  Most  in-use  terminology  relies  on  the 
taxonomy  used  by  the  European  Commission  and  by  UNESCO,  two  references  in  the  field  of 
Cultural Heritage. This taxonomy was also reviewed by external experts. 

Table 2:  Taxonomy for the study 

Term 

Definition 

Overall definitions 

Cultural Heritage  

Cultural Heritage consists of the resources inherited from the past in all forms and 
aspects  -  tangible,  intangible,  natural  and  digital  (born  digital  and  digitized), 
including  monuments,  sites, 
landscapes,  skills,  practices,  knowledge  and 
expressions of human creativity, as well as collections conserved and managed by 
public  and  private  bodies  such  as  museums,  libraries  and  archives.  It  originates 
from the interaction between people and places through time and it is constantly 
evolving.  These  resources  are  of  great  value  to  society  from  a  cultural, 
environmental,  social  and  economic  point  of  view  and  thus  their  sustainable 
management constitutes a strategic choice for the 21st century5. 

In the report, Cultural Heritage will be used to designate Tangible 
Heritage  and Natural Heritage  only, which are the two main types of 
Heritage relevant for this study. 

Digital Heritage  

Digital  Heritage  refers  to  resources  that  were  created  in  digital  form,  for 
example digital art or animation, or that have been digitalised as a way to 
preserve them (including text, images, video, and records).  

Intangible Heritage 

Natural Heritage  

Intangible Heritage refers to traditions or living expressions inherited from 
ancestors  and  passed  on  to  their  descendants,  such  as  oral  traditions, 
performing  arts,  social  practices,  rituals,  festive  events,  knowledge  and 
practices concerning nature and the universe or the knowledge and skills 
to produce traditional crafts. 

Natural Heritage refers to: 

  Natural features consisting of physical and biological formations or 
groups  of  such  formations,  which  are  of  outstanding  universal 
value from the aesthetic or scientific point of view; 

  Geological and physiographical formations and precisely delineated 
areas,  which  constitute  the  habitat  of  threatened  species  of 
animals and plants of outstanding universal value from the point of 
view of science or conservation; 

5 Council conclusions of 21 May 2014 on cultural heritage as a strategic resource for a sustainable Europe 2014/C 183/08. Available at:  
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52014XG0614(08)&from=EN  

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

  Natural  sites  or  precisely  delineated  natural  areas  of  outstanding 
universal  value  from  the  point  of  view  of  science,  conservation  or 
natural beauty.6 

Tangible  Heritage  refers  to  buildings  and  historic  places,  monuments, 
artefacts, etc., which are considered worthy of preservation for the future. 
These  include  objects  significant  to  the  archaeology,  or  architecture, 
science or technology of a specific culture.  
Tangible  Heritage  does  not  include  Movable  Cultural  Heritage  that  is  all 
Cultural  Heritage  that  constitute  objects,  such  as  paintings,  sculptures, 
coins and manuscripts. 

Value chain definitions 

A  value  chain  is  a  schematic  representation  of  how  value  is  created 
among  a  set  of  activities,  involving  several  user  communities.  The  term 
value  here  does  not  only  refer  to  the  economic  monetary  benefits  but to 
the larger value a given Cultural Heritage asset acquires by being restored 
and  open  to  everyone;  this  value  includes  for  example  cultural 
significance.7 

Tangible Heritage 

Value chain 

Segment 

A  segment  is  a  section  of  a  value  chain.  Cultural  Heritage  sites  do  not 
always run through all the segments of the value chain. 

Creation segment 

The  “Creation”  segment  of  the  Cultural  Heritage  value  chain  refers  to  all 
activities  related  to  the  discovery  of  heritage,  such  as  prospection, 
excavation  operations  and  formal  recognition  of  a  site  as  Cultural 
Heritage. 

Production segment 

The “Production” segment of the Cultural Heritage value chain refers to all 
activities  where  sites  are  monitored,  restored  and  maintenance  is 
performed for conservation and preservation purposes.  

Conservation 

Preservation 

Transmission 
segment 

Actions  that  are  undertaken  in  order  to  foster  the  protection  of  tangible 
cultural sites. 

Actions  that  are  undertaken  in  order  to  foster  the  protection  of  natural 
sites. 

The “Transmission” segment of the Cultural Heritage value chain is where 
Natural or Tangible cultural sites are prepared for public access. 

User community 

User needs definitions 

A  user  community  is  a  group  of  users  who  are  part  of  the  same 
community (e.g. site operators). Nevertheless, the same user community 
can  include  a  mix  of  governmental  and  non-governmental  organisations. 
In this context, different users that are part of the same user community 
may  have  different  needs  based  on  where  they  are  located  in  the  value 
chain  and  the  type  of  activities  carried  out  (e.g.  monitoring  of  buried 
structure versus maintenance of a tangible site), the type of environment 
they  are  interested  in  (land  versus  sea)  and  the  type  of  land  cover  they 
are  interested  in  (e.g.  grasslands,  jungles,  deserts,  coastal  areas,  urban 
areas, etc.). 

Activities  

Activities  are  the  actions  performed  by  a  user  community  within  the 
different  segments  that  compose  the  Cultural  Heritage  value  chain,  for 

1970.Basic 

6UNESCO, 
http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-562-4.pdf  
7 Burra Charter, ICOMOS Australia, 1999 

1972  World 

Texts 

the 

of 

Heritage 

Convention. 

P. 

19. 

[ONLINE] 

Available 

at: 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

example conservation and preservation of Cultural Heritage.  

Domains 

The  domains  are  the  types  of  Cultural  Heritage  that  user  communities 
work with – Tangible Heritage vs Natural Heritage, sea versus land. 

The land cover refers to the type of environment in which a user need is 
applied.  The  scope  of  the  study  considers  the  following  types  of  field  for 
Cultural Heritage8:  

  Land:  

Land cover  

o  Rural or forested areas  
o  Urban and sub-urban  
o  Scrub and grassland   
o  Mountainous/hilly regions  
o  Rainforest  
o  Tundra 
o 
o  Alluvial plain or Floodplain 

Inland waters 

  Sea: 

o  Water surface 
o  Underwater 

  Land/sea:  

o  Frozen/glacial areas  
o  Coastal areas 

High level user need 

A  high  level  user  need  is  an  overarching  statement  which  describes  the 
desire  or  wish  of  a  user.  A  high  level  user  need  is  then  a  category 
including several user needs. 

User needs 

In order to achieve their high level user needs, user communities rely on 
several  types  of  data  and  information,  which  are  referred  to  as  user 
needs. 

User requirements 

requirements  are 

User 
into  desired 
the  user  needs 
performances  and  attributes  (e.g.  periodicity,  area  extension,  area 
location, minimum detail). 

translated 

Technical 
specifications  

Technical  specifications  are  the  translation  of  user  requirements  into 
specific  requirements  in  terms  of  sensors,  spatial  resolution  and 
wavelength.  

Terminology for impact evaluation 

Full  Time  Equivalent 

(FTE)  

A full-time equivalent is a unit to measure employed persons or students 
in a way that makes them comparable although they may work or study a 
different number of hours per week. 

GDP  (Gross  Domestic 

Product) 

The  GDP  is  the  monetary  value  of  all  the  finished  goods  and  services 
produced within a country's borders in a specific time period. 

GVA 

(Gross  Value 

Added) 

The  GVA  is  a  productivity  metric  that  measures  the  contribution  to  an 
economy, producer, sector or region. It provides a monetary value for the 
amount  of  goods  and  services  that  have  been  produced,  less  the  cost  of 
all inputs that are directly attributable to that production. 

Spillover 

Spillover  is  an  economic  term  referring  to  the  indirect  impact  a  given 
investment  or  infrastructure  may  have  on  the  economy  and  society, 
stimulating innovation and knowledge creation.  

Value  Added  Services  Value  Added  Services  here  refer  to  services  and  products  resulting  from  the 

8 Parcak, S., 2009. Satellite Remote Sensing for Archaeology. Routledge. New York, United States. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

(VAS) 

exploitation  of  Earth  observation  data  being  processed  and  turned  into  geo-
information products, usable by the final users.  

1.4  Introduction to Cultural Heritage 

Cultural    Heritage    is    a    sign    or    a    symbol    created    by,    or    given    meaning    by    human  
activity,    that    is    intentionally    protected,    conserved    or    revived,    instead    of    being    left    to  
natural  decay,  oblivion,  or destruction. The purpose is the transmission to future generations of 
its  values  (i.e.  cultural,  historical,  aesthetic,      archaeological,      scientific,      ethnological,   
anthropological      value),      which      are      considered  relevant  by  a  community  or  group  of 
reference9.    Cultural  Heritage  encompasses  a  broad  spectrum  of  resources  inherited  from  the 
past  in  all  forms  and  aspects.  Cultural  Heritage  can  be  distinguished  as  Tangible  Heritage  (e.g. 
historical  buildings,  archaeological  sites,  etc.),  Tangible  Movable  Heritage  (e.g.  paintings), 
Intangible  Heritage  (e.g.  cultural  practices,  language),  Natural  Heritage  (e.g.  landscape,  flora 
and fauna) and Digital Heritage (resources that were created in digital form, for example digital 
art or animation, or that have been digitalised as a way to preserve them, including text, images, 
video, and records)10.  

Cultural  Heritage  has  gained  an  increasing  recognition  as  a  catalyst  for  social  and  economic 
development  and  as  such,  has  witnessed  an  important  conceptual  evolution  and  policy 
developments  at  both  European  and  international  levels11.  This  evolution  is  the  consequence  of 
the  important  changes  that  have  been  faced  by  the  global  cultural  landscape  over  the  last  few 
decades12. From the digital revolution, to the development of new technologies, and to social and 
political events that have caused a series of conflicts, multiple factors have recently affected the 
Cultural Heritage ecosystem. All in all, this ecosystem is impacted by technological developments 
that  offer  new  opportunities  for  professionals  and  citizens  on  the  one  hand,  while  on  the  other 
hand,  Natural  and  Tangible  Heritage  are  being  threatened  by  anthropogenic  actions  (e.g. 
vandalism,  conflicts  etc.),  geo-hazards  and  the  effects  of  climate  change  (e.g.  earthquakes, 
landslides, storms, etc.). Cultural Heritage is therefore currently challenged mainly on two levels: 
first, to address these threats and strengthen its protection measures of sites, and secondly, to 
seize new technologies to foster Cultural Heritage development and diffusion.  

When  considering  Europe,  Cultural  Heritage  is  characterised  by  a  rich  and  diverse  mosaic  of 
cultural  and  creative  expressions:  with 453  registered  sites,  Europe  as  a  region  accounts  for 
almost half  of UNESCO’s  World  Heritage  List13.  As  such,  culture,  and  in  particular  Cultural 
Heritage, has become an integral part of the internal and external action of the European Union.  

While Cultural Heritage policy is primarily the responsibility of Member States and of regional and 
local  authorities,  the  EU  has  been  increasingly  committed  to  safeguarding  and  enhancing 
Europe's  Cultural  Heritage  through  a  number  of  policies  and  programmes.  As  Article  3.3  of  the 
Lisbon  Treaty  states:  “The  Union  shall  respect  its  rich  cultural  and  linguistic  diversity,  and  [...] 
ensure  that  Europe’s  cultural  heritage  is  safeguarded  and  enhanced”.  The  Treaty  on  the 
Functioning of the European Union gives the Commission the specific tasks of contributing to the 
blossoming  of  culture  in  the  Member  States,  while  respecting  their  diversity,  and  bringing  "the 
common cultural heritage to the fore" (art. 167 TFEU)14.  In order to assist and complement the 

9  Creative  Europe  Call  EACEA  32/2017  and  EACEA  35/2017  -  Guidelines,  p.  7.  Available  at :  https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/sites/eacea-
site/files/3._guidelines_coop_2018_eacea_32_2017_and_35_2017_0.pdf 
10 “Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and th e 
Committee  of  the  Regions  -  Towards  an  integrated  approach  to  cultural  heritage  for  Europe”  22/07/2014,  [ONLINE]  Available  at 
http://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/culture/library/publications/2014-heritage-communication_en.pdf 
11 Daniel Théron. Heritage and beyond. Daniel.2009.  Council of Europe Publishing  
12 
Europe' 
http://blogs.encatc.org/culturalheritagecountsforeurope/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/CHCfE_FULL-REPORT_v2.pdf 
13  European  Commission  -  Fact  Sheet.  European  Year  of  Cultural  Heritage  2018.  Brussels,  7  December  2017  [ONLINE]  Available  at:  
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-5066_en.htm 
14  European Commission, 2018 [ONLINE] Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/culture/policy/culture-policies/cultural-heritage_en 

[ONLINE] 

Available 

Heritage 

(CHCFE) 

'Cultural 

Europea 

Nostra. 

Counts 

2015 

at: 

for 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

actions of the Member States in preserving and promoting Europe's Cultural Heritage, the EU has 
carried a large range of policies, programmes and funding15.  

Before understanding the context in which this study is undertaken, it is necessary to understand 
what stands behind the definition of Cultural Heritage in the European context, as it has been an 
evolving term and a field which is facing new challenges.  

1.4.1  From  Cultural  Heritage  conservation  to  Cultural 

Heritage valorisation 

The  concept  of  “Cultural  Heritage”  has  evolved  since  World  War  II.  The  twentieth  century  was 
characterised  by  an  increasingly  broader  understanding  of  what  is  to  be  considered  as  Cultural 
Heritage  and  by  the  international  recognition  of  its  universal  value  and  significance.  While 
Heritage  was  initially  related  to  the  conservation  of  buildings,  monuments  and  archaeological 
sites  from  a  national  perspective,  the  1972  UNESCO  Convention  on  World  Heritage  carried  the 
first  deep  paradigm  shift  for  the  Heritage  community.  A  timeline  summarising  this  process  is 
displayed in the chart below. 

Figure 10: “Cultural Heritage” since World War II, an evolving concept (1/2) 16  

Heritage  thus  became  a  matter  for  the  international  community,  leading  to  further  cooperation 
for  preservation  and  conservation  of  what  could  be  considered  “Humankind’s  property”17.  It 
should  be  considered  that  this  phenomenon  happened  within  the  context  of  the  third  industrial 
revolution,  urban  renewal  and  the  development  of  new  technologies.  In  this  context,  the 
scientific community needs to be alerted to the risks of changes linked to these events, as well as 
discover unknown sites and new technical possibilities to monitor them.   

15  European  Commission.  Mapping  of  Cultural  Heritage  actions  in  European  Union  policies,  programmes  and  activities.  2017.  [ONLINE] 
Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/culture/sites/culture/files/2014-heritage-mapping-version-2017_en.pdf 
16 Daniel Théron. Heritage and beyond. Daniel.2009.  Council of Europe Publishing 
17 Ibid.  

6 

1950s1960s1970s1980s1990sCultural Heritage as national property, pride and responsability«WorldHeritage» as mankind property, pride and responsibility with a universal value  Preserving cultural monuments, historic buildings, archaeological sites and monumentsIntroducing the concept of «World Heritage» Integration of the landscape approach and the concept of «sustainability»First «rescue movement» to counter the impact of the industrialization and urban renewal DEFINITION & GOALSCONTEXTParadigm shift towards a   broader definition and values Main focus on conservation of Cultural Heritage  Preserving Cultural Masterpieces in times of war 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Figure 11: “Cultural Heritage” since World War II, an evolving concept (2/2) 

By  the  end  of  the  Cold  War  and  the  official  birth  of  the  “European  Union”  in  1993,  the  second 
paradigm shift had taken place. Based on an enlargement of the significance carried by Heritage, 
it  evolved  from  being  considered  for  its  intrinsic  value  (as  a  piece  of  history  and  of  value  for 
itself)  to  a  wider  understanding  of  the  potential  behind  Heritage  in  terms  of  institutional 
(universal pride and social cohesion, cultural life), instrumental (education) and economic value 
(development  of  activities  and  tourism).  A  new  integrated  approach  taken  by  the  Council  of 
Europe  and  the  European  Commission  defined  a  transdisciplinary  understanding  of  Cultural 
Heritage that would not only integrate the notion of conservation of Heritage for itself, but would 
rather focus on the valorisation of Heritage as a means for the fostering of European democracy 
and citizenship, to strengthen intercultural dialogue among European countries, raise the profile 
of  the  Heritage  professionals  acting  as  catalysts  on  creation  and  innovation,  and  last  but  not 
least, as a means to carry sustainable economic development.   

This  evolving  concept  is  apparent  through  the  evolution  of  international  and  European  legal 
frameworks.  As  the  figure  below  shows,  key  conventions  carried  the  integration  of  new 
understandings of what Cultural Heritage is and how it should be protected and fostered. Within 
the European context,  specific regulations were designed in support of Member States to foster 
the European network  of Cultural Heritage, which led to the recent development of the new EU 
Cultural Heritage “integrated approach” of Cultural Heritage for Europe18.  

18 Daniel Théron. Heritage and beyond. Daniel.2009.  Council of Europe Publishing 

7 

2000s2010sCultural Heritage as shared identity and responsibility with intrinsic, instrumental, institutional and economic values  DEFINITION & GOALSCONTEXTIntroducing the concept of «Heritage Community», «Valorisation of Cultural Heritage» and «Common Heritage of Europe» Objectives defined in terms of «sustainable economic development», «intercultural dialogue», CH as a catalyst for innovation and creation» and «CH as a mean for democratrization, citizenship and social cohesion» Broader focus on the “valorisation” of Cultural heritage  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Figure 12: Considering Cultural Heritage: International and European legal evolution 

Among a large development of policies and regulations, it is worth noting some key steps which 
helped to define the EU approach to Cultural Heritage such as:  

The  Faro  Convention19,  signed  in  2005,  provided  a  definition  of  a  European  “shared  identity” 
and “shared responsibility” through culture, hence following the will of Jean Monnet, a founding 
father of the European Union. While the aim of the 1972 UNESCO Word Heritage Convention was 
to  value  major  items  as  humankind’s  Heritage,  which  was  a  first  necessary  milestone,  the 
European  approach  instead  presented  the  first  holistic  definition  of  Cultural  Heritage.  The  Faro 
Convention embraces cultural diversity not only through its intrinsic value, but mostly through its 
impacts on society, the need for sustainable management and the way it conveys a driving force 
for dialogue, democracy and peace in Europe and worldwide. The preservation of Heritage cannot 
be a finality in itself but needs to “become an  object of  furthering well-being of individuals and 
the wider expectations of Society”.  

2014 is considered a time of “policy momentum20”, during which a series of far-reaching policy 
documents adopted by the Council of the European Union were produced, namely:   

 

 

 

“The Conclusions on Cultural Heritage as a Strategic Resource for a Sustainable Europe”, 
adopted on 21 May 2014; 
“The  Conclusions  on  Participatory  Governance  of  Cultural  Heritage”,  adopted  on  25 
November 2014; 
“The  Communication  towards  an  Integrated  Approach  to  Cultural  Heritage  for  Europe”, 
adopted on the 20th May 2014 and which seeks to “combine the promotion and protection 
of cultural diversity, democratic governance and democratic innovation”21.  

On  this  basis,  policy  collaboration  on  Cultural  Heritage  among  EU  Member  States  has  been 
pursued and has permitted a continuous development of Cultural Heritage and  its impact on the 
European economy and society, in 12 strategic fields (as illustrated in the figure below), 4 main 
European funds and 3 key EU actions 22.  

19 Daniel Théron. Heritage and beyond. Daniel.2009.  Council of Europe Publishing 
20  John  Bold  and  Robert  Pickard  An  integrated  approach  to  cultural  heritage  -  The  Council  of  Europe’s  Technical  Co-operation  and 
Consultancy  Programme  (2018)  [ONLINE]  see:  https://book.coe.int/eur/en/cultural-heritage/7537-an-integrated-approach-to-cultural-
heritage-the-council-of-europes-technical-co-operation-and-consultancy-programme.html 
21  John  Bold  and  Robert  Pickard  An  integrated  approach  to  cultural  heritage  -  The  Council  of  Europe’s  Technical  Co-operation  and 
Consultancy  Programme  (2018)  [ONLINE]  see:  https://book.coe.int/eur/en/cultural-heritage/7537-an-integrated-approach-to-cultural-
heritage-the-council-of-europes-technical-co-operation-and-consultancy-programme.html 
22  European  Commission.  Mapping  of  Cultural  Heritage  actions  in  European  Union  policies,  programmes  and  activities.  2017.  [ONLINE] 
Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/culture/sites/culture/files/2014-heritage-mapping-version-2017_en.pdf 

8 

1954The Hague Convention Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of a War 1970197220052003UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural PropertyUNESCO World Heritage Convention Warsaw  Conference of the Ministers UNESCO Convention for the protection and promotion of Diversity of Cultural Expression UNESCO Convention for Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage  1995Helsinki Conference of the Ministers 20012000Florence Convention –European Landscape Convention 2005FARO Convention Convention on the value of Cultural Heritage for Society PortorozConference of the Ministers UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage1993Treaty of Maastricht European Union Treaty 1957Treaty of Rome Birth of the European Economic Community 1996Summit of Vienna 1985Granada Convention on Architectural Heritage 1992Valletta  Convention on Archaeological Heritage 2014EU Communication of the integrated approach for Cultural Heritage  
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Figure 13: EU actions in Cultural Heritage affected 12 strategic fields of action 23 

To  conduct  programmes  and  policies  applying  to  Cultural  Heritage,  Cultural  Heritage  user 
communities can have  access to  EU  funds that cover a wide range  of  actors and activities from 
the public, the non-for-profit and the private sector:   

 
 
 
 

The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF);  
The European Social Fund (ESF); 
The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD); 
The European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF).  

More specifically, Cultural Heritage management has become one of the investment priorities for 
the EU structural and investment funds. In the 2007-2013 period, out of a total of EUR 347  B24 
for  cohesion  policy,  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund  allocated  EUR  3.2  B25  for  the 
protection  and  preservation  of  cultural  heritage,  EUR  2.2  B26  for  the  development  of  cultural 
infrastructure and EUR 553 M27 for cultural services, which also benefited Cultural Heritage28. 

Last but not least, the EU has established three specific actions dedicated to Cultural Heritage in 
order to foster its development and protection: 

 
 
 

The European Heritage Days, and in 2018, the European Heritage Year; 
The EU Prize for Cultural Heritage; 
The European Heritage Label (EHL).  

23  European  Commission.  Mapping  of  Cultural  Heritage  actions  in  European  Union  policies,  programmes  and  activities.  August  2017. 
[ONLINE] Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/culture/sites/culture/files/2014-heritage-mapping-version-2017_en.pdf 
24  European  Commission.  Supporting  cultural  heritage.  2018  [ONLINE]  Available  at:  https://ec.europa.eu/culture/policy/culture-
policies/cultural-heritage_en 
25 Ibid. 
26 Ibid 
27 Ibid.  
28 Ibid. 

9 

CULTURE EDUCATIONDIGITAL CULTURAL RESEARCH AND INNOVATIONSCIENCECOHESION POLICYEU ACTIONS ON CH INTERNAL MARKET, INDUSTRY TOURIS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP COMBATTING ILLICIT TRADE OF CULTURAL GOODS COMPETITION COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY EXTERNAL RELATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENT POLICY  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

To  summarize,  the  notion  of  Cultural  Heritage  has  been  an  evolving  concept  which  has  been 
taking  an  increasingly  important  role  in  the  EU  development.  The  aim  of  the  EU  is  to  generate 
political  will  to  foster  the  potential  behind its large  range  of  sites  and  monuments,  to  seize  the 
opportunities  presented  by  new  technologies  and  eventually,  to  be  capable  of  facing  the 
challenges brought by both climate change and anthropogenic risks.  

1.5  Impacts of Cultural Heritage 

1.5.1  Economic impacts 

In the  European Union, the government expenditure on  recreation, culture and religion account 
for about 1%  of the  GDP29 and about 2.2%  of  the total EU government expenditures30. Though 
Cultural Heritage is only part of what culture entails, it implies that its economic impact is non-
negligible31.  However,  Cultural  Heritage  has  the  specificity  that  it  may  take  a  long  time  before 
having a return on investment32. An analysis of the Gross Value Added (GVA) helps understand 
the  magnitude  of  the  impact  of  Cultural  Heritage.  The  GVA  is  defined  as  the  “output  (at  basic 
prices)  minus  intermediate  consumption  (at  purchaser  prices).  The  sum  of  GVA  over  all 
industries  or  sectors  plus  taxes  on  products  minus  subsidies  on  products  gives  gross  domestic 
product (GDP)”33. The GVA here includes the goods and services attributable to Cultural Heritage 
(e.g. revenues from the exploitation of touristic sites).  

When  looking  at  the  GVA  resulting  from  Cultural  Heritage-related  activities  (e.g.  conservation, 
maintenance,  management,  and  exhibition)  as  well  as  expenditures  resulting  from  touristic 
activities  in  the  UK  (which  is  the  country  that  has  performed  the  most  advanced  impact 
assessments  on  Cultural  Heritage),  in  particular  Scotland  and  Wales,  it  accounts  for  between 
1.4% and 1.9% of the country’s GVA34. Besides, it should be noted that about half of this GVA is 
usually directly attributable to the expenditures linked to tourism35. This strong impact of tourism 
can be explained by the fact that, according to 2/3 of European citizens, the presence of Cultural 
Heritage  is  a  determining  factor  in  their  choice  of  a  holiday  destination36  and  that  Europe  is  a 
privileged destination for tourists37. As a result, Cultural Heritage in Europe generates about EUR 
300  B  of  yearly  GVA38.  When  it  comes  to  Natural  Heritage,  taking  the  example  of  the  Natura 
2000  network,  which  regroups  European  protected  areas  whose  biodiversity  should  be 
preserved39,  it  appears  that  the  benefits  generated  by  Natural  sites  are  considerable:  direct 
yearly benefits resulting from Natura 2000 sites amount to between EUR 200 B and EUR 300 B 
and  recreational  benefits  to  between  EUR  5  B  and  EUR  9  B40.  These  Natura  2000  sites  are 
already  monitored  by  Copernicus  through  the  Land  service  and  the  Copernicus  programme  can 
already  support  several  activities  related  to  Cultural  Heritage  (as  presented  in  section  4  – 
Copernicus capabilities in response to user requirements). 

CHCFE 

Cultural 

heritage 

Consortium, 

29 Eurostat website. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/DDN-20170807-1 
30 Eurostat website. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database 
31  European  Commission,  2016,  Towards  an  EU  strategy  for  international  cultural  relations  (Online).  Available  at:  http://eur -
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016JC0029&from=EN 
32 
(Online). 
2015, 
http://blogs.encatc.org/culturalheritagecountsforeurope//wp-content/uploads/2015/06/CHCfE_FULL-REPORT_v2.pdf 
33 Eurostat Website. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Glossary:Gross_value_added 
34 Note: The UK is the most advanced country in terms of Cultural Heritage impact assessment. As such, examples from the UK have  been 
used to emphasise the potential impact of Cultural Heritage in monetary terms. 
35 The Social and Economic Value of Cultural Heritage: literature review by Cornelia Dümcke and Mikhail Gnedovsky EENC Paper, Ju ly 2013 
[ONLINE] Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3a70/d26f9adf6b277216b8f3acf7909927bf2bc5.pdf 
36 European Commission, 2017, Special Eurobarometer 466: Cultural Heritage 
37 
(Online). 
2015, 
http://blogs.encatc.org/culturalheritagecountsforeurope//wp-content/uploads/2015/06/CHCfE_FULL-REPORT_v2.pdf 
38 Nypan, T., A proposal for a design to develop European statistics on the socio-economic contributions of the physical cultural heritage 
(Online). Available at: http://ehhf.eu/sites/default/files/DESIGN%20FOR%20DEVELOPING_FINAL_june.pdf 
39 European Commission website. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/index_en.htm 
40  European  Commission,  2013,  The 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/ENV-12-018_LR_Final1.pdf 

the  Natura  2000  Network 

economic  benefits  of 

(Online).  Available 

Consortium, 

Available 

Available 

heritage 

Cultural 

Europe 

Europe 

Counts 

Counts 

CHCFE 

at: 

at: 

at: 

for 

for 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

The  evolution  of  a  GVA  in  a  sector  is  directly  linked  to  employment.  Two  types  of  jobs  can  be 
concerned:  (i)  direct  jobs,  which  refer  to  all  employment  positions  created  as  a  result  of  the 
intervention  of  the  EC  with  Copernicus  in  favour  of  Cultural  Heritage.  As  such,  it  comprises  all 
jobs that are linked to  the use of  Earth  Observation (EO)  or of  Geospatial Information Systems 
(GIS) for Cultural Heritage, also called the downstream sector; (ii) indirect jobs, which refer to all 
employment positions created as a result of the use of products and services made available by 
the  downstream  sector  on  Cultural  Heritage  (e.g.  in  the  field  of  conservation-related 
construction;  repair  and  maintenance;  cultural  tourism,  but  also  small  and  medium-sized 
enterprises  (SMEs)  and  start-ups,  in  the  creative  industries41)  as  well  as  induced  jobs  that  are 
jobs created to support the spending of people (e.g. tourists) on Cultural Heritage.  

The Decision on a European Year for Cultural Heritage (2018) from the European Parliament and 
the Council has the goal to “enhance the contribution of Europe's cultural heritage to society and 
the  economy,  through  its  direct  and  indirect  economic  potential,  which  includes  the  capacity  to 
underpin the cultural and creative sectors, including small and medium-sized enterprises, and to 
inspire  creation  and  innovation,  to  promote  sustainable  development  and  tourism,  to  enhance 
social cohesion and to generate long-term employment”42. As of 2009, there were about 306,000 
people  employed  in  the  Cultural  Heritage  sector  (administration,  research  institutes  and 
businesses  executing  restoration  or  maintenance  works  on  Cultural  Heritage  objects/sites)  in 
Europe  and  7.8  million  jobs  induced  in  other  sectors  by  Cultural  Heritage-related  activities:  for 
each  Full  Time  Equivalent  (FTE)  job  in  the  field  of  Cultural  Heritage,  about  27  induced  jobs  are 
created in other sectors, which is far above most industrial domains43. It has been estimated that 
FTE jobs in the Built Heritage sector represent on average between 1% and 2% of the employed 
population  in  Europe44.  At  the  scale  of  France,  a  country  containing  several  heritage  sites  and 
monuments,  it  is  estimated  that  every  10,000  visitors  of  Cultural  Heritage  sites  enable  the 
support  of  1.15  full-time  jobs  and  0.15  part-time  job  related  to  Heritage  institutions45.  These 
values  emphasise  the  impact  of  tourism  on  employment  and  therefore  the  importance  of  the 
preservation  of  Natural  Heritage  sites  and  the  conservation  of  Cultural  Heritage  buildings.  This 
impact  of  Cultural  Heritage  on  job  creation  is also  directly  felt  by  European  citizens,  as  79%  of 
them  agree  with  the  fact  that  Cultural  Heritage-related  activities  have  the  ability  to  foster 
employment46.  

Besides the impact  on  employment, Cultural Heritage  can positively contribute to the quality of 
life  of  European  citizens  through  a  regeneration  of  its  environment.  The  impact  of  Cultural 
Heritage  in  a  territory  tends  to  be  measured  in  economic  terms  (e.g.  in  Wales,  the  historical 
environment  is  assumed  to  be  the  source  for  20%  of  the  tourism  of  the  country47),  but  other 
variables, taking into account more globally the impact on a  city’s dynamic, are  key too.  These 
are especially interesting in the sense that local public authorities integrate  such considerations 
in  their  cultural  policy.  The  economic  benefits  of  tourism  indeed  have  a  wide  reach:  beyond 
Cultural  Heritage  structures  and  tourism-related  businesses  (e.g.  restaurants,  housing),  the 
development  of  a  territory  globally  profits  from  the  attraction  of  visitors:  rise  of  the  “brand”  of 
the  city,  creative  industries  development,  indirect  job  creation,  investments,  community 
cohesion,  preservation  of  broader  areas  (the  conservation  of  a  Cultural  Heritage  site  implies 
often  harmonious  and  preserved  surroundings),  diversification  and  increase  in  quality  of 
education  programmes,  etc.  Among  these,  urban  rehabilitation  is  key.  For  instance,  there  has 
been  an  action  programme  for  urban  rehabilitation  in  Oporto,  Portugal,  which  received  both 
public and private funds as part of its territorial strategy: the rehabilitation was accompanied by 

2015, 

CHCFE 

CHCFE 

Counts 

Cultural 

Heritage 

Consortium, 

Consortium, 

41 
(Online). 
http://blogs.encatc.org/culturalheritagecountsforeurope//wp-content/uploads/2015/06/CHCfE_FULL-REPORT_v2.pdf 
42 Decision (EU) 2017/864 of the European parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 on a European Year of Cultural Heritage (2018) 
(Online). Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017D0864&from=EN 
43 
(Online). 
http://blogs.encatc.org/culturalheritagecountsforeurope//wp-content/uploads/2015/06/CHCfE_FULL-REPORT_v2.pdf 
44 The Social and Economic Value of Cultural Heritage: literature review by Cornelia Dümcke and Mikhail Gnedovsky EENC Paper, July 2013 
[ONLINE] Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3a70/d26f9adf6b277216b8f3acf7909927bf2bc5.pdf 
45 Greffe, X., 2004, Is heritage an asset or a liability?, Journal of Cultural Heritage, 5(3), pp. 301-309. 
46 European Commission, 2017, Special Eurobarometer 466: Cultural Heritage 
47 The Social and Economic Value of Cultural Heritage: literature review by Cornelia Dümcke and Mikhail Gnedovsky EENC Paper, Ju ly 2013 
[ONLINE] Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3a70/d26f9adf6b277216b8f3acf7909927bf2bc5.pdf 

Available 

Available 

heritage 

Cultural 

Europe 

Europe 

Counts 

2015, 

at: 

at: 

for 

for 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

the development of new commercial activities as well as the building of touristic accommodation 
and  facilities  in  order  to  revitalise  both  historic  buildings  and  the  public  space48.  Based  on 
literature, the alignment of Cultural Heritage conservation and city regeneration can be summed 
up by the notion of “integrated conservation approach”, which designates the local economic and 
social development induced by a Cultural Heritage conservation plan. 

The  different  activities  related  to  Cultural  Heritage  conservation,  can  be  supported  by  satellite 
imagery  and  in  particular  by  Copernicus  data  and  information.  Indeed,  there  could  be  cost 
reduction  for  site  managers  as  they  could  replace  current  costly  activities  by  satellite  imagery. 
This can be illustrated with the case study of the ITACA project for Cultural Heritage. This project 
aimed  at  supporting  the  work  of  archaeologists  and  managers  of  Cultural  Heritage  in  coastal 
areas  by  providing  them  with  a  set  of  tools  facilitating  their  activities  (e.g.  investigations, 
monitoring, operations, risk management). More precisely, two services have been developed: a 
location and monitoring service, aimed at identifying shapes; and a management and operation 
service,  aimed  at  sharing  information  on  the  management  of  underwater  sites.  These  services 
had the aim to help monitor ship wrecks, ruins and historical artefacts now submerged as well as 
searching  for  potential  ancient  ship  wrecks.  Such  activities  are  supported  by  bathymetry  data, 
maps of underwater currents, sea level changes or coastal erosion information. The final result is 
not the replacement of on-site staff in charge of the previously mentioned activities but the gain 
in time and thus in expenses linked to coastal Cultural Heritage activities49. Indeed, it has been 
estimated that satellite imagery in the case of ITACA could help save about 50% of the cost of a 
normal  discovery/monitoring  campaign;  this is  non-negligible  when  one  takes  into  account  that 
the  cost  of  a  discovery/monitoring  campaign  is  of  EUR  423,800  for  20  days  diving,  with  the 
biggest expense being ship rental50. Thanks to satellite imagery, and thus anticipated knowledge 
of the area under study, the latter cost could be drastically reduced.  

1.5.2  Societal impacts 

The Decision on a European Year for Cultural Heritage (2018) from the European Parliament and 
the  Council  highlights  the  fact  that  dedicating  a  year  to  Cultural  heritage  should  help  “promote 
cultural  heritage  as  a  source  of  inspiration  for  contemporary  creation  and  innovation,  and 
highlight  the  potential  for  cross-fertilisation  and  stronger  interaction  between  the  cultural 
heritage  sector  and  other  cultural  and  creative  sectors”51.  Cultural  Heritage  can  indeed  be  a 
catalyser for  creativity by fostering the development of SMEs in the field of tourism capitalising 
on  cultural  sites,  by  supporting  individuals  in  engaging  in  artistic  actions  or  by  incentivising 
application  developers  to  create  Value  Added  Services  (VAS)  in  the  field  of  Cultural  Heritage 
management,  conservation  or  exhibition.  This,  in  the  end,  plays  a  major  role  in  the  support  to 
development  at  European  level  as  stated  in  the  Cultural  and  Creative  Cities  report:  “Culture  is 
understood  to  be  a  key  driver  of  growth  and  job  creation,  enhancing  creativity  and  innovation 
through  processes  of  cross-fertilisation.  Culture  furthermore  fosters  a  sense  of  belonging  and 
cohesion among citizens; improves quality of life and the attractiveness of cities and regions for 
citizens,  tourists,  businesses  and  investors;  and  ultimately  promotes  peace,  inter-cultural 
dialogue and socio-economic development within and beyond national borders”52. 

For  instance,  the  research,  innovation  and  development  of  techniques  of  conservation  and 
preservation  of  Cultural  Heritage  sites  has  a  beneficial  impact  also  on  the  field  itself.  More 
particularly, the increasing use of space technologies for the detection, monitoring, preservation 
and  conservation  activities  related  to  Cultural  Heritage  has  been  disruptive  for  the  field  -  it 
allowed  Cultural  Heritage  communities  to  abandon  the  systematic  use  of  techniques  that  have 

2015, 

Getting 

cultural 

European 

Commission, 

48 
https://www.kowi.de/Portaldata/2/Resources/horizon2020/coop/H2020-Report-Expert-Group-Cultural-Heritage.pdf 
49 ITACA Report Summary. Available at : https://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/196660_en.html 
50 Pavone, R., Tiliacos, E. & Ciccarelli, S., 2014, Economic benefits expected from Earth observation applications. The case of  the EU FP7 
ITACA project (Online). Available at: http://www.golfpeople.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/IAC-2014-Paper_Draft_V.2.pdf 
51 Decision (EU) 2017/864 of the European parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 on a European Year of Cultural Heritage (2018) 
(Online). Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017D0864&from=EN 
52 
http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC107331/kj0218783enn.pdf 

Commission, 

to  work 

European 

Available 

Available 

(Online). 

(Online). 

Creative 

heritage 

Cultural 

Monitor 

Europe 

2017, 

Cities 

and 

The 

at: 

at: 

for 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

proved to pose a risk to the integrity of Heritage at the profit of non-invasive techniques allowed 
by remote sensing. But this goes even further than replacing potentially damaging techniques as 
it  also  creates  new  monitoring  opportunities  that  did  not  exist  before.  These  apply  to  the 
detection  of  underground  sites,  to  the  decision-making  with  regards  to  excavation,  to  the 
monitoring  of  the  site  for  preservation  and  conservation  purposes  and  to  the  development  of 
activities surrounding the exposition of the site to general public and to  scientific research.  The 
field  thus  directly  benefits  from  the  development  of  innovations  and  the  disposal  of  technical 
tools  to  enrich  the  current  procedures.  For  instance,  the  CORDIS  “Heritage  at  Risk”  report 
emphasised  how  critical  the  safeguarding  of  Cultural  Heritage  from  neglect,  pollution,  natural 
hazards and climate change is for the future generations. As a result, several projects have been 
launched  capitalising  on  space  technologies  to  protect  Heritage:  for  instance,  the  HERITAGE 
PLUS  project  under  FP7,  which  was  comprised  of  three  transnational  initiatives,  had  the  aim  to 
“identify  vulnerable  sites”  and  to  offer  “practical  manuals  on  threats  for  policy-makers,  global 
organisations and NGOs”53. 

The Decision on a European Year for Cultural Heritage (2018) from the European Parliament and 
the  Council  also  reminds  that  “The  ideals,  principles  and  values  embedded  in  Europe's  cultural 
heritage constitute a shared source of remembrance, understanding, identity, dialogue, cohesion 
and creativity for Europe”54. In parallel, several studies emphasise that an efficient management 
of  Cultural  Heritage  can  support  social inclusion  and  cohesion,  foster  community  empowerment 
or help shape the identity of a territory55. Indeed, Cultural Heritage has a strong role to play in 
the enhancement of a cohesive community feeling in Europe. 

According to consultation with citizens from the European Union, over 4/5 think Cultural Heritage 
is  important  to  them,  to  their  local  community,  and  to  their  region,  and  over  90%  feel  it  is 
important for their country. Moreover, 80% are proud of the Cultural Heritage from their country 
or region and 70% feel pride of the Cultural Heritage from another European country or region 56. 
Such percentages  reflect the actions of the  European Union (under Article 167 of the Treaty  on 
the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)) that tries to protect and foster cultural diversity 
between  EU  Member  States  and  in  parallel  works  on  emphasizing  that  there  is  a  common 
European  Cultural  Heritage.  In  that  sense,  the  European  Heritage  Label,  which  is  awarded  to 
Heritage sites that contribute to the European culture, history and building of the EU, convey the 
ideas  that  the  labelled  sites  share  common  symbols  and  heritage57.  Besides,  Cultural  Heritage 
sites have a social impact as they can work as community hubs where European or international 
citizens interact,  create  networks,  and  thus  create  ties58  (e.g.  an  open  and  facilitated  access  to 
Heritage sites for all audiences can help break down social barriers59).  

All  this,  in  the  end,  leads  to  70%  of  European  citizens  acknowledging  the  fact  that  Cultural 
Heritage  can  enhance  the  feeling  of  belonging  to  a  European  community  and  80%  considering 
that  the  diversity  of  the  European  Cultural  Heritage  makes  it  unique  and  gives  it  a  specific 
value60.  This  is  key  as  cohesion  is  usually  built  on  the  sharing  of  common  feelings,  values  and 
ideas.  

53  CORDIS  website.  Available  at:  https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/400947-heritage-at-risk-eu-research-and-innovation-for-a-more-
resilient-cultural-heritage_en.html 
54 Decision (EU) 2017/864 of the European parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 on a European Year of  Cultural Heritage (2018) 
(Online). Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017D0864&from=EN 
55 The Social and Economic Value of Cultural Heritage: literature review by Cornelia Dümcke and Mikhail Gnedovsky EENC Paper, Ju ly 2013 
[ONLINE] Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3a70/d26f9adf6b277216b8f3acf7909927bf2bc5.pdf 
56 European Commission, 2017, Special Eurobarometer 466: Cultural Heritage 
57  European  Heritage  Label,  2016,  Panel  Report  on  Monitoring  (Online).  Available  at:  https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-
europe/sites/creative-europe/files/ehl-report-2016_en.pdf 
58 Murzyn-Kupisz, M. & Działek, J., 2013, Cultural heritage in building and enhancing social capital. Journal 
of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, pp. 35-54 
59 The Social and Economic Value of Cultural Heritage: literature review by Cornelia Dümcke and Mikhail Gnedovsky EENC Paper, Ju ly 2013 
[ONLINE] Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3a70/d26f9adf6b277216b8f3acf7909927bf2bc5.pdf 
60 European Commission, 2017, Special Eurobarometer 466: Cultural Heritage 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

1.5.3  Environmental impacts 

The Decision on a European Year for Cultural Heritage (2018) from the European Parliament and 
the  Council  emphasises  among  its  objectives  that  “synergies  between  cultural  heritage  and 
environment  policies  by  integrating  cultural  heritage  into  environmental,  architectural  and 
planning policies, and by promoting energy-efficiency” should be encouraged61. Already in 2002, 
the Director of the World Heritage Center, Francesco Bandarin, stated that: “Cultural and natural 
heritage sites around the world can only be protected if the continued degradation of the global 
environment  is  reversed,  while  improving  the  lives  of  those  living  in  poverty”.  Indeed,  Cultural 
Heritage is threatened  by global environmental issues such as climate change, geo-hazards,  air 
or  water  pollution,  etc.62.  As  a  result,  Heritage  buildings  may  be  damaged  or  natural  sites 
endangered  (e.g.  marine  salts  can  affect  coastal  monuments,  pollution  can  be  corrosive  to 
buildings, stability of monuments may be at risk)63. For instance, if there is no anticipation of the 
impact  of  tourism  and  more  precisely  on  the  flow  of  visitors,  Cultural  Heritage  sites  can 
deteriorate,  since  anthropogenic  activities  generate  air  pollution  that  can  be  dangerous  to 
buildings and the environment64. In order to prevent degradation of Cultural Heritage and protect 
the  environment,  preventive  measures  can  be  taken,  in  particular  with  the  support  of  satellite 
imagery.  The  Copernicus  programme  has  been  designed  to  respond  to  environmental  and 
climate change challenges, hence it can help detect potential degradation to Cultural Heritage.  

1.6  The Copernicus programme 

The  Copernicus  programme  is  one  of  the  European  flagship  programmes,  providing  free  and 
open data and information relying on satellite-based imagery, models and in-situ data. More than 
simply data and information, the Copernicus programme relies on state-of-the-art models to be 
used  for  societal  and  environmental  purposes.  The  Copernicus  programme  is  a  public  service 
designed to respond to policy and public administrations, and foster economic growth in Europe 
by: 

•  Supporting public users at local, national and European level; 

•  Helping Europe to maintain a prominent role in the international context; 

•  Strengthening intermediate users, downstream companies and value-added service providers. 

Initially  developed  to  focus  on  environment  and  security  –  the  former  name  of  the  Copernicus 
programme  was  Global  Monitoring  for  Environment  and  Security  (GMES)  –  the  Copernicus 
programme has developed several specific services providing free data and information, enabling 
applications in a vast variety of fields (i.e. agriculture, biodiversity protection, air quality, search 
and  rescue,  etc.).  Even  if  the  programme  is  considered  an  Earth  Observation  programme,  it  is 
providing  much  more  than  satellite-based  imagery  by  offering  a  free  and  open  access  to  many 
information products developed by its six core services.  

The  European  Commission  (EC)  is  managing  the  Copernicus  programme  and  its  3  main 
components: Space, Services and In-situ components. The high level structure of the Copernicus 
programme is presented in the figure below. 

NSW 

Heritage  Office, 

61 Decision (EU) 2017/864 of the European parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 on a European Year of Cultural Heritage (2018) 
(Online). Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017D0864&from=EN 
62 
at: 
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/heritagebranch/heritage/research/sustainability.pdf  and  The  Atlas  of  Climate  Change 
impact on European Cultural Heritage: scientific analysis and management studies, ISBN-13: 978-0857282835 
63 
https://www.si.edu/mci/downloads/CHRESP%202008/Cultural%20Heritage_Volume1_20081105_web.pdf 
64 Sablier, M.  & Garrigues, P., 2014, Cultural heritage and  its environment: an  issue of  interest  for  Environmental Science and  Pollution 
Research (Online). Available at: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01483919/document 

European  Commission, 

(Online).  Available 

Sustainability: 

environment 

Preserving 

Improving 

discussion 

heritage, 

Available 

(Online). 

Heritage 

2008, 

2004, 

paper 

and 

our 

our 

at: 

a 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Figure 14: High level structure of the Copernicus programme 

The  Copernicus  Space  Component  deals  with  the  procurement,  launch,  operation  and  the 
distribution  of  Sentinels  data  and  of  contributing  missions’  data.  The  technical  coordination  and 
procurement  for  the  Sentinels  fleet  are  led  by  ESA  and  operated  by  collaboration  between  ESA 
and EUMETSAT. This element also includes the procurement  of the  overall space infrastructure, 
including  satellite  design,  satellite  manufacturing  (procurement  to  the  industry),  satellite 
launches and ground infrastructure manufacturing (procurement to the industry). Finally, ESA is 
also in charge of acquisition, storage and distribution of the Sentinels data via the ESA Scientific 
Hub platform. As a transnational space agency collaborating with all the European national space 
agencies,  ESA  has  access  to  several  national  EO  programmes’  data,  including  the  archives  of 
such programmes. This additional data source is called “contributing missions” and provides, for 
registered  users,  access  to  a  wide  range  of  commercial  (i.e.  Worldview,  SPOT,  TerraSAR, 
Radarsat 2, etc.) and civilian  (i.e. Landsat, COSMO-SkyMed, RISAT, etc.) EO data sources. This 
data  sources  offer  in  some  cases  higher  spatial  resolution  than  the  Sentinels  spacecraft,  to 
support the development of  specific information products provided by Copernicus core  services. 
However,  the  access  to  contributing  missions  is  based  on  restrictions  and  so  not  fully  open  to 
everyone.65  For  obvious  reasons,  high  and  very  high  resolution  imagery  is  only  open  to  a 
restricted list of authorized users in the field of security and emergency. 

The  Copernicus  In-situ  component  offers  access  to  observation  from  the  ground,  sea  and 
airborne  sensors  but  also  licensed  reference  and  ancillary  data  licensed;  in-situ  data  are  not 
freely  available  for  Copernicus  users.  The  in-situ  component  supports  the  space  component  in 
offering  access  to  sustainable  and  reliable  data  to  produce,  validate  and  calibrate  Copernicus 
products for the services component. The In-situ component is implemented in two tiers: 

•  At the level of the service: each core service is in charge of daily operation and ingestion of 
specific  in-situ  data  of  interest  per  thematic  (marine  service,  land  monitoring,  etc.)  to  offer 
valuable  products  for  their  end-users.  This  means  that  specific  sources  of  in-situ  data  are 
tailored for each core service66 

•  At  the  programme  level:  the  European  Environment  Agency  manages  the  cross-cutting 
service  offering  general  in-situ  data  accessible  through  specific  agreements  with  data 
providers/networks at programme level66 

65 EC, 2016. Study to examine the socio-economic impact of Copernicus in the EU. 

Report on the Copernicus downstream sector and user benefits. Report prepared by PwC.  

66 Group on Earth Observation (GEO), 2016. Cross-cutting Coordination of the Copernicus In Situ Component. 

15 

Copernicus Space componentCopernicus Programme ManagementCOPERNICUS PROGRAMME MANAGEMENTCommitteeUser forumCopernicus Space componentTechnical coordinationSPACE COMPONENTSentinels missions operated byContributing MissionsFrom EU Member StatesFrom foreign partnersCopernicus in-situ componentIN SITU COMPONENTCoordinated by theEuropean Environment AgencyFrom EU Member-StatesCopernicus Service componentSERVICESLandMonitoringMarine environmentMonitoringAtmosphere MonitoringEmergency ManagementClimate ChangeSecurityImplementation by the European Entrusted Entities (EEE) of 6 core services using space and in-situ components 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

The Copernicus Services component aims to deliver data and products freely available for a 
wide  variety  of  users.  These  services  integrate  data  from  the  Space  and  In-situ  components, 
together with state-of-the-art models, in order to offer Copernicus products tailored to the needs 
of  specific  end-users.  To  better  reach  end-users,  six  different  core  services  were  developed  or 
are currently being developed in different areas: 

•  Copernicus Land Monitoring Service (CLMS); 

•  Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service (CMEMS); 

•  Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS);  

•  Copernicus Climate Change Services (C3S);  

•  Copernicus Emergency Management Service (EMS); 

•  Copernicus Security Service (CSS). 

The  Copernicus  services  were  designed  to  respond  to  very  specific  needs  of  the  European 
society,  targeting  specifically  public  authorities  but  also  research  and  scientific  communities. 
Nevertheless, the quantity and quality of the data and products offered by services also respond 
to commercial end-user needs. In this context, most of the products provided for free and openly 
accessible  for  everyone  were  designed  with  an  objective  of  ensuring  the  European  downstream 
industry would not be directly harmed. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

2 Detailed methodological approach 

for the study 

This  chapter  introduces  the  methodology  used  to  analyse  the  possibility  of  starting  an 
institutional  action  to  promote  the  use  of  Copernicus  Data  &  Information  for  Cultural  Heritage 
preservation, monitoring and management. 

The  overall  methodology  relies  on  two  key  phases,  each  one  split  into  five  major  steps,  as 
illustrated in the chart below. 

Figure 15: Overall approach of the study 

All these different steps are described in more detail in the next sections. 

2.1  Phase  1  –  Matching  Cultural  Heritage  user  needs 

with Copernicus capabilities 

The five-step approach of Phase 1 is illustrated in the chart below. 

17 

Evaluation of the impacts resulting from the options2Matching of CH user needs and Copernicus capabilitiesValue chain characterisationUser needs translated into user requirements1User needs identificationUser requirements translated into technical specificationsTechnical specifications matched with Copernicus capabilities  Options characterisationImpacts evaluationImpacts identificationOptions comparisonRecommendations 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Figure 16: Overall approach of phase 1 

2.1.1  Value chain characterisation 

In  order to  define accurately the  Cultural Heritage domain, its value chain needed to be clearly 
identified and a mapping of relevant user communities performed.  

A  value  chain  is  a  schematic  representation  of  how  value  is  created  among  a  set  of  tasks  and 
activities. In the case of Cultural Heritage, desk research has enabled the identification of tasks 
and  activities,  and  an  understanding  of  how  to  group  them  into  segments,  which  represent  the 
main parts of the value chain. The tasks and activities are undertaken by user communities.  

A user community is a group of users who are part of the same community (e.g. site operators). 
Nevertheless,  the  same  user  community  can  include  a  mix  of  governmental  and  non-
governmental  organisations.  In  this  context,  different  users  that  are  part  of  the  same  user 
community  may  have  different  needs  based  on  where  they  are  located  in  the  value  chain,  the 
type  of activities that they  carry out (e.g. monitoring of a natural site  versus maintenance  of a 
tangible site), and the type of environment they are interested in (land versus sea). 

It should also be pointed out that Copernicus core users have been identified throughout the user 
communities. As defined in the Copernicus Regulation 377, Copernicus “core users” are:  

“Union  institutions  and  bodies,  European,  national,  regional  or  local  authorities  entrusted  with 
the  definition,  implementation,  enforcement  or  monitoring  of  a  public  service  or  policy  in  the 
areas:  atmosphere  monitoring,  marine  environment  monitoring,  land  monitoring,  climate 
change,  emergency  management  and  security”  and  therefore  a  particular  attention  should  be 
given to their needs”.  

The organisation of stakeholders in user communities ensured a mapping of the overall spectrum 
of  Cultural  Heritage  stakeholders  in  order  to  facilitate  the  understanding  of  their  task  and 
activities,  and  hence  of  the  segment  of  the  value  chain  they  intervene  in.  This  mapping  results 
from  desk  research  and  is  calibrated  and  verified  through  direct  stakeholder  consultation.  It  is 
composed of the following communities: Cultural Heritage professional user community, Natural 
Sciences  user  community,  Site  operator  user  community,  Urban  planner  user  community, 
Intermediate  user  community  and  National,  Regional  or  Local  authority  user  community  (in 
charge  of  Cultural  Heritage  recognition).  The  different  Cultural  Heritage  user  communities  are 
detailed and further explained in section 3.1. 

18 

•Identification of the value chain and mapping of user communities and their activitiesValue chain characterisation•Understanding of the needs that result from user activitiesUser needs identification•User needs are translated into user requirementsUser requirements analysis•User requirements are translated into technical specificationsTechnical specifications identification•Technical specifications are compared with existing Copernicus capabilitiesMatching with Copernicus capabilities 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

2.1.2  High level user needs and user needs identification 

Once  user  communities  have  been  identified  and  mapped  along  the  value  chain,  the  high  level 
user needs resulting from their activities and tasks were identified. 

From a generic point of view, a high level user need is an overarching statement which describes 
the desire or wish of a user. Within the specific case of Cultural Heritage, high level user needs 
have been defined as demands that are formulated by user communities to carry out their tasks 
and  activities;  hence  identifying  high level  user  needs  requires  an  understanding  of  the  type  of 
process that is undertaken by each user community along the value chain. The user communities 
also expressed specific user needs related to the segments and activities of the value chain they 
are  involved  in  (e.g.  creation  vs.  production  segment).  These  user  needs  are  clustered  in  the 
different high level user needs.  In order to determine these, two means of data  collection were 
used:  

•  A literature review aimed at defining a first set of user needs;  

•  A direct stakeholder consultation and a web-based survey aimed at validating and 

complementing the list of user needs. 

2.1.3  User requirements analysis 

Once  the  high  level  user  needs  and  the  user  needs  have  been  identified,  the  next  step  was  to 
translate  them  into  user  requirements.  User  requirements  are  the  user  needs  translated  into 
desired performances and attributes. User requirements go a step further in the sense that they 
bring more precision to the user needs.  

They can be characterised by the provision of information on: 

•  Type of land cover of interest for user communities: grasslands, jungles, deserts, coastal 

areas, sea, urban areas, etc. 

•  Geographic coverage:  size of the area to monitor 

•  Revisit time: frequency of monitoring (e.g. once per month, once per week, etc.) 

•  Spatial resolution: size of the smallest possible feature that can be detected (expressed in 

meter) 

The  translation  into  requirements  is  essential  as,  depending  on  the  user  community  and  the 
segment  of  the  value  chain  that  is  considered,  a  single  user  need  could  result  in  different  user 
requirements.  As  such,  user  requirements  bring  characterisation  to  user  needs  (e.g.  weekly 
monitoring  of  motion  in  a  building  labelled  as  Cultural  heritage  in  an  urban  area).  In  order  to 
determine  these  user  requirements,  a  similar  methodology  to  the  collection  of  user  needs  was 
used  -  a  mix  of  desk  research  and  stakeholder  consultation  (direct  consultation  and  web-based 
survey). 

2.1.4  Technical specifications identification 

User  requirements  are  then  translated  into  technical  specifications.  Technical  specifications  are 
defining the type of Earth Observation-related (EO) data and information needed, such as: 

•  Type of sensor (e.g. optical) 

•  Wavelength (e.g. X-band) 

•  Spatial resolution specifications (e.g. 10x10m) 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

As such, the technical specifications enable the full and precise characterisation of the EO 
solution required to respond to the user requirement. This activity was undertaken by PwC‘s 
external experts, Nextant Applications and Innovative Solutions (NAIS)67. 

2.1.5  Matching the analysis with Copernicus capabilities 

The  last  step  of  the  first  phase  consisted  of  matching  Copernicus  capabilities  with  the  technical 
specifications previously identified. This activity comprised of two steps:  

•  Mapping the wide range of products offered by the different Copernicus core services and the 

data provided by the Sentinels and contributing missions;  

•  Performing a match analysis aimed at assessing the Copernicus capabilities with regards to 

the technical specifications identified (i.e. which technical specification could be covered with 
current data and products, which technical specification could be covered but would require 
some adaptations in the products offered (i.e. low efforts required to develop such products) 
and finally which technical specification cannot currently be covered (i.e. medium and high 
efforts required to develop such products)).  

The mapping relied on PwC experience (i.e. past assignments) on the Copernicus programme, whilst the second 
step was carried out by PwC with support by expert consultations (i.e. NAIS, Copernicus Entrusted Entities in 
charge of the Copernicus core services, ESA). An example of the overall process of Phase 1 is illustrated in the 
box below. 

ILLUSTRATION OF THE APPROACH TO MATCH USER NEEDS WITH 
COPERNICUS CAPABILITIES 

An example of the approach matching Cultural Heritage user needs with Copernicus 
capabilities would be: 

  Value-chain characterisation: Production segment, Cultural Heritage 

Conservation 

  User needs identified: Ground motion monitoring of a Cultural Heritage 

site 

  User requirements: Weekly monitoring of motion in a building labelled as 

Cultural heritage in an urban area 

  Technical specifications: C-band SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) data with 

5x20 on-ground resolution, weekly revisit time 

  Matching with Copernicus capabilities: Such data is provided by 

Sentinel-1A/B and could be provided through a new product on ground 
motion 

The output of this phase is a traceability matrix identifying a list of existing Copernicus data and 
information responding to the technical specifications, including a clear identification of "ready to 
use"  Copernicus  products  suitable  for  Cultural  Heritage,  "adaptable"  Copernicus  products,  and 
new  Copernicus  products  required.  A  specific  focus  is  given  to  the  assessment  of  what  possible 

67  NAIS (Nextant  Applications  and  Innovative  Solutions)  is  an  Italian  company  contributing  to  this  study  as  external  experts.  They  have 
been notably working on the ITACA and ARTEK projects 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

future Copernicus Evolution capabilities (e.g. hyperspectral, thermal infrared, etc.) could offer to 
Cultural Heritage user communities. 

This  exercise  has  been  supported  by  a  large  stakeholder  consultation,  as  illustrated  in  the  box 
below. 

Stakeholder consultation 

Introduction68 

The  objective  of  the  consultation  was  to  identify  stakeholders’  user  needs  along  the  value 
chain,  first  by  confirming  and  qualifying  the  analysis  provided  on  the  basis  of  the  desk 
research, and second, by identifying and/or confirming the user requirements linked to those 
needs  and  dependant  on  the  nature  of  intervention  (type  of  Cultural  Heritage,  land  cover, 
environment) of given stakeholders.  

The targeted stakeholder consultation undertaken in the frame of this study was performed in 
two  ways.  First  of  all,  an  online  questionnaire  was  sent  out  to  key  stakeholders  intervening 
through the whole Cultural Heritage value chain. Secondly, face-to-face and phone interviews 
with key stakeholders and experts were conducted. 

All  stakeholders  were  identified  to  ensure  the  coverage  of  the  Cultural  Heritage  value  chain 
with the largest geographical diversity possible. 

Definition of the list of stakeholders 

Online survey  

A list of 422 stakeholders was defined by PwC with the support of the EC. The objective of the 
list was to identify a large number of stakeholders intervening in one or more segments of the 
Cultural Heritage value chain as well as experts capable of providing an overview of the state 
of  Cultural  Heritage  needs  and  development.  On  top  of  this  targeted  public  consultation,  the 
online  link  was  shared  amongst  user  communities  and  made  publicly  available  on  the 
Copernicus, EARSC, Eurisy and Nereus websites. 

It is worth noting that stakeholders from the same entity have answered the survey as 
one  single  respondent,  providing  therefore  a  limited  yet  representative  answer  for  their 
community of stakeholders.  

Direct interviews  

The  phone  interviews  involved  direct  interaction  with  targeted  stakeholders  in  the  form  of 
semi-structured interviews. 39 experts and key stakeholders were contacted and 22 interviews 
were conducted. 

Results of the stakeholders consultation 

The  online  survey  and  the  phone  interviews  were  very  complementary  to  reach  the  relevant 
user communities in order to have representative sample of respondents, as illustrated in the 
table below.  

68 See details in Annex A 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Respondents 

Distributed 

Answered  Response rate 

Online survey  

383 

+Public  access  on 
specific websites 

67 

About 18% 

Phone interviews 

Total 

39 

422 

22 

89 

56% 

21% 

The online survey was opened to the public from April 15th until May 25th 2018, and gathered 
a  total  of  67  answers  from  19  different  countries  and  5  international  organisations.  As  a 
reminder,  these  answers  should  be  considered  as  representative  of  the  need  of  a  given 
stakeholder  entity  and  not  an 
its  relative 
individual  answer, 
representativeness.  22  phone  interviews  were  conducted  from  March  2018  to  May  2018  with 
key  stakeholders.  The  consultation’s  geographic  coverage  provides  a  high  representativeness 
of European Countries and a lowest one for non EU countries and organisation. Therefore, all 
consequent  results  of  distribution  among  the  CH  value  chain,  types  of  working  environments 
and needs will be mostly representative of the European practices and requirements.  

justifying 

therefore 

Figure 17: Geographic coverage of the consultation (Sources: PwC analysis)   

Distribution of the stakeholders  

The  overall  consultation  was  satisfactory  in  terms  of  representation  and  collecting  of  user 
needs  for  all  user  communities,  intervening  on  all  Cultural  Heritage  land  covers  and  types  of 
environment, as presented in the figures below. 

22 

14 EU countries 81%11%7%1 EU country2 Non EU country3 International Organisation5 non EU countries 5I.O. •Italy•France •Cyprus•Malta•CzechRepublic•Germany •Bulgaria•Hungary•Greece•Ireland •Poland•Portugal •Spain •United Kingdom•Romania •Belarus •India•Norway•Serbia•Sri Lanka •UNESCO•FromUNESCO: InternationalCentreonSpaceTechnologiesforNaturalandCulturalHeritageinBeijing,•ICOMOS •ISOCARP•HERA –Joint ResearchProgram•United Nations  Geographic coverage of the consultation  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Figure 18: User communities’ representativeness in the online questionnaire (Source: PwC 
analysis) 

One  out  of  two  stakeholders  identifies  himself  as  belonging  to  the  CH  professional  user 
community.  Definitions  were  provided  to  respondents  so  as  to  make  sure  all  respondents 
would  share  the  same  understanding  of  each  user  community.  It  is  however  interesting  to 
note that stakeholders from the academia could identify themselves as CH professionals. This 
phenomenon should imply that 55% of the respondents can represent a large part of the CH 
community intervening through the different segments of the value chain, as they might also 
intervene  in  site  operation  activities  or  urban  planning  but  will  not  consider  themselves  as 
“urban  planners”  or  “site  operators”  per  say.  As  such,  the  list  of  institutions  and  profiles  of 
respondents  answering as  “CH  professionals”,  which  are  provided  in  this  analysis,  should  not 
be perceived as an unbalanced distribution of user communities.  

Figure 19: User communities’ representativeness in interviews (Source: PwC analysis) 

Phone interviews which were conducted permitted to complete the lack of participation to the 
survey  from  certain  user  communities  such  as  site  operators  and  the  downstream  user 
community mostly. As it appears in the chart, the distribution of user communities among the 
22  interviews  allowed  the  gathering  of  important  qualitative  information  for  less  represented 
user communities in the online survey.   

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Figure 20: Environment of intervention of the stakeholders (Source: PwC analysis) 

Where  do  user  communities  intervene  and  can  they  be  characterised  by  certain  specificities? 
As  the  chart  indicates,  it  appears  that  the  CH  user  communities  are  characterised  by  their 
global  approach  to  Cultural  Heritage.  Indeed,  half  the  respondents  indicated  intervening  in 
both  land  and  underwater  environments.  As  the  analysis  of  the  study  will  present,  this  was 
highly  representative  of  the  upcoming  integrated  approach  to  Cultural  Heritage,  not  only  in 
terms of Tangible and Natural Heritage but also in terms of types of environment. It appears 
that there will not be a specific demand for underwater environments specialist but rather, in 
the  context  of  CH,  a  more  global  demand  linking  land  and  under  water  land  covers.  As  a 
conclusion, as almost 100% of respondents work in the land environment, this should thus be 
considered as a priority. Underwater will be present for almost 60% of respondents, allowing 
the conclusion that the CH needs will not be specific to a certain environment at this current 
state.  

Figure 21: Heritage fields of interest to the stakeholders (Source: PwC analysis) 

While 48% of respondents are involved in Tangible Heritage, 40% intervene in both Tangible 
Heritage  and  Natural  Heritage,  as  seen  in  the  graph.  As  announced  in  the  previous  chart, 
these  numbers  confirm  the  tendency  of  user  communities  to  have  a  global  intervention  in 
Cultural Heritage, creating therefore a homogenous global demand for an integrated approach 
of the two types of Cultural Heritage which should be preserved and monitored with the same 
performance.  Further  on,  the  study  will  provide  information  about  the  current  state  of 
activities  actually  conducted  in  the  field.  However  it  should  be  pointed  that  the  stakeholders 
consultation confirms that 98% of users intervene in Tangible Heritage.  

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Table 3: Distribution of user communities interest along types of heritage and environments 
(Source: PwC analysis) 

How to read this table: 66% of all stakeholders who responded to the survey intervene in urban and sub-urban land 
covers.  

Land cover requested by respondents 

Type of 
environment 

Land cover  

%  total respondents  

Land 

Urban and sub-urban 

Rural or forested areas  

Mountainous/hilly regions 

Scrub and grassland 

Coastal (for both Land & Sea)  

Rainforest 

Alluvial plain or Floodplain 

Waterlogged/wetland 

Frozen/glacial areas 

Inland waters (e.g. lakes, rivers) 

Costal  

Sea 

Under-sea 

Water surface  

66% 

63% 

50% 

43% 

43% 

29% 

25% 

18% 

15% 

19% 

37% 

24% 

21% 

How  are  characterised  the  environments,  land  and  under  water,  in  terms  of  specific  land 
cover? After understanding, all in all, in which environments and types of CH user communities 
intervene,  the  consultation  allowed  to  confirm  that  the  CH  user  communities  did  intervene 
mostly  in  urban  and  sub-urban  areas  (as  showed  by  the  literature  review).  Next  to  this 
intervention,  respondents  intervene  in  rural  and  forested  areas  as  well  as  mountainous  and 
hilly regions. This is coherent with the idea that most respondents work in land environments 
and  less  work  in  inland  water  environments.  Also,  it  emphasizes  the  difficulties  that  might 
appear to CH communities as their role with CH environments are confronted with urban and 
sub-urban development and challenges (social, economic, ecological, etc.).  

In  terms  of  data,  given  the  balanced  distribution  of  stakeholders  within  types  of  Cultural 
Heritage, environments and land covers, the collected data can be considered satisfactory. 

2.2  Phase 2 – Evaluation of the impacts resulting from 

the options 

The second phase of the methodology was a direct result of the first phase, as the matching of 
user needs with Copernicus capabilities helped refine the options under scrutiny and differentiate 
between them.  

The  second  phase  of  the  methodology  also  consisted  of  a  five-step  approach,  as  illustrated 
below: 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Figure 22: Overall approach of phase 2 

2.2.1  Option characterisation 

Before being able to carry out a high level assessment of potential impacts, the different options 
under  scrutiny  needed  to  be  characterised.  The  initial  proposal  of  the  considered  options  has 
been further refined and formulated thanks to literature review and expert consultation.  

An  intervention  from  the  European  Commission  could  take  several  forms,  and  so  the  options 
illustrate  several ways in which the European  Commission, through the Copernicus Programme, 
could  contribute  to  support  Cultural  Heritage.  The  different  options  under  investigation  are 
presented in the chart  below and are developed in further details in Chapter  5 -  Options for  an 
intervention from the European Commission. 

Figure 23: List of options under scrutiny 

26 

•Identification of potential options of EC intervention and their characterisationOption characterisation•Establishment of a list of impacts for CHImpact identification•Assessment of the impacts in the different optionsImpact evaluation•Summary of the strength and weaknesses of each optionOption comparison•Presentation of the most suitable option based on different criteriaConclusionsOption 1: List of Copernicus products suitable for Cultural Heritage applicationsOption 2: Cultural Heritage as part of one or more existing servicesOption 3: Creation of a new Copernicus service dedicated to Cultural Heritage Other options to be envisaged?#1#2#3Preferred EC intervention 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Module 

Products 

Table 4:  Option characterisation 

Option 1 

Option 2 

Option 3 

This option relies on existing Copernicus products within each service 
that  could  be  suitable  for  Cultural  Heritage  purpose.  Though  there 
will  be  no  intervention  to  set  up  a  specific  component  dedicated  to 
Cultural  Heritage,  efforts  will  be  put  on  raising  awareness  on  the 
existence  of  products  useful  for  Cultural  Heritage  applications  and 
promotion  of  market  uptake  activities.  This  option  would  offer 
Copernicus  products,  data  (Sentinels,  contributing  missions)  and 
information based on:  

  Products currently offered by the Copernicus programme and 

suitable for Cultural Heritage purposes. 

This  option  consists  of  the  implementation  of  a  dedicated  web 
interface  (later  referred  to  as  front-end)  facilitating  the  access  to 
Copernicus  data  and  information  relevant  for  CH  purpose.  This 
interface  would  be  fully  designed  for  Cultural  Heritage  purposes  and 
would offer Copernicus products adapted to fit Cultural Heritage user 
communities’  needs.  This  option  would  offer  Copernicus  products, 
data  (Sentinels,  contributing  missions  and 
in-situ  data)  and 
information based on :  

  Products currently offered by the Copernicus programme and 

suitable for Cultural Heritage purposes; 

  Products  currently  offered  by  the  Copernicus  programme, 

adapted to Cultural Heritage user communities’ needs. 

This  option  relies  on  the  creation  of  a  new  Copernicus  service 
exclusively  dedicated  to  Cultural  Heritage,  offering  Copernicus 
products,  data  (Sentinels,  contributing  missions)  and  information 

based on: 

  Products currently offered by the Copernicus programme and 

suitable for Cultural Heritage purposes; 

  Products  currently  offered  by  the  Copernicus  programme, 

adapted to Cultural Heritage user communities’ needs; 

  New products tailored to Cultural Heritage user communities’ 

needs. 

2.2.2  Impact identification 

In  order  to  be  able  to  compare  the  different  options,  a  list  of  assessable  impacts  was  defined 
based on a long-list of potential impacts. The process to identify assessable impacts is illustrated 
below. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Figure 24: Characterisation of assessable impacts 

This process consisted of (i) establishing a list of extensive potential high level impacts based on 
the literature  review  on Cultural Heritage (long list), (ii) scrutinising it through further research 
(mix of desk research and stakeholder consultation) to assess which of them were more likely to 
occur,  and  (iii)  narrowing  down  this  list  through  filters.  The  various  filters  used  are  presented 
below: 

Figure 25: Filters of the impact evaluation 

•  Desirability is determined on the basis of how important certain impacts are considered for 

the European Commission and for Cultural Heritage in general.  

•  Feasibility represents the ability to assess a specific impact, determined on the basis of data 

availability and quality.  

•  Materiality is determined through research on the basis of the expected magnitude of the 

impacts assessed.  

The  final  list  of  impacts  is  the  result  of  a  literature  review  centred  around  Cultural  Heritage-
oriented reports and EU publications on Cultural Heritage (e.g. the EU’s “Towards an integrated 
approach  to  cultural  heritage  for  Europe”69,  Strategic  framework  -  European  Agenda  for 

69 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
committee  of  the  Regions  “Towards  an 
for  Europe.  [ONLINE]  Available  at  : 
http://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/culture/library/publications/2014-heritage-communication_en.pdf  

integrated  approach  to  cultural  heritage 

28 

Potential impactsLikely impactsAssessable impactsDevelop a list of impacts for Cultural HeritageScrutinised through desk researchApplying filters of desirability, feasibility and materiality 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Culture70,  Heritage  Impact  Assessments  for  Cultural  World  Heritage  properties71,  European 
Cultural  Heritage  Counts72.  See  bibliography  for  further  references.)  as  well  as  on  a  review  of 
EU’s  main  global  strategies  and  legal  publications  (e.g.  EU  2020  strategy73,  the  Better 
Regulation74, the decision on a European Year of Cultural Heritage75. See bibliography for further 
references).    These  impacts  take  into  account  the  main  orientations  that  stand  out  of  these 
documents. In particular the objectives of EU 2020’s strategy of smart, inclusive and sustainable 
growth  are  reflected.  After  the  extraction  from  the  literature  of  all  impacts,  a  second  step 
consisted  of  reorganising  them  into  the  four  categories  of  impacts:  societal,  environmental, 
economic or strategic.  

2.2.3  Impact evaluation 

In order to assess the different impacts, a certain number of KPIs per impact have been defined. 
The  choice  of  KPIs  is  based  on  the  literature  review  of  past  studies  that  have  been  involved  in 
impact evaluations of the Cultural Heritage sector (e.g. The social and economic value of Cultural 
Heritage76, The Costs and Benefits of UK World Heritage Site  Status77, Cultural Heritage Counts 
for  Europe78.  See  bibliography  for  further  references.).  This  literature  review  is  associated  with 
the study team’s experience with impact evaluation in order to select the most relevant metrics 
to be analysed. 

These  KPIs  can  be  either  monetary  (e.g.  enabled  revenues,  costs  of  options,  etc.)  or  non-
monetary  (e.g.  sustainable  development,  academia,  etc.).  Quantitative  impact  evaluation  relied 
on the assessment of these two categories of impacts, presented in the following sections.  

2.2.3.1  Monetary indicators 

Benefits  assessment  was  based  on  desk  research  and  user  community  consultation  for  each 
option  considered.  The  assessment  focused  on  the  order  of  magnitude  of  economic  benefits  for 
Cultural  Heritage  user  communities  that  could  be  provided  by  Copernicus  products,  data  and 
information.  Examples  of  benefits  could  be  additional  revenues  for  intermediate  users  (i.e. 
companies offering data processing services or geospatial-based applications). 

The  cost  analysis  was  performed  by  using  relevant  information  from  Copernicus  core  services 
with  regards  to  the  cost  of  developing  new  dedicated  services  or  implementing  promotion  of 
market  uptake  activities,  and  potential  other  indications  from  desk  research  and  expert 
consultation.  Cost  analysis  was  performed  at  high  level,  aiming  at  assessing  an  order  of 
magnitude of cost rather than providing a traditional financial analysis. 

2.2.3.2  Non-monetary indicators 

On  the  top  of  monetary  impacts,  wider  non-monetary  impacts  were  also  considered.  Non-
monetary  indicators  are  impacts  that  cannot  be  turned  into  monetary  values  (i.e.  in  euros)  but 

2015, 

CHCFE 

Europe 

Cultural 

strategy 

heritage 

European 

2020,  A 

Consortium, 

Impact  Assessments 

for  Cultural  World  Heritage  Properties 

70 Strategic framework - European Agenda for Culture [ONLINE] Available at : https://ec.europa.eu/culture/policy/strategic-framework_en  
71  Guidance  on  Heritage 
: 
https://www.icomos.org/world_heritage/HIA_20110201.pdf  
72 
(Online). 
http://blogs.encatc.org/culturalheritagecountsforeurope//wp-content/uploads/2015/06/CHCfE_FULL-REPORT_v2.pdf 
73 
http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%20007%20-%20Europe%202020%20-%20EN%20version.pdf  
74  Better  regulation:  why  and  how  [ONLINE]  Available  at    https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-
law/better-regulation-why-and-how_en  
75 Decision (EU) 2017/864 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 on a European Year of Cultura l Heritage (2018) 
[ONLINE] Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017D0864&from=EN  
76  The  Social  and  Economic  Value  of  Cultural  Heritage:  literature  review,  European  Expert  Network  on  Culture  [ONLINE]  Available  at  : 
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3a70/d26f9adf6b277216b8f3acf7909927bf2bc5.pdf  
77  The  Costs  and  Benefits  of  UK  World  Heritage  Site  Status  A  literature  review  for  the  Department  for  Culture,  Media  and  Sport,  PwC 
[ONLINE] Available at : https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78450/PwC__literaturereview.pdf  
78  Cultural  Heritage  counts 
for  Europe  [ONLINE]  Available  at  :  http://blogs.encatc.org/culturalheritagecountsforeurope//wp-
content/uploads/2015/06/CHCfE_FULL-REPORT_v2.pdf  

[ONLINE]  Available  at 

[ONLINE]  Available 

sustainable 

Available 

inclusive 

Europe 

growth 

Counts 

smart, 

and 

at: 

for 

for 

at:  

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

are  still  highly  important  and  relevant.  Examples  of  non-monetary  impacts  can  be  the 
contribution  to  European  leadership  in  the  field  of  Cultural  Heritage,  or  the  EU  geospatial 
industry’s  competitiveness.  These  indicators  were  assessed  by  using  a  Likert  scale  in  order  to 
transform  qualitative  data  into  quantitative  information.  The  way  a  Likert  scale  assessment  is 
performed is illustrated below. 

Figure 26: Likert scale proposed to grade the different wider impacts (Sources: PwC) 

Table 5:  Description of the Likert scale grades (Sources: PwC) 

Negative impact 

Absence of impact 

Positive impact 

Level 
negative impact. 

-1: 

Marginal 

Level 
negative impact. 

-2:  Moderate 

Level 
negative impact 

-3: 

Strong 

Level  -4:  Very  strong 
negative impact. 

Level 

0:  Absence 

of 

impact. 

Level 1: Marginal impact. 

Level 2: Moderate impact. 

Level 3: Strong impact 

Level  4:  Very 

strong 

impact. 

For each impact assessed during this consultation, experts were asked to express their personal 
views  on  the  potential  magnitude  of  each  impact  based  on  a  Likert  scale.  The  scale  proposed 
ranges from a very strong  negative impact  (-4), to  an absence of impact (0), to  a very 
strong positive impact (+4), following the order of magnitude illustrated and described in the 
figure and table above. 

2.2.4  Option comparison  

The  option  comparison  step  consisted  of  summarising  the  results  of  the  impact  evaluation  by 
option and comparing them against each other. This step fully integrated the results from phase 
1 on the matching of Copernicus capabilities with user needs, in the sense that each impact was 
analysed keeping in mind whether, for each option, Copernicus could respond to it based on the 
following categories of products: 

•  Existing Copernicus products that already answer Cultural Heritage technical specifications; 

•  Existing Copernicus products that require adaptation to be used in support to technical 

specifications; 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

•  New products that could be developed using Copernicus data to answer technical 

specifications. 

2.2.5  Conclusions and recommendations 

The  conclusion  consisted  of  determining  the  most  suitable  option  based  on  the  results  of  the 
option  comparison.  PwC  did  not  select  an  option  to  be  pushed  forward  but  provided  the 
advantages  and  drawbacks  of  each  option,  notably  taking  into  considerations  the  order  of 
magnitude of costs versus order of magnitude of benefits. 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

3 User needs assessment 

This  chapter  introduces  the  results  of  the  analysis  regarding  the  needs  of  the  Cultural  Heritage  user 
communities. These results are the output of comprehensive desk research and consultation with stakeholders. 
More details on the stakeholder consultation are available in Annex A.  

In this chapter, the following outcomes are presented: (i) the mapping of the Cultural Heritage value chain and 
of the user communities and (ii) the mapping of activities and of the related user needs.  

3.1  Cultural  Heritage 

value 

chain 

and  user 

communities 

A  value  chain  aims  at  mapping  all  major  activities  creating  value79  in  a  given  domain.  The 
rationale for drawing the value chain of Cultural Heritage activities is the following: in order to be 
able  to  capture  the  needs  of  the  Cultural  Heritage  user  communities,  one  needs  to  understand 
the  overall  activities  performed,  from  the  discovery  of  a  site  all  the  way  to  the  capitalisation 
coming  from  the  provision  of  public  access  to  the  site.  By  segmenting  the  value  chain  with 
regards to the activities performed, it becomes possible to map the user communities intervening 
in each part of the value chain, and thus to later understand their needs. 

For  the  purpose  of  this  study,  the  Cultural  Heritage  value  chain  has  been  developed  relying  on 
commonly  accepted  taxonomy  extracted  from  desk  research,  and  discussed  and  verified  with 
experts from the field. The Cultural Heritage value chain is illustrated in the chart below. 

Figure 27: Value chain linked to Tangible Heritage and Natural Heritage 

Research  shows  that  the  Cultural  Heritage  value  chain,  for  both  Tangible  Heritage  and  Natural 
Heritage, relies on three major segments:  

•  Creation:  The  “Creation”  segment  includes  activities  such  as  prospection,  operations  and 
formal  recognition  of  the  sites  as  Cultural  Heritage.  After  the  site  is  classified  as  Cultural 
Heritage, cultural significance80 of the site is publically recognised.  

•  Production:  The  “Production”  segment  includes  all  activities  related  to  site  monitoring, 
restoration  and  maintenance  performed  for  conservation  and  preservation  purposes. 
“Conservation” and “preservation” refer to actions that are undertaken in order to foster the 
protection  of,  respectively,  Tangible  Heritage  and  Natural  Heritage.  This  segment  is 

79 The term value refers here to the usefulness of something, and not to its monetary value. 
80 Burra Charter, ICOMOS Australia, 1999 

32 

Formal recognition as HeritageOperations (search, dig, excavation, sample gathering, etc.)Prospection & ExplorationTangible Heritage conservation (restoration, maintenance)Natural Heritage preservationSite Management CreationProductionTransmissionValue chainActivitiesAggregation of scientific knowledge for researchDevelopment of commercial products linked to valorisation 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

structured around making and keeping the site exploitable and reducing the risk of damages 
linked to, for instance, geo-hazards or human conflicts.  

•  Transmission: The “Transmission” segment refers to activities related to the development of 
commercial products linked to the enhancement of Cultural Heritage assets (in particular for 
the  development  of  touristic  valorisation),  site  management,  and  aggregation  of  scientific 
knowledge  for  research.  The  latter  consolidates  all  the  activities  linked  to  the  utilisation  of 
scientific data, for  example through publications of  research. On the  other hand, the former 
activities aim at making a Cultural Heritage site accessible to the general public. The type of 
activities  ranges  from  developing  3D  models  of  sites  for  tourists,  constructing  support 
infrastructures (e.g. roads, accommodation, etc.) to enhancing  the touristic exploitation of a 
site.  Examples  of  such  Cultural  Heritage  sites  that  are  accessible  to  the  public  include 
Pompeii, the Colosseum, the Eiffel Tower or the Primal forest of Poland.  

Each  of  these  segments  rely  on  a  set  of  different  main  activities  which  are  relevant  to  one  or 
several  user  communities.  Nevertheless,  a  single  user  community  can  regroup  different  users, 
including both governmental and non-governmental organisations, and perform different types of 
activities. Within the large diversity of stakeholders intervening in the Cultural Heritage field, six 
user  communities have been identified as sharing common key activities along the value chain, 
as illustrated in the chart below. 

Figure 28: User communities mapped on the value chain 

The  following  paragraphs  present  the  six  user  communities  and  their  characteristics.  The 
objective  here  is  to  describe  the  user  communities  to  facilitate  the  understanding  of  the  high 
level user needs and of the user needs in subsequent sections. 

Cultural Heritage professional user community (Tangible Heritage):  

The  Cultural Heritage professional user community regroups several types  of actors intervening 
on Tangible Heritage sites on land and in the sea. This user community includes archaeologists, 
architects,  engineers,  historians,  conservators,  and  Geospatial  Information  Systems  (GIS) 
specialists.  This  user  community  contains  both  governmental  actors  (e.g.  national  experts 
working for Cultural Heritage authorities or UNESCO specialists) and private actors (e.g. Cultural 
heritage  experts  working  for  private  foundations).  Examples  of  professionals  notably  include 
professors at the Heidelberg University (public research centre and university). 

33 

CreationProductionTransmissionUser communities with tasks linked to CH Value chainNatural Sciencesuser communityValue chainUrban planneruser communitySite operator user communityCultural Heritage professional user communityDownstream user communityNational, Regional or Local authority user community (in charge of CH recognition)  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Natural Sciences user community (Natural Heritage):  

The Natural Sciences user community regroups the users interested in monitoring and preserving 
Natural Heritage sites.  This community is very large and includes biologists surveying the state 
of  the  biodiversity  of  the  flora  and  fauna  in  a  given  area,  biologists  monitoring  the  effects  of 
climate  change  on  sea  environment,  zoologists 
(e.g.  ornithologists,  mammologists, 
herpetologists,  etc.)  and  all  actors  interested  in  natural  sciences  such  as  environmental 
scientists.  An  example  would  be  professionals  working  on  projects  such  as  the  Okavango 
wilderness  project  (a  National  Geographic  Society  project),  where  experts  in  mammalian 
terrestrial ecology, African herpetology and botany map the Okavango delta.  

Site operator user community: 

The  site  operator  user  community  refers  to  all  actors  in  charge  of  administrating  and 
protecting/maintaining a Cultural Heritage site, should it be a Tangible Heritage site or a Natural 
Heritage  site.  This  user  community  intervenes  across  the  whole  Cultural  Heritage  value  chain. 
For  example,  a  Tangible  Heritage  site  operator  can  simultaneously  be  interested  in  activities 
related to exhibition, in activities related to the maintenance and protection of a site, as well as 
in  other  activities  related  to  exploration  around  or  within  the  Cultural  Heritage  site  or  to 
monitoring  and  discovering  new  archaeological  features.  Site  operators  can  either  be 
governmental  (e.g.  municipalities,  local  or  regional  administration  such  as  Ministries  of  Culture, 
national  research  centres,  etc.)  or  non-governmental  (e.g.  private  foundations,  real  estate 
companies). 

Urban planner user community: 

Urban planners refer to a wide plethora of actors in charge of land use planning, strategic urban 
planning,  transportation  planning,  environmental  planning  or  economic  development  planning, 
for  instance.  In  the  scope  of  this  study,  the  urban  planner  user  community  refers  to  local, 
regional and/or national bodies designing, organising, regulating and supporting the development 
of infrastructures (e.g. roads, water supply, electricity supply, etc.) and/or urbanisation plans81. 
Urban planners are primarily in charge of developing and revitalising parts of  cities, building on 
the various economic, architectural, and social challenges. But this user community also supports 
other  user  communities’  activities  by  facilitating  access  to  the  Cultural  Heritage  sites  (e.g. 
construction or upgrade of roads, etc.).  

Intermediate user community: 

The  intermediate  user  community  includes  all  actors  involved  in  the  exploitation  of  Earth 
Observation (EO) space data and the provision of EO-related products and services to end users. 
This  includes,  in  particular,  geo-information  organisations  (public  and  private),  whose  core 
business  is  to  process  satellite  imagery  and  transform  it  into  value-added  information  products 
for specific end users. This user community intervenes across the value chain, to support Cultural 
Heritage  user  communities  by  providing  them  with  additional  sources  of  EO  data,  value-added 
information products or/and services (e.g. consultancy)82. 

National, Regional or Local authority user community (in charge of Cultural Heritage 
recognition): 

This  user  community  includes  all  governmental  actors  intervening  in  the  request  and  the 
validation  of  formal  recognition  of  a  Cultural  Heritage  asset,  either  at  national  (e.g.  listed 
monuments at national level; listed natural  sites at national level) or at international level (e.g. 

81 Urban planning, 2017, Encyclopaedia Britannica, [ONLINE] Available at https://www.britannica.com/topic/urban-planning 
Government of Canada, 2018. List of Jobs Titles – Urban and land use planners (NOC 2153-A). 
82 EC, 2017. Copernicus ex-ante benefits assessment. To be published. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

UNESCO  World  Heritage).  This  is  the  user  community  where  there  is  a  majority  of  Copernicus 
core users. 

3.2  Mapping  of  activities,  user  needs,  and  user 

requirements 

This  section  aims  at  presenting  the  user  needs  assessment,  split  across  the  three  segments  of 
the Cultural Heritage value chain, with the activities being presented in depth. These outputs rely 
on  an  extensive  literature  review,  user  communities’  consultation  and  discussion  with  external 
experts  (NAIS).  This  exercise  has  capitalised  on  different  European  projects  in  the  field  of 
Cultural  Heritage  (e.g.  financed  by  the  European  Commission  within  the  H2020  framework  or 
sponsored  by  ESA),  including  SASMAP,  ARROWS,  ARCHEOSUB,  HERCULES,  STORM,  ITACA  and 
Artek.  The  study  of  the  activities  and  tasks  related  to  each  segment  of  the  Cultural  Heritage 
value chain has enabled an understanding of the needs of user communities intervening at these 
stages. 

3.2.1  Creation segment 

Definition  

The  Creation  segment  integrates  all  activities  from  the  discovery  of  a  site  to  its  formal 
recognition as “Cultural Heritage”. These activities can be segmented into three main categories: 
prospection activities, operation activities and activities associated with the formal recognition of 
a site as Cultural Heritage as illustrated in the chart below.  

Figure 29: Main activities included in the segment "Creation" of the CH value-chain 

User communities involved in the “Creation” segment of the CH value-chain 

At this stage of the value chain, the main user communities intervening are the Cultural Heritage 
professionals  and  national,  regional  and  local  authorities  in  charge  of  Cultural  Heritage 
recognition.  Collaboration  with  site  operators  and  urban  planners  are  common  as  they  can 

35 

Formal recognition as heritageOperations (search, dig, excavation, sample gathering, etc)Prospection & ExplorationCreationValue chain segmentActivities 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

include  excavation  teams.  All  these  user  communities  can  take  charge  of  pursuing  a  candidacy 
for  a  Cultural  Heritage  label.  As  such,  conclusions  from  the  stakeholder  consultation  have 
identified  that  the  diversity  of  user  communities  taking  part  in  these  activities  share  common 
needs, as they work together from the perspective of performing a preliminary assessment of the 
site, to possibly conduct excavation and mostly gather sufficient data to apply for the recognition 
of the given site by a Heritage label.    

Context of the development of the Creation segment 

New technologies for new methods of prospection: the development of non-invasive prospection 
methods   

Identification of the high level user needs and of the user needs is required, in order to analyse 
the  ones  that  can  be  optimised  by  the  use  of  new  technologies.  Indeed,  it  is  worth  noting  that 
the Creation segment is impacted by the opportunities brought by new technologies. It appears 
that  the  use  of  data  is  being  increasingly  requested  to  perform  prospection  tasks,  for  instance. 
Going from the traditional invasive archaeological methods, where data was gathered in-situ and 
which were time consuming and financially costly, the development of new technologies and non-
invasive  methods  of  site  prospection  have  allowed  a  greater  efficiency  in  the  conduction  of 
Creation activities.   

The development of a stronger legal framework at the local, regional and national level  

Moreover,  as  explained  in the  introduction,  the  Cultural  Heritage  environment  has  been  framed 
by a strong legal framework - meaning that any activity of prospection aiming at the recognition 
and protection of a site must fulfil specific requirements, be conducted under specific national or 
local rules and provide as much data as possible to provide evidence of the necessity for a site to 
be labelled. Heritage management is thus deeply challenged by new and stronger requirements 
based  on  an  increasing  ethical  complexity83.  Indeed,  the  global  order  has  been  reshaped  by 
human  rights,  neo-colonialism,  legal  pluralism,  or  sustainable  development  challenges,  among 
others,  in  which  Cultural  Heritage  sites  have  been  recognised  for  their  key  societal  value. 
Therefore, prospection and excavation of Cultural Heritage sites must meet the requirements of a 
complex ethical and legal framework. Nowadays, national legal frameworks encourage the use of 
non-invasive  methods  for  prospection  and  operation  activities84  to  prevent  any  risk  of 
deterioration  or  social  conflict  linked  with  an  excavation  operation.  It  is  therefore  key  for 
excavation teams to gather as much data and information as possible for their understanding of 
the site to limit the need and the perimeter of excavation activities. Yet, preliminary data seems 
to be sufficient to enter the process of a site’s recognition (see “recognition processes” within the 
“Recognition” description). 

Towards a more efficient approach of prospection, operation and recognition activities  

What  is  the  impact  of  this  contextual  evolution  on  user  needs?  With  enough  relevant  data,  the 
use  of  invasive  methods  can  be  limited  to  a  strict  minimum.  This  can  impact  the  financial 
implications of proceeding to a demand of formal recognition as Heritage and represents a strong 
incentive  for  user  communities  to  increase  and  modify  their  participation  in  the  Creation 
segment.  Moreover,  this  can  open  the  Creation  segment  to  a  larger  scope  of  user  communities 
that  would  not  be  restricted  by  technical  (excavation  methods)  or  financial  constraints  to 
intervene in the Creation segment.  

3.2.1.1  Creation - Prospection 

Definition  

83 “The fusion of law and ethics in cultural heritage management: The 21st century confronts archaeology”. Hilary A. Soderland, (2014) 
84 
guidelines 
https://www.archaeology.ie/sites/default/files/media/publications/excavation-reports-guidelines-for-authors.pdf  

Excavation 

Available 

authors. 

[Online] 

reports 

Duffy, 

Brian 

2006 

for 

K. 

at: 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

In terms of process, prospection activities are mainly composed of three activities: (i) identifying 
a potential Cultural Heritage site, (ii) verifying the conditions to conduct survey operations, and 
(iii)  conducting  preliminary  research  including  non-destructive  assessment  and/or  field 
assessment and evaluation.  

Table 6: Summary of prospection tasks and their description 

Tasks  

Description  

Identify potential Cultural Heritage sites 

Verify the fulfilment of the conditions 
for conducting research 

(And possibly design the project of 
research) 

Conduct preliminary research including non-
destructive assessment and / or field 
assessment and evaluation 

Identify presence of potential new site or 
structures; 
Provide spatial identification of the 
structure. 

Data on area of research; 
Objective of the research; 
Define expected results;  
Organisation of research;  
Define measures to protect the site  / area 
of discovery;  
Define type of project, scope, direction, 
methods and timing of research and 
protection measures;  
Budget for research. 

Conduct preliminary geological mapping 
and geostructure; 
Conduct preliminary geobotanical 
prospection;  
Conduct preliminary geochemistry 
prospection;  
Conduct preliminary chemical prospection; 
Conduct preliminary geomorphology 
prospection. 

Process and user needs for prospection activities  

Even if most Cultural Heritage sites have already been discovered, or can come in the form of an 
existing city (e.g. Rome, México City, Liverpool, etc.), a city centre, a monument, and have been 
formally recognised as such, it is important to identify the implication of the search of a new CH 
site in the context of this study. Therefore, the value chain includes prospection activities which 
refer  to  the  search  for  undiscovered  sites  and/or  not  yet  officially  recognised  (i.e.  officially 
recognised as culturally important sites. To conduct this activity, (which is mostly performed by 
CH professionals), user communities need to study the natural  environment of the site  for 
the  detection  of  underground  features  to  identify  the  possibilities  and  the  risk  related  to 
conducting invasive research and / or excavation activities.  

The  presence  of  underground  buildings  (e.g.  forming  a  line  which  indicates  the  presence  of  an 
ancient  Roman  road)  can  be  highlighted  by  indirect  indicators  such  as  cropmarks  and  soil 
marks85,  which  both  mark  a  particular  trend  for  how  vegetation  is  growing.  The  study  of 
cropmarks  and  soil  marks  can  also  be  done  through  a  multi-temporal  analysis,  which  can  help 
discover  such  patterns  overtime.  Indirect  indicators  indeed  seem  to  be  a  primary  need  of  user 
communities  according  to  the  PwC  survey.  Another  indicator  to  be  considered  is  the 

85 Parcak, S., 2009. Satellite Remote Sensing for Archaeology. New York, US.; Chris Stewart, Philippe Martimort, Earth observati on applied 
to  Cultural  Heritage  Applications:  current  capabilities,  limitations  and  future  perspectives,  24  April  2017,  Brussels;  Rosa  Lasaponara, 
Remote sensing for Cultural Heritage: from documentation to risk estimation and preservation, 24 April 2017, Brussels 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

identification,  with  a  Normalised  Difference  Vegetation  Index  (NDVI)86,  of  the  density  of  the 
vegetation.  This  is  shown  by  the  different  wavelengths  of  visible  and  near-infrared  sunlight 
reflected  by  the  vegetation87,  and  it  helps  indicate  the  presence  of  archaeological  remains  by 
showing  anomalies  in  the  way  vegetation  grows.  In  addition,  because  the  presence  of 
underground constructions can influence plant composition, it is interesting for prospectors to be 
able to detect changes  in chlorophyll levels (included in indirect indicators)  on the plants of the 
studied  area88.  Thermal  anomalies  can  also  be  detected  in  order  to  identify  a  difference  in  the 
temperature of the soil, especially in a desert-type area because sand is a heat conductor, which 
would  indicate  the  presence  of  underground  Tangible  Heritage.  These  variables  are  land-
attached,  but  it  is  also  possible  to  identify  underwater  Tangible  Heritage  through  visual 
identification  via  imagery89.  Once  the  mentioned  variables  indicate  the  potential  presence  of 
structures  underground  or  underwater,  user  communities  involved  in  this  segment  need  to  be 
provided  with  the  non-destructive  analysis  of  the  underground  /  underwater  positioning  of  the 
Cultural  Heritage  features,  notably  in  terms  of  depth  (this  can  be  provided  by  the  stratigraphic 
description of the site and identification of individual layers or stratigraphic units of the area90).  

Figure 30:  Main user needs required for prospection activities (Source: stakeholder consultation) 

Additional  user  needs  have  been  expressed  during  direct  interviews  as  complementary  to  the 
proposed list, and illustrated in the table below. These “other user needs” are only listed and not 
expressed in the same format than in Figure 30 (i.e. percentage of users interested in each user 
need) due to lack of information. 

and 

(NDVI 

Measuring 

Vegetation 

86 Parcak, S., 2009. Satellite Remote Sensing for Archaeology. New York, US. 
87 
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/MeasuringVegetation/measuring_vegetation_2.php 
88 Parcak, S., 2009. Satellite Remote Sensing for Archaeology. New York, US. 
89  Council  of  Europe,  Guidelines  on  Cultural  Heritage,  Technical  tools  for  Heritage  conservation  and  management,  2012;  Maria  Libera 
Battagliere, COSMO-Skymed Contribution to Cultural Heritage Monitoring, 24 April 2017; Margarete van Ess, Remote sensing as a crucial 
tool for Cultural Heritage preservation: case studies from the Near East, 24 April 2017, Brussels; Elke Selter, UNESCO's use of satellites for 
monitoring heritage sites in conflict-affected areas, 24 April 2017, Brussels 
90 Chris Stewart, Philippe Martimort, Earth observation applied to Cultural Heritage Applications: current capabilities, limitations and future 
perspectives, 24 April 2017, Brussels 

Observatory 

[ONLINE] 

Available 

NASA 

Earth 

EVI), 

at: 

38 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Sea salinity levels measurementLithologyTectonic petrographyVegetation levels monitoringRock assay analysisIdentification of previously searched sites in the areaVisual identification via imageryTopographic mappingPhotogrammetric mappingMetal detectingGeodetic recordingStratigraphic description of the archaeological site and identification of individuallayers or stratigraphic unitsBathymetryThermal anomalyNormalized difference vegetation index (NDVI)Indirect indicators (Cropmarks, soilmarks, chlorophyll levels) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Table 7: Summary of the other user needs for the prospection activities mentioned during the 
interviews (Source: stakeholder consultation) 

Other user needs expressed during the interviews 

Mapping of surrounding  infrastructure (roads, pipelines, waterconducts etc.) 

Mapping of frequentation patterns 

Ground motion monitoring 

3D reconstruction 

Elevation modelling 

Map regression 

The results of the PwC survey indicate an important role for  metal detecting and sea salinity 
level  measurements  for  more  than  80%  of  the  respondents  intervening  in  this  segment  of  the 
value chain. Nine “user needs” have been identified as key for 75% or more of the respondents. 
However, as presented in the figure, the survey also showed a global homogeneity in the  needs 
of  all  user  communities  at  this  level  of  the  value  chain,  with  all  user  needs  being  required  by 
more than 65% of respondents. 

In  the  need  of  archaeological  interventions,  at  this  point,  user  communities  need  to  verify  the 
fulfilment of the conditions for conducting archaeological research; that is to say, designing the 
project  of  archaeological  research  by  providing  relevant  information  to  support  the  case  for 
excavation. This includes obtaining data on the area of the site and presenting the objective and 
expected results of the excavation as well as the scope and methodology that have been chosen 
for  the  operation  (when  relevant,  the  measures  that  have  been  identified  to  protect  the  site 
throughout the excavation process can be noted). The global organisation and the budget of the 
research  are  generally required.  It  is  worth  noting  that  only  10  to  15%  of  excavation  demands 
are  granted.  For  all  sites  which  are  considered  for  excavation,  prospection  activities  include 
providing  basic  spatial 
from  general  spatial 
identification  of  the  new  structure 
characteristics  to  a  description  of  the  global  state  of  the  site,  with  supporting 
documentation, in order to characterise a potential Cultural Heritage site.  This mapping of the 
cultural landscape of the  site  and identification of the  specific risks  it is exposed to is 
essential.  In  order  to  be  granted  an  excavation  permit,  aerial  photo  documentation  is  key  for 
both  land  and  sea  environments.  More  precisely,  topographic  maps91  and  photogrammetric 
maps92 provide a detailed understanding of natural and human-made features in the area (e.g. 
reliefs),  to  which  a  stratigraphic  analysis93  can  be  added.  Combined  with  these  tools,  (i)  the 
identification  of  previously  searched  sites  in  the  area94  and  (ii)  the  mapping  of  recorded 
damage95 help provide context for the potential search as well as support for its justification.  In 

91 Margarete VAN ESS, Helmut BECKER, Jörg FASSBINDER, Ralf KIEFL, Iris LINGENFELDER, Gunter SCHREIER and Adrian ZEVENBERGEN, 
Detection of looting activities at archaeological sites in Iraq using Ikonos imagery 
92 Chris Stewart, Philippe Martimort, Earth observation applied to Cultural Heritage Applications: current capabilities, limitat ions and future 
perspectives, 24 April 2017, Brussels 
93 Chris Stewart, Philippe Martimort, Earth observation applied to Cultural Heritage Applications: current capabilities, limitat ions and future 
perspectives, 24 April 2017, Brussels 
94 Council of Europe, Guidelines on Cultural Heritage, Technical tools for Heritage conservation and management, 2012 
95  Parcak,  S.,  2009.  Satellite  Remote  Sensing  for  Archaeology.  New  York,  US;  Maria  Libera  Battagliere,  COSMO-Skymed  Contribution  to 
Cultural  Heritage  Monitoring,  24  April  2017;  Branka  Cuca,  Earth  observation  imagery  and  geoinformation  data  for  Cultural  Heritage  and 
landscapes  -  regional  perspective,  24  April  2017;  Rosa  Lasaponara,  Remote  sensing  for  Cultural  Heritage:  from  documentation  to  risk 
estimation  and  preservation,  24  April  2017,  Brussels;  Cristina  Sabbioni,  Antonia  Pasqua  Recchia,  The  Joint  Programming  Initiative  on 
Cultural Heritage: European perspective, 24 April 2017, Brussels; Luca Rossi, The Sendai framework for  disaster risk reduction: Cultural 
Heritage,  disaster  resilience,  and  climate  change,  24  April  2017,  Elke  Selter,  UNESCO's  use  of  satellites  for  monitoring  heritage  sites  in 
conflict-affected areas, 24 April 2017, Brussels 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

the  case  of  underwater  Heritage,  bathymetric96  analysis  is  needed  to  support  the  case  for 
underwater search.  

Once  this  basic  data  has  been  gathered,  the  prospection  activities  end  with  the  conducting  of 
preliminary research that includes non-destructive analysis of the surface positioning of 
the  Cultural  Heritage  features  (e.g.  through  remote  sensing  or  trial  trenching),  in  order  to 
extract the  maximum  level of information that can support,  or in the contrary  counter-indicate, 
the need for an excavation – which can have very negative impacts on the sites (i.e. destructive 
impacts). To prepare for operation activities, preliminary research can be undertaken through a 
non-destructive  assessment  and  evaluation.  Depending  on  the  nature  of  the  site,  specific 
prospection  activities  can  be  conducted.  For  this  purpose,  the  following  activities  can  be 
conducted: (i) geological and geo-structural mapping (with rock assay analysis97, stratigraphy98 
(land)  or  bathymetry99  (sea)),  (ii)  geobotanical  prospection  (with  vegetation  levels  monitoring 
(studied under high resolution), to better characterise the cultural landscape), (iii) geochemistry 
prospection  for  land  sites  (with  the  detection  of  metal100,  and  tectonic  petrography101),  (iv) 
chemical  prospection  (with  the  study  of  sea  salinity  measurements102  in  the  case  of  a  water 
environment) and (v) geomorphology prospection (with lithology103). 

3.2.1.2  Creation - Operations 

Definition  

The operations segment concentrates all research activities requiring invasive interventions over 
a site for research or data collecting purposes. It should be noted that operation activities are not 
a systematic step of the Cultural Heritage value chain, as they will mainly appear in the process 
of archaeological activities requiring excavation activities. Preventive or rescue research are also 
applicable  to  natural  heritage  sites  in  need  of  protection.  The  description  for  those  activities, 
however, is not supplied here. 

Table 8: Summary of operation tasks and their description 

Tasks 

Description 

Identify adequate methodology 
for research 

Define the possibility for standard research 

Provide technical documentation 

Provide spatial identification of the new archaeological / 
site’s structure 

Conduct research or excavation 
operations: proceed 
to either standard research, 
preventive research or rescue 
research 

Implement a defined methodology, possibly including the 
following steps (i.e. in case of archaeological research):  
◦ Lay squares with strings and sand bags, define a 
starting and ending point.  
◦ Break the soil with shovels and picks, brushed, ice picks 
…and identify stratigraphic relationships  
◦ Screen the excavated soil 
◦ Photograph in-situ  

96 Stelios Bollanos, User needs in monitoring coastal archaeological sites: the potential of Copernicus, 24 April 2017, Brussels; Radoslaw 
Guzinski , Elias  Spondylis, Myrto  Michalis, Sebastiano  Tusa, Giacoma  Brancato,  and Lorenzo  Minno,  Exploring  the  Utility  of  Bathymetry 
Maps Derived With Multispectral Satellite Observations in the Field of Underwater Archaeology 
97 Parcak, S., 2009. Satellite Remote Sensing for Archaeology. New York, US. 
98 Chris Stewart, Philippe Martimort, Earth observation applied to Cultural Heritage Applications: current capabilities, limitat ions and future 
perspectives, 24 April 2017, Brussels 
99  Radoslaw  Guzinski et  al.,  Exploring  the  Utility  of  Bathymetry  Maps  Derived  With  Multispectral  Satellite  Observations  in  the  Field  of 
Underwater Archaeology; https://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/196660_en.html 
100 Margarete VAN ESS et al., Detection of looting activities at archaeological sites in Iraq using Ikonos imagery 
101  Daniele  Spizzichino,  PROTEGHO,  satellite  techniques  for  risk  monitoring  and  for  conservation  policies,  24  April  2017,  Brussels;  Luca 
Rossi, The Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction: Cultural Heritage, disaster resilience, and climate change, 24 April 2017, Brussels 
102 A Holistic EO technology approach for improving resilience of CH assets, 24 April 2017, Brussels 
103 Parcak, S., 2009. Satellite Remote Sensing for Archaeology. New York, US. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

◦ Wash and clean found objects  
◦ Begin recording the process of the site for later fields 
reports  
◦ Analyse the data for the excavation report to be 
published and presented 

◦Publish results and documentation 

Process and user needs for operation activities  

To begin operation activities, the excavation team104 uses preliminary research to determine the 
adequate method to proceed to the excavation of a site, depending on the nature of the site, its 
environmental  exposure  and  other  identified  risks  that  might  appear  when  proceeding  to  an 
invasive research method such as excavation. Research or excavation operations can follow (i) a 
standard method when  there is no critical risk that has been identified, (ii)  preventive methods 
to  avoid  harming  more  fragile  sites  or  (iii)  rescue  methods  when  the  excavation  is  conducted 
over a damaged archaeological site.  

To  identify  the  adequate  methodology  for  excavation,  among  standard,  preventive  or  rescue 
archaeological research methods, user communities can additionally conduct geodetic recordings 
- recording the geometric shape, orientation in space and gravity field where the site is situated 
in  order  to  understand  the  Cultural  Heritage’s  Earth-related  features.  In  the  case  of  land,  the 
stratigraphic description and the identification of individual layers or stratigraphic units105 of the 
archaeological  site  allow  the  identification  of  the  positioning  of  a  site  in  terms  of  underground 
layers, and potentially to determine the time of construction.  

Once  the  appropriate  methodology  has  been  identified,  the  excavation  can  be  planned  and 
conducted.  The  excavation  operations  include  research  activities  as  well  as  the  recording  and 
reporting  of  the  site’s  study.  Operation  activities  can  be  concluded  during  the  writing  and  the 
publication  of  archaeological  reports.  Data  collection  is  then  necessary  to  feed  the  excavation 
report  to  be  published  and  presented  in  order  to  justify  the  official  recognition  of  the  site  as 
Cultural  Heritage  and  more  globally  to  index  all  relevant  information  for  the  excavation. 
Everything is described: for instance, the appearance of the heritage found, the period of time in 
which it is considered to have been produced and the contextualisation vis-à-vis other searches 
in the area. For this, all information previously collected is used.  

104  The  excavation  team  can  be  composed  by  a  Director  of  excavation,  a  site  or  area  supervisor,  a  square  supervisor.  The  excavati on 
activities can also be supported by volunteers and scientific experts and well as architects when it is relevant.  
105 Chris Stewart, Philippe Martimort, Earth observation applied to Cultural Heritage Applications: current capabilities, limitat ions and future 
perspectives, 24 April 2017, Brussels 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Figure 31:  Main user needs required for operation activities (Source: stakeholder consultation) 

Additional  user  needs  have  been  expressed  during  direct  interviews  as  complementary  to  the 
proposed list, and illustrated in the table below. These “other user needs” are only listed and not 
expressed in the same format than in Figure 31 (i.e. percentage of users interested in each user 
need) due to lack of information. 

Table 9: Summary of the other user needs for the operations activities mentioned during the 
interviews (Source: stakeholder consultation) 

Other user needs expressed during the interviews 

Mapping of surrounding infrastructure (roads, pipelines, waterconducts etc.) 

Mapping of frequentation patterns 

Ground motion monitoring 

3D reconstruction 

Elevation modelling 

Map regression 

The  results  of  the  PwC  survey  indicate  a  global  homogeneity  in  user  needs  for  operation 
activities,  with  more  than  50%  of  respondents  requiring  indirect  indicators,  thermal  anomaly, 
bathymetry, geodetic recording, stratigraphy, etc. Key user needs however have been identified 
as bathymetry, tectonic petrography and metal detecting as they are required by almost 70% of 
respondents intervening in operation activities.  

The following nature of information can be required in the conducting of an excavation operation, 
depending on the considered perimeters:  

•  The information used to identify the on-land positioning of the site: (i) the indirect indicators 
(i.e. multi temporal analysis of cropmarks and soil marks106 and the chlorophyll levels107), (ii) 

106  Parcak,  S.,  2009.  Satellite  Remote  Sensing  for  Archaeology.  New  York,  US.;  Chris  Stewart,  Philippe  Martimort,  Earth  observation 
applied to Cultural Heritage Applications: current capabilities, limitations and future perspectives, 24 April 2017, Brussels 
Rosa Lasaponara, Remote sensing for Cultural Heritage: from documentation to risk estimation and preservation, 24 April 2017, Brussels 

42 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Sea salinity levels measurementLithologyTectonic petrographyVegetation levels monitoringRock assay analysisIdentification of previously searched sites in the areaVisual identification via imageryTopographic mappingPhotogrammetric mappingMetal detectingGeodetic recordingStratigraphic description of the archaeological site and identification of individuallayers or stratigraphic unitsBathymetryThermal anomalyNormalized difference vegetation index (NDVI)Indirect indicators (Cropmarks, soilmarks, chlorophyll levels) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

the NDVI108, (iii) the visual identification via imagery109, but also (iv) monitoring of vegetation 
levels to better characterise the cultural landscape.  

•  The  information  used  to  provide  geological  data  regarding  the  positioning  of  the  site 
underground,  or  underwater:  (i)  the  stratigraphic110  or  bathymetric111  description  to  identify 
the  positioning  of  the  site  in  terms  of  underground  layers,  (ii)  the  topographic112  and 
photogrammetric113 maps which provide an understanding of the area’s  reliefs, (iii) the rock 
assay  analysis114,  which  can  provide  chronological  indication,  (iv)  tectonic  petrography115, 
that is  the  rock  description  of  the  geological  structures,  (v)  lithology116,  which  describes  the 
nature of the rocks in the studied area and gives indications of its geological composition, (vi) 
geodetic recording117, which describes with geometric standards the shape of the structure to 
investigate, and its orientation in space, with regards to the gravity field in which it is located.  

•  The  information  used  to  place  the  site  into  a  more  global  context:  (i)  the  identification  of 
previously  searched  sites  in  the  area118,  which  provides  an  understanding  of  the  potential 
expected  similarities  to  be  drawn  with  the  studied  site.  The  comparison  with  previous 
research can be used to qualify the site exposure to risks (e.g. geo-hazards, human conflicts) 
or to record the damage to support the case for recognition and conservation. 

•  Finally, other types of information can be looked at, at this stage of the  value chain, such as 
(i) metal detecting119, to support the indication of the presence of structures underground as 
a remote sensing archaeological tool to identify the location of historic trails for instance, and 
(ii) sea salinity levels120. 

3.2.1.3  Creation - Recognition 

Definition  

The  formal  recognition  of  Cultural  Heritage  follows  specific  processes  at  local,  national  or 
international  levels  that  all  require  responding  to  specific  criteria  in  order  to  receive  an  official 
labelling.  Two  of  the  major  labels  are  the  European  Heritage  Label  (EHL)  and  UNESCO’s  World 
Heritage recognition (World Heritage Label (WHL)), though others, notably at local and national 
level, exist and are very important as countries are responsible for the listing and the protection 
of  their  own  Heritage.  These  two  labels  do  not  have  the  same  aim:  the  EHL  celebrates  sites 
symbolising  European  ideals,  values,  history  and  integration  whereas  the  WHL  celebrates  and 
protects Cultural heritage sites as such121. In order to be recognised at European level with the 

107 Parcak, S., 2009. Satellite Remote Sensing for Archaeology. New York, US. 
108 Ibid 
109  Council  of  Europe,  Guidelines  on  Cultural  Heritage,  Technical  tools  for  Heritage  conservation  and  management,  2012;  Maria  Libera 
Battagliere, COSMO-Skymed Contribution to Cultural Heritage Monitoring, 24 April 2017; Margarete van Ess, Remote sensing as a crucial 
tool for Cultural Heritage preservation: case studies from the Near East, 24 April 2017, Brussels; Elke Selter, UNESCO's use of satellites for 
monitoring heritage sites in conflict-affected areas, 24 April 2017, Brussels 
110 Chris Stewart, Philippe Martimort, Earth observation applied to Cultural Heritage Applications: current capabilities, limitat ions and future 
perspectives, 24 April 2017, Brussels 
111 Stelios Bollanos, User needs in monitoring coastal archaeological sites: the potential of Copernicus, 24 April 2017, Brussels; Radoslaw 
Guzinski et  al.,  Exploring  the  Utility  of  Bathymetry  Maps  Derived  With  Multispectral  Satellite  Observations  in  the  Field  of  Underwater 
Archaeology 
112 Margarete VAN ESS et al., Detection of looting activities at archaeological sites in Iraq using Ikonos imagery 
113 Chris Stewart, Philippe Martimort, Earth observation applied to Cultural Heritage Applications: current capabilities, limitat ions and future 
perspectives, 24 April 2017, Brussels 
114 Parcak, S., 2009. Satellite Remote Sensing for Archaeology. New York, US. 
115  Daniele  Spizzichino,  PROTEGHO,  satellite  techniques  for  risk  monitoring  and  for  conservation  policies,  24  April  2017,  Brussels;  Luca 
Rossi, The Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction: Cultural Heritage, disaster resilience, and climate change, 24 April 2017, Brussels 
116 Parcak, S., 2009. Satellite Remote Sensing for Archaeology. New York, US. 
117  Margarete  VAN  ESS  et  al.,  Detection  of  looting  activities  at  archaeological  sites  in  Iraq  using  Ikonos  imagery;  Stelios  Bollanos,  User 
needs in monitoring coastal archaeological sites: the potential of Copernicus, 24 April 2017, Brussels 
118 Council of Europe, Guidelines on Cultural Heritage, Technical tools for Heritage conservation and management, 2012 
119 Melissa Connor and Douglas D. Scott, Metal detector use in archaeology: an introduction, Historical Archaeology, Vol. 32, No 4 (1998), 
pp. 76-85 
120  A  Holistic  EO  technology  approach  for  improving  resilience  of  CH  assets,  24  April  2017,  Brussels;  Cristina  Sabbioni,  Antonia  Pasqua 
Recchia, The Joint Programming Initiative on Cultural Heritage: European perspective, 24 April 2017, Brussels 
121 European Commission website. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/actions/heritage-label_en 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                               
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

former,  sites  should  already  be  recognised  at  national  level122  as  Heritage  before  being 
authorised  to  apply  for  the  EHL.  As  for  the  latter,  each  country  proposes  what  is  called  a 
“tentative list”, composed of sites that are deemed worth of receiving UNESCO’s recognition. No 
recognition  at  national  or  local  level  is  mandatory  for  a  site  to  be  part  of  the  tentative  list; 
however,  they  are  generally  already  recognised  at  local  or  national  level  in  order  to  be 
considered.  For  local,  national  as  well  as  for  European  or  International  recognition,  user 
communities  need  to  proceed  to  the  inventory  of  the  site  (ensemble  of  buildings,  monuments, 
reserves, etc.) and to provide a report meeting the label’s requirements.  

Table 10: Summary of recognition tasks and their description 

Tasks 

Proceed to 
inventory 

Provide a research report (when 
relevant) 

Apply for national recognition of 
the Heritage asset (following local 
and national procedures) OR to a 
label or other formal recognition 

Description 

Name and characterise the site: monuments, ensemble of 
buildings, conservation areas, archaeology sites and reserves, etc.;  
Describe the site and geographical characteristics; 
Present the general state and condition; 
Support documentation. 

Provide an introduction for the report including:  
Aims and objectives of the research conducted (e.g. excavation if 
relevant, research over monuments, palaces, industrial heritage, 
city centres, … );  
Indication of archaeological significance before the operation;  
Dates of commencement and termination of the operation;   
Locational data; 
Present Historical background; 
Present and analyse the excavation;  
Describe the area excavated with overall plan showing all cuttings 
(including a presentation of topographical and other surveys 
conducted and reference to any previous investigation/excavation 
carried out at the site if relevant);  
Describe the methodology including finds retrieval and sampling 
strategies; Indicate reasons for selected strategies; 
Provide a full narrative description of the operation including 
stratigraphic information, phasing (if relevant), reference to 
significant finds when describing contexts and interpretation; 
Present the condition of site post excavation if relevant (e.g. has it 
been backfilled?); 
Present the finds  
Catalogue finds. Entries should include appropriate measurements, 
descriptions, associations and contexts; 
Provide a detailed description, assessment and illustration of the 
significant finds or groups/categories of finds; 
Discuss the results and conclude; 
Provide when possible specialist appendices/reports (e.g. e reports 
on dating, soils, paleo-environmental data, human remains, 
artefact conservation, site or monument conservation, 
environmental assessment for sites of natural/cultural significance, 
etc.) 

[EHL] Apply for one, several sites or transnational sites;  
[EHL] Submit a candidacy meeting the 3 criteria (cultural 
significance, participation to European promotion and operational 
capability to implement a project or work plan, e.g. ensuring sound 
management including objectives and indicators); 
[UNESCO] Countries that have signed the World Heritage 
Convention provide a “tentative list” of sites to be nominated for 
WH recognition; 

“European  Heritage 

122 
candidate 
https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/sites/creative-europe/files/files/ehl-guidelines-for-candidate-sites_en.pdf 

sites”,  European  Heritage 

Label  guidelines 

Label 

for 

[ONLINE]  Available 

at 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

[UNESCO] The candidacy is evaluated by two Advisory Bodies (the 
International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the 
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)) and the 
World Heritage Committee. 

Process and user needs for recognition activities  

The first step of the formal recognition of a site as Heritage is to provide an updated inventory of 
the  site,  including  its  description  and  geographical  and  geometrical  characteristics,  its  general 
state and condition at the time of the candidacy and supporting documentation.  

When delivering a research report, specific information needs to be gathered. In terms of tasks, 
the writing of a report seeks to provide a general introduction with the aims and objectives of the 
conducted  research  and/or  excavation.  The  report  should  also  include  available  historical 
background  and  a  presentation  and  analysis  of  the  site  and,  in  relevant  cases,  of  undertaken 
excavation.  In  the  case  of  archaeological  research,  an  indication  of  the  archaeological 
significance  before  the  excavation,  location  data  as  well  as  dating  of  the  excavation  conducted 
should  be  added.  The  report  should  describe  the  area  with  an  overall  plan  showing  all 
perimeters. The report should also present the methodology, provide a full narrative description 
of  the  conducted  research,  as  well  as  the  state  of  the  site  by  the  end  of  the  excavation,  if 
relevant.  Applying  sites  which  haven’t  required  any  invasive  research  methods,  such  as  city 
centres (e.g. Valeta, Malta), forests (e.g Bois du Cazier, Belgium) and so on, should provide the 
description and analysis of the sites as well as any conducted research. Finally, the report should 
include  the  findings  of  the  research,  the  discussion  of  the  results  and  their  related  conclusions. 
Appendices  and  analysis  can  be  provided  based  on  scientific  expertise  to  support  the  analysis 
and  the  conclusion  of  the  report.  In  the  end,  the  objective  is  to  publish  the  report  and  its 
documentation for scientific purposes and to demonstrate the need and coherence of a Heritage 
label.   

As  previously  described,  every  country  imposes  its  own  Heritage  recognition  process  and 
procedures.  User  communities  who  work  for  the  recognition  of  a  site  usually  need  to  obtain 
national  recognition  to  access  candidacy  for  a  broader  recognition.  European  processes  to 
Heritage Label differ from the ones at the international level such as the UNESCO recognition of 
World Heritage. The EHL process relies on a written candidacy based on research reports and a 
site  management  project  which  have  met  three  criteria  for  recognition  (cultural  significance123, 
participation  to  European  promotion,  and  promotion  and  operational  capability).  Once  the  label 
has been granted, the EHL imposes an 18-month monitoring of the site to confirm its capacity to 
be  managed  and  protected.  The  EHL  is  confirmed  with  the  final  validation  of  their  monitoring 
report  (which  can  include  recommendations).  Monitoring  activities  will  be  described  at  the 
analysis of the second segment of the value chain, referred to as the “Production segment”.  

To conclude the analysis of the Creation segment, it should be noted that the user communities 
involved  make  inventories  of  the  Heritage  assets  in  the  context  of  candidacies  for  official 
recognition. At this point, all the information provided during the building of the research report, 
listed above, is thus analysed in light of the recognition criteria. 

123 Burra Charter, ICOMOS Australia, 1999 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Figure 32: Summary of user needs for recognition activities (Source: stakeholder consultation) 

Additional  user  needs  have  been  expressed  during  direct  interviews  as  complementary  to  the 
proposed list, and illustrated in the table below. These “other user needs” are only listed and not 
expressed in the same format than in Figure 32 (i.e. percentage of users interested in each user 
need) due to lack of information. 

Table 11: Summary of the other user needs for the recognition activities mentioned during the 
interviews (Source: stakeholder consultation) 

Other user needs expressed during the interviews 

Mapping of surrounding infrastructure (roads, pipelines, waterconducts etc.) 

Mapping of frequentation patterns 

Ground motion monitoring 

3D reconstruction 

Elevation modelling 

Map regression 

The results of the PwC survey indicate key data required for this segment of the value chain is 
concentrated  in  providing  a  global  overview  of  the  sites  features  (photogrammetric  mapping, 
topographic  mapping)  as  well  as  historical  background  with  the  identification  of  previously 
searched sites. For this part of the segment, most user needs identified are required  by 80% to 
95% of respondents.  

3.2.1.4  Conclusion 

Given the nature of the user needs in the context of Creation activities and tasks, it appears that 
remote  sensing  data  and  information  will  be  able  to  meet  user  communities’  main  challenges 
(namely,  implementing  non-invasive  research  methods  and  gathering  data  for  research  and 
recognition  candidacies).  Remote  sensing  data  and  information  constitute  a  key  input  for  all 
prospection, operation and recognition activities, and provide support for empirical (the collection 

46 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Sea salinity levels measurementLithologyTectonic petrographyVegetation levels monitoringRock assay analysisIdentification of previously searched sites in the areaVisual identification via imageryTopographic mappingPhotogrammetric mappingMetal detectingGeodetic recordingStratigraphic description of the archaeological site and identification of individuallayers or stratigraphic unitsBathymetryThermal anomalyNormalized difference vegetation index (NDVI)Indirect indicators (Cropmarks, soilmarks, chlorophyll levels) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

of  data  leads  to  the  creation  of  a  scientific  theory),  processual  (the  emitted  theory  is  later 
validated by collection of data from research or specifically excavation) scientific knowledge, and 
globally  supports  evidence  to  recognition.  In  all  presented  cases,  the  user  needs  are  localised 
and  require  sufficiently  high  precision  (especially  to  detect  changes  in  chlorophyll  levels  or  in 
cropmarks). The collection of data in this segment is particularly crucial, as it feeds the analysis 
and activities realised further down the value chain, and thus need to be as precise, exhaustive 
and informative as possible to allow a maximised valorisation of the site. 

In terms of user needs, data and activities can be synthesised in four high level user needs (see 
table  below)  with  22  user  needs  collected  to  fulfil  them  (see  graph  below).  These  will  be  re-
analysed  further  on  in  the  analysis  to  see  to  what  extent  Copernicus  could  respond  to  these 
needs. All high level user needs can be considered relevant, as the user needs they gathered are 
required  by  50%  or  more  of  respondents  to  the  survey,  indicating  key  user  needs  for  all  user 
communities taking part in this segment of the value chain.  

Table 12: Summary of high level user needs for the Creation segment 

High level user needs for the Creation segment 

Study of the natural environment of the site for the detection of underground archaeological features 

Non-destructive analysis of the underground / underwater positioning of the CH features 

Non-destructive analysis of the surface positioning of the CH features 

Mapping of the cultural landscape of the site and identification of the specific risks it is exposed to 

Figure 33: Summary of user needs for the Creation segment (Source: stakeholder consultation) 

Additional  user  needs  have  been  expressed  during  direct  interviews  as  complementary  to  the 
proposed list, and illustrated in the table below. These “other user needs” are only listed and not 
expressed in the same format than in Figure 33 (i.e. percentage of users interested in each user 
need) due to lack of information. 

47 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Sea salinity levels measurementLithologyTectonic petrographyVegetation levels monitoringRock assay analysisIdentification of previously searched sites in the areaVisual identification via imageryTopographic mappingPhotogrammetric mappingMetal detectingGeodetic recordingStratigraphic description of the archaeological site and identification of individuallayers or stratigraphic unitsBathymetryThermal anomalyNormalized difference vegetation index (NDVI)Indirect indicators (Cropmarks, soilmarks, chlorophyll levels) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Table 13: Summary of the other user needs for the Creation segment mentioned during the 
interviews (Source: stakeholder consultation) 

Other user needs expressed during the interviews 

Mapping of surrounding infrastructure (roads, pipelines, waterconducts etc.) 

Mapping of frequentation patterns 

Ground motion monitoring 

3D reconstruction 

Elevation modelling 

Map regression 

3.2.2   Production segment 

Definition  

The  production  segment  integrates  all  activities  of  conservation  of  Tangible  Heritage  and 
preservation of Natural Heritage. These include the monitoring of a site, and also the emergency 
monitoring  or  intervention  for  the  protection  of  a  site;  the  definition  of  conservation  and 
preservation plans which allow the identification of the need for further research on specific areas 
of the site or for restoration work to be performed; but also includes any protective measures or 
intervention  that  have  been  identified  based  on  monitoring  or  on  the  conservation/preservation 
plan, as illustrated in the chart below. 

Figure 34: Main activities included in the segment "Production" of the Cultural Heritage value 
chain 

User communities 

Within  this  segment,  the  Cultural  Heritage  professional  user  community  will  continue  to  have  a 
prominent role along with the Natural sciences user community, who take part in the monitoring 
and protection of sites in collaboration with site operators and local authorities.  

Context of development of the Production segment  

A global unbalance between Natural and Tangible Heritage in terms of monitoring  

48 

Cultural heritage conservation (restoration, maintenance)Natural heritage preservationProductionValue chain segmentActivities 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Based on desk research and consultation with stakeholders, there are many similarities between 
the user needs used for Conservation (Tangible Heritage) and Preservation (Natural Heritage), as 
they  share  common  objectives  and  features.  However,  the  stakeholder  consultation  has 
highlighted  the  specific  gap  at  this  level  of  the  value  chain  between  how  Natural  Heritage  is 
monitored compared to Tangible Heritage. Indeed, almost all European Natural Heritage sites are 
covered and follow specific processes of preservation, while for Tangible Heritage, the definition 
and implementation of conservation management plans has not been generalized in practice.  

The perspective of a global Cultural Heritage site’s integrated site management approach  

The  intention  for  the  Cultural  Heritage  community  is  to  develop  means  for  an  integrated 
approach to monitor and protect Tangible Heritage and Natural Heritage. In the case of touristic 
activities  for  instance,  Tangible  Heritage  is  exposed  to  anthropogenic  impacts,  while  Natural 
Heritage is mostly exposed to the effects of climate change and anthropogenic phenomenon. In 
that  sense,  the  systematic  approaches  to  damage  prevention  and  site  monitoring,  for  example, 
are something stakeholders should consider within an integrated approach, as Tangible Heritage 
monitoring  could  capitalise  on  Natural  Heritage  monitoring.  Therefore,  if  the  user  needs  are 
mostly similar, the demand should be higher from the Tangible Heritage side to fill this gap and 
pursue the project of a global Cultural Heritage Management approach.  

Table 14: Summary of Production activities and tasks  

Activity 

Tasks 

Conservation 

Preservation 

Proceed to the revision of research and coordinate existing data to update 
or create inventory  
Monitoring and risk prevention of a site; 
Perform conservation  activities. 

Proceed to the revision of research and coordinate existing data to update 
or create inventory 
Monitoring and risk prevention of a site; 
Perform preservation activities. 

3.2.2.1 

Production – Conservation and Preservation 

Overview of the process and user needs for conservation and preservation activities  

Table 15: Summary of Production and Conservation tasks and their description 

Tasks 

Description 

Proceed to the revision of research and 
coordination of existing data to update or create 
inventory 

Monitoring and risk prevention of a site; 

Collect existing data from previous research and 
monitoring over the site 

Coordinate existing data to update existing inventory 

Possibly call for further research to update data for 
inventory 

Monitoring and recording of : 

o  Environmental data  
o  Geo-hazards 
o  Hydrological hazards 
o  Biological hazards 
o  Meteorological hazards 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

o  Endemic / Pandemic events  
o  Anthropogenic risks  
o  Climate change  

Report collected data  

Organise interventions or emergency interventions  

Organise and coordinate a restauration intervention   

Perform restauration  activities 

Perform restauration 

The Production segment includes activities of monitoring, recording and reporting of all types of 
Cultural Heritage sites from archaeological sites, natural sites, to monuments and buildings (e.g. 
the  Eiffel  Tower).  User  communities  can  proceed  to  a  revision  of  existing  research  and  data  to 
support  monitoring  and  restauration  activities.  Within  the  Production  segment,  two  sub-
categories  of  user  communities  can  be  distinguished:  monitoring-oriented  user  communities 
(monitoring officers, preservation or  conservation officers)  on the  one hand and action-oriented 
user communities on the other hand (technicians, scientific experts, volunteers, etc.) intervening 
for specific needs related to conservation and preservation of a site. In this segment of the value 
chain, action-oriented user communities can intervene in the conducting of research, for instance 
a  site  manager  or  operator  will  participate  in  the  documentation  of  the  research  processes  and 
results.  

The monitoring, recording and reporting on a site, mainly in relation to risk prevention, is carried 
out  by  monitoring-oriented  user  communities.  In  the  case  of  conservation  activities,  the  PwC 
survey indicate that monitoring activities are global and include the monitoring of environmental 
data as well as biological, hydrological and geo-hazards for more than 60% of respondents, with 
more than 50% of respondents indicating the monitoring of anthropogenic and climate change as 
key  in  their  activities.  Meteorological  hazards  have  been  identified  as  key  for  50%  of 
respondents,  which  is  still  relevant  for  the  analysis.  On  the  other  hand,  preservation  activities 
share the primary need of monitoring environmental data (72% of respondents), but as natural 
environments  are  involved,  will  rather  focus  on  geo-hazards  and  climate  change  monitoring 
according to the PwC survey. Biological hazards, meteorological hazards and endemic / pandemic 
events  monitoring  seems  of  less  importance  to  user  communities  as  less  than  50%  of  the 
respondents  (intervening  in  these  activities)  indicated  this  as  part  of  their  practices.  This 
information is presented in the next two charts below:  

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Figure 35: Main monitoring activities implemented in conservation activities (Source: stakeholder 
consultation) 

51 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Monitor meterological hazardsMonitor climate chngeMonitor anthropogenic risksMonitor geo-hazardsMonitor hydrological hazardsMonitor biological hazardsMonitor environmental dataMonitor environmental dataMonitor biological hazards Monitor hydrological hazardsMonitor geo-hazards Monitor anthropogenic risks Monitor climate change Monitor meteorelogical hazards  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Figure 36: Main monitoring activities implemented in preservation activities (Source: stakeholder 
consultation) 

It  appears  that  monitoring  tasks  are  performed  by  a  very  diverse  range  of  user  communities 
(e.g.  site  operators,  scientific  experts,  etc.).  A  key  example  is  the  case  of  the  increasing 
importance  of  monitoring  Natural  and  Tangible  Heritage  sites  in  conflict  areas,  notably  outside 
Europe. User communities performing them are not technical profiles, but still need access to key 
information  to  provide  immediate  decision-making  on  prevention  or  protection  action.  As 
monitoring activities are performed by non-technical users (i.e. users not trained to use products 
requiring  a  certain  level  of  specific  knowledge  such  as  satellite  imagery),  the  stakeholder 
consultation  highlighted  the  need  for  easy  access  to  structured  information  products.  Based  on 
stakeholder  consultation,  it  seems  that,  as  of  today,  there  remains  a  limit  to  the  number  of 
sources or quantity of available data. Furthermore, there is a need for centralised sources of data 
to  facilitate  a  monitoring  operation  in  the  situation  of  an  emergency  and  more  generally  for 
standard monitoring purposes, which are currently greatly diversified.   

To begin with, user communities need to map the cultural landscape of the site and identify 
the specific risks it is exposed to and observe the damage on the built structure of a Cultural 
Heritage  site.  This  requires  updated  information  on  land  use  of  the  surrounding  area,  (ii)  the 
evaluation of the site’s exposure  to all potential risks (e.g. geo-hazards) because of its location, 
positioning,  and  surroundings,  (iii)  the  analysis  of  the  material  composition  of  visible  parts  to 
understand  the  overall  structure  and  identify  potential  damage.  The  prior  can  be  defined  as  a 
first step to define a site’s management plan and then conduct monitoring activities.  

To monitor the evolution of the  natural  environment of  a  Tangible Heritage  or  Natural 
Heritage  site,  user  communities  need  to  detect,  delineate  and  monitor  damages  that  can  be 
observed (e.g. deterioration of a building, signs of mineralisation, illegal forest cut, illegal looting, 
etc.).  For  this  purpose  and  for  both  land  and  sea  Heritage,  they  need  to  conduct  map 
regressions124  to  delimitate,  by  comparing  images  in  time,  the  coverage  of  the  observed 

124 Margarete VAN ESS et al., Detection of looting activities at archaeological sites in Iraq using Ikonos imagery; A Holistic EO  technology 
approach for improving resilience of CH assets, 24 April 2017, Brussels; Maria Libera Battagliere, COSMO-Skymed Contribution to Cultural 
Heritage Monitoring, 24 April 2017 

52 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Monitor endemic/pandemic eventsMonitor meterological hazardsMonitor biological hazardsMonitor hydrological hazardsMonitor climate chngeMonitor geo-hazardsMonitor environmental dataMonitor environmental dataMonitor geo-hazardsMonitor climate changeMonitor hydrological hazards Monitor biological hazardsMonitor meteorological hazards Monitor endemic / pandemic events  
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

damage.  Finally,  in  the  case  of  an  emergency  event,  such  as  flash  floods  or  fires,  real-time 
monitoring125  supports  the  work  of  user  communities  in  drawing  conclusions  in  order  to 
facilitate an emergency intervention.  

On  the  other  hand,  user  communities  need  to  conduct  a  constant  environmental  (climate 
change, geo-hazards, pandemic events, etc.) monitoring and modelling of the area, mostly 
to  identify  and  prevent  potential  risks.  For  this  purpose,  in  the  particular  case  of  underwater 
Tangible  Heritage,  they  look  at  factors  for  overtime  damage  on  a  built  structure:  water 
pollution126,  coastal  erosion127,  water  currents,  hydrological  changes128,  sediments  levels129  (as 
they  show  evolutions  in  marine  ecosystem  which  can  impact  the  undersea  structure),  and  sea 
salinity  levels130.  Needs  related  to  water  natural  sites  are  very  similar,  as  Natural  Heritage 
communities  are  also  interested  in  water  pollution,  water  currents,  sediment  levels131  and  sea 
salinity levels. In the case of both land and underwater  Heritage, certain variables are analysed 
for  their  tendency  to  be  inherent  factors  of  damage:  air  pollution132,  insolation133,  atmospheric 
moisture134,  wind  direction  and  speed135,  and  temperature136.  Other  variables  are  however 
monitored for their capacity to indicate evolutions that could eventually cause damage,  such as 
(i)  rainfall  erosivity,  which  allows  the  analysis  of  the  impact  of  rainfall  on  the  erosion  of  a  site 
over  time  (for  both  Natural  and  Tangible  Heritage),  (ii)  ground  motion137,  to  identify  potential 
seismic risks, (iii) and the water level138 itself, to predict potential flooding, (iv) the evolution of 
soil  distribution  and  composition139,  which  can  help  predict  evolutions  in  the  ecosystem  of  the 
Natural  or  Tangible  Heritage  site.  In  the  particular  case  of  Natural  Heritage,  user  communities 
monitor  the  evolutions  observed  on  all  features  of  the  protected  site,  including  (i)  wildlife 
tracking140, to monitor alive and potentially dead wildlife as a damage observation in itself as well 
as a factor to understand the risks of damage posed to the studied wildlife, (ii) water quality141, 
(iii)  forest  coverage142,  to  identify  signs  of  deforestation,  (iv)  ice  cover  (sea)  or  snow  cover 
(land),  to  monitor  the  evolution  of  the  coverage  of  ice  on  a  natural  site,  as  well  as  a  potential 
factor  for  the  rise  of  sea  level,  (v)  coastal  erosion143,  (vi)  vegetation  levels  144  and  (vii)  the 

125  Maria  Libera  Battagliere,  COSMO-Skymed  Contribution  to  Cultural  Heritage  Monitoring,  24  April  2017,  Brussels;  Peter  Spruyt, 
Emergency  Management  Service  (CEMS),  24  April  2017,  Brussels;  Margarete  van  Ess,  Remote  sensing  as  a  crucial  tool  for  Cultural 
Heritage  preservation:  case  studies  from  the  Near  East,  24  April  2017,  Brussels;  Elke  Selter,  UNESCO's  use  of  satellites  for  monitoring 
heritage sites in conflict-affected areas, 24 April 2017, Brussels 
126 Dr Ozlem Adiyaman, Earth observation with Copernicus to: protect, monitor, document, present and share our common heritage, our 
cultural and natural UNESCO  World Heritage sites, 24 April 2017,  Brussels;  Jordan  Firas Alawneh,  Fadi Balawi and Mohammed  Wah eeb, 
Environmental pollution, a threat to the archaeological sites, heritage and tourism in Zarqa 
127 Stelios Bollanos, User needs in monitoring coastal archaeological sites: the potential of Copernicus, 24 April 2017, Brussels 
128 Conserving Cultural Landscapes: Challenges and New Directions edited by Ken Taylor, Archer St. Clair, Nora J. Mitchell 
129  D.  J.Gregory,  Development  of  Tools  and  Techniques  to  Survey,  Assess,  Stabilise,  Monitor  and  Preserve  Underwater  Archaeologica l 
Sites: Sasmap, International Journal of Heritage in the Digital Era, 2012 
130 A Holistic EO technology approach for improving resilience of CH assets, 24 April 2017, Brussels 
131  D.  J.Gregory,  Development  of  Tools  and  Techniques  to  Survey,  Assess,  Stabilise,  Monitor  and  Preserve  Underwater  Archaeological 
Sites: Sasmap, International Journal of Heritage in the Digital Era, 2012 
132  Dario  Camuffo,  Microclimate  for  cultural  heritage,  Second  edition,  2014;  Dr  Ozlem  Adiyaman,  Earth  observation  with  Copernicus  to: 
protect,  monitor,  document,  present  and  share  our  common  heritage,  our  cultural  and  natural  UNESCO  World  Heritage  sites,  24  April 
2017, Brussels; Rosa Lasaponara, Remote sensing for Cultural Heritage: from documentation to risk estimation and preservation , 24 April 
2017, Brussels; The Effects of Air Pollution on Cultural Heritage Editors: Watt, J., Tidblad, J., Kucera, V., Hamilton, R. (Eds.) 
133 Dario Camuffo, Microclimate for cultural heritage, Second edition, 2014 
134 Ibid; Dr Ozlem Adiyaman, Earth observation with Copernicus to: protect, monitor, document, present and share our common heritage, 
our cultural and natural UNESCO  World Heritage sites, 24 April 2017, Brussels; C. SABBIONI et al., Vulnerability of Cultural  Heritage to 
climate change 
135  A  Holistic  EO  technology  approach  for  improving  resilience  of  CH  assets,  24  April  2017,  Brussels;  Dr  Ozlem  Adiyaman,  Earth 
observation  with  Copernicus  to:  protect,  monitor,  document,  present  and  share  our  common  heritage,  our  cultural  and  natural  UNESCO 
World Heritage sites, 24 April 2017, Brussels; C. SABBIONI et al., Vulnerability of Cultural Heritage to climate change 
136  Dario  Camuffo,  Microclimate  for  cultural  heritage,  Second  edition,  2014;  Dr  Ozlem  Adiyaman,  Earth  observation  with  Copernicus  to: 
protect,  monitor,  document,  present  and  share  our  common  heritage,  our  cultural  and  natural  UNESCO  World  Heritage  sites,  24  April 
2017, Brussels; C. SABBIONI, M. CASSAR, P. BRIMBLECOMBE, R.A. LEFEVRE, Vulnerability of Cultural Heritage to climate change  
137    A  Holistic  EO  technology  approach  for  improving  resilience  of  CH  assets,  24  April  2017,  Brussels;  Daniele  Spizzichino,  PROTEGHO, 
satellite  techniques  for  risk  monitoring  and  for  conservation  policies,  24  April  2017,  Brussels;  Luca  Rossi,  The  Sendai  frame work  for 
disaster risk reduction: Cultural Heritage, disaster resilience, and climate change, 24 April 2017, Brussels 
138    A  Holistic  EO  technology  approach  for  improving  resilience  of  CH  assets,  24  April  2017,  Brussels;  UNESCO,  The  impacts  of  climate 
change on world heritage properties 
139 Margarete VAN ESS et al,, Detection of looting activities at archaeological sites in Iraq using Ikonos imagery; A Holistic EO technology 
approach  for  improving  resilience  of  CH  assets,  24  April  2017,  Brussels;  Chris  Stewart,  Philippe  Martimort,  Earth  observation  applied  to 
Cultural Heritage Applications: current capabilities, limitations and future perspectives, 24 April 2017, Brussels 
140  Dr Ozlem Adiyaman, Earth observation with Copernicus to: protect, monitor, document, present and share our common heritage, our 
cultural and natural UNESCO World Heritage sites, 24 April 2017, Brussels 
141 Ibid 
142 Ibid; Paul Siqueira et al., SAR, InSAR and Lidar studies for measuring vegetation structure over the Harvard forest region 
143  Stelios Bollanos, User needs in monitoring coastal archaeological sites: the potential of Copernicus, 24 April 2017, Brussels 
144 Parcak, S., 2009. Satellite Remote Sensing for Archaeology. New York, US. 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

evolution of the typology of vegetation of the natural site145 (e.g. trees, shrubs, etc.). These user 
needs are presented in the charts below by type of activity:  

Figure 37: Summary of user needs for conservation activities (Source: stakeholder consultation) 

Additional  user  needs  have  been  expressed  during  direct  interviews  as  complementary  to  the 
proposed list, and illustrated in the table below. These “other user needs” are only listed and not 
expressed in the same format than in Figure 37 (i.e. percentage of users interested in each user 
need) due to lack of information. 

Table 16: Summary of the other user needs for the conservation activities mentioned during the 
interviews (Source: stakeholder consultation) 

Other user needs expressed during the interviews 

Ice cover monitoring (sea) / Snow cover monitoring (land) 

Evolution of vegetation typology monitoring  

Water quality monitoring 

Hydrological changes monitoring 

145 Paul Siqueira et al., SAR, InSAR and Lidar studies for measuring vegetation structure over the Harvard forest region 

54 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Map regressionAir pollution monitoring forf blackening of structuresAtmospheric moisture measurementCoastal erosion monitoringVegetation levels monitoringInsolation monitoringRainfall erosivity monitoringSea salinity levels measurementSediment levels measurementAnalysis of soil distribution and compositionWater current monitoringWater pollution monitoringWind direction & speed monitoringMaterial composition analysisMonitoring of the movements of building structure partsIdentification of signs of mineralisationGeo-hazards monitoring/forecastingReal-time monitoring of emergency events (e.g. flash floods, forest fires)Tectonic petrographyGround motion monitoring 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Figure 38: Summary of user needs for preservation activities (Source: stakeholder consultation) 

 Additional  user  needs  have  been  expressed  during  direct  interviews  as  complementary  to  the 
proposed list, and illustrated in the table below. These “other user needs” are only listed and not 
expressed in the same format than in Figure 38 (i.e. percentage of users interested in each user 
need) due to lack of information. 

Table 17: Summary of the other user needs for the preservation activities mentioned during the 
interviews (Source: stakeholder consultation) 

Other user needs expressed during the interviews 

Hydrological changes monitoring 

Monitoring of the movements of building structure parts   

The  results  of  the  PwC  survey  indicate  that  conversation  user  needs  are  quite  homogenous 
while preservation user needs are more heterogeneous. This can be understood in the context in 
which  preservation  activities  are  more  developed  in  practice  and  show  specificities  to  a  wider 
range of environments, while conservation activities are less developed and therefore more basic 
and  commonly  shared  by  relevant  user  communities.  Indeed,  most  user  needs  are  required  by 
between  50%  and  60%  of  respondents  intervening  in  conservation  activities.  Preservation 
activities,  as  they  refer  to  Natural  Heritage  sites  will  be  more  heterogeneous  given  the  higher 
diversity of environments which can be considered.  

3.2.2.2  Conclusion 

The  user  communities  that  intervene  in  the  Production  segment  thus  need  to  collect  data  to 
support  the  creation  and  update  of  the  inventory  of  data  collected  on  the  site,  as  well  as  the 
environmental monitoring and modelling activities for both conservation of Tangible Heritage and 
preservation of Natural Heritage.  

The  categorisation  of  the  “Production”  user  needs  as  presented  above  highlight  the  extent  to 
which  Earth  observation  satellites  can  support  the  related  user  communities.  For  both  Natural 

55 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Map regressionAir pollution monitoringAtmospheric moisture measurementCoastal erosion monitoringEvolution of vegetation typology monitoringForest coverage monitoringVegetation levels monitoringIce cover monitoring (sea)LithologyRock assay analysisNormalized difference vegetation index (NDVI)Rainfall erosivity monitoringSea salinity levels measurementSediment levels measurementAnalysis of soil distribution and compositionWater current monitoringWater pollution monitoringWater quality monitoringWater level monitoringSurface air temperature monitoringWildlife trackingMaterial composition analysisIdentification of signs of mineralisationGeo-hazards monitoring/forecastingReal-time monitoring of emergency events (e.g. flash floods, forest fires)Tectonic petrographyGround motion monitoring 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

and Tangible Heritage, non-technical users, such as international organisations that intervene on 
the  monitoring  of  sites  (e.g.  in  the  case  of  armed  conflicts,  or  in  prevention  of  geo-hazards), 
need to access processed data that is sufficiently comprehensive and informative for them, and 
for which IT skills are not required. In the particular case of Natural Heritage, needs are for both 
current  information  on  biodiversity  and  vegetation  density  (e.g.  in  the  case  of  observed 
deforestation)  that  provide  a  very  large  spatial  coverage  and  for  data  that  provides  an 
understanding of climate change adaptation. Environmental data such as temperature changes 146 
and levels of humidity in the atmosphere are thus particularly key. At this stage, it appears that 
there are issues related to the process and timeframe within which information can be accessed 
during emergency events: (i) authorities in charge of monitoring activities are not always able to 
activate the provision of emergency data themselves and (ii) there is a lack of provision of real-
time data. These two elements both constitute particular challenges for user communities in the 
case of an emergency. 

Four  high  level  user  needs  have  been  identified  overall  for  this  segment,  with  30  user  needs 
collected to fulfil them.  

Table 18: Summary of high level user needs for production activities 

High level user needs for the Production segment 

Monitoring of the evolution of the natural environment of the Tangible Heritage site 

Monitoring of the evolution of the natural environment of the Natural Heritage site 

Observation of damage on the built structure of a Cultural Heritage site 

Drawing of conclusions to facilitate an emergency intervention 

146 Dario Camuffo, Microclimate for cultural heritage, Second edition, 2014; A Holistic EO technology approach for improving resi lience of 
CH assets, 24 April 2017, Brussels; Dr Ozlem Adiyaman, Earth observation with Copernicus to: protect, monitor, document, present and 
share  our  common  heritage,  our  cultural  and  natural  UNESCO  World  Heritage  sites,  24  April  2017,  Brussels;  C.  SABBIONI  et  al.,  
Vulnerability of Cultural Heritage to climate change 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Figure 39: Summary of user needs for the Production segment (Source: stakeholder 
consultation) 

Additional  user  needs  have  been  expressed  during  direct  interviews  as  complementary  to  the 
proposed list, and illustrated in the table below. These “other user needs” are only listed and not 
expressed in the same format than in Figure 39 (i.e. percentage of users interested in each user 
need) due to lack of information. 

Table 19: Summary of the other user needs for the Production segment mentioned during the 
interviews (Source: stakeholder consultation) 

Other user needs expressed during the interviews 

Hydrological changes monitoring 

3.2.3   Transmission segment 

Definition  

The  Transmission  segment  includes  all  activities  related  to  providing  public  access  to  Cultural 
Heritage sites, from site management for touristic purposes, to support and conduct of research 
work  on  site  for  scientific  and  societal  reasons,  and  the  development  of  commercial  products 
linked to site valorisation. This segment of the value chain undertakes the valorisation of the site 
for social and scientific purposes, and therefore it carries new possibilities for Cultural Heritage to 
be  a  strategic  asset  for  the  international  outreach  of  EU  values.  The  activities  included  in  the 
Transmission segment are illustrated in the chart below. 

57 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Map regressionAir pollution monitoringAtmospheric moisture measurementCoastal erosion monitoringEvolution of vegetation typology monitoringForest coverage monitoringVegetation levels monitoringIce cover monitoring (sea)LithologyRock assay analysisNormalized difference vegetation index (NDVI)Rainfall erosivity monitoringSalinity levels measurementSediment levels measurementAnalysis of soil distribution and compositionWater current monitoringWater pollution monitoringWind direction & speed monitoringWater quality monitoringWater level monitoringSurface air temperature monitoringWildlife trackingMaterial composition analysisIdentification of signs of mineralisationGeo-hazards monitoring/forecastingReal-time monitoring of emergency events (e.g. flash floods, forest fires)Tectonic petrographyGround motion monitoringMonitoring of the movements of building structure parts 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Figure 40: Main activities included in the segment "Transmission" of the Cultural Heritage value 
chain 

User communities 

User  communities  intervening  in  the  Transmission  segment  are  in  charge  of  creating  the  link 
between a Cultural Heritage site and the public (e.g. general public, the education field, research 
field,  private  companies)  for  purposes  that  go  beyond  conservation  and  preservation.  This 
segment of the value chain thus includes a broader range of user communities, as it involves 5 
out of the 6 user communities (excluding the national, regional or local authority user community 
in charge of Cultural Heritage recognition). It should be noted that as the number of downstream 
entities  is  limited,  their  participation  to  the  PwC  survey  can  be  considered  low  (10%  of 
participants indicated their intervention in the Transmission segment). However, the stakeholder 
consultation  made  clear  that  all  Cultural  Heritage  communities  see  the  development  of 
Copernicus  as  a  possibility  for  downstream  actors  to  provide  them  with  more  accessible 
processed  data,  since  the  demand  would  be  increasing.  Therefore,  the  downstream  user 
community  should  be  considered  a  key  component  of  the  current  state  and  the  future 
development of the Transmission segment.  

Context of the development of the Transmission segment  

Development of a broader access to Cultural Heritage  

Governments,  private  companies  and  citizens are  being  stimulated  by  European-wide  initiatives 
to  foster  Cultural  Heritage  accessibility  and  impact  on  society.  Indeed,  the  European  Year  of 
Cultural  Heritage,  among  other  EU  initiatives,  is  aiming  at  triggering  the  development  of 
Transmission  activities.  This  segment  of  the  value  chain  could  therefore  be  highly  stimulated 
through  2018  onwards.  In  that  sense,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  specific  use  of  technology  is 
creating  a  whole  new  visitor  experience  and  how  visitors  can  identify  with  Heritage  sites  as  a 
means of fostering identity and a sense of belonging to a community. Moreover, it provides new 
possibilities  for  more  efficient  site  management.  Along  with  this  stimulation  brought  by  new 
technologies,  the  role  of  Cultural  Heritage  appears  to  be  expanding  and  becoming  more 
democratic.   

The  window  of  opportunities  brought  by  new  technologies  and  the  perspective  of  digitisation  of 
culture and site management  

Digitisation and online accessibility lend Cultural Heritage a much greater visibility. This not only 
attracts  visitors,  tourists  and  researchers,  but  can  also  boost  business  to  regional  economies. 
Digitisation  and  digital  preservation  through  the  development  of  3D-capturing,  3D-processing 
and  tools  for  text  digitisation  or  preservation  of  audio-visual  material  is  being  developed.  As 
such,  this  part  of  the  Cultural  Heritage  value  chain  should  be  highly  stimulated  and  require 

58 

Site Management TransmissionValue chain segmentActivitiesAggregation of scientific knowledge for researchDevelopment of commercial products linked to valorisation 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

specific  data  to  be  fostered.  It  is  estimated  that  only  around  20%  of  Europe's  collections  have 
been digitised so far, leaving therefore about 80% of resources still to be digitised147.  

In terms of activities, the Transmission segment relies on three key activities: site management, 
aggregation  of  scientific  knowledge  for  research,  and  the  development  of  commercial  products 
serving the valorisation of a site. The latter two activities are presented jointly, as their need for 
collected data is similar. Moreover, given the nature of the activities conducted in this segment of 
the  value  chain,  all  the  user  needs  that  have  been  identified  for  previous  segments 
should be considered at this point as exploitable for research or commercial activities. 

Table 20: Overview of the Transmission segment 

Activity 

Tasks 

Site management activities 

Planning of capacity for public access 
Frequentation monitoring 

Development of commercial products 
activities 

Creation of products for Tangible / Natural Heritage 
communities 

Aggregation of scientific knowledge 

Access to collected raw data on a platform 

3.2.3.1  Transmission – Conducting site management  

Definition  

Site  management  includes  planning  activities,  monitoring,  and  managing  a  site  for  public 
exhibition purposes, including societal (e.g. scientific and education) and economic (e.g. tourism) 
use.  Regarding  scientific  activities  for  a  site,  it  includes  the  support  or  conduct  of  specific 
projects,  and  potential  partnerships  with  external  institutions  intervening  on  the  site,  such  as 
academic  programs  (students,  PhD  or  researchers’  research  projects),  private  research 
programs, and international organisations’ programs (such as the EC, UNESCO, etc.), which are 
seeking further understanding of the site or site’s specific features that are not directly 
related  to  Cultural  Heritage  conservation/preservation  (this  would  be  activities  belonging 
to  the  Production  segment).  Last  but  not  least,  digitisation  has  carried  great  potential  and 
therefore  great  challenges  for  the  Cultural  Heritage  sector.  Digitisation  opens  possibilities  in 
terms of the means of Transmission of Cultural Heritage to all generations and beyond physical 
frontiers, opening up multiple possibilities for education and access to the general public. This is 
for instance translated into the use of new technologies to digitise Culture through 3D modelling 
of  sites148  (Tangible  and Natural  Heritage  sites),  in-situ  3D  experiences,  or  live  access  to  a  site 
through the internet.  

Table 21: Overview of the site management tasks and their description 

Tasks 

Description  

Planning  of capacity for public access 
(all temporal basis included) 

Define scope (how much will be done);  
Define expected “performance” of the site;  
Define quality (what specific standards need to be 
met);  
Define global costs;  

147  Source:  EC.  Advanced  3D  modelling 
https://cordis.europa.eu/programme/rcn/664971_en.html 
148  Tamara  Brizard,  Willem  Derde,  Neil  Silberman,  Basic  guidelines  for  Cultural  Heritage  professionals  in  the  use  of  information 
technologies,  The  Interactive  Institute,  2007;  Vlahakis,  Ioannidis,  Karigiannis,  Tsotros,  Gounaris,  Stricker,  Gleue,  Daehne,  Almeida, 
Archeoguide:  An  augmented  reality  guide  for  archaeological  sites,  Computer  Graphics  in  Art  History  and  archaeology,  2002;  Parcak,  S., 
2009. Satellite Remote Sensing for Archaeology. New York, US. 

for  accessing  and  understanding  European  cultural  assets. 

[ONLINE]  see: 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Monitoring site and frequentation 

Support and monitor scientific 
activities on site 

Define timeframes for each action. 

Monitoring of the site’s frequentation patterns and 
other aspects of the management system; 
Verify that the management system is delivering 
the right results (outputs and outcomes); 
Establish what remedial measures or new initiatives 
to take in the event of shortcomings; 
Define timeframes for each defined action; 
Define measures to increase the effectiveness of 
the management system. 

Design research projects or select research projects 
based on: 
Technical documentation;  
Data on area of archaeological research; 
Objective of the archaeological research; 
Expected results; 
Type, scope, direction, methods and timing of 
research and protection measures; 
Measures to protect the site/area of discovery; 
Organization of research; 
Budget for archaeological research; 
Technical documentation; 
Photo-documentation; 
Create partnerships with the scientific field. 

Process and user needs for site management activities  

The process of planning on-site management is the task that defines the operability of a site, in 
order  to  enable  public  access  to  it.  This  particular  task  is  specifically  monitored  by  institutions 
such as the European Heritage Label (EHL), to provide and/or maintain a valid Heritage label. It 
includes defining a scope of Transmission to the public, and the extent and means with which the 
site  can  be  accessed  by  the  public.  It  must  define  the  expectations  from  the  site  in  terms  of 
touristic  and  scientific  activities,  standards  of  services  linked  to  these  activities,  frequentation 
capabilities, calendar projections, etc. Projecting costs and expected incomes to be linked to the 
financial  needs  identified  by  the  site  management  group  is  also  necessary.  In  order  to  pursue 
these tasks, the site operators user community relies on key data such as elevation models149 to 
create a very detailed scanning of the area’s  environmental features,  in order to determine the 
possibilities for potential constructions that would ease public access150. Moreover, they need to 
be  provided  with  the  mapping  of  already  existing  infrastructures151  (roads,  pipelines,  water 
conducts, etc.) that can also ease public access, as the PwC survey has confirmed.  

As  a  consequence,  the  second  task  to  be  considered  is  the  monitoring  of  the  site  and  its 
frequentation, which includes monitoring the effectiveness of the site management system itself, 
but also verifying that it produces the expected results with minimal to no negative impact over 
the site’s conservation or preservation. Accordingly, additional tasks include defining measures to 
improve  the  management  system  itself  or  tackle  specific  identified  issues,  as  well  as  their  time 
frame  of  implementation,  in  terms  of  day-to-day  activities  or  a  specific  one-time  action.  A  key 

149 Parcak, S., 2009. Satellite Remote Sensing for Archaeology. New York, US.; Margarete VAN ESS et al., Detection of looting act ivities at 
archaeological sites in Iraq using Ikonos imagery 
150 Expert consultation 
151 Parcak, S., 2009. Satellite Remote Sensing for Archaeology. New York, US.; Dr Ozlem Adiyaman, Earth observation with Copernicus to: 
protect,  monitor,  document,  present  and  share  our  common  heritage,  our  cultural  and  natural  UNESCO  World  Heritage  sites,  24  April 
2017, Brussels; Maria Libera Battagliere, COSMO-Skymed Contribution to Cultural Heritage Monitoring, 24 April 2017;  Rosa Lasaponara, 
Remote sensing for Cultural Heritage: from documentation to risk estimation and preservation, 24 April 2017, Brussels 
Council of Europe, Guidelines on Cultural Heritage, Technical tools for Heritage conservation and management, 2012 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

relevant  need  for  this  task  is  the  monitoring  of  frequentation  patterns152  to  keep  track  of  the 
touristic impact on the site and prevent damages which would be linked to human frequentation. 
Monitoring the number of visitors as well as the patterns of their displacements on the site thus 
serves management purposes as well as preservation/conservation purposes. Moreover, imagery 
and site monitoring are necessary to prevent or respond to any degradation of a site, but will be 
mostly considered by user communities from the Production segment rather than the ones from 
the Transmission segment as the PwC survey results suggest.  

Figure 41: Overview of site management user needs (Source: stakeholder consultation) 

Additional  user  needs  have  been  expressed  during  direct  interviews  as  complementary  to  the 
proposed list, and illustrated in the table below. These “other user needs” are only listed and not 
expressed in the same format than in Figure 41 (i.e. percentage of users interested in each user 
need) due to lack of information. 

Table 22: Summary of the other user needs for the site management activities mentioned during 
the interviews (Source: stakeholder consultation) 

Other user needs expressed during the interviews 

Human conflict risk monitoring 

The  results  of  the  PwC  survey  indicate  that  tasks  of  planning  and  frequentation  monitoring 
require  three  key  user  needs  to  implement  site  management  processes:  elevation  modelling, 
mapping of surrounding infrastructure and frequentation patterns. 

3.2.3.2  Transmission  -  Aggregating  data 

for  research  and 

producing commercial products  

Definition  

Transmission  activities  also  include  supporting  the  conduct  of  research  work  that  is  not  directly 
related  to  the  preservation  or  conservation  of  the  site.  This  includes  working  in  partnership  or 
collaboration  with  external  public  or  private  institutions  seeking  to  develop  a  project  over  the 
whole  site  or  over  specific  features  of  the  site.  These  activities  imply  collaboration  in  terms  of 
access to the site, prevention of risks related to the project and possible access to available data. 
At  this  level,  the  main  element  is  therefore  access  to  inventory  and  collected  raw  data  on  a 
platform for research purposes, which will depend on the nature of the project and the nature of 
the site considered.  

The aggregation of scientific knowledge for research is the link between conducted research on a 
site  and  public  access  to  knowledge.  Therefore,  it  refers  to  the  publication  of  articles  by  the 

152  Tamara  Brizard,  Willem  Derde,  Neil  Silberman,  Basic  guidelines  for  Cultural  Heritage  professionals  in  the  use  of  information 
technologies,  The  Interactive  Institute,  2007;  Dr  Ozlem  Adiyaman,  Earth  observation  with  Copernicus  to:  protect,  monitor,  document, 
present and share our common heritage, our cultural and natural UNESCO World Heritage sites, 24 April 2017, Brussels 

61 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Identification of previously searched sites in the areaGround motion monitoringMapping of frequentation patternsMapping of surrounding infrastructure (roads, pipelines, waterconducts etc.)Elevation modelling3D reconstruction of CH sites 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Natural  sciences  user  community,  which  will  need  access  to  inventory  and  other  available 
data.  

Table 23: Overview of data aggregation and commercial product design tasks and their 
description 

Tasks 

Description 

Aggregation of 
scientific 
knowledge for research 

Development of commercial products linked to 
valorisation of the CH assets 

Publish articles based on conducted research on 
site;  
Share data from inventory and recent research on 
site. 

Creation of 3D experience for visitors (3D 
modelling of monuments); 
Creation of database products for CH 
communities. 

The development of commercial products is at the core of Cultural Heritage development for the 
public,  and  is  carried  out  by  the  Cultural  Heritage  professional  user  community  and  the 
intermediate  user  community  (e.g.  value-added  product  developers).  These  user  communities 
face  the  challenge  of  understanding  how  technology  can  bring  Cultural  Heritage  closer  to  the 
public and/or to professionals. One key example for this activity is the creation of 3D modelling 
of  monuments,  which  can  provide  a  3D  experience  to  the  public,  on  site  or  online.    Satellite 
imagery of the site on which visitors are expected will serve as a basis for the 3D modelling153 of 
the site, either as existing (e.g. Cliffs of Moher) or as existed (e.g. Temple of Jerusalem). 

To  sum  up,  both  activities  are  characterised  by  the  gathering  of  existing  or  recently  collected 
data  either  for  research  and  public  knowledge  purposes,  or  for  the  creation  of  commercial 
products.  All  user  needs  can  be  considered  for  this  section,  as  they  might  intervene  in  the 
publication of research papers, the inventory of a site or the creation of a new product capable of 
valuing a site.  

Figure 42: Overview of “aggregation of data for research and producing commercial products” 
user needs (Source: stakeholder consultation) 

Additional  user  needs  have  been  expressed  during  direct  interviews  as  complementary  to  the 
proposed list, and illustrated in the table below. These “other user needs” are only listed and not 
expressed in the same format than in Figure 42 (i.e. percentage of users interested in each user 
need) due to lack of information.  

153  Tamara  Brizard,  Willem  Derde,  Neil  Silberman,  Basic  guidelines  for  Cultural  Heritage  professionals  in  the  use  of  information 
technologies,  The  Interactive  Institute,  2007;  Vlahakis,  Ioannidis,  Karigiannis,  Tsotros,  Gounaris,  Stricker,  Gleue,  Daehne,  Almeida, 
Archeoguide:  An  augmented  reality  guide  for  archaeological  sites,  Computer  Graphics  in  Art  History  and  archaeology,  2002;  Parcak,  S., 
2009. Satellite Remote Sensing for Archaeology. New York, US. 

62 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Identification of previously searched sites in the areaGround motion monitoringMapping of frequentation patternsMapping of surrounding infrastructure (roads, pipelines, waterconducts etc.)Elevation modelling3D reconstruction of CH sites 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Table 24: Summary of the other user needs for aggregation of data for research and producing 
commercial products activities mentioned during the interviews (Source: stakeholder 
consultation) 

Other user needs expressed during the interviews 

Human conflict risk monitoring 

The  results  of  the  PwC  survey  indicate  that  the  aggregation  of  data  requires  three  main 
user  needs  to  implement  site  management  processes:  3D  reconstruction  of  Cultural  Heritage 
sites, ground motion monitoring and identification of previously searched areas. 

3.2.3.3  Conclusion 

As  extracted  from  the  stakeholder  consultation,  the  Transmission  segment  of  the  value  chain 
faces  key  challenges.  First,  site  management  lacks  proper  institutionalisation  of  the  use  of  site 
management  plans,  which  weakens  site  monitoring.  Providing  site  operators  with  systematic 
accessible  data  would  be  key  to  facilitating  the  definition  and  implementation  of  site 
management  plans.  Secondly,  it  appears  that  this  phenomenon  can  be  differentiated  if  it  is 
Tangible  Heritage  or  Natural  Heritage  that  is  considered.  In  fact,  even  if  data  is  available  for 
European Natural Heritage sites, it appears that site operators working on Tangible Heritage lack 
data and thus they cannot implement or  share good practices. As  a consequence, answering to 
the demand  of  Tangible Heritage site operators could appear as  a priority, in particular,  for the 
monitoring  of  changes  linked  to  human  impact  as  well  as  the  effects  of  touristic 
activities.  

On  the  other  hand,  this  segment  is  disrupted  by  the  development  of  new  technologies  and  the 
opportunity to create a strengthened link between the general public and Heritage sites. In that 
sense, the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) should play a major role in the development of 
3D  experiences,  as  the  gathering  of  specific  datasets  for  Cultural  Heritage  sites  might  be  of 
primary interest for education and scientific purposes.  

One high level user need has been identified for this segment. 

Table 25: Summary of the high level user need for Transmission activities 

High level user needs for the Transmission segment 

Enable public access to the site 

Figure 43: Summary of user needs for Transmission activities (Source: stakeholder consultation) 

63 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Identification of previously searched sites in the areaGround motion monitoringMapping of frequentation patternsMapping of surrounding infrastructure (roads, pipelines, waterconducts etc.)Elevation modelling3D reconstruction of CH sites 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Additional  user  needs  have  been  expressed  during  direct  interviews  as  complementary  to  the 
proposed list, and illustrated in the table below. These “other user needs” are only listed and not 
expressed in the same format than in Figure 43 (i.e. percentage of users interested in each user 
need) due to lack of information. 

Table 26: Summary of the other user needs for the Transmission segment mentioned during the 
interviews (Source: stakeholder consultation) 

Other user needs expressed during the interviews 

Human conflict risk monitoring 

3.2.4  Overall  conclusion  of  high  level  and  specific  user 

needs 

The Cultural Heritage value chain is characterised by cross-field user needs for user communities 
mostly intervening in both types of environments: Tangible Heritage and Natural Heritage on the 
one  hand,  land  and  underwater  environment  on  the  other.  In  the  same  logic,  the  study  has 
identified  user  needs  which  are  cross  Cultural  Heritage  land  covers  and  environments  (43%  of 
user  needs  have  been  identified  for  both  land  and  underwater  environments  on  the  one  hand, 
and  40%  for  both  Tangible  and  Natural  Heritage)  which  allow  to  conclude  to  a  global 
homogenous demand for 9 high level user needs which are declined in 51 user needs.  

This being said, this conclusion needs to be contextualised in what appears as the main challenge 
along the Cultural Heritage value chain: the gap between what is done today for Natural Heritage 
environments compared to Tangible Heritage environments. In fact, as Natural Heritage is mostly 
covered  and  efficiently  monitored,  direct  consultation  highlighted  the  expectations  of 
stakeholders to work towards an integrated approach of Natural Heritage and Tangible Heritage. 
Even  though  collected  data  is  easily  used  for  monitoring  and  site  management  purpose,  the 
Cultural Heritage communities intervening in Tangible Heritage are lacking a clear process of site 
monitoring. By comparing needs in both environments and identifying their similarities, one key 
conclusion  is  the  coherence  between  this  more  integrated  approach  in  which  Tangible  Heritage 
could  benefit  from  best  practices  from  the  Natural  Heritage  community,  in  order  to  foster  its 
global development and sustainability.  

Table 27: Summary of user needs organised by high level user needs (Source: stakeholder 
consultation) 

# 

High level user 
need 

User needs 

e
h
t

f
o

y
d
u
t
S

l
a
r
u
t
a
n

f
o

t
n
e
m
n
o
r
i
v
n
e

e
h
t

r
o
f

e
t
i
s

e
h
t

f
o
n
o

i
t
c
e
t
e
d

d
n
u
o
r
g
r
e
d
n
u

l

l
a
c
i
g
o
o
e
a
h
c
r
a

s
e
r
u
t
a
e
f

-
n
o
N

e
v
i
t
c
u
r
t
s
e
d

e
h
t

f
o
s
i
s
y
l
a
n
a

/
d
n
u
o
r
g
r
e
d
n
u

r
e
t
a
w
r
e
d
n
u

f
o
g
n
n
o

i

i
t
i
s
o
p

s
e
r
u
t
a
e
f
H
C
e
h
t

Indirect indicators 

Normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI)  

Thermal anomaly  

Map regression  

Bathymetry  

Stratigraphic description of the archaeological site and identification of individual layers or 
stratigraphic units  

Geodetic recording  

Metal detecting  

1  

2  

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

3  

4  

5  

l
a
r
u
t
l
u
c

e
h
t

i

f
o
g
n
p
p
a
M

e
c
a
f
r
u
s

e
h
t

f
o
s
i
s
y
l
a
n
a

e
v
i
t
c
u
r
t
s
e
d
-
n
o
N

d
n
a

e
t
i
s

e
h
t

f
o
e
p
a
c
s
d
n
a
l

e
h
t

f
o

t
n
e
m
n
o
r
i
v
n
e
l
a
r
u
t
a
n
e
h
t

f
o
n
o
i
t
u
o
v
e

l

e
h
t

f
o
g
n
i
r
o
t
i
n
o
M

Elevation modelling  

Geodetic recording  

Photogrammetric mapping  

Topographic mapping  

Visual identification via imagery  

Identification of previously searched sites in the area  

s
e
r
u
t
a
e
f
H
C
e
h
t

f
o
g
n
n
o

i

i
t
i
s
o
p

c
i
f
i
c
e
p
s

e
h
t

f
o
n
o

i
t
a
c
i
f
i
t
n
e
d

i

o
t
d
e
s
o
p
x
e
s
i

t
i

s
k
s
i
r

Rock assay analysis  

Vegetation levels monitoring  

Tectonic petrography  

Lithology  

Sea salinity levels measurement  

3D reconstruction  

Ground motion monitoring  

Mapping of frequentation patterns  

Identification of previously searched sites in the area  

Mapping of surrounding infrastructure (roads, pipelines, waterconducts etc.)  

Photogrammetric mapping  

Topographic mapping  

Tectonic petrography  

Visual identification via imagery  

Map regression  

Air pollution monitoring  

Atmospheric moisture measurement  

Coastal erosion monitoring (under and above the sea)   

Evolution of vegetation typology monitoring  

Vegetation levels monitoring  

Ice cover monitoring (sea)/Snow cover monitoring (land)  

e
t
i
s
H
C

Insolation monitoring  

Rainfall erosivity monitoring  

Sea salinity levels measurement  

Sediment levels measurement  

Analysis of soil distribution and composition  

Water current monitoring  

Water pollution monitoring  

Water quality monitoring  

Wind direction & speed monitoring  

Hydrological changes monitoring  

t
i
n
o
6  M

g
n
i
r
o

e
h
t

f
o

l

u
o
v
e

n
o

i
t

e
h
t

f
o

r
u
t
a
n

l
a

r
i
v
n
e

e
m
n
o

f
o
t
n

e
h
t

Map regression  
H
N
Air pollution monitoring  

e
t
i
s

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Atmospheric moisture measurement  

Coastal erosion monitoring (under and above the sea)   

Evolution of vegetation typology monitoring  

Forest coverage monitoring  

Vegetation levels monitoring  

Ice cover monitoring (sea)/Snow cover monitoring (land)  

Lithology  

Rock assay analysis  

Normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI)  

Rainfall erosivity monitoring  

Sea salinity levels measurement  

Sediment levels measurement  

Analysis of soil distribution and composition  

Water current monitoring  

Water pollution monitoring  

Water quality monitoring  

Water level monitoring  

Hydrological changes monitoring  

Temperature monitoring  

Wildlife tracking  

Material composition analysis   

Monitoring of the movements of building structure parts    

Identification of signs of mineralisation  

Map regression  

Geo-hazards monitoring/forecasting  

Human conflict risk monitoring 

Real-time monitoring of emergency events (e.g. flash floods, forest fires)  

Tectonic petrography  

Ground motion monitoring  

Map regression  

Identification of previously searched sites in the area  

Ground motion monitoring  

Mapping of frequentation patterns  

Mapping of surrounding infrastructure (roads, pipelines, waterconducts etc.)  

Elevation modelling  

3D reconstruction  

n
o
i
t
a
v
r
e
s
b
O

n
o
e
g
a
m
a
d
f
o

t
l
i

u
b
e
h
t

a
f
o

e
r
u
t
c
u
r
t
s

e
t
i
s
H
C

i

f
o
g
n
w
a
r
D

o
t

s
n
o
i
s
u
l
c
n
o
c

n
a

e
t
a
t
i
l
i
c
a
f

y
c
n
e
g
r
e
m
e

n
o
i
t
n
e
v
r
e
t
n

i

s
s
e
c
c
a

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
l
b
a
n
E

e
t
i
s

e
h
t
o
t

7  

8  

  9  

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

4 Copernicus capabilities in 

response to user requirements 

This chapter illustrates how Copernicus data and information capabilities have been matched with 
previously  identified  Cultural  Heritage  user  needs.  For  this  purpose,  user  needs  have  been 
characterised  into  user  requirements,  which  have  then  been  translated  into  technical 
specifications  thanks  to  the  support  of  external  experts.  These  technical  specifications  have 
enabled  the  matching  with  Copernicus  data  and  information  capabilities.  The  full  process  is 
illustrated in the chart below. 

Figure 44: High level approach, match analysis between Cultural heritage user requirements and 
Copernicus data and information capabilities 

These different steps are detailed in the following sections. 

4.1  Characterisation of user requirements  

User requirements refer to the translation of user needs, previously identified in Chapter 3, into 
desired  performances  and  attributes.  In  this  sense,  user  requirements  are  complementing  and 
characterising user needs by defining the: 

•  Type of land cover of interest from users: land (e.g. grasslands, urban areas, desert, etc.), 

sea (e.g. coastal, water surface, underwater)154; 

•  Geographical coverage: size of the area to be monitored155: 

- 

- 

Local detailed scale: this is the scale of a single building or a small conservation site; 

Local scale: this is the scale related to a whole zone that can include several buildings or 
sites, or one large one; 

-  Regional scale: This is the scale representing areas that cover vast zones; 

154 The different land cover of interest from Cultural Heritage user communities are illustrated in Annex C. 
155 The geographic coverage that is considered for this study has been inspired by the taxonomy of the PROTHEGO project. 
More details available: http://www.prothego.eu/  

67 

Matching Cultural Heritage user requirements with Copernicus capabilitiesUser needs translated into user requirementsUser requirements translated into technical specificationsTechnical specifications matched with Copernicus data &information capabilities   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

-  National scale: This is the scale covering a whole country, than will encompass several 

regions; 

-  Global scale: This is the scale covering planet Earth; 

•  Frequency of monitoring: frequency to which users would like to receive updated data 

and/or information; 

•  Spatial resolution: size of the smallest possible feature that can be detected (expressed in 

meter). 

These  requirements  were  collected  during  stakeholder  consultation  (i.e.  interviews  and  survey) 
and are directly expressed by the different Cultural Heritage user communities. 

Desk  research and  stakeholder  consultation have pinpointed the fact that differentiation of land 
covers is mostly relevant for the high level user need 1 “Study of the natural environment of the 
site  for  the  detection  of  underground  archaeological  features”.  Past  human  activities  have 
impacts  on  natural  landscape  that  differs  from  one  land  cover  to  another,  leading  to  specific 
user  requirements  for  the  discovery  of  underground  features.  “Land  cover”  is  therefore 
not a significant differentiating factor in the analysis, as land and sea  needs are  expressed into 
specific  user  needs  (e.g.  vegetation  level  monitoring  versus  sea  salinity  level  measurement  or 
water current monitoring). 

Each  user  need  has  been  split  into  several  user  requirements  taking  into  account  users 
frequencies’  requests  (hourly,  daily,  weekly  and  monthly  &  more)  and  spatial  resolution  (Very 
high resolution; High resolution; Low and medium resolution). 

The result of this analysis is a list of user requirements expressed by CH user communities. This 
list is available in Annex D.  

The  detailed  analysis  of  the  user  requirements  stresses  interesting  conclusions  on  CH  user 
communities: 

•  Geographic coverage – In average, 46,3% of users have expressed a requirement for 

“Local-detailed” and “Local” scales, highlighting a strong interest from CH user communities 
in local monitoring; 

•  Frequency of monitoring – In average, 43,2% of users have expressed a requirement for 

“Monthly and more” monitoring versus only 13,5% for “Hourly” monitoring; 

•  Spatial resolution – In average, 41,1% of user have expressed a requirement for “Very 
high resolution (less than 1m)” versus 25% for “Low and Medium resolution (more than 5 
meter)”. The requirements related to spatial resolution are highly dependent of each user 
need in the context of it high level user need (i.e. what the user wants to achieve). 

4.2  Translation  of  user  requirements  into  technical 

specifications 

Technical  specifications  refer  to  the  translation  of  user  requirements  into  existing  Earth 
Observation  technical  solutions  including  sensors  (e.g.  multispectral,  Synthetic  Aperture  Radar 
(SAR),  hyperspectral,  etc.),  wavelength  (e.g.  near-infrared,  C-band,  X-band,  etc.)  and  spatial 
resolution specification. Sensors and wavelength are only a first step of a long processing chain 
where  models  and  other  sources  of  data,  such  as  in-situ  data,  are  required  to  fully  translate 
identified  user  requirements  into  real  technical  responses.    Spatial  resolution  required  by  the 
user  had  to  be  translated  to  a  range  of  spatial  resolution  specification  by  an  external  pool  of 
experts (i.e. expert in remote sensing for Cultural Heritage) to mitigate responding biases (e.g. 
stakeholders  tend  to  require  the  highest  spatial  resolution  possible;  not  all  stakeholders  were 
expert  in  remote  sensing)  and  to  take  in  consideration  the  specific  context  of  each  user 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

requirement,  assessing  the  original  user  need  and  it  context  and  purpose  (i.e.  high  level  user 
need). This range of spatial resolution specification was necessary to support the match analysis 
between user requirements and Copernicus capabilities carried out in the next section. 

The  result  of  this  analysis  is  a  list  of  373  technical  specifications  related  to  the  CH  user 
requirements. The full list is available in Annex D. 

4.3  Matching  user  requirements  with  Copernicus 

capabilities 

Once translated into user requirements & technical specifications, each user need has been 
mapped to Copernicus capabilities as illustrated in the chart below. 

Figure 45: Graphical illustration of the match analysis 

The  rationale  behind  the  approach  used  was,  in  a  first  step,  to  assess  if  the  Copernicus  core 
services  offer  one  or  several  products  that  could  respond  to  a  specific  CH  user  requirement 
(Phase  1).  If  the  user  requirement  was  not  fully  covered  by  existing  Copernicus  core  service 
product(s)  –  or  if  no  Copernicus  core  service  product(s)  could  cover  this  specific  user 
requirement  –  the  second  phase  aimed  at  understanding  if  the  free  and  open  Sentinels  data 
could  cover  this  requirement,  by  analyzing  the  sensors,  wavelengths,  spatial  and  temporal 
resolutions offered by the Sentinel fleet (Phase 2). If a user requirement was not fully covered 
by  Sentinels  data,  the  third  phase  aimed  at  understanding  if  some  Copernicus  contributing 
missions  could  cover  this  requirement,  by  analyzing  the  sensors,  wavelengths,  spatial  and 
temporal resolutions offered by those contributing missions (Phase 3).  

The overall match analysis exercise has been carried out following the approach described below: 

1.  Copernicus core services product(s): the match analysis starts by first identifying, when 

possible, Copernicus core service product(s) that can cover user requirements 

a.  Identification of one (or several) Copernicus core service product responding to a user 

requirement; 

b.  Comparison of the product resolution with the spatial resolution required; 

c.  Comparison of the product timeliness with the temporal resolution required by users (i.e. 

frequency of monitoring). 

69 

Sentinels capabilitiesContributing missionsCopernicus core services(including in-situ data)User requirementsTechnical specificationsCopernicus capabilities mappingFrequency of monitoringSpatial resolutionWavelengthSpatial resolutionSensorsUser needsMatch analysisGeographic coverageHigh level user needs identificationUser need identification along the CH value-chain 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

2.  Sentinels capabilities: the second step aims at assessing if Sentinels capabilities could 

respond to user requirements & technical specifications 

a.  Identification of a Sentinel satellite matching the sensor & wavelength requested; 

b.  Comparison of Sentinel spatial resolution with the spatial resolution required; 

c.  Comparison of Sentinel temporal resolution with the temporal resolution required by users 

(i.e. frequency of monitoring). 

3.  Contributing missions capabilities: the third step aims at assessing if Copernicus 
contributing mission(s) could respond to user requirements & technical specifications 

a.  Identification of one or several contributing missions matching the sensor & wavelength 

requested; 

b.  Comparison of contributing mission(s) spatial resolution with the spatial resolution 

required; 

c.  Comparison of contributing mission(s) temporal resolution with the temporal resolution 

required by users (i.e. frequency of monitoring). 

4.  Match analysis: the fourth and last step aims at bringing together the three level of analysis 
(Copernicus core services products, Sentinels data, Contributing missions data) in order to 
highlight categories of user requirements that are: 

5.  Fully responding: the user requirement can fully be covered (for both spatial & temporal 

resolution) by Copernicus core services, Sentinels and/or contributing mission(s); 

6.  Partially responding: the user requirement can partially be covered by Copernicus core 

services, Sentinels and/or contributing mission(s), meaning that the spatial resolution of one 
of these three capabilities (Copernicus core services products, Sentinels data, Contributing 
missions(s) data) is matching part of the spatial resolution requested (i.e. technical 
specifications provide a range of spatial resolution) or part of the temporal resolution156; 

7.  Not responding: the user requirement cannot be covered because: 

a.  Satellite-based remote sensing cannot respond to the requirement; 

b.  Spatial and/or temporal resolution requested is not available; 

c.  Capability (sensors and/or wavelengths) required to respond to the user requirements 
cannot be covered by Sentinels and/or contributing missions (e.g. hyperspectral, lidar, 
etc.). 

This match analysis has been supported by expert consultation from each of the six Copernicus 
core services and Copernicus space segment (ESA). The result of the analysis produced a matrix 
presenting  Copernicus  core  services  products,  Sentinels  and  contributing  mission(s)  data  that 
could answer Cultural Heritage user requirements presented in Annex D. 

The  next  sub-sections  aim  at  presenting  the  synthesis  of  the  match  analysis’  results,  assessing 
the  proportion  of  user  requirements  that  could  be  covered  by  Copernicus  capabilities,  following 
the three phases previously identified, including additional qualitative assessment on the possible 
contribution of the different Copernicus core services.  

4.3.1  Phase 1 – Match analysis between user requirements 

and Copernicus core service products 

The first phase of the matching analysis was carried out at the level of Copernicus core services 
products: 

156 This statement only applies to hourly request, when a satellite is offering less than one day revisiting time but not a one-hour revisiting 
time 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

•  7.5% of overall user requirements (28) are fully covered by existing Copernicus core 

services’ products (i.e. both spatial and temporal resolution); 

•  19.0%  of  overall  user  requirements  (71)  are  partially  covered  by  existing 
Copernicus core services’ products, meaning that a Copernicus product exists but its 
spatial  resolution  and/or  temporal  resolution  can  partially  cover  the  user 
requirement (i.e. technical specifications provide a range of spatial resolution); 

•  73.5%  of  overall  user  requirements  (274)  are  not  covered  by  existing  Copernicus 

core services products. This result is further detailed below: 

-  125 user requirements (33.5% of overall user requirements) could be directly covered by 
existing  Copernicus  core  services  products,  but  the  spatial  and  temporal  resolutions  of 
these products do not match at all user requirements; 

-  89 user requirements (23.9% of overall user requirements) could not be directly covered 
by  any  existing  Copernicus  core  service  products  (i.e.  no  product  currently  exists  to 
respond to those user requirements); 

-  60  user  requirements  (16.1%  of  overall  user  requirements)  cannot  be  covered  using 

satellite-based imagery. 

The match analysis has highlighted the fact that CH user communities have very different  needs 
and  requirements  that  cannot  be  covered  by  a  single  Copernicus  core  service.  Indeed,  the  six 
Copernicus  core  services  are  all  offering  products  of  great  interest  for  CH  user  communities. 
However,  user  requirements  often  require  a  very  local  monitoring  (i.e.  geographical  coverage) 
and  very  high  resolution  imagery,  which  are  not  always  available  in  the  current  form  of  the 
Copernicus  products  offered.  As  such,  it  requires  the  adaptation  of  those  products  or  the 
development of new ones to better respond to CH user requirements. 

The next sub-sections highlight results from the match analysis for each of the six core services. 

Copernicus Land Monitoring Service 

The Copernicus Land Monitoring Service (CLMS) provides geographical information on land cover 
and on variables related, for instance, to the vegetation state or the water cycle. CLMS currently 
offers  several products  responding to CH user  communities’  requirements, such as land surface 
temperature,  EU  DEM,  NDVI  products  or  Urban  Atlas  products.  These  products  are  often  only 
partially responding to CH user requirements but they could be tailored to specifically respond to 
CH user communities. As an example, CLMS is currently producing NDVI products with a spatial 
resolution of around 10m (based on Sentinel-2) but most CH user communities require very high 
resolution  imagery  (under  2m).  European  Images  Mosaic  (Very  High  Resolution)  is  offering  an 
interesting  online  visualization  interface  where  users  can  zoom  and  access  very  high  spatial 
resolution  (2-2.5m)  over  Europe  which  could  be  of  great  interest  for  Tangible  Heritage  user 
communities,  for  indirect  indicators  monitoring  for  example.  CLMS  also  offers  interesting 
products for Natural Heritage over Europe and Africa sites such as Natura2000 products (though 
emblematic natural sites are not specifically targeted). On the top of all CLMS products discussed 
above, the probable extension of the Land Monitoring service to the provision of ground motion 
products could be of great interest for CH user communities, especially for CH site operators, as 
it could help monitoring vertical small motion movement of land.  

The table below lists all the CMLS products that are deemed useful for CH user communities. For 
more details on the match analysis, please refer to Annex D. 

Table 28: List of CLMS products of interest for CH user communities (Sources: PwC analysis) 

Land Monitoring Service 

Copernicus core service 
product 

User requirements corresponding 

Imagery & Reference Data,  

 

Indirect indicators (Cropmarks, 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

European Images Mosaic, Very 
High Resolution 

Global, NDVI 

soilmarks, chlorophyll levels) 

  Map regression 
  Photogrammetric mapping 
  Topographic mapping 
 

Identification of previously 
searched sites in the area 
  Vegetation level monitoring 
  3D reconstruction 

  Normalized difference 

vegetation index (NDVI) 
  Vegetation level monitoring 

Global, Land Surface 
Temperature 

Imagery & Reference Data, 
EU-DEM 

  Thermal anomaly 

  Elevation modelling 
  Topographic mapping 

Local, Urban Atlas 

  Mapping of surrounding 

infrastructure (roads, pipelines, 
waterconducts etc.) 

Pan-European, High 
Resolution Layers, Forest 

Pan-European, High 
Resolution Layers, Grassland 

Pan-European, High 
Resolution Layers, Water & 
Wetness 

Local, Natura 2000  

Global, Lake Water Quality 
products 

  Evolution of vegetation 

typology 

  Vegetation level monitoring 
  Forest coverage monitoring 

  Evolution of vegetation 

typology 

  Vegetation level monitoring 

  Hydrological changes 

monitoring 

  Evolution of vegetation 
typology monitoring 

  Vegetation level monitoring 
  Forest coverage monitoring 

  Water quality monitoring 

Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service 

The  Copernicus  Marine  Environment  Monitoring  Service  (CMEMS)  aims  at  digitizing  and 
characterizing  the  ocean,  performing  ocean  modelling  and  forecasting  its  evolutions.  CMEMS 
offers a large set of products characterizing all possible indicators & models related to sea, such 
as  sea  level,  sea  salinity  level,  sea  ice  monitoring,  water  current  monitoring,  etc.  Given  the 
specificity  of  the  CH  users’  communities’  needs,  “Regional  Sea  analysis”  should  be  of  higher 
interest  for  CH  user  communities  than  “Global  Sea  analysis”  in  order  to  access  products  with 
local  monitoring  and  higher  spatial  resolution  for  area  such  as  the  Mediterranean  Sea  or  the 
Black  Sea.  Forecasts  derived  from  “Current  velocity”  and  “Wind”  products  can  specifically  be  of 
great interest for sub-marine tangible and natural sites operators, to support planning of diving 
activities  for  example.  Finally,  “Sea  Surface  Height”  products  can  offer  very  interesting insights 
for CH professionals and site  operators of  Tangible and Natural Heritage  sites  on coastal areas, 
including near-real time in-situ monitoring, on local sea surface height and sea level anomalies in 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

the Mediterranean Sea, Baltic Sea, Black Sea  and European  regional seas (e.g.  European North 
West Shelf seas, Iberia-Biscay-Ireland Regional seas). 

The table below provides the categories of products offered by CMEMS that could be of interest 
for CH user communities. For more details on the match analysis, please refer to Annex D. 

Table 29: List of CMEMS products of interest for CH user communities (Sources: PwC analysis) 

Marine Environment Monitoring Service 

Copernicus core service 
product 

Regional & Global Sea 
analysis, Sea ice 
Regional & Global Sea 
analysis, Salinity 
Ocean Colour Thematic Center 
(OC TAC), CHL & OPTICS 
Regional & Global Sea 
analysis, Current Velocity 

 Regional & Global Sea 
analysis, Wind 

Regional & Global Sea 
analysis, Sea Surface Height 

Regional & Global Sea 
analysis, Temperature 

User requirements 

 

Ice cover monitoring (sea) 

  Salinity levels measurement 

  Sediment levels measurement 

  Water current monitoring 

  Wind direction & speed 

monitoring 

  Water level monitoring 

  Sea surface temperature 

monitoring 

Copernicus Climate Change Service 

The  Copernicus  Climate  Change  Service  (C3S)  aims  at  providing  information  about  the  past, 
present and future climate. C3S is specifically monitoring Essential Climate Variables (ECVs) and 
forecasting their evolution. 

C3S has internally long historical databases related to climate variables that are of great interest 
for  CH  user  communities  (for  both  land  and  sea  users).  C3S  has  temporal  series  dating  from 
1950 up to now on several variables, enabling user communities to assess frequencies of specific 
events  such  as  droughts  or  floods  for  example.  “Water  Quantity  Indicators”  products  can  offer 
interesting  insights  related  to  water  runoff,  wetness,  river  flow,  snow  water  equivalent  or  soil 
water  content  for  Europe.  On  another  hand,  “Water  Quality  Indicators”  products  are  able  to 
provide  CH  user  communities  with  past,  present  and  future  estimate  of  nitrogen  concentration, 
nitrogen loads, phosphorous concentrations, phosphorous loads or water temperature in Europe. 
More  than  water  quantity  and  quality  information,  C3S  is  also  offering  interesting  products 
related to sea monitoring such as “Sea surface temperature” or “Sea level”. It also offers specific 
monitoring  and  forecasting  of  sea  ice  type,  edge,  thickness  and  concentration.  C3S  should  also 
be  able  to  provide  interesting  products  for  coastal  monitoring  as  they  already  have  internally 
most of the necessary raw data.  

Finally,  C3S  is  also  providing  the  Seasonal  Multi  System  which  offers  seasonal  forecasts  that 
could be interesting for CH user communities, even if it does not respond directly to any specific 
CH user requirement collected. 

The table below provides the categories of products offered by C3S that could be of interest for 
CH user communities. For more details on the match analysis, please refer to Annex D. 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Table 30: List of C3S products of interest for CH user communities (Sources: PwC analysis) 

Climate Change Monitoring Service 

Copernicus core service 
product 

ERA5 Climate Reanalysis 

Water quality indicators 
(nitrogen concentration, 
nitrogen loads, phosphorous 
concentrations, phosphorous 
loads, water temperature.) 
Water quantity indicators 
(water runoff, wetness, river 
flow, snow water equivalent, 
soil water content, etc.) 
Sea Ice (thickness, edge, 
concentration, type) 

Sea level 

User requirements 

  Wind direction & speed 

monitoring 

  Water quality monitoring 
  Water pollution monitoring 

  Hydrological changes 

monitoring 

 

Ice cover monitoring (sea) 

  Water level monitoring 

  Sea surface temperature 

Sea Surface Temperature 

monitoring 

Copernicus Atmospheric Monitoring Service 

The  Copernicus  Atmospheric  Monitoring  Service  (CAMS)  provides  consistent  information  related 
to air pollution and health, solar energy, greenhouse gases and climate forcing.  

CAMS  is  already  providing  3  types  of  inputs  of  high  interest  for  CH  user  communities  dealing 
with: 

•  Chemical composition of the atmosphere (“Global forecast of aerosol” and “European-Scale 

Air Quality Analysis”) impacting the soil for both Tangible (e.g. blackening of built structures) 
and Natural heritage; 

•  Acid precipitation monitoring (raw data in Europe), leading to damages for both Tangible and 

Natural Heritage; 

• 

Insolation monitoring (“Clear Sky Radiation”), which plays a key role in ageing of built 
structure’s surface and stained-glass.  

CAMS  have  internally  many  raw  data  that  could  lead  to  the  development  of  specific  products 
targeting CH user communities but they would need additional support (e.g. additional funding) 
to transform these raw data into specific products. As for now, they have long temporal series in 
their data set (i.e. past data), but they cannot perform forecasts; the need to perform such type 
of forecasts has been pointed out by current CAMS’ users. 

The  table  below  lists  all  the  CAMS  products  that  are  of  interest  for  CH  user  communities.  For 
more details on the match analysis, please refer to Annex D. 

Table 31: List of CAMS products of interest for CH user communities (Sources: PwC analysis) 

Atmosphere Monitoring Service 

Copernicus core service 
product 

User requirements 

CAMS, Global forecast of 

  Air pollution monitoring for 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

aerosol 

CAMS, European-Scale air 
quality analysis 

blackening of built structures 
  Air pollution monitoring (natural 

heritage sites) 

  Air pollution monitoring for 
blackening of structures 

  Air pollution monitoring (natural 

heritage sites) 

Clear‐Sky Radiation (McClear) 

Clear‐Sky Radiation (Heliosat‐
4) 

 

 

Insolation monitoring 

Insolation monitoring 

Copernicus Emergency Management Service and Copernicus in Support to EU External Actions 

The  Copernicus  Emergency  Monitoring  (Copernicus  EMS)  and  Security  services  are  peculiar  as 
they are reserved for EU authorized users, hence not open to all user communities. Security and 
Emergency products related to Cultural Heritage are already well covered in the current scope of 
the  Copernicus  programme,  thanks  to  the  Copernicus  EMS  and  the  Copernicus  Security  Service 
in  support  of  EU  External  Actions.  Nevertheless,  having  a  dedicated  intervention  in  the  field  of 
Cultural  Heritage  could  support  these  two  services  in  raising  awareness  of  their  own  Cultural 
Heritage  activities,  allowing  them  to  access  additional  funding  to  better  serve  Cultural  Heritage 
purposes  and  design  additional  CH-specific  products.  More  details  on  the  offer  related  to  CH 
proposed by these two services are available in the section 4.4.  

The  tables  below  list  the  types  of  products  offered  by  the  Copernicus  EMS  and  Copernicus  in 
Support  to  EU  External  Actions  of  interest  for  CH  purposes.  For  more  details  on  the  match 
analysis, please refer to Annex D. 

Table 32: List of Copernicus EMS products of interest for CH user communities (Sources: PwC 
analysis) 

Security Service 

Copernicus core service 
product 

User requirements 

  Hydrological changes 

Global flood awareness system 

monitoring 

On-demand Mapping 

Ealy Warning and Monitoring 
System 

  Real-time monitoring of 

emergency events (e.g. flash 
floods, forest fires) 

  Real-time monitoring of 

emergency events (e.g. flash 
floods, forest fires) 

Table 33: List of Copernicus for EU External Actions products of interest for CH user communities 
(Sources: PwC analysis) 

Security Service 

Copernicus core service 
product 

User requirements 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Damage Assessment 

Activity Monitoring 

  Human conflict risk monitoring 

  Human conflict risk monitoring 

4.3.2  Phase 2 – Match analysis between user requirements 

and Sentinels capabilities 

The  second  phase  of  the  analysis  aimed  at  assessing  if  Sentinels  capabilities  can  help  covering 
user  requirements  that  are  not  fully  covered  by  Copernicus  core  services  products.  To  be 
considered partially covered, both spatial & temporal resolution of the Sentinels had to match the 
user  requirement;  if  the  spatial  resolution  was  matching  but  the  temporal  resolution  was  not 
matching, the user requirement was considered not covered by Sentinels capabilities. 

As highlighted previously, 7.5% of user requirements can be fully covered by Copernicus 
core  services  products  (Phase  1).  Those  requirements  have  then  not  been  matched  with 
Sentinels capabilities, as they are already covered.  

The results of the second phase of the matching analysis are presented below: 

•  3.2%  of  overall  user  requirements  (12)  could  be  fully  covered  by  Sentinels 

capabilities (i.e. both spatial and temporal resolution); 

•  20.1%  of  overall  user  requirements  (75)  could  be  partially  covered  by  Sentinels 
capabilities, meaning that a Sentinel payload could respond to the user requirement but its 
spatial  resolution  and/or  temporal  resolution  could  only  be  partially  covered  (i.e.  technical 
specifications provide a range of spatial resolution); 

•  69.2% of overall user requirements (258) could not be covered by existing Sentinels 

capabilities. This result can be further detailed: 

-  148  user  requirements  (39.7%  of  overall  user  requirements)  could  not  be  covered  by 
Sentinels capabilities, because Sentinels spatial and/or temporal resolutions do not match 
at all user requirements; 

-  50  user  requirements  (13.4%  of  overall  user  requirements)  could  not  be  covered  by 
Sentinels  capabilities,  as  the  sensors  and/or  wavelength  required  is  not  available  within 
the Sentinels fleet (e.g. hyperspectral, SAR L-Band); 

-  60  user  requirements  (16.1%  of  overall  user  requirements)  could  not  be  covered  using 

satellite-based imagery. 

4.3.3  Phase 3 – Match analysis between user requirements 

and Copernicus Contributing missions 

The third phase of the analysis aimed at assessing if Copernicus contributing missions could help 
covering user requirements that are not fully covered by Copernicus core services products 
and/or Sentinels capabilities. To be considered partially covered, both spatial & temporal 
resolutions of the contributing mission(s) needed to match the user requirement; if the spatial 
resolution was matching but the temporal resolution was not, the user requirement was 
considered not covered by Copernicus contributing missions. 

10.7%  of  user  requirements  (40)  can  be  fully  covered  by  Copernicus  core  services 
products  and/or  Sentinels  capabilities  (Phase  1  &  2).  Those  requirements  have  not  been 
matched with Copernicus contributing missions, as they are already covered by Copernicus core 
services products and/or Sentinels capabilities. 

The results of the third phase of the matching analysis are presented below: 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

•  39.1%  of  overall  user  requirements  (146)  could  be  fully  covered  by  Copernicus 

contributing missions (i.e. both spatial and temporal resolutions); 

•  14.2%  of  overall  user  requirements  (53)  could  be  partially  covered  by  Copernicus 
contributing missions meaning that one  (or more) Copernicus contributing mission 
exists  but  its  spatial  resolution  and/or  temporal  resolution  could  only  be  partially 
covered (i.e. technical specifications provide a range of spatial resolution); 

•  35.9%  of  overall  user  requirements  (134)  could  not  be  covered  by  existing 

Copernicus contributing missions. This result can be further detailed: 

-  26  user  requirements  (7.0%  of  overall  user  requirements)  could  not  be  covered  by 
Copernicus contributing mission, because their spatial and/or temporal resolution did not 
match user requirements; 

-  48  user  requirements  (12.9%  of  overall  user  requirements)  could  not  be  covered  by 
Copernicus  contributing  missions,  as  the  sensors  and/or  wavelengths  required  are  not 
available in the pool of contributing missions (e.g. hyperspectral, lidar); 

-  60  user  requirements  (16.1%  of  overall  user  requirements)  cannot  be  covered  using 

satellite-based imagery. 

4.3.4  Conclusion of the match analysis 

The  results  of  the  match  analysis  clearly  show  that  the  Copernicus  programme  could  cover  a 
large  part  of  the  CH  user  requirements.  In  fact,  7.5%  of  CH  user  requirements  (28)  are 
already fully covered by Copernicus core services products in their current form, and an 
additional  34.9%  of  user  requirements  (130)  are  partially  covered.  The  use  of  Sentinels data 
could  be  fully  covering  3.2%  of  additional  CH  user  requirements  (12),  leading  to  10.7%  of 
user requirements (40) being fully covered. 

The  use  of  Copernicus  contributing  missions  to  cover  CH  user  requirements  could  be  highly 
beneficial  for  CH  user  communities.  Indeed,  on  the  top  of  the  10.7%  of  CH  user  requirements 
(40) fully covered by Copernicus core services products and Sentinels capabilities, an additional 
39.1%  of  CH  user  requirements  (146)  could  be  fully  covered  thanks  to  Copernicus 
contributing  missions,  leading  to  an  overall  49.8%  of  CH  user  requirements  (186)  fully 
covered  by  Copernicus  capabilities.  An  additional  14.2%  of  CH  user  requirements  (53) 
could be partially covered thanks to Copernicus contributing missions. Those partially covered 
user  requirements  could  potentially  be  covered  by  the  downstream  industry  having  access  to 
very  high  resolution  data  and/or  very  high  revisiting  time  imagery  not  available  in  the  pool  of 
Copernicus contributing missions. 

By using all Copernicus capabilities (core services products, Sentinels and Contributing missions), 
35.9% of user requirements (134) will still not be covered by the Copernicus programme. 
Indeed,  7.0%  of  CH  user  requirements  (26)  could  not  be  covered  because  the  spatial  and/or 
temporal  resolution  required  by  users  are  not  available  within  Copernicus.  12.9%  of  CH  user 
requirements (48) require specific sensors and/or wavelengths that are not available in 
the  scope  of  the  Copernicus  programme  (e.g.  hyperspectral,  lidar)  in  order  to  be  covered. 
Nevertheless,  such  sensors  and  wavelengths  exist  on  the  commercial  market  so  the 
downstream  industry  could  then  fully  cover  those  user  requirements.  Finally,  16.1%  of 
CH user requirements cannot be covered by satellite-based imagery, as they require very specific 
in-situ  measurements  (e.g.  Ground  Penetrating  Radar  (GPR),  in-situ  bathymetric  surveys,  etc.) 
or complex value-added products (e.g. assessment of sites frequentation pattern). 

The  tables  below  present  the  list  of  products  currently  offered  by  the  different  Copernicus  core 
services that are  suitable for Cultural Heritage  and  could respond to  CH user  requirements. For 
more details on this list, please refer to the detailed match analysis presented in Annex D. 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Table 34: List of all Copernicus core services’ products of interest for CH user communities 
(Sources: PwC analysis) 

Land Monitoring Service 
Copernicus core service product 

User requirements corresponding 

Imagery  &  Reference  Data,  
European  Images  Mosaic,  Very 
High Resolution 

Global, NDVI 

Global, Land Surface Temperature 

Imagery  &  Reference  Data,  EU-

DEM 

Local, Urban Atlas 

 

Indirect 
soilmarks, chlorophyll levels) 

indicators 

(Cropmarks, 

  Map regression 
  Photogrammetric mapping 
  Topographic mapping 
 

Identification of previously searched 
sites in the area 

  Vegetation level monitoring 
 
3D reconstruction 

  Normalized  difference  vegetation 

index (NDVI) 

  Vegetation level monitoring 

  Thermal anomaly 

  Elevation modelling 
  Topographic mapping 

  Mapping 

of 

infrastructure 
waterconducts etc.) 

(roads, 

surrounding 
pipelines, 

Pan-European,  High  Resolution 

Layers, Forest 

Pan-European,  High  Resolution 

Layers, Grassland 

  Evolution of vegetation typology 
  Vegetation level monitoring 
  Forest coverage monitoring 

  Evolution of vegetation typology 
  Vegetation level monitoring 

Pan-European,  High  Resolution 

  Hydrological changes monitoring 

Layers, Water & Wetness 

Local, Natura 2000  

  Evolution  of  vegetation  typology 

monitoring 

  Vegetation level monitoring 
  Forest coverage monitoring 

Global,  Lake  Water  Quality 

  Water quality monitoring 

products 

Marine Environment Monitoring Service 
Copernicus core service product 
Regional  &  Global  Sea  analysis, 

User requirements 

 

Ice cover monitoring (sea) 

Sea ice 

Regional  &  Global  Sea  analysis, 

  Salinity levels measurement 

Salinity 

Ocean  Colour  Thematic  Center 

  Sediment levels measurement 

(OC TAC), CHL & OPTICS 

Regional  &  Global  Sea  analysis, 
Current Velocity 

  Water current monitoring 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

 Regional  &  Global  Sea  analysis, 

  Wind direction & speed monitoring 

Wind 

Regional  &  Global  Sea  analysis, 
Sea Surface Height 
Regional  &  Global  Sea  analysis, 
Temperature 
Climate Change Monitoring Service 
Copernicus core service product 

ERA5 Climate Reanalysis 

  Water level monitoring 

  Sea surface temperature monitoring 

User requirements 

  Wind direction & speed monitoring 

nitrogen 

Water  quality  indicators  (nitrogen 
loads, 
concentration, 
concentrations, 
phosphorous 
phosphorous 
water 
temperature.) 
Water  quantity  indicators  (water 
runoff,  wetness,  river  flow,  snow 
soil  water 
water 

equivalent, 

loads, 

  Water quality monitoring 
  Water pollution monitoring 

  Hydrological changes monitoring 

content, etc.) 

Sea 
Ice 
concentration, type) 

(thickness, 

Sea level 

Sea Surface Temperature 

edge, 

 

Ice cover monitoring (sea) 

  Water level monitoring 

  Sea surface temperature monitoring 

Atmosphere Monitoring Service 
Copernicus core service product 

User requirements 

CAMS, Global forecast of aerosol 

  Air  pollution  monitoring  (natural 

heritage sites) 

  Air 

pollution  monitoring 

for 

blackening of built structures 

CAMS,  European-Scale  air  quality 

analysis 

Clear‐Sky Radiation (McClear) 

Clear‐Sky Radiation (Heliosat‐4) 

Emergency Monitoring Service 
Copernicus core service product 

Global flood awareness system 

On-demand Mapping 

Ealy  Warning  and  Monitoring 

System 

  Air 

pollution  monitoring 

for 

blackening of structures 

  Air  pollution  monitoring  (natural 

heritage sites) 

 

Insolation monitoring 

 

Insolation monitoring 

User requirements 

  Hydrological changes monitoring 

  Real-time  monitoring  of  emergency 
events (e.g. flash floods, forest fires) 

  Real-time  monitoring  of  emergency 
events (e.g. flash floods, forest fires) 

Security Service 
Copernicus core service product 

User requirements 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Damage Assessment 

Activity Monitoring 

  Human conflict risk monitoring 

  Human conflict risk monitoring 

These tables only present existing products offered by each Copernicus core service that, in their 
current  forms,  already  respond  somehow  to  CH  user  requirements.  Nevertheless,  it  was 
highlighted  several  times  during  interviews  with  Copernicus  entrusted  entities  that  they  often 
already  have  internally  the  necessary  raw  data  (imagery  &  in-situ  data)  and  models  to  cover 
specific  CH  user  requirements  by  developing  additional  products,  or  adapting  existing  ones. 
However,  until  Cultural  Heritage  will  be  included  in  their  delegations  agreements,  entrusted 
entities do not have the mandate to develop such specific products in their current budget. 

The  downstream  industry  could  also  play  a  significant  role  by  developing  additional  products 
tailored  to  CH,  as  a  large  part  of  CH  user  communities  are  not  experts  in  remote  sensing  and 
thus are not always able to use directly satellite imagery. 

4.4  Specific  capabilities  offered  by  the  Copernicus 
programme for security & emergency purposes 

Beyond  the  needs  already  analysed  in  the  preceding  sections,  there  exists  other  Cultural 
Heritage needs related to Emergency (i.e. geo-hazards mitigation & response) and Security (i.e. 
protection of Cultural Heritage from man-made destruction). These needs have been  expressed 
and  analysed  in  the  High  level  user  need  8  –  Drawing  of  conclusions  to  facilitate  an 
emergency intervention. As stated in the match analysis, the Copernicus programme already 
has specific capabilities related to Emergency response and  Security. The following sub-sections 
introduce Copernicus capabilities for these purposes. 

4.4.1  Security purpose: the protection and safeguarding of 

Cultural Heritage from man-made destruction 

4.4.1.1 

Introduction 

Man-made destruction related to Cultural Heritage is affecting both Tangible Heritage and Natural 
Heritage. It can be divided into three main categories: 

•  Non-hidden site destruction due to religious and fundamental reasons: as a display of 
power  over  a  certain  area  or  location,  individuals  decide  to  intentionally  destroy  non-hidden 
Heritage considered as offensive. This category is most relevant to Tangible Heritage, rather 
than to Natural Heritage; 

•  Non-hidden  site  destruction  indirectly  (e.g.  war  zone):  the  destruction  of  non-hidden 
Cultural  Heritage  sites  is  a  side-effect  of  a  local  human-made  crisis  (e.g.  war),  rather  than 
being intentionally destroyed. This category is relevant for both Tangible Heritage and Natural 
Heritage; 

•  Poaching  of  hidden  archaeological  artefacts:  sponsored  by  private  money,  individuals 
illegally excavate archaeological sites in order to find artefacts and sell them on black market. 
This category is mostly relevant to Tangible Heritage, instead of Natural Heritage. 

Man-made destruction of Cultural Heritage is a growing concern worldwide (e.g. Bamiyan buddha 
destruction  in  Afghanistan,  Palmyra  destruction  in  Syria,  etc.).  Many  countries  have  at-risk 
Cultural Heritage sites and hence have interest to collaborate with the EU in this field. 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

4.4.1.2  Copernicus in support of EU External Action 

The EU Satellite Centre (SatCen) is in charge of the Copernicus Security service in support of EU 
External Action (Copernicus SEA). Since May 2017, the service is fully operational and it provides 
authorized  EU  users  in    security  and  defence  with  a  range  of  EO-based  security  products, 
including  dedicated  Cultural  Heritage  products.  This  service  is  not  fully  open  as  for  the  Land, 
Marine  Atmosphere  and  Climate  Change  Monitoring  Services;  it  is  reserved  for  authorized  EU 
users and select authorized third parties (e.g. UN) only.  

The  mandate  of  the  Copernicus  SEA  is  to  respond  to  authorized  users’  requests  outside  of  EU 
borders  related  to  Cultural  Heritages  sites  in  danger.  In  order  to  monitor  and  mitigate  these 
man-made  destructions,  specific  analysis  capabilities  are  necessary,  such  as  expertise  in 
archaeology and history, or a security and defense background, but also the access to very high 
resolution  (VHR)  optical  imagery.  The  Copernicus  SEA  has  a  specific  access  to  VHR  optical 
contributing missions (e.g. Pleiades) for this purpose. 

The action of SatCen in the field of Cultural Heritage can be split into two main activities: 

•  Damage  assessment:  change  detection  products  (based  on  the  ability  to  assess  damage 

related to a specific Cultural Heritage site in a crisis area, available on demand; 

•  Activity  analysis:  EO-based  products  analysing  pre  and  post  human  activity  over  Cultural 

Heritage sites, available on demand and/or for monitoring activities. 

As for now, the Copernicus SEA focuses mostly on Tangible Heritage and it does not specifically 
look  at  Natural  Heritage  sites,  since  these  activities  are  not  currently  in  their  core  activities. 
Nevertheless, armed conflicts could heavily impact natural landscapes and hence natural heritage 
sites. SatCen has the internal expertise and capacity to cover both Tangible Heritage and Natural 
Heritage.  Additional  products  specifically  tailored  to  the  needs  of  Cultural  Heritage  communities 
could be added to the Copernicus SEA service evolution if requested by the EC.  

The overall needs related to the protection of Cultural Heritage from man-made destruction are 
summarised in the table below. 

Table 35: Summary of the protection of cultural heritage needs from man-made destruction 

Specific  Needs  related  to  the  protection  of  Cultural 
Heritage from man-made destruction 

Capabilities of the Copernicus SEA 

Tangible Heritage 

Natural Heritage 

Monitoring of intentional site destruction 
fundamental 
due 

religious  and 

to 

reasons 

Monitoring 
destruction (e.g. war zone) 

of 

unintentional 

site 

Monitoring 
archaeological artefacts  

illegal 

looting 

of 

Fully  covered  by  Copernicus  SEA 
products: 
through 
“Activity 
“Damage  assessment”  & 

existing 

two 

analysis” 

Monitoring 
destruction (e.g. war zone) 

of 

unintentional 

site 

Currently  not  covered  by  Copernicus 
SEA outside of EU 

Possible  adaptations  of 
“Damage 
assessment”  and  “Activity  Monitoring” 

products  

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

4.4.2  Emergency  purpose:  Protection  and  safeguarding  of 

Cultural Heritage from geo-hazards 

4.4.2.1 

Introduction 

Heritage  sites  are  continuously  impacted  by  geo-hazards,  including  natural  disasters  (e.g. 
landslides,  earthquakes,  fires,  etc.)  and  extreme  meteorological  events  (e.g.  heavy  rains, 
drought,  etc.),  leading  to  irreversible  damages  and  destruction.157  The  protection  and 
safeguarding of Heritage from geo-hazards can be split in four main categories: 

•  Geo-hazard risk mappings– mapping of Heritage sites that can be subjected to damage in 
cases  of  extreme  meteorological  events  (e.g.  torrential  rains  leading  to  rapid  flooding  or 
landslides) or natural disasters (e.g. risk of earthquakes, risk of volcanic eruptions, etc.); 

•  Geo-hazard  early  warning  –  alarms  raised  related  to  Heritage  sites  that  may  be 

impacted/damaged by a geo-hazard in the near future; 

•  Geo-hazard  monitoring  –  monitoring  of  Heritage  sites  during  a  specific  geo-hazard  to 

support damages mitigation and damages assessment; 

•  Geo-hazard  damage  assessment  –  assessment  of  damage  to  Heritage  sites  due  to  a 

specific geo-hazard. 

The  capacity  of  performing  these  four  categories  of  activities  is  key  for  the  protection  and 
safeguarding  of  Heritage  sites  in  Europe  and  worldwide.  However,  when  a  geo-hazard  occurs, 
civil protection agencies in charge of emergency response and mitigation naturally focus first on 
human  life  protection  and  damage  prevention  on  land  use  (e.g.  critical  infrastructure,  farms, 
industries, etc.). In general, the safeguarding of Cultural Heritage is usually not a major concern 
of  civil  protection  agencies.  Often,  there  is  a  lack  of  communication  between  Cultural  Heritage 
communities  and  local  and  national  civil  protection  agencies,  leading  to  a  low  awareness  about 
Heritage sites with civil protection communities. 

4.4.2.2  Copernicus Emergency Monitoring Service 

The Joint Research Centre (JRC) is the Entrusted Entity for the Copernicus Emergency Monitoring 
Service (EMS) that provides information for disaster risk and recovery as well as for emergency 
response  related  to  natural  disasters,  extreme  meteorological  events  and  accidental  man-made 
disasters (e.g. chemical spills, nuclear spills, etc.). The Copernicus EMS targets authorised users 
from  civil  protection  agencies  as  well  as  UN  agencies  and  international  NGOs  and  offers 
specifically: 

•  On-demand  mapping:  provision  of  rapid  maps  for  emergency  response,  and  risk  and 

recovery maps for prevention and planning; 

•  Early warning and monitoring system: provision of geo-hazard forecast and monitoring to 
support  situational  awareness,  and  decision-making  for  prevention  and  preparedness 
purposes. 

Cultural Heritage is not the main focus of the EMS as it is not currently a specific mandate of the 
service. However, authorised users have already activated cultural heritage-specific requests for 
rapid  mapping,  as  well  as  risk  and  recovery  products,  so  the  EMS  has  already  the  capacity  to 
cover  fully  Cultural  Heritage-specific  needs  for  on-demand  mapping  (e.g.  damage  assessment), 
for both Tangible Heritage and  Natural Heritage. For the specific case of Natural Heritage sites, 
there is currently no real consistency cross-check with Natura 2000 sites though there are some 

157 PROTection of European Cultural HEritage from GeO-hazards (PROTHEGO) project. Website link: http://www.prothego.eu/project.html  

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

ongoing  projects.  Nevertheless,  the  EMS  is  using  the  same  portfolio  for  Tangible  and  Natural 
Heritage.  For  an  early  warning  and  monitoring  system,  the  current  EMS  portfolio  does  not 
provide specific Cultural Heritage-related offers, but it is foreseen to be included in the expansion 
of the Risk & Recovery Mapping service of the EMS. 

The  overall  needs  related  to  the  protection  of  Cultural  Heritage  from  geo-hazards  are 
summarised in the table below. 

Table 36:  Summary of the protection of Cultural Heritage needs from geo-hazard events 

Specific  Needs  related  to  the  protection  of  Cultural 
Heritage from geo-hazards 

Capabilities of the Copernicus EMS 

Tangible Heritage 

Geo-hazard risk mappings 

& 

Geo-hazard early warning 

Geo-hazard monitoring 

Natural Heritage 

Geo-hazard damage assessment 

Fully covered by Copernicus EMS 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

5 Options for an intervention from 

the European Commission 

Previous  chapters  have  isolated  the  Cultural  Heritage  value  chain  and  the  different  user  needs 
associated  to  the  different  activities  carried  out  by  Cultural  Heritage  user  communities.  Those 
needs have been first translated into user requirements and then into technical specifications, in 
order  to  understand  how  Copernicus  capabilities  could  cover  those  specifications.  This  analysis 
has  demonstrated  that  the  Copernicus  programme  is  able  to  respond  to  a  large  part  of  the 
Cultural Heritage user needs either through existing core products, existing core products which 
must be adapted in order to be suitable for Cultural Heritage purposes, and additional products 
not currently existing within the Copernicus programme but that could be developed. 

An  institutional  action  to  promote  the  use  of  Copernicus  for  Cultural  Heritage  monitoring, 
conservation/preservation  and  management  would  then  be  required  to  enable  this  match 
between Copernicus capabilities and Cultural Heritage user needs158. This intervention could take 
several forms and the next section aims at characterising the different options under scrutiny.  

5.1  Option  1:  List  of  Copernicus  products  suitable  for 

Cultural Heritage applications 

Option  1  consists  of  relying  on  existing  core  products,  data  and  information  that  are  currently 
suitable  for  Cultural  Heritage  applications,  but  emphasising  the  existence  of  such  products  by 
raising awareness. The chart below summarises the scope of option 1. 

Figure 46: Option 1 description – Cultural Heritage as a list of existing Copernicus products 

158  Note  that  the  match  between  user  needs  and  Copernicus  capabilities  is  enabled  by  three  intermediate  steps:    first  user  needs  are 
translated  into  user  requirements  (1st  step),  then  user  requirements  are  translated  into  technical  specifications  (2nd  step)  and  finally 
technical specifications are matched with Copernicus capabilities (3rd step).  

84 

End-usersIntermediate usersCULTURAL HERITAGE USER COMMUNITIESUsage of core Copernicus products for the development of value-added product and service  Industrial stakeholders as an intermediate user of core Copernicus productsIndustry player 1Industry player 2Industry player n…OrganisationCopernicus Core servicesExisting productsProvision of existing Core products suitable for Cultural Heritage purposeNo additional budget invested for product adaptationCould be…Public organisationsIndustrial companiesAcademiaData from space component(Sentinels & Contributing Missions)Data from in-situ component 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

As  the  governing  body  of  the  Copernicus  programme,  the  European  Commission  would  be  in 
charge of investing money in communication and outreach activities. This is aimed at two things: 
first, raising awareness regarding the existence and availability of Copernicus data and products 
that  might  be  of  interest  for  several  Cultural  Heritage  activities  (i.e.  efforts  on  market  uptake 
activities); second, improving ease of access to such type  of information. These  communication 
activities  should  be  carried  out  by  the  European  Commission  itself,  which  would  dedicate  a 
budget  for  the  implementation  of  Cultural  Heritage  promotion  activities  in  order  to  raise 
awareness  of  the  availability  of  Copernicus  data  and  information  that  are  suitable  for  specific 
Cultural Heritage activities (e.g. workshop organisation, publications, outreach events, etc.) and 
explain where and how users can find those products, data and information. Thus, under option 
1,  the  main  role  of  the  European  Commission  would  be  to  ensure  the  implementation  of 
awareness raising activities thanks to a dedicated budget for Cultural Heritage. 

Under this option, management of the Copernicus data and products useful for Cultural Heritage 
would  remain  under  the  purview  of  each  of  the  Copernicus  services.  The  Copernicus  services 
have currently developed products that can be used for Cultural Heritage activities, but that are 
tailored for other domains. As such, these products are not emphasised by the service platform 
through  a  specific  category  of  Cultural  Heritage  products  but  are  to  be  found  among  existing 
categories.  

In  this  context,  the  option  would  mostly  respond  to  user  communities  with  a  certain  level  of 
technical knowledge, who are able to access and find relevant data and information on existing 
Copernicus core services and on the Scientific Data Hub.  

No budget would be dedicated to product development or tailoring of existing products to specific 
Cultural  Heritage  needs  under  option  1.  As  such,  under  option  1,  the  product  availability 
would  be  as  it  exists  to  date.  This  implies  that  there  would  be  no  new  standards  created 
besides those currently existing with Copernicus.  

Under option 1, the Cultural Heritage communities can therefore either rely: 

•  Directly on existing Copernicus data and information; 

•  On value-added information products that rely on Copernicus data and information that have 

been transformed and enhanced by intermediate users (i.e. downstream companies). 

Overall, option 1 can be summarised with the following points: 

•  Reliance on existing core products, data and information without the development of new 

products nor the adaptation of current products; 

•  Availability of products on currently existing Copernicus core services platforms; 

•  Budget investment for awareness raising and market uptake activities. 

5.2  Option 2: Cultural Heritage as part of one or more 

existing services 

Option 2 consists of setting up a specific user platform in the form of a web-based interface (i.e. 
web-based  front-end)  fully  dedicated  to  Cultural  Heritage,  where  user  communities  could  find 
existing  Copernicus  data  and  information  suitable  for  Cultural  Heritage  activities  together  with 
additional  existing  products  from  core  services  that  have  been  adapted  to  Cultural  Heritage 
needs. This platform would likely be leveraging on the DIAS initiatives currently being developed. 
The chart below summarises the scope of option 2. 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Figure 47: Option 2 description – Cultural Heritage as a dedicated interface part of the 
Copernicus programme 

As the governing body of the European Earth observation programme, the European Commission 
would be in charge of funding the creation of an interface that would centralise the access to all 
Copernicus data and information suitable for Cultural Heritage activities. The products found via 
this  front-end  would  come  from  the  six  service  platforms  that  offer  accessible  and  relevant 
products  for  Cultural  Heritage.  A  specific  access  to  Sentinels  and  contributing  missions’  (e.g. 
direct  link  to  Scientific Hub)  data  would  also  be  available  on  the  platform.  This  platform  should 
benefit  from  the  development  of  the  DIAS  platform,  expected  to  be  operational  in  the  near 
future;  the  DIAS  initiative  should  ease  data  dissemination,  hence  the  Cultural  Heritage  web 
interface  should capitalise  on this. As  such, under  option 2, a  budget would be dedicated  to 
the development of a digital environment (e.g. application programme interface (API)) 
where  user  would  be  able  to  easily  access  directly  all  products  suitable  for  Cultural 
Heritage,  hence  setting-up  a  front-end  dedicated  to  Cultural  Heritage.  Such  an 
investment could have indirect impacts on Copernicus user uptake from Cultural Heritage 
communities, as this would ease access to Copernicus data and information. 

The  management  of  the  Cultural  Heritage  platform  would  either  be  under  the  European 
Commission  or  from  one  of  the  existing  Entrusted  Entities.  The  interface  should  be  similar  to 
what  is  currently  done  on  the  Copernicus  Climate  Change  Service  website  with  the  Sectoral 
Information System, which provides specific information in dedicated areas (e.g. water, energy, 
insurance,  etc.)159.  The  Entrusted  Entities  would  provide  all  the  products  that  would  feed  the 
platform: they would either be proposed as is currently on the service website or be available in 
a  way  that  makes  them  adaptable  to  the  specific  needs  of  Cultural  Heritage  user  communities. 
The  European  Commission,  under  option  2,  would  dedicate  a  specific  budget  dedicated  to 
product tailoring for each Copernicus core service, based on those products that are of interest 
for  Cultural  Heritage  but  require  some  adaptations.  The  provision  of  tailored  products  should 
favour  the  development  of  standards  on  Cultural  Heritage.  Indeed,  the  availability  of  adaptable 
products  should  foster  user  uptake  and  push  for  more  standardisation  for  Copernicus  and 
especially Cultural Heritage. This option should also enable the European Commission to unlock 

159 https://climate.copernicus.eu/sectoral-information-system 

86 

End-usersIntermediate usersData from in-situ componentCULTURAL HERITAGE USER COMMUNITIESUsage of core Copernicus products for the development of value-added product and service  Industrial stakeholders as an intermediate user of core Copernicus productsData from space component(Sentinels & Contributing Missions)Industry player 1Industry player 2Industry player n…OrganisationCopernicus Core servicesExisting productsProvision of existing Core products suitable for Cultural Heritage purposeProvision of Core products adapted to Cultural Heritage purposeDissemination of all Copernicus products dedicated to Cultural Heritage purposeCultural Heritage platformBudget investedfor productadaptationCould be…Public organisationsIndustrial companiesAcademia 
 
 
 
 
 
  
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

specific grants and funding mechanisms to support R&D and knowledge creation in the 
field of Earth Observation applied to Cultural Heritage activities. 

Under option 2, the Cultural Heritage communities can therefore either rely: 

•  Directly on Copernicus data and information provided by the platform; 

•  On value-added information products that rely on Copernicus data and information extracted 
from  the  Cultural  Heritage  platform  that  have  been  transformed  and  enhanced  by 
intermediate users (i.e. downstream companies). 

Under option 2, the Cultural Heritage communities can therefore pick both existing and tailored 
Copernicus  products  on  a  Cultural  Heritage  interface,  or  rely  on  value-added  products  resulting 
from the transformation of these data and products by intermediate users. 

Overall, option 2 can be summarised with the following points: 

•  Reliance on existing core products, data and information as well as on the adaptation of 

current products; 

•  Availability of products on a dedicated Cultural Heritage platform (probably hosted on DIAS 

initiatives); 

•  Budget investment to raise awareness and support R&D and knowledge creation. 

5.3  Option  3:  Creation  of  a  new  Copernicus  service 

dedicated to Cultural Heritage 

Option  3  consists  of  the  creation  of  a  Copernicus  Service,  in  addition  to  the  existing  ones  (e.g. 
Land Monitoring service, Emergency Management service, Marine Monitoring service, etc.), which 
would  be  exclusively  dedicated  to  Cultural  Heritage.  The  chart  below  summarises  the  scope  of 
option 3. 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Figure 48: Option 3 description – Cultural Heritage as a new Copernicus service 

The European Commission would be funding the creation of an additional Copernicus service fully 
dedicated  to  Cultural  Heritage.  This  implies  major  changes  in  terms  of  governance  when 
compared  to  options  1  and  2.  Indeed,  the  European  Commission  would  need  to  issue  a 
Delegation  Agreement  summarising  all  the  activities  expected  from  the  Entrusted  Entity  that 
would be in charge of the Cultural Heritage service and the  budget that would be dedicated 
to operation and management activities. For the existing Entrusted Entities, the Delegation 
Agreements forecasted  yearly commitments of  about EUR  14.7 M per  year  over the 2014-2016 
period,  with  values  between  entities  ranging  from  EUR  7.2  M  to  EUR  19.8  M  per  year  on 
average160.  The Copernicus Cultural Heritage service should be less demanding (i.e. in terms of 
resources) than the Land or the Marine service, but still impactful. Under option 3, the European 
Commission would be in charge  of a long  administrative process  going  from the choice of 
the  appointed  Entrusted  Entity  to  the  signature  of  the  Delegation  Agreement.  The 
Cultural Heritage service would be either managed by one of the current Entrusted Entities 
(e.g. EEA) or by a new one.  

The creation of a new service not only implies the appointment of an Entrusted Entity, but also of 
a  consortium  of  companies.  This  consortium  would  be  composed  of  a  prime  contractor  and 
several  sub-contractors  that  are  usually  public  organisations,  industrial  companies  or  university 
research  centres.  The  consortium  would  be  in  charge  of  the  development  of  new  Cultural 
Heritage  products  whereas  the  existing  services  would  receive  additional  budgets  for  tailoring 
some of their products to Cultural Heritage needs (i.e. as for option 2), and the Entrusted Entity 
in charge of the new Cultural Heritage service would gather everything on a dedicated interface. 
The development  of new products as  well as tailoring activities would be supported by Sentinel 
data, contributing mission data and in-situ data used for calibration purposes. More in-situ data 
should  be  available  than  in  the  other  options,  as  the  appointment  of  an  Entrusted  Entity  in 
charge  of  a  service  implies  the  collection  and  centralisation  of  all  necessary  in-situ  data  for 
product provision. Additionally to a single front-end, a core service is also in charge of collecting 
user  needs  in  order  to  support  the  evolution  of  the  service  (e.g.  the  need  for  new  type  of 
products) and the Copernicus programme (e.g. the need for new type of sensors).  

Under  option  3,  the  Cultural  Heritage  user  communities  would  be  able  to  turn  to  a  dedicated 
service  providing  specific  products,  data  and  information,  together  with  a  permanent  feed-back 

160 European Commission, 2017, Interim evaluation of Copernicus 

88 

Consortium supporting the provision of Copernicus core productsPrime contractor Sub contractor 1Sub contractor 2Sub contractor …End-usersIntermediate usersData from in-situ componentUsage of core Copernicus products for the development of value-added product and service  Intermediate user of core Copernicus productsData from space component(Sentinels & Contributing Missions)New Copernicus products dedicated to Cultural Heritage purposePublic organisationPrivate organisationsAcademiaOrganisationExisting productsProvision of existing Core products suitable for Cultural Heritage purposeProvision of Core products adapted to Cultural Heritage purposeDissemination of all Copernicus products dedicated to Cultural Heritage purposeRaw dataCould be…Public organisationsIndustrial companiesAcademiaCopernicus Service dedicated to Cultural Heritage(Entrusted Entity(ies))CULTURAL HERITAGE USER COMMUNITIESBudget investedfor productadaptationCopernicus Core services 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

loop from users to monitor the evolution of their needs. Such a service would be one-of-a-kind, 
implying  that  the  more  interesting  Cultural  Heritage  products,  data  and  information  become 
available,  the  bigger  the  interest  would  be  from  the  international  community  to  turn  to 
Copernicus.  As  a  result,  this  would  foster  the  uptake  of  Copernicus  Cultural  Heritage  standards 
globally,  especially  for  the  development  of  models  or  algorithms.  Moreover,  as  an  Entrusted 
Entity  would  be  in  charge  of  the  Copernicus  Cultural  Heritage  service,  it  would  benefit  from 
additional  funding  to  develop  call  for  tenders  through  R&D  tools  in  order  to  foster  the 
development  of  Value-Added  Services  (VAS),  and  so  supporting  the  competitiveness  of  the 
downstream  industry  (i.e.  intermediate  users  community)  in  Europe.  This  additional  funding 
would  have  positive  impact  on  knowledge  spillovers  related  to  the  use  of  EO  in  the  field  of 
Cultural Heritage but also for European digital heritage. 

Overall, option 3 can be summarised with the following points: 

•  Development of new products complementary to existing core products, data and information 

and to adapted products; 

•  Creation of a new Copernicus service dedicated to Cultural Heritage; 

•  Appointment of a consortium of companies in charge of the development of new products and 

services in support of Cultural Heritage purposes. 

5.4  Summary of the main differences between options 

The main differences between the three options are summarised in the table below. 

Table 37: Summary of differences between intervention options 

Option 1 

Option 2 

Option 3 

Budget 

Budget to support 
user uptake 

Legal 
implications 

N/A 

Budget to support user 
uptake; 

Budget for the 
development of a 
dedicated web-based 
interface; 

Budget for product 
tailoring; 

Budget for grants and 
funding mechanisms. 

Issuing of a legal 
document enabling 
platform creation 

Management 

N/A 

EC or one of the EEE 

Budget to support user 
uptake; 

Budget for setting up a 
Copernicus service 
(including the 
development of a 
dedicated web-based 
interface); 

Budget for product 
tailoring; 

Budget for grants and 
funding mechanisms. 

Issuing of a Delegation 
agreement 

EEE (existing or new 
one) 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Data & 
information 
access 

No centralisation of 
access to Copernicus 
data & information 
suitable for CH 
activities  

Centralisation of 
Copernicus data & 
information suitable for 
CH activities (web-based 
platform) 

Centralisation of 
Copernicus data & 
information suitable for 
CH activities (web-based 
platform) 

Products 
development 

No tailoring of 
existing Copernicus 
products 

Tailoring of existing 
Copernicus products to CH 
needs; 

Tailoring of existing 
Copernicus products to 
CH needs; 

No creation of new 
Copernicus products 
tailored to CH needs 

No creation of new 
Copernicus products 
tailored to CH needs. 

Creation of new 
Copernicus products 
tailored to CH needs. 

Standardisation  No specific impact 

Incentives towards 
standardisation 

Major incentives towards 
standardisation 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

6 Impacts derived from the 

implementation of the different 
option 

6.1  Presentation of impacts  

The different options mentioned in the section hereinabove have been analysed through the lens 
of  predefined  impacts  and  Key  Performance  Indicators  (KPIs)  common  to  all  options,  to  ensure 
comparability between options. As the analysis is an impact evaluation and not an impact 
assessment, the objective is to give an order of magnitude of the impacts generated by 
each option rather than an accurate cost-benefit analysis. 

The  final  list  of  impacts  is  composed  of  seven  impacts.  Each  impact  is  characterised  as  either 
economic,  societal  or  strategic  and  is  split  into  several  KPIs,  which  are  metrics  that  enable  the 
assessment  of the impact. The chart below illustrates the approach used to derive the different 
KPIs to be looked at. 

Figure 49:  Different steps included in the impact definition process 

The  following list of impacts and related KPIs  presents how  each KPI  has been  analysed. Some 
KPIs  appear  as  less  precise  than  others:  these  are  the  KPIs  assessed  through  a  Likert  scale. 
Indeed,  they  are  rather  concept  indicators  than  metric  indicators  as  they  cannot  be  directly 
measured (e.g. in Euros, number of visitors, etc.) and have been assessed through stakeholder 
consultation. 

91 

Impact 2Impact 1Impact nCategoryKPI 2KPI 1KPI n…………•European Year of Cultural Heritage•EU 2020 Strategy•Decision on a European  Year of Cultural Heritage•…•The Social and Economic Value of Cultural Heritage•… 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Table 38:  Categorisation of impacts and KPIs 

Category 

Impacts 

KPIs 

Cost of the options 

Costs to develop and operate the 
different options 

Option 
implementation 
process 

Economic 

Competitiveness 

Complexity of option 
implementation 

Administrative burden 

Partnerships and collaborations 
between Member States 

Enabled revenues for the 
downstream sector 

Wider economic and societal 
impacts 

Competitive downstream sector 

R&D (e.g. skills, knowledge, 
innovation) 

Direct job creation 

Employment 

Indirect and induced job creation 

Evaluation 
approach 

Quantitative 
(monetary) 

Quantitative 
(Likert scale) 

Quantitative 
(Likert scale) 

Quantitative 
(Likert scale) 

Quantitative 
(monetary) 

Quantitative 
(monetary) 

Quantitative 
(Likert scale) 

Quantitative 
(Likert scale) 

Quantitative 
(monetary) 

Quantitative 
(monetary) 

Strategic 

EU Leadership 

Valorisation of 
Cultural Heritage 

Societal 

Positioning of EU as a leader in the 
field of Cultural Heritage 

Quantitative 
(Likert scale) 

Partnerships & collaborations with 
third countries and international 
organisations 

Standardisation of data 

Increased visibility of the Cultural 
Heritage sector through 
digitisation and online access 

Quantitative 
(Likert scale) 

Quantitative 
(Likert scale) 

Quantitative 
(Likert scale) 

Centralisation of data access for 
the Cultural Heritage communities 

Quantitative 
(Likert scale) 

Support to 
European 
knowledge 

Academia (e.g. publications, 
conferences); education and 
knowledge sharing within the 
Cultural Heritage user 
communities 

Quantitative 
(Likert scale) 

Once the evaluation of all KPIs has been performed, a summary with the strengths and 
weaknesses of the impacts per option is presented.  

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

6.1.1  Assumptions 

In  the  following  evaluation,  several  assumptions  have  been  taken.  The  first  one  refers  to  the 
timeframe  most  relevant  to  evaluate  the  impacts.  Considering  one  of  the  options  include  the 
setup of a service, which takes years to be fully operational, all options will be quantitatively 
analysed over a 7-year time period: two years to make the service operational and five more 
years  to  analyse  the  service  once  operational.  Intervention  options  all  begin  in  2019,  as  a 
starting date was required for the analysis of impacts. 

Moreover,  all  costs  of  implementation  of  the  options  have  been  considered  constant  over  the 
time  period  under  scrutiny,  with  the  exception  of  option  3,  which  evolves  overtime;  in  reality, 
these values could vary each year depending on the specific needs of the option and its impacts, 
but  these  have  been  smoothed  in  this  analysis  as  there  is  no  evidence  of  a  potential  cost 
evolution over time.  

Finally, all quantitative values derived from options evaluation are indicative. The aim of 
such  assessment  is  to  help  give  order  of  magnitudes  of  the  options,  and  not  concrete  and 
definitive impacts evaluation.  

6.1.2  Impact evaluation of option 1 

The evaluation of option 1 consists of the analysis of the impacts resulting from increased efforts 
on  awareness  raising  and  market  uptake  activities  from  the  European  Commission,  in  order  to 
promote the currently existing Copernicus products, data and information that could be suitable 
for Cultural Heritage applications. As a reminder from Chapter 5, option 1 is illustrated below. 

Figure 50: Option 1 description – Cultural Heritage as a list of existing Copernicus products 

6.1.2.1  User requirements covered by option 1 

Option 1 is expected to rely on a list of existing Copernicus products, and so no specific budget 
will  be  made  available  to  Copernicus  core  services  for  the  adaptation  of  existing  products  to 
respond to the needs of CH users’ communities. Additionally, no budget will be made available to 
develop new products tailored for CH user needs. 

93 

End-usersIntermediate usersCULTURAL HERITAGE USER COMMUNITIESUsage of core Copernicus products for the development of value-added product and service  Industrial stakeholders as an intermediate user of core Copernicus productsIndustry player 1Industry player 2Industry player n…OrganisationCopernicus Core servicesExisting productsProvision of existing Core products suitable for Cultural Heritage purposeNo additional budget invested for product adaptationCould be…Public organisationsIndustrial companiesAcademiaData from space component(Sentinels & Contributing Missions)Data from in-situ component 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Under  option  1,  7,5%  of  CH  user  requirements  would  be  fully  covered  by  existing  Copernicus 
core services products and an additional 19% of CH user requirements would be partially covered 
by those products (please refer to the section 4.3.4 for more details on the match analysis). An 
additional  3,2%  and  1,1%  of  CH  user  requirements  could  be  respectively  fully  and  partially 
covered  by  the  Copernicus  programme  thanks  to  the  Sentinels  capabilities.  Nevertheless,  these 
3,2%  of  user  requirements  could  only  be  covered  for  downstream  companies  and  technical  CH 
user  communities,  as  the  Sentinels  data  would  need  to  be  processed  and  transformed  into 
information products to respond to user requirements (again, please refer to section 4.3 for more 
details on the match analysis). 

As a conclusion, under option 1: 

•  Between 7,5 and 10,7% of CH user requirements would be fully covered; 

•  19,0% and 20,1% of CH user requirement would be partially covered. 

6.1.2.2  Economic impacts 

6.1.2.2.1  Cost of the options 

The  implementation  of  option  1  would  imply  little  investment;  the  development  cost  of  this 
option would be nil as no new infrastructure would be needed and the operating costs would be 
minimal, as they consist of the launch of awareness raising and market uptake activities, that is 
workshops  and  outreach  events  organisation,  press  and  media  publications,  use  cases 
development  or  newsletter  implementation,  as  well  as  communication  on  where  and  how  users 
can  find  Copernicus  products,  data  and  information  suitable  for  Cultural  Heritage.  The  latter 
partly  corresponds  to  cross-cutting  activities  as  defined  in  the  Copernicus  Regulation.  Indeed, 
cross-cutting  activities  include  communication  and  dissemination  activities,  users  and  potential 
capacity  building  activities,  activities  to  support  the  uptake  of  Copernicus  data  and  products, 
taking stock of Copernicus uptake and the evolution of the Copernicus programme, the evolution 
of Copernicus data distribution and user access, and the acquisition of indefeasible rights of use 
on  the  high-bandwidth  transatlantic  submarine  telecommunication  cable161.  An  analysis  of  the 
2016 budget for the service component determined that cross-cutting activities represent about 
10% of the service component budget, and that what corresponds to the awareness raising and 
market uptake activities described above represents 5% of the service component budget162. As 
such,  this  value  is  used  as  a  proxy  to  determine  the  cost  of  the  awareness  raising  activities 
included  in  option  1.  This  5%  is  applied  to  the  cost  of  option  2,  as  awareness  raising  activities 
are  expected  to  be  similar  in  both  options.  Thus,  the  implementation  of  option  1  would  cost 
around EUR 75 K per year.  

6.1.2.2.2  Option implementation process 

The awareness  raising and market uptake activities would be dealt with either by the European 
Commission itself or by the Entrusted Entities in charge of the existing Copernicus core services. 
In both cases, the complexity of implementation would be non-existent as it would only imply an 
increase  of  the  budget  dedicated  to  promotion  and  communication  activities,  which  is  a  budget 
line that already exists for the different entities.  

161  European  Commission,  2016,  ANNEX  to  the  Commission  Implementing  Decision  on  the  adoption  of  the  2016  Copernicus  Wor k 
Programme (Online). Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/3/2016/EN/3-2016-743-EN-F1-1-ANNEX-1.PDF 
162  European  Commission,  2016,  ANNEX  to  the  Commission  Implementing  Decision  on  the  adoption  of  the  2016  Copernicus  Work 
Programme (Online). Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/3/2016/EN/3-2016-743-EN-F1-1-ANNEX-1.PDF 

94 

Cost of option 1EUR 75 K per yearComplexity of option implementation-4400 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

As  for  public  authorities,  option  1  should  not  result  in  any  specific  new  heavy  administrative 
burden. Administrative burden here refers to all the administrative tasks that are necessary to be 
implemented in order to access Copernicus data and products. Indeed, nothing would change on 
how  to  access  the  Copernicus  products,  data  and  information,  as  this  option  focuses  on 
awareness  raising  and users  still  have  to  interact  directly  with  each  of  the  Copernicus  services. 
Hence the current administrative frame of public authorities should not be greatly interfered with 
by the European Commission intervention of option 1.  

As Cultural Heritage is a global issue, European Member States are incentivised to cooperate and 
collaborate  with  one  another  to  conserve  and  preserve  European  Heritage.  Option  1  would  be 
expected to marginally favour partnerships between Member States. Indeed, Copernicus already 
provides  the  necessary  resources  for  Member  States  to  engage  in  cross-country  collaborations, 
notably in the form of communication and project calls.  

6.1.2.2.3  Competitiveness 

Under option 1, EUR 75 K would be invested for awareness raising activities each year and this 
would be expected to enable additional revenues for the downstream sector for Cultural Heritage, 
which comprises developers of products and services linked to the use of Earth Observation (EO) 
or of Geospatial Information Systems (GIS).  

Based  on  a  proxy  analysing  the  impacts  of  Copernicus  on  the  revenues  of  all  types  of 
intermediate  users  with  respect  to  the  amount  invested  by  the  European  Commission,  enabled 
revenues  are  assumed  to  range  between  1.03  and  1.43  of  the  investment163,  meaning  that  for 
each  euro  invested  in  the  Copernicus  programme,  service-related  activities  between  EUR  1.03 
and  EUR  1.43  are  created  within  the  European  downstream  industry.  As  such,  yearly  enabled 
revenues for the downstream sector would range from EUR 77 K and EUR 107 K, with an average 
at EUR 92 K. Looking at the larger time frame of 2019-2025, which is a period that could enable 
a  stronger  uptake  of  Cultural  Heritage  data  and  information,  enabled  revenues  for  the 
downstream sector would range from EUR 540 K to EUR 750 K, with an average at EUR 645 K. 
As a result, revenues of the downstream sector would not drastically increase, especially because 
it would still be complicated for downstream companies to reach to Entrusted Entities for support 
on product development, as the current catalogue would remain unchanged.  

Wider  economic  and  societal  impacts  refer  to  the  benefits  to  the  wider  society  of  an  EC 
intervention in the field of Cultural Heritage. These impacts take into account indirect economic 
impacts  (e.g.  additional  tourism  revenues,  additional  consumption,  renovation  and  construction 
to support CH, etc.) and societal and environmental impacts (e.g. protection of Cultural Heritage, 
environment protection, etc.). 

In  the  case  of  option  1,  wider  economic  and  societal  impacts  would  be  expected  to  range 
between EUR 420 K and EUR 760 K, with an average of EUR 570 K each year, and a cumulated 
value over the 2019 – 2025 period ranging between EUR 2.95 M and EUR 5.3 M, with an average 
of EUR 4.0 M. These values stem from a proxy based on societal and wider impacts to end users 

163 European Commission, 2018, Copernicus ex-ante economic, environmental and societal impact assessment 

95 

-44Administrative burden0-44Partnerships and collaborations between Member States0Enabled revenuesBetween EUR 540 K and EUR 750 K over 2019-2025Wider economic & societal impactsBetween EUR 2.95 M and EUR 5.3 Mover 2019-2025 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

(thus  excluding  intermediate  users,  that  is  to  say  the  downstream  sector)  of  the  Copernicus 
programme: each EUR 1 invested should generate between EUR 5.61 and EUR 10.1164.  

The table below summarises the overall expected monetary benefits derived from option 1 over 
the period 2019 – 2025. 

Table 39: Option 1 expected monetary benefits over the period 2019 - 2025 

Enabled revenues for 
intermediate users 

Wider impacts for end 
users 

Low scenario 

Average scenario 

High scenario 

EUR 0.54 M 

EUR 0.65 M 

EUR 0.75 M 

EUR 2.95 M 

EUR 4.0 M 

EUR 5.30 M 

With  regards  to  the  results  of  the  enabled  revenues  for  the  downstream  sector  dealing  with 
Cultural  Heritage  activities,  it  can  be  expected  that  their  competitiveness  would  be  quite 
marginal.  Under  option  1,  intermediate  users  would  not  have  any  new  data  or  information 
tailored to their needs. The downstream sector would only be aware of the availability of free and 
open  Copernicus  data  that  sometimes  corresponds  to  their  needs  but  that  they  were  not 
previously aware of and that they could have potentially been paying for before.  

The  implementation  of  option  1  would  be  associated  with  marginal  efforts  in  R&D.  The  sole 
difference  between  option  1  and  the  current  situation  regarding  Cultural  Heritage  would  be  the 
effort  on  awareness  raising  and  market  uptake  activities.  However,  the  user  communities  that 
would  be  concerned  by  such  promotion  campaigns  would  be  those  with  a  certain  level  of 
technical  knowledge  on  Earth  Observation  and  on  Copernicus,  since  these  user  communities 
would  have  to  find  by  themselves  the  different  Copernicus  services  that  may  have  products 
relevant  to  their  activities,  even  though  these  have  not  been  flagged  as  suitable  for  Cultural 
Heritage. Or they would have to go directly to the Scientific Hub, implying that they would have 
to  be  aware  of  the  type  of  products  they  need  in  terms  of  technical  specifications  (sensor, 
resolution,  frequency,  etc.).  Stakeholder  consultation  with  experts  on  Cultural  Heritage  has 
indeed  emphasised  that  their  lack  of  understanding  of  Earth  Observation  data  was  a  barrier  to 
their  use  of  Copernicus,  considering  the  way  the  products  are  currently  made  available. 
Moreover, there would be no availability of specific grants and funding schemes under option 1. 
Thus,  even  if  more  technical  users  would  be  reached,  they  would  not  be  supported  by  public 
investment. As such, it would be hard under option 1 to capitalise on knowledge, innovation and 
skills creation as the audience of Copernicus would remain limited.  

6.1.2.2.4  Employment 

Investing  in  Cultural  Heritage  through  the  Copernicus  programme  would  have  an  impact  on 
employment,  both  on  direct  jobs  (that  is,  employment  in  the  downstream  sector)  but  also  on 
induced  jobs  (employment  related  to  the  impact  of  the  use  of  products  from  the  downstream 
sector).  

164 European Commission, 2018, Copernicus ex-ante economic, environmental and societal impact assessment 

96 

-44Competitive downstream sector0-44R&D0Direct jobsBetween 4.33 and 6.01 jobs supported over 2019-2025 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

It  is  expected  that  for  each  EUR  1  M  generated  by  the  downstream  industry,  8  jobs  are 
supported  in  the  downstream165.  As  such,  under  option  1,  building  on  the  previous  results  of 
enabled  revenues,  it  could  be  expected  that  between  0.62  and  0.86  jobs  are  supported  each 
year,  leading  to  a  cumulated  value  of  between  4.33  and  6.01  jobs  to  be  supported  over  2019-
2025, with an average at 5.17 jobs.  

Similarly, for each EUR 1 M generated as societal and wider impacts, 2.1 induced jobs 
are supported. As such, building on previous results of wider and societal impacts, it 
could be expected that between 0.88 and 1.59 jobs would be supported each year, 
leading to a cumulated value of between 6.19 and 11.14 jobs that would be supported 
over 2019-2025, with an average at 8.39 jobs. 

The table below summarises the overall expected employment impacts derived from 
option 1 over the period 2019 – 2025. 

Table 40: Option 1 expected jobs supported over the period 2019 - 2025 

Direct jobs (downstream) 

Induced jobs 

Low scenario 

Average scenario 

High scenario 

4.33 

5.17 

6.01 

6.19 

8.39 

11.14 

As  such,  the  impact  on  employment  would  be  rather  marginal in  the case  of  option  1,  which  is 
notably  due  to  the  fact  that  there  is  no  novelty  in  what  is  made  available  by  the  Copernicus 
programme.  

6.1.2.3  Strategic impacts 

6.1.2.3.1  EU leadership 

The  European  Year  of  Cultural  Heritage  is,  among  other  objectives,  meant  to  “highlight  the 
potential  of  cooperation  in  matters  of  cultural  heritage  for  developing  stronger  ties  within  the 
Union  and  with  countries  outside  the  Union  and  for  encouraging  intercultural  dialogue,  post-
conflict reconciliation and conflict prevention”166. It is indeed an attribute of Cultural Heritage: act 
as  a  tribune  for  the  continent’s  aura  in  the  world.  In  more  specific  terms,  communicating  the 
European  capacity  to  provide  Cultural  Heritage  communities  with  specific  tools  to  perform  their 
activities  does  have  an  impact  on  how  Europe  is  considered  in  the  field  of  Cultural  Heritage. 
Along with a strengthened position on the international scene when it comes to Cultural Heritage, 
Europe  gains  a  paramount  place  within  international  partnerships  and  collaborations  with  third 
countries and international organisations. “Culture is recognised as an important element of the 
European Union’s cooperation programmes and instruments, and in its bilateral agreements with 
third countries. A wide  variety  of cultural projects and programmes have been implemented for 
many  years  as  part  of  EU  technical  and  financial  assistance”167.  In  the  light  of  this  analysis, 

Decision 

165 European Commission, 2018, Copernicus ex-ante economic, environmental and societal impact assessment 
166 
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017D0864&from=EN 
167 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions on a European agenda for culture in a globalizing world {SEC(2007) 570} /* COM/2007/0242 final 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

[ONLINE] 

European 

Available 

(2018) 

Year 

at: 

CH 

on 

of 

a 

97 

Indirect and induced jobsBetween 6.19 and 11.14 jobs supported over 2019-2025-44Positioning of EU as a leader in the field of CH0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

option  1  would  not  provide  Europe  with  a  strengthened  positioning  in  the  field  of  Cultural 
Heritage.  

Option 1 would not bring any novelty to what the Copernicus programme can offer, as its main 
goal  is  to  work  on  raising  awareness  as  to  the  existence  of  the  programme.  First  targets  of 
awareness raising and market uptake activities will be Europeans: as a European programme, if 
Copernicus is not known in its own region for its usefulness for Cultural Heritage activities, it will 
be  difficult  for  it  to  be  exported  further.  Indeed,  a  European  uptake  could  irradiate  and 
incentivise users in other parts  of the world. As  such, it is very unlikely that collaborations and 
partnerships with third countries would be stimulated as a result of the implementation of option 
1.  As  for  international  organisations,  they  are  usually  aware  of  all  the  means  that  can  support 
their  activity,  especially  as,  in  the  case  of  Copernicus,  the  data  is  open  and  free.  Stakeholder 
consultation  has  emphasised  that  Copernicus  could  be  an  alternative  to  the  data  they  are 
currently using but what it would cost them in terms of change of process is not worth it at this 
time,  considering  the  current  availability  of  products  suitable  for  Cultural  Heritage.  As  such, 
option  1  will  not  change  anything  in  the  state  of  partnerships  and  collaborations  with  third 
countries and International Organisations. 

As  a  consequence  of  a  reinforced  position  worldwide,  Europe  would  be  able  to  gain  bargaining 
power and influence in terms of the design of Cultural Heritage data standards for education and 
R&D.  However,  under  option  1,  the  EU  does  not  appear  as  a  leader  in  the  field  of  Cultural 
Heritage thanks to its capabilities for site management and monitoring but rather thanks to the 
Heritage itself (e.g. over half of the sites labelled with UNESCO’s World Heritage Label (WHL) are 
localised in Europe). As such, data standards would not be specifically fostered and the situation 
would remain as is today, that is without any intervention from the European Commission.  

6.1.2.4  Societal impacts 

6.1.2.4.1  Valorisation of Cultural Heritage 

As  part  of  the  Digital  Agenda  under  the  Europe  2020  Strategy168,  the  European  Commission  is 
taking  measures  for  “promoting  digitisation  and  online  accessibility  of  our  cultural  heritage”. 
Moreover, it is highlighted in the Declaration of a European Year for Cultural Heritage (2018) that 
one  of  the  objectives  is  to  “promote  solutions  which  make  cultural  heritage  accessible  to  all, 
including via digital means, by removing social, cultural and physical barriers, taking into account 
people with special needs”169. However, option 1 would not increase the visibility of the Cultural 
Heritage sector thanks to digitisation and online access. Indeed, the main activity under option 1 
would  be  awareness  raising,  which  would  target  technical  users  by  informing  them  of  the 
existence of specific products suitable for their needs.  

As  for  the  centralisation  of  data,  which  is  supposed  to  ease  access  to  potential  Copernicus 
Cultural Heritage products users, option 1 would have no effect at all. Indeed, nothing would be 

168 European Commission website. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/europe-2020-strategy 
169 Decision (EU) 2017/864 of the European parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 on a European Year of Cultural Heritage (2018) 
(Online). Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017D0864&from=EN 

98 

-44Partnerships and collaborations with third countries and IO0-44Data standardisation0-44Increased visibility of CH through digitisation and online access0-44Centralisation of data access0 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

expected  to  change  as  to  the  way  products,  data  and information  suitable  for  Cultural  Heritage 
are made available to interested user communities. Products would still be spread across several 
Copernicus service platforms and on the Scientific Hub, letting users engage in a time-consuming 
approach  to  find  what  they  are  looking  for.  This  variety  of  portals  and  repositories  can  be 
confusing and even discouraging for users170. 

6.1.2.4.2  Support to European knowledge 

The  impact  of  option  1 on  academic  production  (e.g.  publications,  conferences  papers,  patents, 
white  papers,  etc.)  and  on  education  and  knowledge  sharing  within  the  Cultural  Heritage 
communities  (e.g.  training  and  capacity  building  in  the  field  of  Earth  Observation)  would  be 
marginal.  As  previously  explained,  option  1  aims  at  raising  awareness  on  the  existence  of 
Copernicus  products,  data  and  information  suitable  to  Cultural  Heritage  activities.  However, 
these would mostly target users with a certain level of technical knowledge on Earth Observation 
(EO)  and  Geospatial  Information  System  (GIS),  hence  no  specific  increase  in  the  number  of 
academic production on the topic should be  expected. As for  education and knowledge sharing, 
no new training would be put in place in the frame of option 1, hence the only effect that could 
be  expected  is  a  stronger  registration  to  current  trainings  provided  by  the  existing  Copernicus 
services. 

6.1.2.5  Conclusion 

The results of the impact evaluation of option 1 can be summarised in the following figure: 

170 European Commission, 2017, Interim evaluation of Copernicus 

99 

-44Academia + Education and knowledge sharing0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Figure 51: Summary of the impact evaluation of option 1 

6.1.3  Impact evaluation of option 2 

The  evaluation  of  option  2  consists  of  the  analysis  of  the  impacts  resulting  from  the 
implementation  of  a  user  interface  in  the  form  of  a  web-based  interface  fully  dedicated  to 
Cultural Heritage, comprised  of  existing products from  core services that have been adapted to 
Cultural  Heritage  needs  in  addition  to  current  Copernicus  products,  data  and  information.  As  a 
reminder from Chapter 5, option 2 is illustrated below. 

100 

EconomicImpact evaluationCost of the optionsAdvantages derived from the optionsCompetitivenessEmploymentEU leadershipValorisation of CHSupport to European knowledgeSocialStrategicOption implementation processCapabilities matching•Development and operation costs•Percentage of user requirements covered by the option•Complexity of option implementation•Administrative burden•Partnership and collaboration between Member States•Enabled revenues for the downstream sector•Wider economic and societal impacts•R&D•Competitive downstream sector•Indirect and induced jobs•Direct jobs•Partnership and collaboration with third countries and IO•Data standardisation•Positioning of EU at a leader in the field of CH•Increased visibility of CH through digitisation and online access•Centralisation of data access•Academia + Education and knowledge sharingOption 1List of Copernicus products suitable for CH applicationsBetween EUR 540 K and EUR 750 K for 2019-2025EUR 75 K per yearBetween 7,5 & 11% fully covered20% partially coveredBetween 4.33 and 6.01 jobs supported for 2019-2025Between EUR 2.95 M and EUR 5.3 M for 2019-2025Between 6.19 and 11.14 jobs supported for 2019-2025 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Figure 52: Option 2 description – Cultural Heritage as a dedicated interface part of the 
Copernicus programme 

6.1.3.1  User requirements covered by option 2 

Option 2 is expected to provide a centralised access for Copernicus data and information suitable 
for Cultural Heritage communities. Under  option 2, dedicated budget to adapt  existing products 
and develop new ones is available for existing Copernicus core services. 

Depending on the budget allocated to Copernicus core services to adapt existing products and/or 
to  develop  new  products  tailored  to  CH  requirements,  option  2  could  be  fully  covering  up  to 
49,8%  of  CH  user  requirements.  An  additional  14.2%  of  CH  user  requirements  could  also  be 
partially covered. For more details on the match analysis, please refer to section 4.3.4. 

As a conclusion, under option 2: 

•  Up to 50% of CH user requirements could be fully covered by the Copernicus programme; 

•  14% of CH user requirements could be partially covered by the Copernicus programme. 

• 

6.1.3.2  Economic impacts 

6.1.3.2.1  Cost of the options 

The implementation of  option 2 would imply significant  investments: (i) for the development  of 
an infrastructure in the shape of a front-end dedicated to Cultural Heritage, with a specific access 
to  Sentinels,  contributing  missions  (e.g.  direct  link  to  Scientific  Hub)  data,  as  well  as  the 
products  suitable  for  Cultural  Heritage  and  already  available  in  the  six  Copernicus  services 
platforms;  (ii)  for  the  continuous  operations  of  the  platform,  including  the  tailoring  of  existing 
Copernicus products to the needs of the Cultural Heritage community.  

101 

End-usersIntermediate usersData from in-situ componentCULTURAL HERITAGE USER COMMUNITIESUsage of core Copernicus products for the development of value-added product and service  Industrial stakeholders as an intermediate user of core Copernicus productsData from space component(Sentinels & Contributing Missions)Industry player 1Industry player 2Industry player n…OrganisationCopernicus Core servicesExisting productsProvision of existing Core products suitable for Cultural Heritage purposeProvision of Core products adapted to Cultural Heritage purposeDissemination of all Copernicus products dedicated to Cultural Heritage purposeCultural Heritage platformBudget investedfor productadaptationCould be…Public organisationsIndustrial companiesAcademiaCost of option 2EUR 1.5 M per year 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Although  the  Cultural  Heritage  web  interface  would  be  expected  to  leverage  on  the  DIAS 
initiatives,  its  implementation  would  most  likely  be  as  from  scratch.  As  previously  explained  in 
the section on option characterisation, the interface should resemble what has been done by the 
Copernicus  Climate  Change  Service  with  its  Sectorial  Information  Systems  (SIS).  A  small  SIS, 
composed  of  2-3  use  cases,  should  cost  around  EUR  150-200K,  whereas  a  major  SIS,  such  as 
the  energy  one,  cost  almost  10  times  this  price,  hence  about  EUR  1.5M.  Based  on  this 
information, a proxy can be derived for the yearly cost of option 2: depending on the ambitions 
put on a Cultural Heritage platform by the European Commission, its cost would vary in-between 
these two values but it would more likely be close to the larger value, given the importance of a 
Cultural Heritage platform compared to the content of the smallest SIS171. As such, a total cost of 
the option could be estimated at EUR 1.5 M.  

6.1.3.2.2  Option implementation process 

The  management  of  the  platform  would  either  be  handled  by  the  European  Commission  or  by 
one  of  the  Entrusted  Entities  in  charge  of  the  existing  Copernicus  core  services.  In  both  cases, 
complexity of implementation is expected to be high. The entity in charge of the platform would 
have  to  deal  with  each  of  the  six  Copernicus  core  services  to  gather  all  products  suitable  for 
Cultural  Heritage,  but  would  also  have  to  negotiate  the  adaptation  of  products  with  Copernicus 
Entrusted Entities in order to match the needs of Cultural Heritage user communities. This can be 
expected to be a long and difficult process, but it would result in a drastic change for users, who 
would have most of the tools necessary for their activities within reach. 

Moreover,  option  2  should  not  be  an  administrative  burden  for  public  authorities  in  charge  of 
Cultural  Heritage:  on  the  contrary,  it  should  slightly  simplify  the  administrative  tasks  linked  to 
the downloading of data. The  main change for users  would be the location of the products that 
are  to  be  centralised  in  a  single  place  instead  of  being  spread  among  several  websites.  The 
format  of  data  would  remain  as  is  and  data  and  products  would  still  be  owned  by  the  six 
Copernicus  services.  As  such,  the  current  processes  applied  by  public  authorities  using 
Copernicus should not drastically evolve but should be slightly facilitated with the one-stop shop, 
hence there would be a reduction of the administrative burden. 

If  access  to  Copernicus  data  and  information  suitable  for  Cultural  Heritage-related  activities  is 
simplified  under  option  2,  leading  to  a  probable  user  uptake  increase,  it  does  not  imply  that 
partnerships  and  collaborations  between  Member  States  on  Cultural  Heritage  issues  would 
drastically increase. Indeed, the impact would be rather moderate. There would be slightly more 
resources  available  thanks  to  the  tailoring  of  some  Copernicus  products,  more  visibility  and  a 
centralising  tool.  This  should  ease  cross-country  collaborations  and  can  incentivise  Member 
States  to  engage  in  the  collaborative  process,  notably  considering  the  need  to  define  common 
standards and possible best practices. 

171 PwC analysis and expert consultation 

102 

Complexity of option implementation-440-44Administrative burden0-44Partnerships and collaborations between Member States0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

6.1.3.2.3  Competitiveness 

Under  option  2,  EUR  1.5  M  would  be  invested  for  the  development  of  a  web  interface  fully 
dedicated  to  Cultural  Heritage.  Intermediate  users,  who  are  part  of  the  downstream  sector, 
would be able to access the platform and find all products suitable for Cultural Heritage, including 
existing  products  that  would  have  been  specifically  tailored  to  Cultural  Heritage  needs  in  the 
frame of this option.  

Based  on  a  proxy  analysing  the  impacts  of  Copernicus  on  the  revenues  of  all  types  of 
intermediate  users  with  respect  to  the  investment  of  the  European  Commission,  enabled 
revenues would represent between 1.03 and 1.43 of the amount invested172173, meaning that for 
each  euro  invested  in  the  Copernicus  programme,  service-related  activities  between  EUR  1.03 
and  EUR  1.43  are  created  within  the  European  downstream  industry.  As  such,  yearly  enabled 
revenues for the downstream sector would range between EUR 1.55 M and EUR 2.15 M, with an 
average of  EUR 1.85 M. Looking  at the larger  time frame  of 2019-2025, which  should enable a 
stronger  uptake  of  Cultural  Heritage  products,  data  and  information,  enabled  revenues  for  the 
downstream  sector  would  range  from  EUR  10.82  M  to  EUR  15.02  M,  with  an  average  of  EUR 
12.92  M.  As  a  result,  revenues  of  the  downstream  sector  would  increase,  not  thanks  to  the 
availability of new products, data and information but thanks to a simplification of access and a 
better  communication  regarding  the  existence  of  Copernicus  products  suitable  for  Cultural 
Heritage,  which  might  lead  to  cost  reduction  for  intermediate  users  used  to  buying  fee-based 
products that are actually provided by Copernicus.  

Wider  economic  and  societal  impacts  refers  to  the  benefits  to  the  wider  society  of  an  EC 
intervention in the field of Cultural Heritage. These impacts take into account indirect economic 
impacts  (e.g.  additional  tourism  revenues,  additional  consumption,  renovation  and  construction 
to support CH, etc.) and societal and environmental impacts (e.g. protection of Cultural Heritage, 
environment protection, etc.). 

Wider economic and societal impacts would be expected to range between EUR 8.42 M and EUR 
15.15  M,  with  an  average  of  EUR  11.42  M  each  year,  and  a  cumulated  value  over  the  2019  – 
2025 period ranging between EUR 58.91 M and EUR 106.05 M, with an average of EUR 79.91 M. 
These  values  stem  from  a  proxy  based  on  wider  impacts  to  end  users  (thus  excluding 
intermediate  users,  that  is  to  say  the  downstream  sector)  of  the  Copernicus  programme:  each 
EUR 1 invested is expected to generate between EUR 5.61 and EUR 10.1174.  

The table below summarises the overall expected monetary benefits derived from option 2 over 
the period 2019 – 2025. 

Table 41: Option 2 expected monetary benefits over the period 2019 - 2025  

Enabled revenues for 
intermediate users 

Wider impacts for end 
users 

Low scenario 

Average scenario 

High scenario 

EUR 10.82 M 

EUR 12.92 M 

EUR 15.02 M 

EUR 58.91 M 

EUR 79.91 M 

EUR 106.05 M 

172 European Commission, 2018, Copernicus ex-ante economic, environmental and societal impact assessment 
173 European Commission, 2018, Copernicus ex-ante economic, environmental and societal impact assessment 
174 European Commission, 2018, Copernicus ex-ante economic, environmental and societal impact assessment 

103 

Enabled revenuesBetween EUR 10.82 M and EUR 15.02 M over 2019-2025Between EUR 58.91 M and EUR 106.05 Mover 2019-2025Wider economic & societal impacts 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

The  competitiveness  of  intermediate  users  is  expected  to  be  strong  under  option  2,  as 
emphasised  by  the  strong  results  in  terms  of  enabled  revenues  for  the  downstream  sector. 
Indeed, there would be a one-stop shop for all Cultural Heritage products, data and information 
and  there  would  not  be  any  competition  from  a  consortium  of  companies  appointed  to  the 
development  of  new  Copernicus  products  by  the  European  Commission.  As  such,  the 
downstream sector would be free to organise itself to develop new Value-Added Services (VAS) 
and  products  for  Cultural  Heritage  purpose.  In  this  option,  52%  of  the  user  needs  are  fully 
covered and 12% are partially covered, hence there is a better ability to respond to the demand 
of users and this should lead to an increase in the offers provided by downstream actors. 

Efforts  in  R&D  would  be  quite  strong  in  the  case  of  option  2.  First  of  all,  developing  a  platform 
dedicated  to  Cultural  Heritage  would  favour  user  uptake,  especially  among  categories  of  users 
with  low  level  of  technical  knowledge  on  satellite  imagery  -  all  products  would  be  clustered  by 
needs  on  the  Copernicus  Cultural  Heritage  web  interface  to  help  users  pick  products  and  data 
most  fitted  to  their  requests.  Stakeholder  consultation  has  highlighted  that  some  Cultural 
Heritage  experts  are  relying  on  third  parties  to  extract  satellite  data  for  them  before  analysing 
the  results  of  this  data  themselves.  This  intermediary  would  become  unnecessary  should 
Copernicus products be presented in a clearer manner. Second, option 2  would be linked to the 
ability to unlock specific grants and funding  mechanisms such as the Copernicus Masters aimed 
at  supporting  R&D  through  innovation,  skills  creation  and  knowledge  transfer  on  Earth 
Observation  and/or  Cultural  Heritage.  For  instance,  in  2016,  the  winner  of  the  Copernicus 
Masters was “SpaceToPlace  –  EO to  Empower  UNESCO Site  Managers”175.  This service is aimed 
at facilitating access and use of Copernicus products, data and information for Cultural Heritage 
activities of UNESCO experts. Such a service could be developed thanks to grants resulting from 
Copernicus, and similar to the ones that could result from the implementation of option 2. As a 
result, option 2 would be in line with the European Cultural Heritage Year objective to “support 
the  development  of  specialised  skills  and  improve  knowledge  management  and  knowledge 
transfer in the cultural heritage sector, taking into account the implications of the digital shift”176. 

6.1.3.2.4  Employment 

Considering that for each EUR 1 M generated by the downstream industry, 8 jobs are supported 
in  the  downstream177,  under  option  2,  building  on  the  previous  results  of  enabled  revenues, 
between 12.36 and 17.16 jobs  should be supported each year, leading to a cumulated value of 
between  86.52  and  120.12  jobs  that  would  be  supported  over  2019-2025,  with  an  average  of 
103.32 jobs supported.  

Similarly,  for  each  EUR  1  M  generated  as  societal  and  wider  impacts,  2.1  induced  jobs  are 
supported.  As  such,  building  on  previous  results  of  wider  and  societal  impacts,  between  17.67 
and 31.82 jobs should be supported each year, leading to a cumulated value of between 123.70 

175  Copernicus  Masters  website.  Available  at:  https://www.copernicus-masters.com/winner/spacetoplace-eo-empower-unesco-site-
managers/ 
176 Decision (EU) 2017/864 of the European parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 on a European Year of Cultural Heritage (2018) 
(Online). Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017D0864&from=EN 
177 European Commission, 2018, Copernicus ex-ante economic, environmental and societal impact assessment 

104 

-44Competitive downstream sector0-44R&D0Direct jobsBetween 86.52 and 120.12 jobs supported over 2019-2025Indirect and induced jobsBetween 123.70 and 222.71 jobs supported over 2019-2025 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

and  222.71  jobs  to  be  supported  over  the  2019-2025  period,  with  an  average  of  167.80  jobs 
supported. 

The  table  below  summarises  the  overall  expected  employment  impacts  derived  from  option  2 
over the period 2019 – 2025. 

Table 42:  Option 2 expected jobs supported over the period 2019 - 2025  

Direct jobs (downstream) 

Induced jobs 

Low scenario 

Average scenario 

High scenario 

86.52 

103.32 

120.12 

123.70 

167.80 

222.71 

As such, the impact on employment should be moderate in the case of option 2, which is notably 
due to the fact that the only main difference with the current situation would be the way data is 
made  accessible  to  users  (i.e.  in  a  single  platform  gathering  all  data  relevant  to  Cultural 
Heritage)  but  with  no  major  innovation  in  terms  of  products  (though  some  tailoring  of  current 
products will be done to make them match user needs).  

6.1.3.3  Strategic impacts 

6.1.3.3.1  EU leadership 

Option 2 would have a moderate impact with regards to the strengthening of Europe’s position in 
the field of Cultural Heritage on the international stage. The important factor here  would be the 
communication of European support to Cultural Heritage communities, which should lead to the 
recognition  of  its  institutions  and  their  work  as  a  reference  in  the  field  of  Cultural  Heritage. 
Europe  would  thus  be  able  to  participate  in  the  design  of  international  data  standards  intended 
for Cultural Heritage communities. Indeed, standardisation is expected to be strong, as having a 
single  centralised  database  for  Cultural  Heritage  providing  free  and  open  data  to  all  Cultural 
heritage user communities would be one-of-a-kind. There is currently no such platform gathering 
all  satellite  products  suitable  for  Cultural  Heritage.  As  everything  would  be  collected  on  the 
platform, all user communities, whether European or international, would be attracted and would 
start using the same standards and models, since the process would be simplified. Hence, there 
should be a reciprocal effect between the EU leadership in the field of Cultural Heritage and data 
standardisation: the former should push for more standardisation and the latter should reinforce 
Europe’s soft power. This, in the end, would ease potential partnerships and collaborations with 
third countries and international organisations as all groups would use similar standards for their 
activities, and thus should be able to work together.    

105 

-44-44-44Positioning of EU as a leader in the field of CHPartnerships and collaborations with third countries and IOData standardisation000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

6.1.3.4  Societal impacts 

6.1.3.4.1  Valorisation of Cultural Heritage 

The  creation  of  a  dedicated  Cultural  Heritage  interface  is  expected  to  moderately  impact  the 
visibility of Cultural Heritage via digitisation and online access.  Indeed, all elements  relevant  to 
the  provision  of  digital  data  on  Cultural  Heritage  and  to  the  development  of  online  content  on 
Cultural  Heritage  would  be  gathered  in  a  single  place.  Considering  that  about  half  of  European 
citizens  are  using  digital  media  for  Cultural  Heritage  related  activities  such  as  viewing  online 
content178, hence that digitisation and online access is a large interest to users, it implies that the 
interface  could  have  a  role  to  play  in  the  satisfaction  of  users’  expectations.  However,  this 
remains in the hand of the site managers’ willingness and ability to push for online content: with 
option 2, they would have a simplified tool providing satellite imagery useful for digital content, 
but depending on their level of technical knowledge they may not always be able to capitalise on 
it (as no user support is provided). 

Option  2  would  strongly  simplify  data  centralisation,  as  its  purpose  is  to  gather  all  data  and 
information  suitable  for  Cultural  Heritage  via  a  single  web  interface,  leveraging  on  DIAS 
initiatives.  Instead  of  having  to  jump  from  a  Copernicus  service  website  to  another  or  to  the 
Scientific Hub, users would now be logged into a single interface for all open and free Copernicus 
data and information they need.  

6.1.3.4.2  Support to European knowledge 

The impact of option 2 on the support to European knowledge through academia and knowledge 
sharing is expected to  be strong. The setup  of a single platform dedicated to Cultural Heritage, 
accompanied  by  the  tailoring  of  current  products  to  adapt  them  to  the  needs  of  the  user 
communities,  will  favour  an  uptake  of  Copernicus  products,  data  and  information.  Several 
Member States are eager to share knowledge in order to protect their Heritage. This would take 
the form of sustainable strategies developed through training and skills development capitalising 
on  knowledge  transfer  between  countries179.  As  this  option  relies  on  geospatial  technology  and 
leverages on the DIAS, it is expected to enforce knowledge sharing in this particular format180.  

6.1.3.5  Conclusion 

The results of the impact evaluation of option 2 can be summarised in the following figure: 

178 European Commission, 2017, Special Eurobarometer 466: Cultural Heritage 
179  European  Commission,  2016,  Towards  an  EU  strategy  for  international  cultural  relations  (Online).  Available  at:  http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016JC0029&from=EN 
180 Expert consultation 

106 

-44Increased visibility of CH through digitisation and online access0-44Centralisation of data access0-44Academia + Education and knowledge sharing0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Figure 53: Summary of the impact evaluation of option 2 

6.1.4  Impact evaluation of option 3 

The evaluation of option 3 consists of the analysis of the impacts resulting from the creation of a 
new Copernicus service exclusively dedicated to Cultural Heritage. As a reminder from Chapter 5, 
option 3 is illustrated below. 

107 

EconomicImpact evaluationCost of the optionsAdvantages derived from the optionsCompetitivenessEmploymentEU leadershipValorisation of CHSupport to European knowledgeSocialStrategicOption implementation processCapabilities matching•Development and operation costs•Percentage of user requirements covered by the option•Complexity of option implementation•Administrative burden•Partnership and collaboration between Member States•Enabled revenues for the downstream sector•Wider economic and societal impacts•R&D•Competitive downstream sector•Indirect and induced jobs•Direct jobs•Partnership and collaboration with third countries and IO•Data standardisation•Positioning of EU at a leader in the field of CH•Increased visibility of CH through digitisation and online access•Centralisation of data access•Academia + Education and knowledge sharingOption 2Cultural Heritage as part of oneor more existing servicesBetween EUR 58.9 M and EUR 106.1 M for 2019-2025EUR 1.5 M per yearUp to 50% fully covered14% partially coveredBetween EUR 10.8 M and EUR 15.0 M for 2019-2025Between 86.5 and 120.1 jobs supported for 2019-2025Between 123.7 and 222.7 jobs supported for 2019-2025 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Figure 54: Option 3 description – Cultural Heritage as a new Copernicus service 

6.1.4.1  User requirements covered by option 3 

Option 3 is expected to push for the development of a new Copernicus core service dedicated to 
Cultural  Heritage,  with  a  dedicated  budget  to  adapt  existing  Copernicus  products  that  are  not 
currently  fully  matching  CH  user  requirements,  but  also  for  developing  additional  products  and 
potentially  collecting  new  sources  of  in-situ  data  to  calibrate  specific  Copernicus  core  services 
products for CH purposes. The development of new Copernicus core service fully dedicated to CH 
could  have  significant impact  on  the  choice  of  additional  sources  of  data  from  airborne  sensors 
(e.g. UAV) to access new type of sensors such as hyperspectral and lidar capabilities. 

Option 3 could be fully covering up to 49,8% of CH user requirements, plus an additional 12,9% 
that  could  potentially  be  fully  covered  thanks  to  the  availability  of  additional  capacity  derived 
from  new  UAV-based  sensors.  As  for  option  2,  14,2%  of  CH  user  requirements  would  also  be 
partially covered by the Copernicus programme. For more details on the match analysis, please 
refer to section 4.3.4. 

As a conclusion, under option 3: 

•  Between 50 and 63% of CH user requirements could be fully covered by the Copernicus 

programme; 

•  14% of CH user requirements could be partially covered by the Copernicus programme. 

6.1.4.2  Economic impacts 

6.1.4.2.1  Cost of the options 

Option  3  would  be  particularly  costly  to  implement  as  it  consists  of:  (i)  the  creation  of  a  new 
service  implying  several  phases,  from  proof-of-concept  to  being  operational,  which  takes  a 
couple  of  years;  (ii)  the  operation  of  the  service  itself,  including  the  development  of  new 

108 

Consortium supporting the provision of Copernicus core productsPrime contractor Sub contractor 1Sub contractor 2Sub contractor …End-usersIntermediate usersData from in-situ componentUsage of core Copernicus products for the development of value-added product and service  Intermediate user of core Copernicus productsData from space component(Sentinels & Contributing Missions)New Copernicus products dedicated to Cultural Heritage purposePublic organisationPrivate organisationsAcademiaOrganisationExisting productsProvision of existing Core products suitable for Cultural Heritage purposeProvision of Core products adapted to Cultural Heritage purposeDissemination of all Copernicus products dedicated to Cultural Heritage purposeRaw dataCould be…Public organisationsIndustrial companiesAcademiaCopernicus Service dedicated to Cultural Heritage(Entrusted Entity(ies))CULTURAL HERITAGE USER COMMUNITIESBudget investedfor productadaptationCopernicus Core servicesCost of option 3EUR 14.7 M then EUR 20.9 M per year 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

products  by  a  consortium  of  companies.  As  previously  explained  in  the  section  on  option 
characterisation, the new service would be managed by a new Entrusted Entity or by an existing 
one  already  in  charge  of  one  of  the  core  services.  Analysing  the  Delegation  Agreements  of  the 
current Entrusted Entities, it appears that the European Commission has committed on average 
EUR 14.7 M per service per year over the 2014-2016 period, with values ranging from EUR 7.2 M 
for the Emergency service to EUR 19.9 M for the Climate Change service181. When looking at the 
commitments forecasted in the Delegation Agreements over the 2016-2020 period, the average 
yearly commitment per service per year is of EUR 20.9 M, with yearly values ranging from EUR 
11.0 M for the Atmosphere service to EUR 38.9 M for the Climate Change service. These yearly 
values are higher when looking at the 2016-2020 period than at the 2014-2016 period, as most 
services  were  not  fully  operational  by  2016182.  The  Copernicus  Cultural  Heritage  service  should 
follow a similar trend,  with a small investment in the first two years  of its implementation, and 
an  uptake  in  the  next  five  years.  It  should  also  be  less  demanding  (i.e.  in  terms  of  resources) 
than major services (e.g. Land Monitoring or Climate Change). As such, the cost of operations of 
the option can be estimated as the average of all services, that is EUR 14.7 M per year in 2019 
and 2020, and EUR 20.9 M in the 2021 – 2025 period.  

6.1.4.2.2  Option implementation process 

In order to set-up a service, an Entrusted Entity would have to be chosen and then appointed by 
means of a Delegation Agreement. A Delegation Agreement is a legal act that gives power and 
duty to the Entrusted Entity (e.g. tasks and budget of the Entrusted Entity are precisely defined). 
Choosing  the  correct  Entrusted  Entity  and  implementing  such  an  agreement  would  be  a 
particularly  complex  and  time-consuming  process.  Moreover,  the  designated  Entrusted  Entity 
would  have  to  appoint  a  consortium  of  companies,  composed  of  a  prime  contractor  and  sub-
contractors  (either  public  organisations,  academia,  or  private  companies)  which  would  be  in 
charge of the development of Copernicus Cultural Heritage products. A single product cannot be 
available on several platforms under the same form, hence useful  existing products would have 
to  be  redeveloped  by  the  consortium,  leveraging  on  current  knowledge  of  other  Copernicus 
services:  this  represents  a  lack  in  efficiency.  The  consortium  would  also  develop  new  products 
capitalising  on  Sentinel,  contributing  missions  and  in-situ  data  for  calibration  purposes.  In 
particular, an Entrusted Entity in charge of a Copernicus service has access to more in-situ data 
available  at  national  level  or  by  international  organisations.  This  implies  a  certain  level  of 
complexity for accessing data and notably signing Memorandum of Understandings with entities 
for the sharing of such data. 

No  new  administrative  burden  would  be  felt  by  public  authorities  willing  to  use  Copernicus 
Cultural Heritage products, on the contrary, the administrative processes should be significantly 
simplified. Indeed, instead of being spread among the different Copernicus services, all Cultural 
Heritage  products  would  be  gathered  on  a  single  website  dedicated  to  the  Cultural  Heritage 
service. This website would be organised exactly as the ones from the other Copernicus services 
and  the  process  to  download  data  would  be  similar.  As  such,  the  data  access  would  be  eased 
thanks  to  the  gathering  of  all  Cultural  Heritage  products  in  a  single  place  with  user  support 
provided  by  the  service  in  case  of  issues.  This  option  would  provide  a  one-stop  shop  with  no 
need to go on other services for data useful for Cultural Heritage activities.  

181 European Commission, 2017, Interim evaluation of Copernicus 
182  European  Commission,  2016,  ANNEX  to  the  Commission  Implementing  Decision  on  the  adoption  of  the  2016  Copernicus  Work 
Programme (Online). Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/3/2016/EN/3-2016-743-EN-F1-1-ANNEX-1.PDF 

109 

Complexity of option implementation-440-44Administrative burden0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Partnerships  and  collaborations  between  Member  States  on  Cultural  Heritage-related  topics 
should be strongly fostered by the implementation of a Cultural Heritage service under option 3. 
Indeed,  the  development  of  such  a  service  would  imply  the  set-up  of  a  user  support  channel 
aimed  at  collecting  user  needs  in  terms  of  new  products  from  the  Cultural  Heritage  user 
communities, and new data sources needed (e.g. hyperspectral data, specific in-situ data, etc.). 
As  such,  Member  States  could  interact  with  the  Cultural  Heritage  Entrusted  Entity  in  order  to 
incentivise  the  development  of  products  tailored  to  their  specific  needs.  Having  such  potential 
involvement  in  what  the  Cultural  Heritage  service  could  provide  would  foster  Member  States  to 
jointly reflect on the common key Cultural Heritage issues, in order to push for the development 
of the required products.  

6.1.4.2.3  Competitiveness 

Under  option  3,  the  yearly  investment  into  the  Cultural  Heritage  service  would  evolve,  growing 
after  the  first  two  years,  which  is  considered  the  necessary  period  for  a  sufficient  user  uptake. 
Based  on  a  proxy  analysing  the  impacts  of  Copernicus  on  the  revenues  of  all  types  of 
intermediate  users  with  respect  to  the  investment  of  the  European  Commission,  enabled 
revenues  should  represent  between  1.03  and  1.43  of  the  money  invested183,  meaning  that  for 
each  euro  invested  in  the  Copernicus  programme,  service-related  activities  between  EUR  1.03 
and EUR 1.43 are created within the European downstream industry. As such, considering option 
3 consists of a EUR 14.66 M investment from the European Commission in 2019-2020 and a EUR 
20.85 M investment for 2021 - 2025, yearly enabled revenues for the downstream sector would 
range  from  EUR 15.1 M and EUR 20.97 M, with an average  of  EUR 18.04 M in 2019 and 2020, 
and  from  EUR  21.48  M  and  EUR  29.92  M,  with  an  average  of  EUR  25.65  M  for  2021  -  2025. 
Looking  at  the  overall  time  frame  of  2019-2025,  enabled  revenues  for  the  downstream  sector 
should  range  from  EUR  137.61  M  to  EUR  191.05  M,  with  an  average  of  EUR  164.33  M.  As  a 
result,  revenues  of  the  downstream  sector  would  drastically  increase,  especially  thanks  to  the 
development of new products by the consortium of companies for the Cultural Heritage service. 

Wider  economic  and  societal  impacts  refer  to  the  benefits  to  the  wider  society  of  an  EC 
intervention in the field of Cultural Heritage. These impacts take into account indirect economic 
impacts  (e.g.  additional  tourism  revenues,  additional  consumption,  renovation  and  construction 
to  support  Cultural  Heritage,  etc.)  and  societal  and  environmental  impacts  (e.g.  protection  of 
Cultural Heritage, environment protection, etc.). 

In  the  case  of  option  3,  wider  economic  and  societal  impacts  would  be  expected  to  range 
between EUR 82.27 M and EUR 148.11 M, with an average of EUR 111.60 M in 2019 and 2020, 
and between EUR 116.99 M and EUR 210.63 M, with an average of EUR 158.70 M in 2021-2025, 
for  a  cumulated  value  over  the  2019  –  2025  period  ranging  between  EUR  749.51  M  and  EUR 
1.35 B, with an average of EUR 1.0 B. These values stem from a proxy based on wider impacts 
to  end  users  (thus  excluding  intermediate  users,  that  is  to  say  the  downstream  sector)  of  the 
Copernicus  programme:  each  EUR  1  invested  is  expected  to  generate  between  EUR  5.61  and 
EUR 10.1184.  

The table below summarises the overall expected monetary benefits derived from option 3 over 
the period 2019 – 2025. 

183 European Commission, 2018, Copernicus ex-ante economic, environmental and societal impact assessment 
184 European Commission, 2018, Copernicus ex-ante economic, environmental and societal impact assessment 

110 

-44Partnerships and collaborations between Member States0Enabled revenuesBetween EUR 137.61 M and EUR 191.05 M over 2019-2025Between EUR 749.51 M and EUR 1.35 B over 2019-2025Wider economic & societal impacts 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Table 43: Option 3 expected monetary benefits over the period 2019 - 2025 

Enabled revenues for 
intermediate users 

Wider impacts for end 
users 

Low scenario 

Average scenario 

High scenario 

EUR 137.61 M 

EUR 164.33 M 

EUR 191.05 M 

EUR 749.51 M 

EUR 1.02 B 

EUR 1.35 B 

Taking into account the results of the enabled revenues for the downstream sector dealing with 
Cultural  Heritage  activities,  it  is  expected  that  the  competitiveness  of  intermediate  users  would 
be  strong.  Indeed,  the  market  would  be  provided  with  more  products  (including  new  ones 
currently not existing even fee-based) and could develop new competing Value-Added services at 
lesser  cost.  However,  it  should  not  be  forgotten  that  Cultural  Heritage  is  a  rather  niche  sector 
and  the  consortium  of  companies  appointed  by  the  Entrusted  Entity  in  charge  of  the  Cultural 
Heritage  service  could  destroy  the  market  by  developing  new  products  tailored  to  Cultural 
Heritage needs for free, leaving little space for other intermediate users to develop products and 
services competitive enough. As it is essential to the European Commission that the development 
of Copernicus products in general do not negatively affect the market, dedicated attention should 
be put on the effects of the development of new products by the consortium of companies.  

Efforts  in  R&D  would  be  very  strong  under  option  3.  The  implementation  of  a  dedicated 
Copernicus  service  would  not  only  positively  affect  user  uptake  but  it  could  also  unlock  various 
grants and funding mechanisms supporting Earth Observation and/or Cultural Heritage. Indeed, 
user communities with low levels of technical knowledge on Earth Observation would find a direct 
contact person to turn to in the Copernicus Cultural Heritage service and would be able to gather 
all products, data and information matching their needs. As for grants and funding mechanisms, 
the availability of a Cultural Heritage service should foster the European Commission to increase 
the  share  of  Earth  Observation  or  Cultural  Heritage  in  their  R&D  tools,  on  a  larger  scale  than 
option  2  for  instance.  Moreover,  having  an  Entrusted  Entity  in  charge  of  a  dedicated  service 
implies  that  budget  lines  are  available  for  R&D  activities  but  also  for  project  calls  aimed  at 
stimulating the downstream sector for the development of Cultural Heritage-related products. All 
of this combined should foster the development of skills and the transfer of knowledge related to 
Earth  Observation  for  Cultural  Heritage  in  Europe,  but  also  at  a  wider  scale.  As  a  result,  the 
number of prizes awarded for Cultural Heritage related activities through the Copernicus Masters 
could increase, for instance.  

6.1.4.2.4  Employment 

Considering that for each EUR 1 M generated by the downstream industry, 8 jobs are supported 
in  the  downstream  sector185,  under  option  3,  building  on  the  previous  results  of  enabled 
revenues, between 120.84 and 167.77 jobs should be supported in 2019 and 2020, and between 
171.84 and 238.58 each year in the 2021-2025 period, leading to a cumulated value of between 
1,100.88 and 1,528.41 jobs to be supported over 2019-2025, with an average at 1,314.64 jobs 
supported.  

185 European Commission, 2018, Copernicus ex-ante economic, environmental and societal impact assessment 

111 

-44Competitive downstream sector0-44R&D0Direct jobsBetween 1,100.88 and 1,528.41 jobs supported over 2019-2025 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Similarly,  for  each  EUR  1  M  generated  as  societal  and  wider  impacts,  2.1  induced  jobs  are 
supported.  As  such,  building  on  previous  results  of  wider  and  societal  impacts186,  between 
172.77 and 311.04 jobs should be supported in 2019 and 2020, and between 245.69 and 442.32 
each  year  in  the  2021-2025  period,  leading  to  a  cumulated  value  of  between  1,573.97  and 
2,833.70 jobs supported over 2019-2025, with an average of 2,135.70 jobs supported. 

The  table  below  summarises  the  overall  expected  employment  impacts  derived  from  option  1 
over the period 2019 – 2025. 

Table 44: Option 3 expected jobs supported over the period 2019 - 2025  

Direct jobs (downstream) 

Induced jobs 

Low scenario 

Average scenario 

High scenario 

1,100.88 

1,314.64 

1,528.41 

1,573.97 

2,135.10 

2,833.70 

The  impact  on  employment  is  expected  to  be  strong  in  the  case  of  option  3.  Indeed,  as  a 
consortium  of  companies  would  be  appointed  by  the  Entrusted  Entity  in  charge  of  the  Cultural 
heritage service to develop new products, several downstream jobs  would directly be supported 
and these new products would generate new opportunities supporting jobs in the wider society.  

6.1.4.3  Strategic impacts 

6.1.4.3.1  EU leadership 

The  setup  of  a  dedicated  Copernicus  Cultural  Heritage  service  is  expected  to  have  a  strong 
strategic influence on the way Europe is positioned on the international stage for Heritage topics. 
Indeed,  the  service  would  enable  the  distribution  of  several  products  that  are  key  in  the 
management  of  Cultural  Heritage  sites  as  well  as  in  their  conservation  and  preservation,  and 
would also provide user support to site operators, no matter their position on the value chain. As 
such, it can be expected that new experiences would be provided to visitors of Cultural Heritage 
sites187 thanks to an alternative use of satellite imagery (e.g. satellite imagery  could be used to 
show  visitors  an  evolution  of  a  site  overtime,  notably  for  the  discovery  of  archaeological  sites). 
These aspects could enable Europe to be positioned as a worldwide leader in the field of Cultural 
Heritage enhancement.  

Option 3  would have a moderate impact on partnerships and collaborations with third countries 
and  international  organisations.  Indeed,  having  a  Copernicus  Cultural  Heritage  service  could 
support ongoing interactions between European countries and international organisations or non-
European countries. The Copernicus Cultural Heritage Service could be a tool serving an ongoing 
diplomatic  strategy.  Having  a  thematic  service  dedicated  to  Cultural  Heritage  would  make  this 

186 European Commission, 2018, Copernicus ex-ante economic, environmental and societal impact assessment 
187 Expert consultation 

112 

Indirect and induced jobsBetween 1,573.97 and 2,833.70 jobs supported over 2019-2025-44Positioning of EU as a leader in the field of CH0-44Partnerships and collaborations with third countries and IO0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

topic  more  visible  among  entities  in  which  Copernicus  is  part  and  that  participate  to  the  global 
dimension of the programme, such as CEOSS or GEOS. As such, partnerships and collaborations 
could be facilitated. 

Data  standardisation  could  be  strongly  fostered  in  the  case  of  option  3,  as  the  Copernicus 
Cultural Heritage service would be a showcase for what is done in terms of satellite imagery for 
Cultural  Heritage.  Indeed,  this  would  be  the  first  time  that  Cultural  Heritage  would  have  such 
tools  for  its  activities,  gathered  in  a  single  website  and  supported  by  a  team  of  experts. 
Moreover,  considering  Copernicus  data  and  information  for  Cultural  Heritage  would  be  free  and 
open,  there  would  be  no  equivalent  in  the  world.  Given  the  large  availability  of  products 
dedicated  to  Cultural  Heritage  and  matching  the  user  communities’  needs,  best  practices  are 
likely  to  emerge  at  European  level  and  evolve  to  a  more  global  level.  As  such,  under  option  3, 
there  would  be  a  unique  central  database  dedicated  to  Cultural  Heritage,  which  would  also 
provide  support  for  its  users,  hence  creating  an  attractiveness  that  is  expected  to  lead  to  the 
adoption of Copernicus standards and models worldwide. 

6.1.4.4  Societal impacts 

6.1.4.4.1  Valorisation of Cultural Heritage 

In  the  past  ten  years,  Europe  has  been  investing  a  significant  amount  into  Information  and 
Communication Technologies (ICT) in support of culture and science. For instance, between 2006 
and  2009,  the  European  Commission  dedicated  a  budget  of  EUR  51.1  M  to  research  projects 
notably aimed at developing ICT to favour access to and experience of Cultural Heritage188. This 
emphasises  the  importance  given  by  Europe  to  this  topic  and  it  should  have  a  particular  place 
under  option  3.  The  visibility  of  Cultural  Heritage  should  be  increased  through  digitisation  and 
online access thanks to two main aspects: first, new products responding to the specific need of 
digitising Cultural Heritage could be developed by the consortium of companies appointed by the 
Entrusted Entity in charge of the service; second, the Entrusted Entity would be able to provide 
user support, hence to  advise site managers  on how to capitalise on  Copernicus products, data 
and  information  for  digitisation  purposes.  Digitisation  should  notably  enhance  tourism 
experience, through 3D modelling of Heritage sites, for instance.  

Under  option  3,  data  centralisation  would  be  very  high,  as  the  Entrusted  Entity  would  have  a 
website dedicated to Cultural Heritage and gathering all products, data and information matching 
the user needs. More than just data,  support  to  users  would be  facilitated, as  one single Entity 
would be in charge of  responding to users questions on all Cultural Heritage products, whereas 
currently  several  services  may  be  contacted  provided  that  the  products  used  have  been 
downloaded from different Copernicus services website.  

6.1.4.4.2  Support to European knowledge 

The implementation of option 3 is expected to have a strong impact on the support to European 

188  European  Commission,  2016,  Towards  an  EU  strategy  for  international  cultural  relations  (Online).  Available  at:  http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016JC0029&from=EN 

113 

-44Data standardisation0-44Increased visibility of CH through digitisation and online access0-44Centralisation of data access0-44Academia + Education and knowledge sharing0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

knowledge.  Indeed,  this  option  could  work  as  a  stimulus  for  the  creation  of  a  user  community 
embracing  academia189.  Implementing  a  Copernicus  service  dedicated  to  Cultural  Heritage 
implies  having  an  Entrusted  Entity  fully  devoted  to  Cultural  Heritage  matters.  Among  the  tasks 
devolved to an Entrusted Entity, there is the implementation of awareness raising  activities that 
notably include trainings and workshops, which in the end favour knowledge sharing. The staff of 
the  Entrusted  Entities  is  composed  of  experts  on  Cultural  Heritage  matters  and  could  therefore 
support  any  user  community  and  even  develop  academic  content.  For  instance,  the  Entrusted 
Entity  in  charge  of  the  Copernicus  Cultural  Heritage  service  could  take  part  in  the  Climate  for 
Culture  project.  This  project  aims  at  investigating  the  impact  climate  change  could  have  on 
European  Cultural  Heritage.  The  team  was  initially  composed  of  scientists,  site  managers, 
restorers,  economists,  engineers  or  politicians  that  created  a  European  network190.  Being 
supported by Earth Observation experts with specific tools to respond to the network’s needs, as 
would be the case with the new Cultural Heritage service, could be key for future work.  

6.1.4.5  Conclusion 

The results of the impact evaluation of option 3 can be summarised in the following figure: 

189 Expert consultation 
190 Climate for Culture website. Available at: https://www.climateforculture.eu/ 

114 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Figure 55: Summary of the impact evaluation of option 3 

6.2  Summary  and  comparison  of  the  impacts  per 

options 

This section aims at summarising all results presented hereinabove and at introducing the main 
key aspects of each option.  

115 

EconomicImpact evaluationCost of the optionsAdvantages derived from the optionsCompetitivenessEmploymentEU leadershipValorisation of CHSupport to European knowledgeSocialStrategicOption implementation processCapabilities matching•Development and operation costs•Percentage of user requirements covered by the option•Complexity of option implementation•Administrative burden•Partnership and collaboration between Member States•Enabled revenues for the downstream sector•Wider economic and societal impacts•R&D•Competitive downstream sector•Indirect and induced jobs•Direct jobs•Partnership and collaboration with third countries and IO•Data standardisation•Positioning of EU at a leader in the field of CH•Increased visibility of CH through digitisation and online access•Centralisation of data access•Academia + Education and knowledge sharingOption 3Creation of a new Copernicus servicededicated to Cultural HeritageEUR 14.7 M then EUR 20.9 M per yearBetween 50% & 63% fully covered14% partially coveredBetween EUR 137.6 M and EUR 191.1 M for 2019-2025Between EUR 749.5 M and EUR 1.35 B for 2019-2025Between 1.1 K and 1.5 K jobs supported for 2019-2025Between 1.6 K and 2.8 K jobs supported for 2019-2025 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Figure 56: Summary of the impact evaluation results 

116 

Option 1List of Copernicus products suitable for CH applicationsOption 2Cultural Heritage as part of oneor more existing servicesEconomicImpact evaluationOption 3Creation of a new Copernicus servicededicated to Cultural HeritageCost of the optionsAdvantages derived from the optionsCompetitivenessEmploymentEU leadershipValorisation of CHSupport to European knowledgeBetween EUR 540 K and EUR 750 K for 2019-2025Between EUR 58.9 M and EUR 106.1 M for 2019-2025SocialStrategicOption implementation processCapabilities matching•Development and operation costs•Percentage of user requirements covered by the option•Complexity of option implementation•Administrative burden•Partnership and collaboration between Member States•Enabled revenues for the downstream sector•Wider economic and societal impactsEUR 75 K per yearEUR 1.5 M per yearEUR 14.7 M then EUR 20.9 M per yearBetween 7,5 & 11% fully covered20% partially coveredUp to 50% fully covered14% partially coveredBetween 50% & 63% fully covered14% partially covered•R&D•Competitive downstream sector•Indirect and induced jobs•Direct jobsBetween 4.33 and 6.01 jobs supported for 2019-2025•Partnership and collaboration with third countries and IO•Data standardisation•Positioning of EU at a leader in the field of CH•Increased visibility of CH through digitisation and online access•Centralisation of data access•Academia + Education and knowledge sharingBetween EUR 2.95 M and EUR 5.3 M for 2019-2025Between 6.19 and 11.14 jobs supported for 2019-2025Between EUR 10.8 M and EUR 15.0 M for 2019-2025Between 86.5 and 120.1 jobs supported for 2019-2025Between 123.7 and 222.7 jobs supported for 2019-2025Between EUR 137.6 M and EUR 191.1 M for 2019-2025Between EUR 749.5 M and EUR 1.35 B for 2019-2025Between 1.1 K and 1.5 K jobs supported for 2019-2025Between 1.6 K and 2.8 K jobs supported for 2019-2025 
 
 
 
 
 
    
  
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

7 Conclusion and recommendations 

This study aimed at supporting the European Commission in its assessment on the possibility of 
starting  an  institutional  action  for  promoting  the  use  of  Copernicus  for  Cultural  Heritage 
preservation,  monitoring  and  management.  For  this  purpose,  the  study  has  identified  Cultural 
Heritage  user  needs  and  requirements  in  order  to  understand  to  what  extent  they  can  be 
addressed  by  Copernicus  capabilities.  Following  this  match  assessment,  several  options  of 
intervention  have  been  characterised  and  investigated  through  the  assessment  of  high-level 
impacts. 

7.1  Cultural  Heritage  user  needs  &  requirements  and 

Copernicus capabilities 

The  study  has  assessed  Cultural  Heritage  user  community  needs  and  requirements  related  to 
Cultural  Heritage  preservation,  monitoring  and  management.  This  exercise  has  led  to  the 
collection,  through  consultation  (direct  interview  and  survey)  and  desk  research,  of  83  user 
needs  split  among  9  high-level  user  needs  (i.e.  purpose  of  Cultural  Heritage  activities). 
These  needs  are  useful  for  both  Tangible  and  Natural  Heritage  and  for  both  land  and 
underwater environment.  

The different user needs have then been characterised and defined through the collection of user 
requirements;  user  requirements  refer  to  the  user  needs  defined  by  desired  performances  and 
attributes  (type  of  land  cover,  geographic  coverage,  frequency  of  monitoring  and  spatial 
resolution).  These  user  requirements  have  then  been  translated  into  technical  specifications 
(sensors, wavelength and spatial resolution specification) to support the match analysis with the 
Copernicus  capabilities.  This  match  analysis  has  been  carried  out  on  three  different  levels: 
Copernicus  core  services  products,  Sentinels  capabilities  and  Copernicus  contributing  mission 
capabilities. 

CH  is  currently  not  mentioned  in  the  delegation  agreements  of  any  of  the  entrusted  entities  in 
charge  of  the  six  Copernicus  core  services.  In  this  context,  specific  products  tailored  to  CH 
purposes therefore cannot be directly developed by entrusted entities. Nevertheless, Copernicus 
core services already have access to the relevant EO data sources (Sentinels and/or contributing 
missions), models and in-situ data sources so they could be able to respond to a large extent of 
CH user requirements.  

The  results  of  the  match  analysis  clearly  shows  that  the  Copernicus  programme  could  cover  a 
large part of the CH user requirements. In fact, 7,5% of CH user requirements are already fully 
covered by Copernicus core services products in their current form, and an additional 19,0% of 
user  requirements  are  partially  covered  by  existing  Copernicus  core  services  products  in  their 
current form. The access to Sentinels capabilities and Copernicus contributing missions could be 
fully  covering  50%  of  CH  user  requirements;  an  additional  14%  of  CH  user  requirements  could 
be partially covered thanks to Sentinels capabilities and Copernicus contributing missions. Those 
partially  covered  user  requirements  could  potentially  be  covered  by  the  downstream  industry 
having access to very high resolution data and/or very high revisiting time imagery not available 
in the pool of Copernicus contributing missions. 

By using all Copernicus capabilities (core services products, Sentinels and Contributing missions), 
64.1% of CH user requirements could be covered. As for the 35.9% of CH user requirements not 
covered: 

117 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

•  7,0%  of  CH  user  requirements  (26)  could  not  be  covered  because  the  spatial  and/or 

temporal resolution required by users are not available within Copernicus; 

•  12,9%  of  CH  user  requirements  require  specific  sensors  and/or  wavelengths  that  are  not 
available in the scope of the Copernicus programme (e.g. hyperspectral, lidar) in order to be 
covered.  Nevertheless,  such  sensors  and  wavelengths  exist  on  the  commercial  market, 
especially by using airborne sensors (e.g. UAV), so the downstream industry could then fully 
cover those user requirements; 

•  16,1%  of  CH  user  requirements  cannot  be  covered  by  satellite-based  imagery,  as  they 
require  very  specific  in-situ  measurements  (e.g.  Ground  Penetrating  Radar  (GPR),  in-situ 
bathymetric  surveys,  etc.)  or  complex  value-added  products  (e.g.  assessment  of  sites 
frequentation pattern). 

7.2  Impact evaluation 

An  intervention  from  the  European  Commission  could  prove  useful  in  enhancing  the  ability  of 
Copernicus to respond to Cultural Heritage user needs. Three options have been envisaged: 

•  Option 1: relying on existing core products, data and information that are currently suitable 
for Cultural Heritage applications, but emphasising the existence of such products by raising 
awareness; 

•  Option 2: setting up a specific user interface in the form of a web-based platform (i.e. web-
based front-end) fully dedicated to Cultural Heritage, where user communities could find 
existing Copernicus data and information suitable for Cultural Heritage activities, together 
with additional products that have been adapted and/or developed specifically for Cultural 
Heritage purposes; 

•  Option 3: creating a Copernicus Service, in addition to the existing ones (e.g. Land 

Monitoring service, Marine Monitoring service, etc.), which would be exclusively dedicated to 
Cultural Heritage. 

These three options have been analysed through the lens of seven impacts split into several KPIs 
in  order  to  compare  them.  Building  on  the  main  results  of  the  impact  evaluation,  a  first 
observation can be made: the impacts resulting from option 1 would be drastically different from 
the  ones  of  option  2  and  3,  whereas  option  2  and  3  appear  to  be  closer  in  terms  of  impact 
results. 

Option  1  would  have  no  positive  nor  negative  strategic  impact  and  few  societal  impacts  (on 
support to European knowledge). As for economic impacts, these would be marginal. The option 
would not be able to respond to Cultural Heritage communities’ expectations, as only 9% of the 
user  requirements  would  be  fully  covered,  and  46%  additional  user  requirements  could  be 
partially  covered.  However,  this  option  presents  one  major  advantage:  it  would  be  the  most 
interesting in terms of cost and of easiness of implementation.  

Option  2  would  present  moderate  to  strong  impacts,  whether  societal,  economic  or  strategic. 
This option could fully cover 52 % of Cultural Heritage user requirements and partially for 12% of 
them.  Option  2  would  be  more  complex  and  costly  to  implement  than  option  1;  however,  it 
would  produce  significant  results  in  terms  of  competitiveness  of  the  downstream  sector  and  of 
social impacts. Option 2would notably facilitate data access and dissemination by offering a one-
stop shop for Cultural Heritage products and data, possibly leveraging on the DIAS initiative, and 
stimulating the development and dissemination of European standards in the field of EO applied 
to Cultural Heritage. 

118 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Option 3 would present strong to very strong impacts, whether social, economic or strategic. This 
option  would  also  be  more  complex  and  more  costly  to  implement  than  option  2,  but  would 
generate  significant  benefits  overall:  the  advantages  derived  from  the  options,  i.e.  enabled 
revenues  for  the  downstream  sector  and  wider  economic  and  societal  impacts,  would  be 
respectively 10 to 15 times larger. Also, option 3 could cover 64% of overall user requirements, 
plus a potential additional 16% of user requirements that could be somehow addressed thanks to 
the  collection  of  specific  in-situ  data  to  calibrate  specific  Copernicus  Cultural  Heritage  products. 
As in option 2, this option would ease data access and dissemination by offering a one-stop shop 
for  Cultural  Heritage  user  communities,  and  hence  strongly  impacting  the  development  and 
dissemination of European standards in the field of EO applied to Cultural Heritage. 

As such, each option encompasses advantages and drawbacks: 

•  Option 1 would be the most interesting in terms of the budget and legal ease; 

•  Option 2 would be the most interesting in terms of cost-to-benefit ratio; 

•  Option 3 would be the most interesting in terms of overall benefits generated. 

7.3  Recommendations 

Several  recommendations  can  be  provided  to  enhance  the  role  of  Copernicus  in  support  of 
Cultural Heritage. 

1.  The  different  Copernicus  core  services  have  already  internally  the  relevant  sources  of 
satellite imagery (e.g.  Sentinels, Contributing missions), models and in-situ data sources 
to  cover  a  large  part  of  the  user  requirements  expressed  by  CH  user  communities. 
Nevertheless,  as  of  today,  Cultural  Heritage  is  not  directly  mentioned  in  any  delegation 
agreement  of  the  Copernicus  core  services’  entrusted  entities,  then  not  further 
encouraging  the  development  of  specific  products  and/or  adaptation  of  existing  ones  to 
respond to the needs of Cultural Heritage users’ communities.  

2.  As  stated  in  the  Interim  evaluation  of  Copernicus,  “Copernicus  services  should  evolve  to 
include  or  expand  on  applications  related  to  (…)  cultural  heritage  preservation  (e.g. 
archaeology,  art,  etc.)  (…).  These  developments  may  either  be  achieved  within  existing 
services or lead to the development of new services”. This statement emphasises the need 
for  an  intervention  from  the  European  Commission  towards  Cultural  Heritage.  The 
expansion  of  applications  related  to  Cultural  Heritage  can  only  be  performed  within  the 
frame of Option 2 or 3, since these are the only options that provide product adaptation or 
the  creation  of  new  products.  Nevertheless,  option  1  will  already  be  a  starting  point  to 
raise awareness about the availability of Copernicus products and data addressing specific 
Cultural Heritage user requirements. 

3.  As  stated  in  the  Interim  evaluation  of  Copernicus,  “The  multi-channel  access  to  the 
Copernicus  products  (…)  is  confusing  for  some  users.  The  uptake  of  Copernicus  services 
would benefit from unified access,  offering a single interface  for  each  product”. A similar 
recommendation  applies  here  for  Cultural  Heritage,  as  the  dissemination  of  products 
among  the  different  services  impacts  the  willingness  and  the  ability  of  users  to  make 
comprehensive  use  of  Copernicus  products  currently  suitable  for  Cultural  Heritage. 
Indeed, all user communities have pointed out their interest for centralised access to data 
for  Cultural heritage  purposes.  Option  2  and  3  would  enable  the  provision  of  this  unified 
access  through  their  single  interface  fully  dedicated  to  Cultural  Heritage,  possibly 
leveraging on DIAS initiatives. 

4.  As  stated  in  the  Interim  evaluation  of  Copernicus,  “There  is  a  need  to  expand 
communication  and  user  uptake  activities  beyond  specialists’  communities,  by 
broadcasting  more  cases,  showing  concrete  examples  to  users.  This  would  enable  the 

119 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

potential  user  base  to  be  expanded  to  include  the  Science  community  more  broadly,  as 
well  as  downstream  companies”.  Copernicus  services  are  producing  core  products 
requested by EU Member States in order not to disrupt the SMEs-led downstream market. 
Specialist  communities  (in  general  EO  experts  part)  are  the  main  users  of  the  currently 
available Copernicus products suitable for Cultural Heritage but efforts need to be made to 
reach new user communities, such as urban planners or CH site operators. Copernicus for 
Cultural  Heritage  could  in  this  context  contribute  to  the  widening  of  the  impact  of  Earth 
Observation  on  usually  non-technical  domains.  Such  an  intervention  would  make 
Copernicus  known  to  a  non-EO  specialist  sector  and  promote  many  promising 
developments in downstream applications development, such as tourism-related activities. 

5.  As stated in the Interim evaluation of Copernicus, “There has been a considerable uptake 
of  Copernicus  data  by  the  European  Commission,  but  it  could  be  further  promoted”.  An 
intervention in the frame of Copernicus for Cultural Heritage could be a good opportunity 
to  demonstrate  how  Copernicus  can  be  useful  to  all  Directorate-Generals  (DGs)  of  the 
European  Commission,  including  DG  for  Education,  Youth,  Sport  and  Culture  (former 
Directorate-General for Education and Culture (EAC)). A successful initiative in the field of 
Cultural Heritage could serve as a flagship of the multiple potential uses of Copernicus to 
support  decision-makers,  as  well  as  supporting  dissemination  and  user  uptake  of 
Copernicus data and information. 

6.  The  development  of  new  technologies  and  the  possibilities  brought  by  digitisation 
strengthen existing needs and create new ones. As such, specific emphasis should be put 
on  the  way  Copernicus  can  contribute  to  digitisation  in  the  case  of  Cultural  Heritage, 
notably  as  digital  modelling  of  Cultural  Heritage  sites  is  key  both  for  conservation 
activities  but  also  for  the  reconstruction  of  sites  affected  by  geo-hazards  or  human 
conflicts.  As  these  are  currently  increasing  with  the  effect  of  climate  changes  and  the 
complicated  geopolitical  context  in  some  regions  of  the  world,  the  contribution  of 
Copernicus to digitisation should be strongly promoted.  

7.  An  intervention  of  the  European  Commission  should  play  a  key  role  in  data 
standardisation (stronger in option 2 and 3 than in option 1) and could lead to a scenario 
where  the  European  Union  is  setting  the  standards  in  the  field  of  Cultural  Heritage.  As 
such, it is important to push for an efficient intervention to enable the European Union to 
be  a  leader  in  the  field  of  Cultural  Heritage,  enhancing  European  Union  soft  power  and 
geopolitical reach. 

8.  Some  Cultural  Heritage  user  needs  are  linked  to  very  specific  user  requirements  and 

technical specifications that cannot be covered with satellite imagery:  

a.  For instance, there currently does not exist any satellite capable of providing an hourly 
revisit time or very high resolution for detailed local areas, especially for multispectral 
(RGB,  NIR).  These  user  needs  could  however  be  covered  by  aerial  data  (e.g.  UAVs). 
Moreover, aerial data could also offer new sensors, currently not available via satellites 
(e.g.  lidar,  hyperspectral).  As  such,  it  would  prove  interesting  to  integrate  this  data 
into Copernicus products.  

b.  Moreover,  some  Cultural  Heritage  user  needs  are  linked  to  very  specific  user 
requirements and technical specifications that could be covered with satellite imagery, 
but  that  are  not  part  of  Copernicus.  Additional  contributing  missions  could  notably 
cover some, especially related to L-band SAR on which no high resolution is currently 
available. New capabilities included in the Copernicus future generation could also play 
this  role,  by  enhancing  Copernicus  capacities  with  additional  Thermal  Infrared  bands 
and/or hyperspectral ones. 

9.  Security and Emergency products related to Cultural Heritage are already well covered in 
the  current  scope  of  the  Copernicus  programme,  thanks  to  the  Copernicus  Emergency 
Monitoring  Services  (EMS)  and  Copernicus  Security  Service  in  support  of  EU  External 
Actions.  Such  services  are  reserved  for  EU  authorized  users  and  their  products  are 
therefore  not  fully  open  and  accessible.  Nevertheless,  having  a  dedicated  intervention  in 

120 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

the field of Cultural Heritage in Europe, by mentioning Cultural Heritage in their delegation 
agreement, could support the Copernicus EMS and Copernicus Security Service in support 
of  EU  External  Actions  in  raising  awareness  of  their  own  Cultural  Heritage  activities, 
potentially  allowing  them  to  access  additional  funding  to  better  serve  Cultural  Heritage 
purposes. For example, even if Natural Heritage is covered by those services, no specific 
products  tailored  to  the  monitoring  of  Natural  Heritage  sites  is  currently  available  in  the 
catalogue  of  products  of  the  Copernicus  EMS  and  Copernicus  Security  Service  in  support 
of EU External Actions. An intervention in the field of Cultural Heritage could then enable 
those two services to access specific funding to develop such products.  

121 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Appendix/Annex 

123 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Annex A - Consultation activities  

Types of stakeholders consulted 

The  targeted  user  communities  for  the  interviews  and  online  survey  have  been  selected  on  the 
basis of specific criteria. 

First,  on  the  coverage  of  the  entire  value  chain  as  presented  in  the  “user  needs  identification” 
section (hence from the creation, production and transmission segments). These users span from 
public  authorities  and  international  organisations,  to  academia,  private  companies  (e.g. 
downstream companies) and researchers (e.g. architects, engineers, biologists, historians, etc.). 
This  is  also  to  be  complemented  by  interviews  with  stakeholders  in  the  supply  chain,  such  as 
Earth observation imagery providers or Copernicus product providers. 

Second,  on  a  global  geographic  coverage,  as  Copernicus  is  meant  to  serve  worldwide  user 
communities of Cultural Heritage. User communities in charge of cultural or natural sites outside 
Europe  should  also  be  consulted.  These  two  elements  will  ensure  a  global  understanding  of 
Cultural Heritage stakes and of how Copernicus can better fit user requirements.  

Types of consultation activities 

The study used two different methods for the consultation:  

•  Face-to-face/telephone interviews: the face-to-face/telephone interviews method implies 
direct  interactions  with  selected  users  in  the  form  of  semi-structured  interviews.  For  these 
interviews, a series of guidelines have been defined and was used to ensure that all questions 
and topics were addressed during the interviews.  

•  Targeted  consultation  by  means  of  an  online  questionnaire:  targeted  consultation  implies 
the  distribution  of  an  online  questionnaire  to  a  large  number  of  stakeholders  from  all  user 
communities.  The  majority  of  questions  in  the  questionnaire  are  in  closed  form  (i.e.  one  or 
more  options  from  a  list  of  pre-defined  answers).  Users  were  also  given  the  possibility  of 
completing their answer with an open text box. Questions were generalised so that all types 
of users with the right level of involvement can answer them.  

Online survey  

A  list  of  422  stakeholders  was  defined  by  PwC  with  the  support  of  the  EC,  and  NAIS.  The 
objective  of  the  list  was  to  identify  a  large  number  of  stakeholders  intervening  in  one  or  more 
segments of the CH value chain as well as experts capable of providing an overview of the state 
of the CH needs and development.  

It is worth noticing that stakeholders from the same institution have sometime answered to the 
survey as one, providing therefore a limited but yet representative answer for their community of 
stakeholders.  

As  a  whole,  the  list  of  stakeholders  included  stakeholders  from  the  international,  public  and 
private sectors (industry, SMEs) as well as research and academic entities to cover the Cultural 
Heritage value chain.  

The online survey was opened to the public from April 15th until May 25th 2018, and gathered a 
total of 67 answers from 19 different countries and 5 International Organisations. As a reminder, 

124 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

each  of  these  answers  should  be  considered  as  representative  of  the  needs  of  a  given 
stakeholder  entity  and  not  an 
relative 
individual  answer, 
representativeness. 22 phone interviews were conducted from March 2018 to May 2018 with key 
stakeholders, thus providing a satisfactory representation of EU and non EU countries working in 
the CH environment 

justifying 

therefore 

its 

Interviews  

The phone interviews involved direct interaction with selected interviewees in the form of semi-
structured  interviews.  39  experts  and  key  stakeholders  were  contacted  and  22  interviews  were 
conducted. 

Results of the stakeholder consultation  

The online survey and the phone interviews were very complementary as the first one collected 
key data information for all user community but participation of site operators and downstream 
user  community  was  under  representative.  Their  needs  were  mainly  collected  through  direct 
interviews  providing  strong  qualitative  data  for  those  communities  in  addition  to  a  reliable 
overview of the value chain with the experts.  

Table 45: Reach of stakeholder consultation 

Targeted public  

Public reached  

Geographical coverage  

Value chain coverage  

User communities  coverage  

Field and environment coverage  

More than 400 stakeholders  

>20%   

Representative sample  

Representative sample   

Satisfactory  

Balanced  

Table 46: Quantity of stakeholder distributed and reached 

Respondents 

Distributed 

Answered 

Response rate 

Online survey  

383 

+Public  access  on 
specific websites 

Phone interviews 

Total 

39 

422 

67 

22 

89 

About 18% 

56% 

21% 

The status of the interview consultation is presented in the charts below: 

125 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Figure 57: Distribution of stakeholder along the value chain 

66%

55%

40%

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Creation phase

Production phase

Transmission phase

Figure 58: Stakeholder direct consultation status 

The overall consultation was satisfactory in terms of representation and collecting of needs for all 
user  communities,  intervening  in  all  CH  land  covers  and  type  of  environments  as  presented  in 
the figures below.  

126 

14 EU countries 81%11%7%1 EU country2 Non EU country3 International Organisation5 non EU countries 5I.O. •Italy•France •Cyprus•Malta•CzechRepublic•Germany •Bulgaria•Hungary•Greece•Ireland •Poland•Portugal •Spain •United Kingdom•Romania •Belarus •India•Norway•Serbia•Sri Lanka •UNESCO•FromUNESCO: InternationalCentreonSpaceTechnologiesforNaturalandCulturalHeritageinBeijing,•ICOMOS •ISOCARP•HERA –Joint ResearchProgram•United Nations  Geographic coverage of the consultation  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Representation of user communities  

The  chart  below  illustrates  the  repartition  of  stakeholders  per  type  of  user  communities,  for  a 
total number of 89 respondents. 

Figure  59:  Repartition  of  user  communities  within  the  stakeholder  consultation  (including  both 
survey and direct interviews) 

On  the  top  of  their  belonging  to  specific  user  communities,  respondents  were  mainly  from 
governmental  or  research  organization  (70%)  which  should  also  be  balanced  when  considering 
the taxonomy as few stakeholders could identify themselves as belonging to more than one type 
of  organization.  Eventually,  it  would  appear  that  the  limited  amount  of  SMEs  or  other  private 
organization working in the CH field could explain the humble answer rate to the survey.  

Table 47: Repartition of the nature of organisations that the stakeholders identify themselves 
with 

Nature of organisation  

Answered  

Governmental organisation  

Non-governmental organisation  

Private organisation  

Total  

70% 

14% 

16% 

100% 

Table 48: Repartition of the type of organisations that the stakeholders identify themselves with* 

Type of organisation  

Answered  

Research center / organisation   

Value added services companies   

Public and private foundations   

Other type of organisation including associations, UN 
and National Heritage bodies  

70% 

14% 

9% 

24% 

127 

38%15%4%21%4%18%Cultural Heritage user communityNatural sciences user communityNational, regional, local authority user communitySite operator user communityUrban planner user communityDownstream user community 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

*It should be noted organisations could identify themselves in more than one category  

Distribution along the value chain  

It  appears  that  66%  of  respondents  intervene  in  the  production  phase,  55%  in  the  creation 
phase and 40% in the transmission phase. As it appears in the figure below, stakeholders tend to 
identify themselves in more than one segment of the value chain.  

Figure 60: Identification of the stakeholders among the value chain 

Level of expertise of the stakeholders in Earth Observation 

More  than  70%  of  stakeholders  who  responded  to  the  survey  defined  themselves  as  medium-
level  users  or  expert  users  of  EO  data.  This  show  that  pool  of  consulted  stakeholders  would  be 
able  to  provide  a  knowledgeable  point  of  view  on  the  technical  requirements  and  can  be 
considered as reliable information. 

Figure 61: Level of expertise of users 

128 

55%66%40%Creation phase Production phase Transmission phase 59% also intervene in the production phase 40% also intervene in the production phase 66% also intervene in the production phase 50% also intervene in the production phase 34%39%10%17%Expert usersMedium-level usersNon technical usersNo answer 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Nature of interventions within the CH land covers and 
environments 

The  survey  provided  a  good  representativeness  of  needs  in  both  Heritage  fields  and  both  main 
types  of  environment  (land  and  water).  In  terms  of  environment,  interest  for  Land  was  the 
highest at 54%, closely followed by both Land and Underwater (at 43%) and finally stakeholders 
who were only interested in underwater environments were the least represented, at 3%.  

Figure 62: Environment of intervention of the stakeholders 

48% of respondents intervene in Tangible Heritage, 40% intervene in both Tangible Heritage and 
Natural Heritage.  

Figure 63: Heritage fields of interest to the stakeholders 

Consequently, close to 50% of stakeholders will require information from land and/or underwater 
environments. The same stands for Tangible and Natural Heritage accordingly.  

In terms of land covers, as seen in the table below, all of the land covers are of interest to the 
stakeholders, with a particular interest for urban and peri-urban land covers as well as  rural or 
forested areas.  

129 

54%3%43%LandUnder waterBoth land and under water48%12%40%Tangible HeritageNatural HeritageBoth Tangible and NaturalHeritage 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Table 49: Land covers of interest to the stakeholders* (multiple answers possible) 

How to read the table: Out of 100% of respondents intervening in land covers, 66% work in 
urban and sur-urban areas  

Type 

Field  

%  total respondents  

Urban and sub-urban 

Rural or forested areas  

Mountainous/hilly regions 

Land 

Scrub and grassland 

Coastal  

Rainforest 

Alluvial plain or Floodplain 

Waterlogged/wetland 

Frozen/glacial areas 

Inland waters (e.g. lakes, rivers) 

Sea  

Undersea 

Costal  

Water surface  

66% 

63% 

50% 

43% 

43% 

29% 

25% 

18% 

15% 

19% 

24% 

37% 

21% 

As it is shown in the table above,  stakeholders appear to not be specialized in one specific field 
but rather work in multiple environments through their activities. 

130 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Results of the questionnaire  

User needs for the creation segment of the value chain by activity  

How to read the table: ex. 81% of respondents intervening in the creation segment and who conduct 
prospection activities, use NDVI when conducting identification of potential CH sites. 50% also use it to verify 
the conditions to conduct survey operations and 88% also use it for preliminary research. 

131 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

132 

User needs(1/2) Prospection activitiesOperation activities Recognition activities IdentifypotentialCultural HeritagesitesVerify the conditions for conducting survey operationsConduct preliminary research including non-destructive assessment and or field assessment and evaluationOther*Identify adequate methodology for interventionProceedto interventionOther* Inventory of Heritage assets in the context of a candidacy for recognitionOther*Normalized difference vegetation index (method for measuring vegetation vigor in satellite imagery)81%50%88%25%100%25%13%83%33%Multitemporalanalysis over the same area to detect anomalies that can reveal past structures (e.g. through the identification of cropmarks, soil marks, ecc.)82%71%94%24%100%50%20%87%27%Chlorophylllevelsmeasurement71%57%100%29%100%50%25%83%33%Stratigraphy(i.e. depth, inclination, etc)56%78%89%11%86%57%14%86%29%Visual identification via imagery79%58%84%21%100%38%13%85%31%Topographicmapping74%68%84%26%90%40%20%92%23%Photogrammetricmapping72%72%94%17%100%63%25%93%21%Identification of previously searched sites in the area75%67%83%25%83%67%17%91%27%Other* 50%50%100%50%67%0%67%67%67%Thermal anomalydetection63%75%100%25%100%50%25%88%25% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

User needs for the creation segment of the value chain by type of 
heritage the stakeholders were interested in  

133 

Materialcomposition analysis58%67%100%8%86%57%14%86%29%Constatationof damage on buildings or natural environments75%58%83%25%100%29%29%83%25%Bathymetry67%67%100%33%100%50%50%75%50%Evaluation of the site's exposure to natural and human risks67%61%89%22%100%56%22%83%25%Rock assayanalysis33%67%100%33%100%33%33%50%50%High resolution monitoring of vegetation levels63%63%88%38%100%33%17%75%38%Metaldetecting86%86%100%29%100%67%33%83%17%Tectonicpetrography50%50%100%50%100%50%50%0%100%Signsof mineralisationidentification67%67%100%33%100%33%33%67%33%Salinitylevelsmeasurement67%83%100%17%100%60%20%80%20%Lithology40%80%100%20%75%50%25%80%40%Geodetic recording (geometric shape, orientation in space, gravity field)75%75%75%38%100%60%20%90%30%User needs(2/2) Prospection activitiesOperation activities Recognition activities IdentifypotentialCultural HeritagesitesVerify the conditions for conducting survey operationsConduct preliminary research including non-destructive assessment and or field assessment and evaluationOtherIdentify adequate methodology for interventionProceedto interventionOtherInventory of Heritage assets in the context of a candidacy for recognitionOther 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

How to read the table: ex. For 33% of respondents working in the creation segment, the use 
of signs of mineralization is necessary when working with ICH. 

134 

User needs for the creation phase ImmovableCultural HeritageNatural Cultural HeritageBoth Immovable Cultural and Natural Cultural HeritageTOTALTectonicpetrography0%0%100%100%Metaldetecting29%0%71%100%Signsof mineralisationidentification33%0%67%100%Rock assayanalysis33%0%67%100%Bathymetry33%0%67%100%High resolution monitoring of vegetation levels25%17%58%100%Lithology43%0%57%100%Topographicmapping39%4%57%100%Constatationof damage on buildings or natural environments38%6%56%100%Photogrammetricmapping45%0%55%100%Thermal anomalydetection36%9%55%100%Evaluation of the site's exposure to natural and human risks36%9%55%100%Visual identification via imagery43%4%52%100%Total 36%4%60%100%Salinitylevelsmeasurement50%0%50%100%Materialcomposition analysis50%0%50%100%Identification of previously searched sites in the area50%0%50%100%Geodetic recording (geometric shape, orientation in space, gravity field)42%8%50%100%Normalized difference vegetation index (method for measuring vegetation vigor in satellite imagery)35%15%50%100%Stratigraphy(i.e. depth, inclination, etc)55%0%45%100%Chlorophylllevelsmeasurement44%11%44%100%Multitemporalanalysis over the same area to detect anomalies that can reveal past structures (e.g. through the identification of cropmarks, soil marks, ecc.)55%5%41%100% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

How  to  read  the  table:  ex.  For  52%  of  respondents  working  in  the  creation  segment,  visual 
identification via imagery is necessary to land environments. 

135 

User needs for the creation phase LandUnder waterBoth land and under waterTOTAL Visual identification via imagery52%0%48%100%Topographic mapping52%0%48%100%Thermal anomalydetection45%0%55%100%Tectonicpetrography50%0%50%100%Stratigraphy(i.e. depth, inclination, etc)55%0%45%100%Signsof mineralisationidentification0%0%100%100%Salinitylevelsmeasurement17%0%83%100%Rock assayanalysis0%0%100%100%Photogrammetricmapping50%0%50%100%Normalized difference vegetation index (method for measuring vegetation vigor in satellite imagery)45%0%55%100%Metaldetecting43%0%57%100%Materialcomposition analysis43%0%57%100%Lithology43%0%57%100%Identification of previously searched sites in the area50%0%50%100%High resolution monitoring of vegetation levels50%0%50%100%Geodetic recording (geometric shape, orientation in space, gravity field)58%0%42%100%Evaluation of the site's exposure to natural and human risks55%0%45%100%Constationof damage on buildings or natural environments44%0%56%100%Chlorophylllevelsmeasurement44%0%56%100%Bathymetry0%0%100%100%Average% 40%0%60%100% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Types of monitoring conducted within conservation activities  

136 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Types of monitoring conducted within preservation activities  

137 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

User needs for the production segment of the value chain by tasks of 
conservation and preservation activities performed by the user 
communities  

How  to  read  the  table:  ex.  For  57%  of  respondents  intervening  in  the  production  segment, 
cropmarks are needed to conduct conservation activities. 

138 

User needs for the production segment (1/2)Conservation activitiesUser needs for the production segment (1/2)PreservationactivitiesCropmarks(Multitemporalanalysis)57%Cropmarks(Multitemporalanalysis)86%Soilmarks (Multitemporalanalysis)55%Soil marks (Multitemporal analysis)87%Chlorophylllevelsmeasurement51%Chlorophyll levels measurement85%Normalizeddifferencevegetationindex 57%Normalized difference vegetation index88%Visual identification via imagery53%Visual identification via imagery79%Stratigraphy(e.g. depth)57%Stratigrapy(stratigraphic description of the archaeological site and identification of individual layers or stratigraphic units)82%Topographicmapping52%Topographicmapping79%Photogrammetric mapping58%Photogrammetricmapping81%Identification of previously searched sites in the area58%Identification and collect of information on existing cultural heritage sites in the area80%Materialcomposition analysis60%Materialcomposition analysis82%Constatationof damage on buildings or natural environments56%Constationof damage on buildings or natural environments86%Bathymetry63%Bathymetry88%Evaluation of the site's exposure to natural and human risks57%Evaluation of the site's exposure to natural and human risks83%Rock assay analysis 70%Rock assayanalysis60%Higher resolution of vegetation levels58%High resolution monitoring of vegetation levels95%Metaldetecting58%Metaldetecting89%Tectonicpetrography53%Tectonicpetrography50%Signsof mineralisationidentification67%Signsof mineralisationidentification84%Salinitylevelsmeasurement67%Salinity levels measurement93%Lithology53%Lithology92%Geodetic recording (geometric shape, orientation in space, gravity field)48%Geodetic recording (geometric shape, orientation in space, gravity field)86%Stratigrapy(stratigraphic description of the archaeological site and identification of individual layers or stratigraphic units)60%Map regression80% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

139 

Gravityfield50%Real-time monitoring of emergency events (e.g. flash floods, forest fires)86%Stratigraphic description of the archeological site and identification of individual layers or stratigraphic units 62%Coastal erosion monitoring (under and above the sea)93%Mapregression67%Rainfall erosivity monitoring89%Real-time monitoring of emergency events (e.g. flash floods)58%Ground motion monitoring82%Monitoring of the movements of building structure parts62%Water level monitoring95%Coastal erosion monitoring (under and above the sea)62%Air pollution monitoring91%Rainfall erosivity monitoring58%Water pollution monitoring95%Ground motion 60%Atmosphericmoisturemeasurement91%Water levelmonitoring60%Wind direction & speed monitoring90%Air pollution monitoring59%Temperaturemonitoring88%Water pollution monitoring60%Elevation modelling89%Atmosphericmoisturemeasurement63%Water currentmonitoring84%Wind direction & speed monitoring63%Sediment levels measurement90%Temperature monitoring62%Wildlifetracking20%Elevation modelling65%Forest coveragemonitoring84%Water currentmonitoring57%Water qualitymonitoring92%Sedimentlevelsmeasurement63%Ice cover monitoring (sea) / Snow cover monitoring (land)100%Geo-hazardmonitoring/forecasting60%Insolation monitoring88%Analysis of soil distribution and composition60%Geo-hazardmonitoring/forecasting92%Insolation monitoring69%Grasslandlevelsmeasurement75%Other100%Evolution of vegetation typology monitoring100%Analysis of soil distribution and composition94%Other83%Usetneeds for the production segment (2/2)Conservation activitiesUser needs for the production segment (2/2) Preservationactivities 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

How to read the table: ex. For 69% of respondents conducting conservation activities, 50% use 
cropmarks to perform restauration activities, 56% also use chlorophyll levels measurement.  

140 

Production segment Conservation activities(1/2)User needs for conservation activities Proceed to the revision of archeological research (coordination of existing data to update existing inventory)Performrestauration activitiesMonitoring of a siteConduct the risk prevention of a siteOtherCropmarks(Multitemporalanalysis)69%50%88%63%13%Soilmarks (Multitemporalanalysis)71%47%88%59%12%Chlorophylllevelsmeasurement56%56%78%56%11%Normalizeddifferencevegetationindex 60%47%100%67%13%Visual identification via imagery61%44%89%61%11%Stratigraphy(e.g. depth)83%50%83%67%0%Topographic mapping65%53%82%53%6%Photogrammetricmapping71%62%90%67%0%Identification of previously searched sites in the area82%45%91%64%9%Material composition analysis80%60%87%73%0%Constatationof damage on buildings or natural environments62%57%86%67%10%Bathymetry67%67%100%83%0%Evaluation of the site's exposure to natural and human risks63%58%84%68%11%Rock assay analysis 100%50%100%100%0%Higher resolution of vegetation levels64%55%91%73%9%Metaldetecting67%78%78%67%0%Tectonicpetrography100%67%67%33%0%Signsof mineralisationidentification100%33%100%100%0%Salinitylevelsmeasurement78%78%89%89%0%Lithology78%44%78%56%11%Geodetic recording (geometric shape, orientation in space, gravity field)63%38%88%50%0%Stratigrapy(stratigraphic description of the archaeological site and identification of individual layers or stratigraphic units)89%56%89%67%0%Gravityfield50%50%100%50%0% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

141 

Stratigraphic description of the archeological site and identification of individual layers or stratigraphic units 100%60%80%70%0%Mapregression83%67%100%83%0%Real-time monitoring of emergency events (e.g. flash floods)69%44%94%69%13%Monitoring of the movements of building structure parts72%56%94%78%11%Coastal erosion monitoring (under and above the sea)73%45%100%82%9%Rainfallerosivitymonitoring73%64%82%73%0%Ground motion 55%55%100%73%18%Water levelmonitoring67%75%83%75%0%Air pollution monitoring67%67%87%73%0%Water pollution monitoring73%73%82%73%0%Atmosphericmoisturemeasurement77%62%92%85%0%Wind direction & speed monitoring75%67%92%83%0%Temperaturemonitoring75%58%92%83%0%Elevationmodelling75%67%100%83%0%Water currentmonitoring83%50%83%67%0%Sedimentlevelsmeasurement75%63%88%88%0%Geo-hazardmonitoring/forecasting75%67%83%67%8%Analysis of soil distribution and composition80%50%90%70%10%Insolation monitoring86%57%100%100%0%Other100%100%100%100%100%Production segment Conservation activities(2/2) User needs for conservation activities Proceed to the revision of archeological research (coordination of existing data to update existing inventory)Performrestauration activitiesMonitoring of a siteConduct the risk prevention of a siteOther 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

User needs for the production segment of the value chain by 
environment interesting to the stakeholders for conservation 
activities 

User need for conservation activities 

Land 

Under 
water 

Both land and under 
water 

56,3% 

58,8% 

33,3% 

66,7% 

66,7% 

50,0% 

58,8% 

66,7% 

54,6% 

40,0% 

52,4% 

16,7% 

52,6% 

0,0% 

36,4% 

55,6% 

66,7% 

0,0% 

22,2% 

44,4% 

62,5% 

55,6% 

50,0% 

0,0% 

0,0% 

0,0% 

0,0% 

0,0% 

0,0% 

0,0% 

0,0% 

0,0% 

0,0% 

0,0% 

0,0% 

0,0% 

0,0% 

0,0% 

0,0% 

0,0% 

0,0% 

0,0% 

0,0% 

0,0% 

0,0% 

0,0% 

43,8% 

41,2% 

66,7% 

33,3% 

33,3% 

50,0% 

41,2% 

33,3% 

45,5% 

60,0% 

47,6% 

83,3% 

47,4% 

100,0% 

63,6% 

44,4% 

33,3% 

100,0% 

77,8% 

55,6% 

Total 

100,0% 

100,0% 

100,0% 

100,0% 

100,0% 

100,0% 

100,0% 

100,0% 

100,0% 

100,0% 

100,0% 

100,0% 

100,0% 

100,0% 

100,0% 

100,0% 

100,0% 

100,0% 

100,0% 

100,0% 

37,5% 

100,0% 

0,0% 

44,4% 

100,0% 

50,0% 

100,0% 

0,0% 

60,0% 

0,0% 

40,0% 

100,0% 

50,0% 

56,3% 

50,0% 

27,3% 

36,4% 

45,5% 

25,0% 

33,3% 

27,3% 

38,5% 

41,7% 

33,3% 

41,7% 

0,0% 

0,0% 

0,0% 

0,0% 

0,0% 

0,0% 

0,0% 

0,0% 

0,0% 

0,0% 

0,0% 

0,0% 

0,0% 

50,0% 

43,8% 

50,0% 

72,7% 

63,6% 

54,6% 

75,0% 

66,7% 

72,7% 

61,5% 

58,3% 

66,7% 

58,3% 

100,0% 

100,0% 

100,0% 

100,0% 

100,0% 

100,0% 

100,0% 

100,0% 

100,0% 

100,0% 

100,0% 

100,0% 

100,0% 

Cropmarks (Multitemporal analysis) 

Soil marks (Multitemporal analysis) 

Chlorophyll levels measurement 

Normalized difference vegetation index 

Visual identification via imagery 

Stratigraphy (e.g. depth) 

Topographic mapping 

Photogrammetric mapping 

Identification of previously searched sites 

in the 
area 
Material composition analysis 

Constatation of damage on buildings or 

natural 

environments 

Bathymetry 

Evaluation of the site's exposure to 

natural and 
human risks 
Rock assay analysis 

Higher resolution of vegetation levels 

Metal detecting 

Tectonic petrography 

Signs of mineralisation identification 

Salinity levels measurement 

Lithology 

Stratigrapy (stratigraphic description 
of the archaeological site and 
identification of individual layers or 
stratigraphic units) 

Gravity field 

Stratigraphic description of the 
archeological site and identification of 
individual layers or stratigraphic units 

Map regression 

Real-time monitoring of emergency events 

(e.g. 
flash floods) 

Monitoring of the movements of building 
structure 
parts 

Coastal erosion monitoring (under and 

above the 
sea) 
Rainfall erosivity monitoring 

Ground motion 

Water level monitoring 

Air pollution monitoring 

Water pollution monitoring 

Atmospheric moisture measurement 

Wind direction & speed monitoring 

Temperature monitoring 

Elevation modelling 

Water current monitoring 

Sediment levels measurement 

Geo-hazard monitoring/forecasting 

142 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Analysis of soil distribution and 
composition 
Insolation monitoring 

50,0% 

50,0% 

0,0% 

0,0% 

50,0% 

50,0% 

100,0% 

100,0% 

143 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

User needs for the production segment of the value chain by 
environment interesting to the stakeholders for preservation 
activities 

144 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

145 

User needfor preservationactivitiesLandUnder waterBoth land and under waterTOTAL Cropmarks(Multitemporalanalysis)50%0%50%100%Soilmarks (Multitemporalanalysis)53%0%47%100%Chlorophylllevelsmeasurement30%0%70%100%Normalizeddifferencevegetationindex67%0%33%100%Visual identification via imagery68%0%32%100%Stratigrapy(stratigraphic description of the archaeological site and identification of individual layers or stratigraphic units)45%0%55%100%Topographicmapping69%0%31%100%Photogrammetricmapping62%0%38%100%Identification and collect of information on existing cultural heritage sites in the area65%0%35%100%Materialcomposition analysis44%0%56%100%Constationof damage on buildings or natural environments57%0%43%100%Bathymetry0%0%100%100%Evaluation of the site's exposure to natural and human risks53%0%47%100%Rock assay analysis40%0%60%100%High resolution monitoring of vegetation levels40%0%60%100%Metal detecting56%0%44%100%Tectonic petrography0%0%100%100%Signs of mineralisation identification33%0%67%100%Salinitylevelsmeasurement29%0%71%100%Lithology33%0%67%100%Geodetic recording (geometric shape, orientation in space, gravity field)71%0%29%100%Mapregression50%0%50%100%Real-time monitoring of emergency events (e.g. flash floods, forest fires)57%0%43%100%Coastal erosion monitoring (under and above the sea)29%0%71%100%Rainfall erosivity monitoring33%0%67%100%Ground motion monitoring38%0%63%100%Water level monitoring50%0%50%100%Air pollution monitoring36%0%64%100%Water pollution monitoring30%0%70%100%Atmosphericmoisturemeasurement27%0%73%100%Wind direction & speed monitoring40%0%60%100%Temperaturemonitoring33%0%67%100%Elevationmodelling56%0%44%100%Water currentmonitoring67%0%33%100%Sedimentlevelsmeasurement20%0%80%100%Wildlife tracking0%0%100%100%Forest coverage monitoring33%0%67%100%Water quality monitoring0%0%100%100%Ice cover monitoring (sea) / Snow cover monitoring (land)0%0%100%100%Insolation monitoring0%0%100%100%Geo-hazard monitoring/forecasting60%0%40%100%Grassland levels measurement25%0%75%100%Evolution of vegetation typology monitoring38%0%63%100%Analysis of soil distribution and composition33%0%67%100%Other(please, specify)0%0%100%100% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

User needs for the transmission segment of the value chain by 
activity performed by the stakeholders 

How  to  read  the  tables:  ex.  Out  of  100%  of  respondents  who  intervene  in  site 
management activities, 61% need to plan the capacity for public access, and 41% also 
need to monitor frequentation. 

User needs for the transmission phase 

Coastal erosion monitoring (under and above the sea) 

Aggregation of scientific knowledge 

100% of respondents intervening in the 

transmission phase (applicable to all) 

Rainfall erosivity monitoring 

Ground motion monitoring 

Water level monitoring 

Air pollution monitoring 

Water pollution monitoring 

Atmospheric moisture monitoring 

Atmospheric moisture measurement 

Temperature monitoring 

Elevation modelling 

Salinity levels measurement 

Water current monitoring 

Sediment levels measurement 

Wildlife monitoring 

Forest coverage monitoring 

Water quality monitoring 

Ice cover monitoring (sea) / Snow cover monitoring (land) 

Insolation monitoring 

Geo-hazard monitoring/forecasting 

Stratigrapy (stratigraphic description of the archaeological site and identification of 
individual layers or stratigraphic units) 

Grassland levels measurement 

Evolution of vegetation typology monitoring 

Analysis of soil distribution and composition 

Lithology 

146 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

User needs for the transmission phase Site management activitiesElevationmodellingMapping of surrounding infrastructure (roads, pipelines, waterconductsetc.)Mappingof frequentationpatternsOtherPlanning of capacity for public access61%54%54%8%Frequentation monitoring41%50%75%8%Other(please, specify)0%0%0%0% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Cropmarks (Multitemporal analysis) 

Soil marks (Multitemporal analysis) 

Chlorophyll levels measurement 

Normalized difference vegetation index 

Visual identification via imagery 

Topographic mapping 

Photogrammetric mapping 
Identification and collect of information on existing cultural heritage sites in the area   

Material composition analysis 

Constation of damage on buildings or natural environments 

Bathymetry 

Evaluation of the site's exposure to natural (e.g. sun, flooding, etc.) and human risks 
(e.g. pollution, chemical, etc.) 

Rock assay analysis 

High resolution monitoring of vegetation levels 

Metal detecting 

Tectonic petrography 

Signs of mineralisation identification 

Geodetic recording (geometric shape, orientation in space, gravity field) 

Constatation of damage on buildings or natural environments 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

0% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

User needs for the transmission segment of the value chain by 
environment interesting to the stakeholders 

User need 

Land 

Under water 

Both land and 
under water 

Total 

Photogrammetry 

80% 

0% 

20% 

          100% 

Database access (access to 
collected raw data on a 
platform) 

67% 

0% 

33% 

Other (please specify) 

50% 

0% 

50%  

100% 

100% 

s
e
i
t
i
v
i
t
c
a
s
t
c
u
d
o
r
p

l
a
i
c
r
e
m
m
o
c

f
o
t
n
e
m
p
o
l
e
v
e
D

User need 

Land 

Under water 

Both land and 
under water 

Total 

147 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Elevation modelling 

67% 

0% 

33% 

t
n
e
m
e
g
a
n
a
m
e
t
i
    S

Mapping of 
surrounding 
infrastructure (roads, 
pipelines, 
waterconducts etc.) 

50% 

0% 

50% 

Mapping of 
frequentation patterns 

40% 

20% 

40% 

Other (please, 

specify) 

0% 

0% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

Overview of user requirements in terms of perimeter (per type of 

How to read the tables: Out of 100% respondents, 16% require data with global perimeters, 
34% require national perimeters. As respondents could answers to several requirements at the 
same time, the upcoming table do not represent a distribution but rather a percentage of out 
100% of the respondents.   
perimeter, value chain segment and type of heritage 

Perimeter per 
value chain 
segment 

Creation 

Production 

Transmission 

Total 

Overview of perimeter 

Total % 

Very local level perimeters (e.g. house scale) 

Local perimeters (e.g. city scale) 

Regional 

National 

Global (continental scale) 

40% 

55% 

49% 

34% 

16% 

Very local level 
perimeters (e.g. 
house scale) 

34% 

44% 

22% 

100% 

# 

1 

# 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

148 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Local perimeters 
(e.g. 
city scale) 

Regional 

National 

Global 
(continental 
scale) 

33% 

37% 

34% 

35% 

43% 

40% 

37% 

40% 

24% 

23% 

29% 

25% 

# 

Perimeter 

Immovable Cultural 

Heritage 

Natural Cultural 
Heritage 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Very local level 
perimeters (e.g. 
house scale) 

Local perimeters (e.g. 

city scale) 

Regional 

National 

Global 

(continental 

scale) 

56% 

43% 

42% 

39% 

18% 

4% 

11% 

10% 

9% 

27% 

Both  Immovable 
Cultural and 
Natural Cultural 
Heritage 

40% 

46% 

48% 

52% 

55% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

Total 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

Overview of user requirements in terms of resolution   

# 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Resolution per 
environment 

Low and medium 

resolution (more than 

5 meter) 
High resolution 
(between 1 and 5 
meter) 

Very high 

resolution (less 

than 1 meter) 
Other (please 
specify) 

Land 

50% 

53% 

53% 

25% 

Under water 

Both land and 
under water 

Total 

0% 

3% 

0% 

0% 

50% 

100% 

44% 

100% 

47% 

75% 

100% 

100% 

149 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Overview of resolution required in terms of type of field  

Overview of requirements in terms of frequency per user community 

Frequency per 

UC 

Cultural 
Heritage 
profession al 
user 
community 

Natural 
sciences user 
community 

National, 
Regional o 
Local 
authority user 
community 

Site operator 
user 
community 

Urban planner 
user 
community 

Downstream 
user 
community 

TOTAL 

Every year 

53% 

Every 
month 

43% 

26% 

32% 

7% 

10% 

Every week 

53% 

26% 

7% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

7% 

5% 

7% 

7% 

10% 

7% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

# 

1 

2 

3 

150 

#1234Resolutionper fieldLow and medium resolution (more than 5 meter)High resolution (between 1 and 5 meter)Very high resolution (less than 1 meter)Other(pleasespecify)Rural or forested areas (Land)11%14%13%8%Urbanand sub-urban(Land)12%14%13%8%Scrub and grassland(Land)9%11%11%4%Mountainous/hillyregions(Land)11%11%12%12%Rainforest(Land)6%6%6%8%Water surface (Sea)7%5%6%8%Underwater(Sea)5%5%4%4%Tundra(Land)2%2%3%4%Alluvial plain or Floodplain (Land)6%7%7%8%Frozen/glacial areas (Land)7%4%4%8%Frozen/glacial areas (Sea)1%1%1%0%Waterlogged/wetland(Land)5%5%5%4%Coastal(Sea/Land)10%8%10%8%Coastal(Sea)5%6%5%8%Other(please, specify)3%3%3%8%TOTAL 100%100%100%100% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

4 

5 

Every day 

Every hour 

50% 

30% 

40% 

60% 

10% 

10% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

100% 

100% 

Overview of requirements in terms of frequency per segment of the 
value chain 

# 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Frequency 

Creation 

Production 

Transmission 

TOTAL 

Every year 

Every month 

Every week 

Every day 

Every hour 

40% 

39% 

33% 

42% 

39% 

44% 

45% 

44% 

37% 

39% 

16% 

16% 

23% 

21% 

22% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

Overview of requirements in terms of frequency in total for all 
stakeholders 

# 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

TOTAL 

Frequency 

Every year 

Every month 

Every week 

Every day 

Every hour 

Other 

Total 

% 

18% 

27% 

19% 

14% 

12% 

10% 

100% 

151 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Current sources of D&I: General results 

Current sources of D&I: Use of type of data per UC  

152 

78%24%13%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%a) Free open dataprovidersb) Commercialdata providers(please, specify)Other (pleasespecify)a) Free open dataprovidersb) Commercial dataproviders  (please,specify)Other (pleasespecify)55%26%4%0%9%6%38%25%13%6%6%13%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%Cultural Heritageprofessional usercommunityNatural sciencesuser community National, Regionalo Local authorityuser communitySite operator usercommunity Urban planner usercommunityDownstream usercommunitya) Free open data providersb) Commercial data providers 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Current sources of D&I: Sources of D&I per UC  

Potential future sources of D&I: general results per type of data  

153 

70%20%0%0%10%0%64%29%0%0%7%0%67%22%0%11%0%0%67%0%17%0%0%17%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%Cultural Heritageprofessional usercommunityNatural sciencesuser community National, Regionalo Local authorityuser communitySite operator usercommunity Urban planner usercommunityDownstream usercommunitySources of D&I per type of UC  Information product EO data (imagery & drone) In situ dataOtherCOPERNICUSD&IICOMOSGoogle MapsLandsatOther free opensource dataCommercialdata providersSérie170%49%60%48%15%15%70%49%60%48%15%15%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%IKONOS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Potential future sources of D&I: general results per UC 

Levels of expertise in EO of users by environment  

154 

52%25%5%2%9%7%53%27%7%0%10%3%63%23%3%0%9%3%47%30%7%0%10%7%56%22%11%0%0%11%60%30%0%0%10%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%Cultural Heritageprofessional user communityNatural sciences usercommunity National, Regional o Localauthority user communitySite operator user community Urban planner usercommunityDownstream user communityCOPERNICUS D&IICOMOSGoogle MapsLandsatOther free open source dataCommercial data providersIKONOS58,33%4,17%37,50%55,56%0,00%44,44%71,43%14,29%14,29%0,00%10,00%20,00%30,00%40,00%50,00%60,00%70,00%80,00%LandUnder waterBoth land and under waterExpert userMedium-level userNon technical user 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Annex B – Bibliography 

1.  Key Space Policy documents 

•  Publicly available data from e.g. Eurostat, the OECD, business associations and independent 

research institutions that indicate amounts of space budgets/financing in the EU. 

•  Lisbon treaty – Title referring to Space 

•  Communication on “Space Strategy for Europe" COM(2016) 705 

•  Council Conclusions on "A Space Strategy for Europe" 9817/17  

•  European Parliament Resolution on "A Space Strategy for Europe” 

•  Other Key Space Policy documents available on DG GROW website 

(http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/space/index_en.htm) 

2.  Studies 

•  Booz & Company, Evaluation of socio-economic impacts from space activities in the EU, 2013, 
http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/evaluation-of-socio-economic-impacts-from-

at: 

available 
space-activities-in-the-eu-pbNB0214633/   

•  PwC  -  Strategy&  (formerly  Booz  and  Co),  Study  to  examine  the  GDP  impact  of  space 

activities in EU, final report August 2015 

•  OECD, 

a 
http://www.oecd.org/sti/the-space-economy-at-a-glance-2014-9789264217294-en.htm  

economy 

available 

glance, 

edition 

2014, 

space 

The 

at 

at: 

•  Flash 

Eurobarometer 

355 

- 

Space 

activities, 

available 

at: 

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_355_sum_en.pdf  

•  World heritage and tourism in a changing climate, UNESCO 

•  Satellite-Based  Damage  Assessment  of  Cultural  Heritage  Sites,  2015,  Summary  Report  of 

Iraq, Nepal, Syria & Yemen, UNOSAT 

• 

• 

“The  protection  of  cultural  heritage:  Rules,  practices,  and  education”,  2017,  G7  meeting  of 
Experts 

ICOMOS,  2011,  Guidance  on  Heritage  Impact  Assessments  for  Cultural  World  Heritage 
Properties. Available at: https://www.icomos.org/world_heritage/HIA_20110201.pdf 

•  European  Commission,  2016,  2018  European  Year  of  Cultural  Heritage.  Available  at: 

https://europa.eu/cultural-heritage/toolkits_en 

• 

Interreg,  2018,  Safeguarding  cultural  heritage  from  natural  and  man-made  disasters. 
Available 
http://www.interreg-central.eu/Content.Node/protecCHt2save-Conference-
20180123.pdf 

at: 

•  European  Commission,  2015,  CLIMATE  FOR  CULTURE  (Damage  risk  assessment,  economic 
impact and mitigation strategies for sustainable preservation of cultural heritage in the times 
of climate change). Available at: https://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/165682_en.html 

•  European  Expert  Network  on  Culture  (EENC),  2013,  The  Social  and  Economic  Value  of 
at: 

Cultural 
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3a70/d26f9adf6b277216b8f3acf7909927bf2bc5.pdf 

Heritage: 

literature 

Available 

review. 

•  The  CHCFE  consortium,  2015,  Cultural  Heritage  Counts  for  Europe.  Available  at: 

http://blogs.encatc.org/culturalheritagecountsforeurope//wp-
content/uploads/2015/06/CHCfE_FULL-REPORT_v2.pdf 

155 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

•  European  heritage  Label,  2017,  European  Heritage  Label  Guidelines  for  candidate  sites. 
https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/sites/creative-

Available 
europe/files/files/ehl-guidelines-for-candidate-sites_en.pdf 

at: 

•  European  Heritage 

Label,  2016,  panel  Report  on  Monitoring.  Available  at: 

https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/sites/creative-europe/files/ehl-report-
2016_en.pdf 

•  European  Commission,  2017,  Special  Eurobarometer  466:  Cultural  Heritage.  Available  at: 

https://data.europa.eu/euodp/data/dataset/S2150_88_1_466_ENG 

•  UK government, 2007, The Costs and Benefits of UK World Heritage Site Status. Available at: 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78450/PwC_
_literaturereview.pdf 

• 

“The  protection  of  cultural  heritage:  Rules,  practices,  and  education”,  2017,  G7  meeting  of 
Experts 

•  European Commission, Mapping the Creative Value Chains, A study on the economy of culture 

in the digital age, Final report 

•  UNESCO, Managing cultural world heritage, Resource manual, 2013 

3.  Other 

•  Parcak, S., 2009. Satellite Remote Sensing for Archaeology. New York, US. 

•  A holistic EO technology approach for improving resilience of CH assets: the Heracles project, 

Dr Elissavet Kavoulaki, 24 April 2017, Copernicus for Cultural Heritage Workshop 

•  Copernicus  and  Natura  2000,  Fotios  Papoulias  (DG  ENV),  24  April  2017,  Copernicus  for 

Cultural Heritage Workshop 

•  Copernicus  Programme  Potential  for  Cultural  Heritage,  Peter  Breger,  24  April  2017, 

Copernicus for Cultural Heritage Workshop 

•  Cosmo-Skymed  Contribution  to  CH  Monitoring,  Maria  Libera  Battagliere,  24  April  2017, 

Copernicus for Cultural Heritage Workshop 

•  Earth  Observation  imagery  and  geoinformation  data  for  Cultural  heritage  and  Landscapes  - 

regional perspective, Branka Cuca, 24 April 2017, Copernicus for Cultural Heritage Workshop 

•  UNESCO Culture Sector - UNESCO’s use of satellites for monitoring heritage sites in conflict-
affected areas, Ms Elke Selter, 24 April 2017, Copernicus for Cultural Heritage Workshop 

•  Remote  Sensing  as  a  crucial  tool  for  Cultural  Heritage  preservation:  case  studies  from  the 
Near East  ,  Dr  h.c.  Margarete  van  Ess,  24  April  2017,  Copernicus  for  Cultural  Heritage 
Workshop 

•  UNISDR, Luca Rossi, 24 April 2017, Copernicus for Cultural Heritage Workshop 

•  PROTection  of  European  Cultural  HEritage  from  GeO-hazards:  satellite  techniques  for  risk 
monitoring and conservation policies,  Dr  Daniele  Spizzichino,  24  April  2017,  Copernicus  for 
Cultural Heritage Workshop 

•  User  needs  in  monitoring  Coastal  Archaeological  sites.  The  potential  role  of  Copernicus, 

Stelios Bollanos, 24 April 2017, Copernicus for Cultural Heritage Workshop 

•  Use of Copernicus data to support sustainable and cost effective landscape monitoring, Grega 

Milcinski, 24 April 2017, Copernicus for Cultural Heritage Workshop 

•  The Joint Programming Initiative on Cultural Heritage (JPICH): the European perspective, Prof 

Cristina Sabbioni, 24 April 2017, Copernicus for Cultural Heritage Workshop 

•  From  Space  to  Place:  requirements  and  Potentials  of  Earth  Observation  for  UNESCO  World 
Heritage  preservation  and  communication,  Prof  Dr  Alexander  Siegmund,  24  April  2017, 
Copernicus for Cultural Heritage Workshop 

156 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

•  TECNALIA - New perspectives of industrial research in Cultural Heritage, Dr Isabel Rodriguez-

Maribona, 24 April 2017, Copernicus for Cultural Heritage Workshop 

•  Mission (im-)possible: potential vs expectations and practice in applying remote sensing data 
in culture heritage protection and management, Prof Włodzimierz Rączkowski, 24 April 2017, 
Copernicus for Cultural Heritage Workshop 

•  Remote sensing for Cultural Heritage: from risk estimation to preservation strategies, Dr Rosa 

Lasaponara, 24 April 2017, Copernicus for Cultural Heritage Workshop 

•  Presentation:  Heritage  Impact  Assessment:  Evaluating  Development  at  Heritage  Sites. 

Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/document/139492 

•  Roders  A.  P.,  Bond  A.  &  Teller  J.,  2013,  Determining  effectiveness  in  heritage  impact 
at: 

assessments. 
http://conferences.iaia.org/2013/pdf/Final%20papers%20review%20process%2013/Determi
ning%20effectiveness%20in%20heritage%20impact%20assessments.pdf  

Available 

•  European  Commission,  Horizon  2020:  Cultural  Heritage  and  European  Identities,  List  of 
at: 

projects 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/conferences/synopsis_cultural_heritage.pdf 

2014-2017. 

Available 

•  Europa 

Nostra 

website. 

Available 

at: 

http://www.europanostra.org/our-

work/policy/european-year-cultural-heritage/ 

•  European  Commission,  2010,  The  European  Agenda  for  Culture  –  progress  towards  shared 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

goals. 
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52010SC0904&from=EN 

Available 

at: 

•  RESOLUTION  OF  THE  COUNCIL  of  16  November  2007  on  a  European  Agenda  for  Culture. 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

Available 
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32007G1129(01)&from=EN 

at: 

•  European  Commission,  2016,  Towards  an  EU  strategy  for  international  cultural  relations. 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

Available 
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016JC0029&from=EN 

at: 

•  European 

Commission 

website 

on 

Culture. 

Available 

at: 

https://ec.europa.eu/culture/policy/strategic-framework_en 

•  European  Commission  Press 

release.  Available  at:  http://europa.eu/rapid/press-

release_MEMO-17-5066_en.htm#_ftn1 

•  European  Commission,  Better  Regulation.  Available  at:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-

making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/better-regulation-why-and-how_en 

•  European  Commission,  2017,  Decision  on  a  European  Year  of  Cultural  Heritage  (2018). 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

Available 
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017D0864&from=EN 

at: 

•  European  Commission,  2014,  Conclusions  of  the  Council  and  of  the  Representatives  of  the 
Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on  a Work Plan for  Culture 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
Available 
(2015-2018). 
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52014XG1223(02)&from=EN 

at: 

•  European Commission, 2014, Towards an integrated approach to cultural heritage for Europe. 
http://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/culture/library/publications/2014-heritage-

at: 

Available 
communication_en.pdf 

•  European  Commission,  2010,  EUROPE  2020  A  strategy  for  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive 
at: 

growth. 
http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%20007%20-
%20Europe%202020%20-%20EN%20version.pdf 

Available 

157 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

•  Vlahakis,  Vassilios;  Ioannidis,  Nikolaos;  Karigiannis,  John;  Tsotros,  Manolis;  Gounaris, 
Michael;  Stricker,  Didier;  Gleue,  Tim;  Daehne,  Patrick;  Almeida,  Luis;  Archeoguide:  An 
augmented  reality  guide  for  archaeological  sites,  Computer  graphics  in  Art  History  and 
Archaeology, September/October 2002 

• 

Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology, 
Glossary  of  Archaeological  terms,  2004Siqueira,  Paul;  Ahmed,  Razi;  Chapman,  Bruce;  SAR, 
InSAR and Lidar studies for measuring vegetation structure over the Harvard forest region 

•  Brizard,  Tamara;  Derde,  Willem;  Silberman,  Neil;  Basic  guidelines  for  Cultural  Heritage 

Professionals in the Use of Information Technologies, How can ICT support cultural heritage? 

•  Rogiero-Candelera;  Lazzari;  Cano;  Science  and  Technology  for  the  Conservation  of  Cultural 

Heritage, 2013 

•  Camuffo, Dario; Microclimate for cultural heritage, Second edition, 2014 

158 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Annex C – Land cover of interest for 
Cultural Heritage user communities 

Depending  on  the  type  of  field,  the  features  of  the  environment  will  differ  –  for  example, 
rainforests  will  have  different  vegetation  covers  compared  to  deserts  or  urban  areas,  affecting 
the user requirements linked to the user need and hence having different technical specificities. 
The characterisation of the landscapes is therefore of the utmost importance for Cultural Heritage 
user  communities,  both  for  Tangible  Heritage  and  Natural  Heritage.  The  categories  have  been 
chosen based on the consolidation of several sources - first of all, the experts participating in the 
study, as well as through the literature review191.  

•  Land 

-  Rural or forested areas: Generally defined as areas that are sparsely populated, rural 
areas may include forested areas. These are in turn forests that have a less intense 
canopy than rainforests and are usually exposed to warm summers and cool winters192; 

-  Urban and peri-urban: Urban landscapes are dominated by human presence – man-

made structures with significant human activities. Examples of such landscapes are towns 
and cities. Urban landscapes comprise of permanent structures, transportation corridors, 
and transportation features193  with a high density of population; 

-  Scrub and grassland: With grass as a dominant type of vegetation, grasslands are 

usually located between deserts and forests and have different names depending on the 
area where they are located: names include the savanna, steppe, prairie or pampas. They 
are generally flat and are present on all continents except for Antarctica194; 

-  Mountainous/hilly regions: Generally characterised by lower temperatures and harsher 
weather, mountains and hilly regions are elevated parts of the land with thin soils and in 
some cases reduced oxygen present in the air195; 

-  Desert: Deserts are areas of land that receive less than 25 centimetres of water per year, 
which include areas not only in sand deserts, but also arid regions in temperate areas.196 
Overall, deserts cover more than 20% of the Earth. 

-  Rainforest: Rainforests are forests in tropical regions that receive very high rainfall. One 

of their specificities is that due to the canopy of the trees and their lush vegetation, 
sunlight cannot reach the forest floor. Overall, rainforests cover 6% of the Earth197; 

-  Tundra: Area that is characterised by a treeless frozen soil and most often permafrost198, 

found for example in the Arctic, covered most of the year by snow199; 

- 

Inland waters: This type of land cover refers to permanent water bodies inland from the 
coastal zone and areas whose properties and use are dominated by the permanent, 
seasonal, or intermittent occurrence of flooded conditions. Inland waters include rivers, 
lakes, floodplains, reservoirs, wetlands, and inland saline systems.200 

191 In particular, “Satellite remote sensing for archaeology” by Sarah Parcak 
192 Temperate coniferous forest, BBC, 2014 [ONLINE] Available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/habitats/Temperate_coniferous_forest  
193  UK  Office  for  National  Statistics,  Tim  Pateman,  2011  “Rural  and  urban  areas:  comparing  lives  using  rural/urban  classifications”  and 
“The definition of urban areas”, UK Office for National Statistics 
194 Grasslands, BBC, 2014 [ONLINE] Available at https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/habitats/grasslands/  
195 Mountains, BBC, 2014 [ONLINE] Available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/habitats/Mountain 
196 Deserts and shrub lands, BBC, 2014  [ONLINE] Available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/habitats/Deserts_and_xeric_shrublands 
197 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/habitats/Tropical_and_subtropical_moist_broadleaf_forests 
198 Tundra, BBC, 2014 [ONLINE] Available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/habitats/Tundra 
199 Tundra, National Geographic, 2018 [ONLINE] Available at https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/habitats/tundra-biome/ 
200 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Synthesis Report. 
Link: https://www.greenfacts.org/glossary/ghi/inland-waters.htm  

subtropical 

[ONLINE] 

broadleaf 

Available 

Tropical 

forests, 

moist 

2014 

BBC, 

and 

at 

159 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

-  Alluvial plain or Floodplain: This type of field refers to a flat area of land located next 
to a stream or river, which is composed of sediments and can be flooded by the body of 
water it is next to201; 

-  Waterlogged/wetland: Area of land covered by water, either fresh or salted, such as 

marshes or ponds202, important for the environment due to the filtration qualities of such 
land covers; 

•  Sea: 

-  Water Surface: Surface of a body of water, should it be salt water or fresh surface 

water. 

-  Underwater: Considered as the area of a body of water that is below 6m depth. 

•  Land/sea: 

-  Frozen/glacial areas: Thickened ice mass created through the deposit of snow over 

many years, present in mountains and on the poles. Overall, glaciers occupy 10% of the 
land on Earth203; 

-  Coastal: Coastal areas is a field at the juncture of Land and Sea, and can be defined as 

areas within 10 km of the sea204. 

Overall,  it  can  be  pointed  out  that  amongst  stakeholders,  there  is  no  disparity  in  the  interest 
shown  by  user  communities  interested  in  Natural  Heritage  and  those  interested  in  Tangible 
Heritage.  All  user  communities  intervene  in  all  types  of  land  covers,  and  no  field  was  deemed 
uninteresting  to  stakeholders.  The  only  specificity  would  be  for  urban  planners  that  are  mostly 
intervening in urban and peri-urban land covers (100% of urban planners have a unique interest 
for urban and peri-urban land covers).  

Desk  research  and  stakeholder  consultation  has  pinpointed  the  fact  that  differentiation  of  land 
covers is mostly relevant for the high level user need 1 “Study of the natural environment of the 
site  for  the  detection  of  underground  archaeological  features”.  Past  human  activities  have 
impacts on natural landscape that differs from one land cover to another, leading to specific user 
requirements for the discovery of underground features. 

The land covers are therefore not a significant differentiating factor in the analysis. 

201 Floodplain, Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2018 [ONLINE] Available at https://www.britannica.com/science/floodplain 
202 Wetlands, WWF, 2018 [ONLINE] Available at https://www.worldwildlife.org/habitats/wetlands 
203 Glaciers, National Snow and Ice data center, 2018 [ONLINE] Available at https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/glaciers/questions/what.html 
204Coastal area, Eurostat, 2017 [ONLINE] Available at http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Glossary:Coastal_area 

160 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Annex D – Copernicus capabilities in 
response to CH user requirements 
(detailed matching analysis) 

The next pages are displaying the detailed match analysis of the Copernicus capabilities in response to CH user 
requirements. The overall match analysis exercise has been carried out following the approach described below: 

1.  Copernicus core services product(s): the match analysis starts by first identifying, 
when possible, Copernicus core service product(s) that can cover user requirements 

a.  Identification of one (or several) Copernicus core service product responding to user 

need; 

b.  Comparison of the product resolution with the spatial resolution required; 

c.  Comparison of the product timeliness with the temporal resolution required by users 

(i.e. frequency of monitoring). 

2.  Sentinels capabilities: the second step aims at assessing if Sentinels capabilities could 

respond to user requirements & technical specifications 

a.  Identification of a Sentinel satellite matching the sensor & wavelength requested; 

b.  Comparison of Sentinel spatial resolution with the spatial resolution required; 

c.  Comparison of Sentinel temporal resolution with the temporal resolution required by 

users (i.e. frequency of monitoring). 

3.  Contributing missions capabilities: the third step aims at assessing if Copernicus 
contributing mission(s) could respond to user requirements & technical specifications 

d.  Identification of one or several contributing missions matching the sensor & 

wavelength requested; 

e.  Comparison of contributing mission(s) spatial resolution with the spatial resolution 

required; 

f.  Comparison of contributing mission(s) temporal resolution with the temporal resolution 

required by users (i.e. frequency of monitoring). 

4.  Match analysis: the fourth and last step aims at bringing together the three level of 

analysis (Copernicus core services products, Sentinels data, Contributing missions data) in 
order to highlight categories of user requirements that are: 

a.  Fully responding: user requirement can fully be covered (for both spatial & temporal 

resolution) by Copernicus core services, Sentinels and/or contributing mission(s) 
(appearing in green in the tables of the match analysis); 

b.  Partially responding: user requirement can partially be covered by Copernicus core 
services, Sentinels and/or contributing mission(s), meaning that the spatial resolution 
of one of these three capabilities (Copernicus core services products, Sentinels data, 
Contributing missions(s) data) is matching part of the spatial resolution requested (i.e. 
technical specifications provide a range of spatial resolution) or part of the temporal 
resolution205 (appearing in yellow in the tables of the match analysis); 

c.  Not responding: user requirement cannot be covered because (appearing in red in 

the tables of the match analysis): 

205 This statement only applies to hourly request, when a satellite is offering less than one day revisiting time but not a one-hour revisiting 
time 

161 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

›  Satellite-based remote sensing cannot respond to the requirement; 

›  Spatial and/or temporal resolution requested is not available; 

›  Capability required to respond to the user requirements cannot be covered by 

Sentinels and/or contributing missions (e.g. hyperspectral, lidar, etc.). 

This match analysis has been supported by expert consultation from each of the six Copernicus 
core  services  and  Copernicus  space  segment  (ESA).  The  result  of  the  analysis  produced  a  non-
exhaustive  matrix  presenting  Copernicus  core  services  products,  Sentinels  and  contributing 
mission(s)  data  that  could  answer  Cultural  Heritage  user  requirements  presented  in  the  next 
pages. 

To carry out this matching exercise, several assumptions had to be taken in consideration. 

•  Specific technical assumptions related to spatial resolution 

-  There is currently no multispectral data (RGB, NIR, SWIFT) able to match request of very 
high resolution (up to 0.3m) but some contributing missions (e.g. WorldView 3 & 4) offer 
0.3  m  spatial  resolution  in  panchromatic.  In  fact,  pan-sharpening  techniques  could  be 
applied to multispectral bands to increase their spatial resolution to the one offered by the 
panchromatic band (0.3 m from WorldView 3 & 4), taking as assumption pan-sharpening 
applied  to  multispectral  bands  does  not  introduce  significant  artifacts.  In  this  context, 
requests  for  very  high  resolution  multispectral  data  (up  to  0.3  m)  were  considered 
covered when a contributing mission (e.g. WorldView 4, Pleiades) was able to provide 0.3 
m panchromatic resolution; 

Some user requirements has led to technical specifications requiring very high resolution of SAR 
L-band.  Nevertheless,  there  is  currently  no  very  high  resolution  SAR  L-band  available  in  the 
scope  of  the  Copernicus  programme  (Sentinels  &  Contributing  missions).  When  a  user 
requirement required very high resolution for C-band, X-band and L-band, and that C-band and 
X-band  requests  were  fully  covered,  the  user  requirement  was  considered  covered  (spatial 
resolution matching analysis). 

To facilitate reading, the matching has been organised per high level user need. 

162 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

1.   High level user need 1 – Study of the natural environment of the site for the detection of underground / underwater archaeological 

features 

a.  Matching user requirements with Copernicus core services products 

163 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Current product spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly 9,0%Hourly Every 3 years #Daily 16,6%Daily Every 3 years #Weekly 27,2%Weekly Every 3 years #Monthly and more 47,2%Monthly and more Every 3 years #Hourly 10,8%Hourly 3 times a month #Daily 13,5%Daily 3 times a month #Weekly 21,6%Weekly 3 times a month #Monthly and more 54,1%Monthly and more 3 times a month #Hourly 12,5%Hourly Hoursly #Daily 16,7%Daily Hoursly #Weekly 25,0%Weekly 10 days #Monthly and more 45,8%Monthly and more 10 days #20,2%29,8%25,3%6,0%17,0%26,4%28,3%9,4%15,4%26,9%30,8%3,8%18,8%18,9%23,1%Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs Spatial resolution specification Name of products matching user requirement Match analysis of Copernicus product spatial resolution Copernicus core services products Wavelength Sensors ###Geographical coverageMultispectral Multispectral RGB, NIR Technical specifications Indirect indicators (Cropmarks, soilmarks, chlorophyll levels)  Normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) Thermal anomaly 0,30 up to 2 m CLMS, Global, Land surface temperature CLMS, Global, NDVI CLMS, Imagerey & Refence Data,  European Images Mosaic, Very High Resolution Up to 2,5m 300m  @5km Thermal TIR 0.30 m up to 10 m 1 m up to 10 m RGB, NIR 312011User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by user27,2%30,4%42,4%27,5%32,5%40,0%28,6%28,6%42,9%Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Copernicus product temporal resolution Current product timeliness  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

b.  Matching user requirements with Sentinels capabilities 

164 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Current product spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly Every 3 years #Daily Every 3 years #Weekly Every 3 years #Monthly and more Every 3 years #Hourly Every 3 years #Daily Every 3 years #Weekly Every 3 years #Monthly and more Every 3 years #xxxMapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs up to 2,5m Spatial resolution specification Name of products matching user requirement Match analysis of Copernicus product spatial resolution Copernicus core services products Wavelength Sensors CLMS, Imagerey & Refence Data,  European Images Mosaic, Very High Resolution Geographical coverageTechnical specifications SAR X-band, C-band 0.30 up to 10 m Multispectral  RGB-NIR 0.30 up to 10 m Map regression ##N/AUser requirements Spatial resolution expressed by userN/AN/AN/AFrequency of monitoring Match analysis of Copernicus product temporal resolution Current product timeliness Monthly and more Weekly Daily Hourly N/AN/AN/AN/ALocal detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Sentinel spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly 9,0%Hourly 5 days   1 Daily 16,6%Daily 5 days   1 Weekly 27,2%Weekly 5 days  3 Monthly and more 47,2%Monthly and more 5 days  3 Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Sentinel temporal resolution Sentinel temporal resolution 27,2%30,4%42,4%User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by user310,30 up to 2 m Indirect indicators (Cropmarks, soilmarks, chlorophyll levels)  Geographical coverageMultispectral RGB, NIR Technical specifications Name of Sentinel matching technical specifications Match analysis of Sentinel spatial resolution Sentinels capabilities Wavelength Sensors Sentinel 2   1 Minimum 10 m resolution for RGB & NIR Spatial resolution specification Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs 20,2%29,8%25,3%6,0%18,8% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

c.  Matching user requirements with Copernicus contributing missions 

165 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Sentinel spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly 10,8%Hourly 5 days   1 Daily 13,5%Daily 5 days   1 Weekly 21,6%Weekly 5 days Monthly and more 54,1%Monthly and more 5 days Hourly 12,5%Hourly 2 days   1 Daily 16,7%Daily 2 days   1 Weekly 25,0%Weekly 2 days Monthly and more 45,8%Monthly and more 2 days Hourly    Hourly 5 days   1 Daily N/ADaily 5 days   1 Weekly N/AWeekly 5 days  3 Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more 5 days  3 Hourly N/AHourly 6 days   1 Daily N/ADaily 6 days   1 Weekly N/AWeekly 6 days  3 Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more 6 days  3 Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Sentinel temporal resolution Sentinel temporal resolution 27,5%32,5%40,0%28,6%28,6%42,9%N/AN/AN/AUser requirements Spatial resolution expressed by user2011N/AThermal TIR 0.30 m up to 10 m 1 m up to 10 m RGB, NIR Sentinel 2 Sentinel 1 Minimum 5m resolution for C-band, X-band is not available  2 SAR X-band, C-band 0.30 up to 10 m Multispectral  RGB-NIR 0.30 up to 10 m Sentinel 3 Normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) Thermal anomaly Map regression Geographical coverageMultispectral Technical specifications Name of Sentinel matching technical specifications Match analysis of Sentinel spatial resolution Sentinels capabilities Wavelength Sensors Sentinel 2 1km (TIR)   2   2 Minimum 10 m resolution for RGB & NIR Spatial resolution specification Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs Minimum 10 m resolution for RGB & NIR   2 17,0%26,4%28,3%9,4%15,4%26,9%30,8%3,8%xxx18,9%23,1% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

2.  High level user need 2 – Non-destructive analysis of the underground / underwater positioning of the CH features 

166 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Mission Group Contributing Mission(s) of interest Contributing Mission(s) spatial resolution Grade Additional comments (complementing matching analysis)Grade Hourly 9,0%Hourly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 1 day for Pleiades  2 Daily 16,6%Daily Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 1 day for Pleiades Weekly 27,2%Weekly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 1 day for Pleiades Monthly and more 47,2%Monthly and more Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 1 day for Pleiades Hourly 10,8%Hourly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  2 Daily 13,5%Daily Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR) Weekly 21,6%Weekly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR) Monthly and more 54,1%Monthly and more Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR) Hourly 12,5%Hourly 16 days for Landsat 8   1 Daily 16,7%Daily 16 days for Landsat 8   1 Weekly 25,0%Weekly 16 days for Landsat 8   1 Monthly and more 45,8%Monthly and more 16 days for Landsat 8  3 Hourly    Hourly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  2 Daily N/ADaily Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR) Weekly N/AWeekly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR) Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR) Hourly N/AHourly Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  2 Daily N/ADaily Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Weekly N/AWeekly Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Frequency of monitoring Contributiong Mission(s) temporal resolution Match analysis of Contributing Mission(s) spatial resolution Match analysis of Contributing Mission(s) temporal resolution 27,2%30,4%42,4%27,5%32,5%40,0%28,6%28,6%42,9%N/AN/AN/AUser requirements Spatial resolution expressed by user312011N/AThermal TIR 0.30 m up to 10 m 1 m up to 10 m RGB, NIR WorldView 2, 3 & 4GeoEye 1Pleiades Up to 1,24m in RGB from Worldview 3 & 4Up to 1,5 m in NIR from GeoEye 1 Up to 1,24m in RGB from Worldview 3 & 4Up to 1,5 m in NIR from GeoEye 1 WorldView 2, 3 & 4PleiadesDeimos 2Ikonos-2GeoEye 1DubaiSAT-2   3 In case the user actually needs a 0.3 m Multi-Spectral (MS) (e.g. RGB and NIR) image, that is not currently provided by any satellite mission, pan-sharpening techniques could be apply to multi spectral bands to increase their spatial resolution to the one offered by the panchromatic band (0.3 m) (WorldView 3 & 4)Mission group 1 COSMO-SkyMed (X-band)TerraSAR-X (X-band)Kompsat-5 (X-band)Radarsat-2 (C-band) Up to 0,25m in X-band from TerraSAR-XUp to 1m in C-band from Radarsat-2   3 In case the user actually needs a 0.3 m Multi-Spectral (MS) (e.g. RGB and NIR) image, that is not currently provided by any satellite mission, pan-sharpening techniques could be apply to multi spectral bands to increase their spatial resolution to the one offered by the panchromatic band (0.3 m) (WorldView 3 & 4)0,30 up to 2 m SAR X-band, C-band 0.30 up to 10 m Multispectral  RGB-NIR 0.30 up to 10 m Indirect indicators (Cropmarks, soilmarks, chlorophyll levels)  Normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) Thermal anomaly Map regression Geographical coverageMultispectral Multispectral RGB, NIR Technical specifications Name of contributing missions matching technical specifications Contributing Missions capabilities Wavelength Sensors   2   3   3 Mission group 2 Landsat-8 30 m Mission group 2 Spatial resolution specification Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs Mission group 2 Mission group 2 WorldView 2, 3 & 4PleiadesDeimos 2Ikonos-2GeoEye 1DubaiSAT-2 Up to 1,24m in RGB from Worldview 3 & 4Up to 1,5 m in NIR from GeoEye 1 20,2%29,8%25,3%6,0%17,0%26,4%28,3%9,4%15,4%26,9%30,8%3,8%xxx18,8%18,9%23,1% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

a.  Matching user requirements with Copernicus core services products 

b.  Matching user requirements with Sentinels capabilities 

167 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Current product spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly 13,3%Hourly #Daily 20,0%Daily #Weekly 20,0%Weekly #Monthly and more 46,7%Monthly and more #Hourly 6,7%Hourly #Daily 20,0%Daily #Weekly 20,0%Weekly #Monthly and more 53,3%Monthly and more #Hourly 5,3%Hourly #Daily 26,3%Daily #Weekly 26,3%Weekly #Monthly and more 42,1%Monthly and more #Hourly 18,8%Hourly #Daily 18,8%Daily #Weekly 18,8%Weekly #Monthly and more 43,8%Monthly and more #23,5%23,5%23,5%5,9%18,8%6,3%21,7%21,7%30,4%8,7%25,0%25,0%23,5%16,0%17,4%25,0%Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs Spatial resolution specification Name of products matching user requirement Match analysis of Copernicus product spatial resolution Copernicus core services products Wavelength Sensors GPR N/A few cm up to 2 m No product Radar altimeters (in-situ) 28,0%28,0%24,0%4,0%Geographical coverageTechnical specifications N/A No product Bathymetry Stratigraphic description of the archaeological site and identification of individual layers or stratigraphic units Geodetic recording Metal detecting up to 2 m 611127No product GPR N/A few cm up to 2 m GPR few cm up to 2 m N/A No product User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by user40,0%33,3%26,7%26,7%26,6%46,7%47,6%33,3%19,0%26,7%40,0%33,3%####Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Copernicus product temporal resolution Current product timeliness  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

c.  Matching user requirements with Copernicus contributing missions  

168 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Sentinel spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly 13,3%N/A Hourly Daily 20,0%N/A Daily Weekly 20,0%N/A Weekly Monthly and more 46,7%N/A Monthly and more Hourly 6,7%N/A Hourly Daily 20,0%N/A Daily Weekly 20,0%N/A Weekly Monthly and more 53,3%N/A Monthly and more Hourly 5,3%N/A Hourly Daily 26,3%N/A Daily Weekly 26,3%N/A Weekly Monthly and more 42,1%N/A Monthly and more Hourly 18,8%N/A Hourly Daily 18,8%N/A Daily Weekly 18,8%N/A Weekly Monthly and more 43,8%N/A Monthly and more Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Sentinel temporal resolution Sentinel temporal resolution 40,0%33,3%26,7%26,7%26,6%46,7%47,6%33,3%19,0%26,7%40,0%33,3%User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by userGPR N/A few cm up to 2 m GPR few cm up to 2 m N/A 611127up to 2 m N/A GPR N/A few cm up to 2 m Radar altimeters (in-situ) Bathymetry Stratigraphic description of the archaeological site and identification of individual layers or stratigraphic units Geodetic recording Metal detecting Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Name of Sentinel matching technical specifications Match analysis of Sentinel spatial resolution Sentinels capabilities Wavelength Sensors Spatial resolution specification Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs 28,0%28,0%24,0%4,0%21,7%21,7%30,4%8,7%25,0%25,0%18,8%6,3%23,5%23,5%23,5%5,9%23,5%16,0%17,4%25,0% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

3.  High level user need 3 - Non-destructive analysis of the surface positioning of the CH features 

a.  Matching user requirements with Copernicus core services products  

169 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Mission Group Contributing Mission(s) of interest Contributing Mission(s) spatial resolution Grade Additional comments (complementing matching analysis)Grade Hourly 13,3%N/A Hourly Daily 20,0%N/A Daily Weekly 20,0%N/A Weekly Monthly and more 46,7%N/A Monthly and more Hourly 6,7%N/A Hourly Daily 20,0%N/A Daily Weekly 20,0%N/A Weekly Monthly and more 53,3%N/A Monthly and more Hourly 5,3%N/A Hourly Daily 26,3%N/A Daily Weekly 26,3%N/A Weekly Monthly and more 42,1%N/A Monthly and more Hourly 18,8%N/A Hourly Daily 18,8%N/A Daily Weekly 18,8%N/A Weekly Monthly and more 43,8%N/A Monthly and more Frequency of monitoring Contributiong Mission(s) temporal resolution Match analysis of Contributing Mission(s) spatial resolution Match analysis of Contributing Mission(s) temporal resolution 40,0%33,3%26,7%26,7%26,6%46,7%47,6%33,3%19,0%26,7%40,0%33,3%User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by userGPR N/A few cm up to 2 m GPR few cm up to 2 m N/A 611127up to 2 m N/A GPR N/A few cm up to 2 m Radar altimeters (in-situ) Bathymetry Stratigraphic description of the archaeological site and identification of individual layers or stratigraphic units Geodetic recording Metal detecting Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Name of contributing missions matching technical specifications Contributing Missions capabilities Wavelength Sensors Spatial resolution specification Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs 28,0%28,0%24,0%4,0%21,7%21,7%30,4%8,7%25,0%25,0%18,8%6,3%23,5%23,5%23,5%5,9%23,5%16,0%17,4%25,0% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

170 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Current product spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly N/AHourly No refresh (for now) #Daily N/ADaily No refresh (for now) #Weekly N/AWeekly No refresh (for now) #Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more No refresh (for now) #Hourly 5,3%Hourly Daily 26,3%Daily Weekly 26,3%Weekly Monthly and more 42,1%Monthly and more Hourly 12,1%Hourly Every 3 years #Daily 15,2%Daily Every 3 years #Weekly 21,2%Weekly Every 3 years #Monthly and more 51,5%Monthly and more Every 3 years #Hourly 15,0%Hourly Every 3 years #Daily 12,5%Daily Every 3 years #Weekly 20,0%Weekly Every 3 years #Monthly and more 52,5%Monthly and more Every 3 years #Hourly 11,4%Hourly Every 3 years #Daily 14,3%Daily Every 3 years #Weekly 20,0%Weekly Every 3 years #Monthly and more 54,3%Monthly and more Every 3 years #21,7%21,7%30,4%8,7%22,2%25,9%27,8%7,4%21,7%25,0%28,3%8,3%18,6%25,4%28,8%8,5%17,4%16,7%16,7%18,6%xxMapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs 25m #CLMS, Imagerey & Refence Data,  European Images Mosaic, Very High ResolutionCLMS, Imagery & Refence Data, EU-DEM CLMS, Imagerey & Refence Data,  European Images Mosaic, Very High Resolution No product Multispectral Spatial resolution specification Name of products matching user requirement Match analysis of Copernicus product spatial resolution Copernicus core services products Wavelength Sensors Geographical coverage#Technical specifications Visual identification via imagery Elevation modelling Geodetic recording Photogrammetric mapping Topographic mapping RGB 0.30 m up to 2 m CLMS, Imagerey & Refence Data,  European Images Mosaic, Very High Resolution Up to 2,5m #Multispectral RGB 0.30 m up to 10 m Mosaic: up to 2,5mEU-DEM: 25m #N/A12222323SAR X band up to 5 m CLMS, Imagery & Refence Data, EU-DEM Multispectral RGB, NIR 0.30 m up to 5 m Up to 2,5 m #User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by userN/AN/AN/A19,0%33,3%47,6%42,5%37,5%20,0%23,8%35,7%40,5%42,9%33,3%23,8%Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Copernicus product temporal resolution Current product timeliness  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

171 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Current product spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly 3,7%Hourly Every 3 years #Daily 18,5%Daily Every 3 years #Weekly 25,9%Weekly Every 3 years #Monthly and more 51,9%Monthly and more Every 3 years #Hourly 16,7%Hourly N/A Daily 16,7%Daily N/A Weekly 16,7%Weekly N/A Monthly and more 50,0%Monthly and more N/A Hourly 15,4%Hourly NDVI: 3 times per monthMosaic: 3 years  #Daily 11,5%Daily NDVI: 3 times per monthMosaic: 3 years #Weekly 23,1%Weekly NDVI: 3 times per monthMosaic: 3 years #Monthly and more 50,0%Monthly and more NDVI: 3 times per monthMosaic: 3 years #Hourly 0,0%Hourly Daily 0,0%Daily Weekly 50,0%Weekly N/A Monthly and more 50,0%Monthly and more N/A Hourly 13,3%Hourly Daily 20,0%Daily Weekly 26,7%Weekly Monthly and more 40,0%Monthly and more Hourly 14,3%Hourly Hourly #Daily 21,4%Daily daily  #Weekly 14,3%Weekly Weekly #Monthly and more 50,0%Monthly and more monthly  #27,8%33,3%22,2%0,0%31,3%31,3%18,8%0,0%16,7%18,8%12,5%0,0%15,6%28,1%28,1%9,4%33,3%33,3%0,0%0,0%22,7%27,3%27,3%4,5%37,5%37,5%Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs 18,2%12,5%18,8%33,3%Spatial resolution specification Name of products matching user requirement Match analysis of Copernicus product spatial resolution Copernicus core services products Wavelength Sensors Geographical coverageLithology Salinity levels measurement Technical specifications Identification of previously searched sites in the area Rock assay analysis Vegetation levels monitoring Tectonic petrography 31237616RGB, NIR 0.30 m up to 2 m CLMS, Imagerey & Refence Data,  European Images Mosaic, Very High Resolution Up to 2,5m #Multispectral Multispectral RGB, NIR 0.30 m up to 2 m CLMS, Global, NDVI CLMS, Imagerey & Refence Data,  European Images Mosaic, Very High Resolution NDVI = 300mMosaic = Up to 2,5m #N/A No product Hyperspectral ~350 nm up to ~ 2580 0.30 m up to 5 m #SAR L-band 2 km up to 10 km CMEMS, Regional & Global Sea analysis, Salinity #2-28 km #No product User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by userNo product 25,8%32,3%41,9%33,3%33,3%33,3%40,9%25,0%50,0%25,0%38,5%30,8%30,8%30,8%30,8%38,5%#Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Copernicus product temporal resolution Current product timeliness 31,8%27,3% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

b.  Matching user requirements with Sentinels capabilities  

172 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Current product spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly Every 3 years #Daily Every 3 years #Weekly Every 3 years #Monthly and more Every 3 years #Hourly #Daily #Weekly #Monthly and more #xxMapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs Spatial resolution specification Name of products matching user requirement Match analysis of Copernicus product spatial resolution Copernicus core services products Wavelength Sensors Geographical coverage3D reconstruction Technical specifications N/AMultispectral Lidar from 600 nm up to 1500 nm up to 5 cm No product #Up to 2,5m CLMS, Imagerey & Refence Data,  European Images Mosaic, Very High Resolution up to 0,3 cm RGB, NIR #User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by userN/AN/AN/AFrequency of monitoring Match analysis of Copernicus product temporal resolution Current product timeliness Monthly and more Weekly N/AN/AN/ADaily Hourly N/ALocal detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Sentinel spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly N/AHourly N/A  1 Daily N/ADaily N/A  1 Weekly N/AWeekly N/A  1 Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more N/A  1 Hourly 5,3%Hourly Daily 26,3%Daily Weekly 26,3%Weekly Monthly and more 42,1%Monthly and more Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Sentinel temporal resolution Sentinel temporal resolution 19,0%33,3%47,6%N/AN/AN/AUser requirements Spatial resolution expressed by userSentinel 1No X-band available   1 SAR X band up to 5 m N/A12Elevation modelling Geodetic recording Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Name of Sentinel matching technical specifications Match analysis of Sentinel spatial resolution Sentinels capabilities Wavelength Sensors Spatial resolution specification Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs 30,4%8,7%17,4%xx21,7%21,7% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

173 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Sentinel spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly 12,1%Hourly 5 days  1 Daily 15,2%Daily 5 days  1 Weekly 21,2%Weekly 5 days  3 Monthly and more 51,5%Monthly and more 5 days  3 Hourly 15,0%Hourly 5 days  1 Daily 12,5%Daily 5 days  1 Weekly 20,0%Weekly 5 days  3 Monthly and more 52,5%Monthly and more 5 days  3 Hourly 11,4%Hourly 5 days  1 Daily 14,3%Daily 5 days  1 Weekly 20,0%Weekly 5 days  3 Monthly and more 54,3%Monthly and more 5 days  3 Hourly 3,7%Hourly 5 days  1 Daily 18,5%Daily 5 days  1 Weekly 25,9%Weekly 5 days  3 Monthly and more 51,9%Monthly and more 5 days  3 Hourly 16,7%Hourly Daily 16,7%Daily Weekly 16,7%Weekly Monthly and more 50,0%Monthly and more Hourly 15,4%Hourly 5 days  1 Daily 11,5%Daily 5 days  1 Weekly 23,1%Weekly 5 days  3 Monthly and more 50,0%Monthly and more 5 days  3 Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Sentinel temporal resolution Sentinel temporal resolution 31,8%27,3%40,9%42,5%37,5%20,0%23,8%35,7%40,5%42,9%33,3%23,8%25,8%32,3%41,9%33,3%33,3%33,3%User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by userMultispectral RGB, NIR 0.30 m up to 2 m Sentinel 2 Minimum 10 m resolution for RGB & NIR   1 Potential evolution of Copernicus Hyperspectral ~350 nm up to ~ 2580 0.30 m up to 5 m Multispectral RGB, NIR 0.30 m up to 5 m Sentinel 2 Minimum 10 m resolution for RGB & NIR   1 Multispectral Sentinel 2 Minimum 10 m resolution for RGB  2   1 Sentinel 2 Minimum 10 m resolution for RGB & NIR RGB, NIR 0.30 m up to 2 m   1 Multispectral 22232316312RGB 0.30 m up to 2 m Sentinel 2 Minimum 10 m resolution for RGB Multispectral RGB 0.30 m up to 10 m Visual identification via imagery Identification of previously searched sites in the area Rock assay analysis Vegetation levels monitoring Photogrammetric mapping Topographic mapping Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Name of Sentinel matching technical specifications Match analysis of Sentinel spatial resolution Sentinels capabilities Wavelength Sensors Spatial resolution specification Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs 22,2%25,9%27,8%7,4%21,7%25,0%28,3%8,3%18,6%25,4%28,8%8,5%12,5%0,0%15,6%28,1%28,1%9,4%16,7%16,7%18,6%18,2%12,5%18,8%22,7%27,3%27,3%4,5%37,5%37,5% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

c.  Matching user requirements with Copernicus contributing missions 

174 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Sentinel spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly 0,0%Hourly Daily 0,0%Daily Weekly 50,0%Weekly N/A Monthly and more 50,0%Monthly and more N/A Hourly 13,3%Hourly Daily 20,0%Daily Weekly 26,7%Weekly Monthly and more 40,0%Monthly and more Hourly 14,3%Hourly N/A Daily 21,4%Daily N/A Weekly 14,3%Weekly N/A Monthly and more 50,0%Monthly and N/A Hourly N/AHourly 5 days  1 Daily N/ADaily 5 days  1 Weekly N/AWeekly 5 days  3 Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more 5 days  3 Hourly N/AHourly Daily N/ADaily Weekly N/AWeekly Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Sentinel temporal resolution Sentinel temporal resolution 25,0%50,0%25,0%38,5%30,8%30,8%30,8%30,8%38,5%N/AN/AN/AUser requirements Spatial resolution expressed by user  1 No L-band available Multispectral Lidar from 600 nm up to 1500 nm up to 5 cm up to 0,3 cm RGB, NIR Sentinel 2 Minimum 10 m resolution for RGB & NIR No lidar available N/A SAR L-band 1 km up to 10 km   1 376N/ATectonic petrography Geographical coverageLithology Salinity levels measurement 3D reconstruction Technical specifications Name of Sentinel matching technical specifications Match analysis of Sentinel spatial resolution Sentinels capabilities Wavelength Sensors Spatial resolution specification Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs 33,3%33,3%0,0%0,0%33,3%27,8%33,3%22,2%0,0%31,3%31,3%18,8%0,0%xx16,7%18,8% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

175 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Mission Group Contributing Mission(s) of interest Contributing Mission(s) spatial resolution Grade Additional comments (complementing matching analysis)Grade Hourly N/AHourly Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)  2 Daily N/ADaily Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)  3 Weekly N/AWeekly Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)  3 Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)  3 Hourly 5,3%Hourly Daily 26,3%Daily Weekly 26,3%Weekly Monthly and more 42,1%Monthly and more Hourly 12,1%Hourly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)  2 Daily 15,2%Daily Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)  3 Weekly 21,2%Weekly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)  3 Monthly and more 51,5%Monthly and more Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)  3 Hourly 15,0%Hourly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)  2 Daily 12,5%Daily Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)  3 Weekly 20,0%Weekly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)  3 Monthly and more 52,5%Monthly and more Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)  3 Hourly 11,4%Hourly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  2 Daily 14,3%Daily Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Weekly 20,0%Weekly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Monthly and more 54,3%Monthly and more Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Hourly 3,7%Hourly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  2 Daily 18,5%Daily Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Weekly 25,9%Weekly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Monthly and more 51,9%Monthly and more Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Hourly 16,7%Hourly Daily 16,7%Daily Weekly 16,7%Weekly Monthly and more 50,0%Monthly and more Frequency of monitoring Contributiong Mission(s) temporal resolution Match analysis of Contributing Mission(s) spatial resolution Match analysis of Contributing Mission(s) temporal resolution 19,0%33,3%47,6%42,5%37,5%20,0%23,8%35,7%40,5%42,9%33,3%23,8%25,8%32,3%41,9%33,3%33,3%33,3%N/AN/AN/AUser requirements Spatial resolution expressed by userNo hyperspectral capacity(possible future contributing missions) Hyperspectral ~350 nm up to ~ 2580 0.30 m up to 5 m Multispectral RGB, NIR 0.30 m up to 5 m Mission group 2 WorldView 2, 3 & 4PleiadesDeimos 2Ikonos-2GeoEye 1DubaiSAT-2 Up to 1,24m in RGB from Worldview 3 & 4Up to 1,5 m in NIR from GeoEye 1 In case the user actually needs a 0.3 m Multi-Spectral (MS) (e.g. RGB and NIR) image, that is not currently provided by any satellite mission, pan-sharpening techniques could be apply to multi spectral bands to increase their spatial resolution to the one offered by the panchromatic band (0.3 m) (WorldView 3 & 4)Multispectral  3 Mission group 2 WorldView 2, 3 & 4PleiadesGeoEye 1 Up to 1,24m in RGB from Worldview 3 & 4  3 RGB, NIR 0.30 m up to 2 m Mission group 2 WorldView 2, 3 & 4PleiadesGeoEye 1 Mission group 1 COSMO-SkyMed (X-band)TerraSAR-X (X-band)Kompsat-5 (X-band) Up to 0,25m in X-band from TerraSAR-X  3 SAR X band up to 5 m In case the user actually needs a 0.3 m Multi-Spectral (MS) (e.g. RGB and NIR) image, that is not currently provided by any satellite mission, pan-sharpening techniques could be apply to multi spectral bands to increase their spatial resolution to the one offered by the panchromatic band (0.3 m) (WorldView 3 & 4)In case the user actually needs a 0.3 m Multi-Spectral (MS) (e.g. RGB and NIR) image, that is not currently provided by any satellite mission, pan-sharpening techniques could be apply to multi spectral bands to increase their spatial resolution to the one offered by the panchromatic band (0.3 m) (WorldView 3 & 4)  3 In case the user actually needs a 0.3 m Multi-Spectral (MS) (e.g. RGB and NIR) image, that is not currently provided by any satellite mission, pan-sharpening techniques could be apply to multi spectral bands to increase their spatial resolution to the one offered by the panchromatic band (0.3 m) (WorldView 3 & 4)Up to 1,24m in RGB from Worldview 3 & 4Up to 1,5 m in NIR from GeoEye 1  3 Multispectral N/A12222323163RGB 0.30 m up to 2 m Multispectral RGB 0.30 m up to 10 m Mission group 2 WorldView 2, 3 & 4PleiadesDeimos 2Ikonos-2GeoEye 1DubaiSAT-2 Up to 1,24m in RGB from Worldview 3 & 4 Visual identification via imagery Identification of previously searched sites in the area Rock assay analysis Elevation modelling Geodetic recording Photogrammetric mapping Topographic mapping Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Name of contributing missions matching technical specifications Contributing Missions capabilities Wavelength Sensors Spatial resolution specification Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs 30,4%8,7%22,2%25,9%27,8%7,4%21,7%25,0%28,3%8,3%18,6%25,4%28,8%8,5%12,5%0,0%17,4%16,7%16,7%18,6%18,2%12,5%xx21,7%21,7%22,7%27,3%27,3%4,5%37,5%37,5% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

4.  High level user need 4 – Mapping of the cultural landscape of the site and identification of the specific risks it is exposed to 

176 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Mission Group Contributing Mission(s) of interest Contributing Mission(s) spatial resolution Grade Additional comments (complementing matching analysis)Grade Hourly 15,4%Hourly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  2 Daily 11,5%Daily Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Weekly 23,1%Weekly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Monthly and more 50,0%Monthly and more Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Hourly 0,0%Hourly Daily 0,0%Daily Weekly 50,0%Weekly N/A Monthly and more 50,0%Monthly and more N/A Hourly 13,3%Hourly Daily 20,0%Daily Weekly 26,7%Weekly Monthly and more 40,0%Monthly and more Hourly 14,3%Hourly 27 days for SMOS  1 Daily 21,4%Daily 27 days for SMOS  1 Weekly 14,3%Weekly 27 days for SMOS  1 Monthly and more 50,0%Monthly and 27 days for SMOS  3 Hourly N/AHourly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  2 Daily N/ADaily Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Weekly N/AWeekly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Hourly N/AHourly Daily N/ADaily Weekly N/AWeekly Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more Frequency of monitoring Contributiong Mission(s) temporal resolution Match analysis of Contributing Mission(s) spatial resolution Match analysis of Contributing Mission(s) temporal resolution 31,8%27,3%40,9%25,0%50,0%25,0%38,5%30,8%30,8%30,8%30,8%38,5%N/AN/AN/AUser requirements Spatial resolution expressed by userIn case the user actually needs a 0.3 m Multi-Spectral (MS) (e.g. RGB and NIR) image, that is not currently provided by any satellite mission, pan-sharpening techniques could be apply to multi spectral bands to increase their spatial resolution to the one offered by the panchromatic band (0.3 m) (WorldView 3 & 4)  1 WorldView 2, 3 & 4PleiadesGeoEye 1 Up to 1,24m in RGB from Worldview 3 & 4Up to 1,5 m in NIR from GeoEye 1  3 SMOS (L-band) Mission group 1 15 km in L-band from SMOS Multispectral Lidar from 600 nm up to 1500 nm up to 5 cm up to 0,3 cm RGB, NIR No lidar available Mission group 2 SAR L-band 1 km up to 10 km Multispectral RGB, NIR 0.30 m up to 2 m Mission group 2 WorldView 2, 3 & 4PleiadesGeoEye 1 Up to 1,24m in RGB from Worldview 3 & 4Up to 1,5 m in NIR from GeoEye 1  3 In case the user actually needs a 0.3 m Multi-Spectral (MS) (e.g. RGB and NIR) image, that is not currently provided by any satellite mission, pan-sharpening techniques could be apply to multi spectral bands to increase their spatial resolution to the one offered by the panchromatic band (0.3 m) (WorldView 3 & 4)12376N/AVegetation levels monitoring Tectonic petrography Geographical coverageLithology Salinity levels measurement 3D reconstruction Technical specifications Name of contributing missions matching technical specifications Contributing Missions capabilities Wavelength Sensors Spatial resolution specification Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs 15,6%28,1%28,1%9,4%33,3%33,3%0,0%0,0%18,8%33,3%27,8%33,3%22,2%0,0%31,3%31,3%18,8%0,0%xx16,7%18,8% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

a.  Matching user requirements with Copernicus core services products 

177 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Current product spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly N/AHourly #Daily N/ADaily #Weekly N/AWeekly #Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more #Hourly N/AHourly #Daily N/ADaily #Weekly N/AWeekly #Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more #Hourly 3,7%Hourly Every 3 years #Daily 18,5%Daily Every 3 years #Weekly 25,9%Weekly Every 3 years #Monthly and more 51,9%Monthly and more Every 3 years #Hourly N/AHourly Every 6 years #Daily N/ADaily Every 6 years #Weekly N/AWeekly Every 6 years #Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more Every 6 years #Hourly 12,1%Hourly Every 3 years #Daily 15,2%Daily Every 3 years #Weekly 21,2%Weekly Every 3 years #Monthly and more 51,5%Monthly and more Every 3 years #22,7%18,2%16,7%27,3%4,5%xx22,2%25,9%27,8%7,4%xxxxMapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs 1627,3%Spatial resolution specification Name of products matching user requirement Match analysis of Copernicus product spatial resolution Copernicus core services products Wavelength Sensors Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Ground motion monitoring Mapping of frequentation patterns Identification of previously searched sites in the area Mapping of surrounding infrastructure (roads, pipelines, waterconducts etc.) Photogrammetric mapping N/AN/AN/A22No product SAR X-band, C-band, L-band 1 m up to 50 m No product ##10m CLMS, Local, Urban atlas Multispectral RGB, NIR 0.30 m up to 10 m Multispectral RGB, NIR 0.30 m up to 2 m CLMS, Imagerey & Refence Data,  European Images Mosaic, Very High Resolution Up to 2,5m #Multispectral RGB 0.30 m up to 2 m CLMS, Imagerey & Refence Data,  European Images Mosaic, Very High Resolution Up to 2,5m #User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by userN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A25,8%32,3%41,9%N/AN/AN/A20,0%37,5%42,5%#Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Copernicus product temporal resolution Current product timeliness  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

b.  Matching user requirements with Sentinels capabilities 

178 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Current product spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly 15,0%Hourly Every 3 years (Mosaic); 6 years (Urban Atlas) #Daily 12,5%Daily Every 3 years (Mosaic); 6 years (Urban Atlas) #Weekly 20,0%Weekly Every 3 years (Mosaic); 6 years (Urban Atlas) #Monthly and more 52,5%Monthly and more Every 3 years (Mosaic); 6 years (Urban Atlas) #Hourly 0,0%Hourly Daily 0,0%Daily Weekly 50,0%Weekly N/A Monthly and more 50,0%Monthly and more N/A Hourly 11,4%Hourly Every 3 years #Daily 14,3%Daily Every 3 years #Weekly 20,0%Weekly Every 3 years #Monthly and more 54,3%Monthly and more Every 3 years #18,6%21,7%25,0%28,3%8,3%33,3%33,3%0,0%0,0%16,7%33,3%18,6%25,4%28,8%8,5%Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs Spatial resolution specification Name of products matching user requirement Match analysis of Copernicus product spatial resolution Copernicus core services products Wavelength Sensors #Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Topographic mapping Tectonic petrography Visual identification via imagery 23223Multispectral RGB 0.30 m up to 10 m CLMS, Imagerey & Refence Data,  European Images Mosaic, Very High ResolutionCLMS, Imagery & Refence Data, EU-DEM Mosaic: up to 2,5mEU-DEM: 25m #No product Multispectral RGB, NIR 0.30 m up to 5 m CLMS, Imagerey & Refence Data,  European Images Mosaic, Very High Resolution Up to 2,5m #User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by user40,5%35,7%23,8%25,0%50,0%25,0%23,8%33,3%Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Copernicus product temporal resolution Current product timeliness 42,9% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

179 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Sentinel spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly N/AHourly 6 days  1 Daily N/ADaily 6 days  1 Weekly N/AWeekly 6 days  3 Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more 6 days  3 Hourly N/AHourly Daily N/ADaily Weekly N/AWeekly Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more Hourly 3,7%Hourly 5 days  1 Daily 18,5%Daily 5 days  1 Weekly 25,9%Weekly 5 days  3 Monthly and more 51,9%Monthly and more 5 days  3 Hourly N/AHourly 5 days  1 Daily N/ADaily 5 days  1 Weekly N/AWeekly 5 days  3 Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more 5 days  3 Hourly 12,1%Hourly 5 days  1 Daily 15,2%Daily 5 days  1 Weekly 21,2%Weekly 5 days  3 Monthly and more 51,5%Monthly and more 5 days  3 Hourly 15,0%Hourly 5 days  1 Daily 12,5%Daily 5 days  1 Weekly 20,0%Weekly 5 days  3 Monthly and more 52,5%Monthly and more 5 days  3 Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Sentinel temporal resolution Sentinel temporal resolution 25,8%32,3%41,9%N/AN/AN/A20,0%37,5%42,5%40,5%35,7%23,8%N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AUser requirements Spatial resolution expressed by userMultispectral RGB 0.30 m up to 10 m Sentinel 2 Minimum 10 m resolution for RGB  2 Multispectral RGB 0.30 m up to 2 m Sentinel 2 Minimum 10 m resolution for RGB   1  2 Minimum 10 m resolution for RGB & NIR Sentinel 2 Multispectral RGB, NIR 0.30 m up to 10 m Multispectral RGB, NIR 0.30 m up to 2 m Sentinel 2 Minimum 10 m resolution for RGB & NIR   1 SAR X-band, C-band, L-band 1 m up to 50 m Sentinel 1 Minimum 5m resolution for C-band, X-band and L-band are not available 2 N/A222316N/AN/AGround motion monitoring Mapping of frequentation patterns Identification of previously searched sites in the area Mapping of surrounding infrastructure (roads, pipelines, waterconducts etc.) Photogrammetric mapping Topographic mapping Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Name of Sentinel matching technical specifications Match analysis of Sentinel spatial resolution Sentinels capabilities Wavelength Sensors Spatial resolution specification Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs xxxx27,3%27,3%4,5%xx22,2%25,9%27,8%7,4%21,7%25,0%28,3%8,3%22,7%18,2%16,7%16,7% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

c.  Matching user requirements with Copernicus contributing missions 

180 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Sentinel spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly 0,0%Hourly Daily 0,0%Daily Weekly 50,0%Weekly N/A Monthly and more 50,0%Monthly and more N/A Hourly 11,4%Hourly 5 days  1 Daily 14,3%Daily 5 days  1 Weekly 20,0%Weekly 5 days  3 Monthly and more 54,3%Monthly and more 5 days  3 Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Sentinel temporal resolution Sentinel temporal resolution 25,0%50,0%25,0%23,8%33,3%42,9%User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by userMultispectral RGB, NIR 0.30 m up to 5 m Sentinel 2 Minimum 10 m resolution for RGB & NIR   1 223Tectonic petrography Visual identification via imagery Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Name of Sentinel matching technical specifications Match analysis of Sentinel spatial resolution Sentinels capabilities Wavelength Sensors Spatial resolution specification Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs 33,3%33,3%0,0%0,0%33,3%18,6%25,4%28,8%8,5%18,6%Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Mission Group Contributing Mission(s) of interest Contributing Mission(s) spatial resolution Grade Additional comments (complementing matching analysis)Grade Hourly N/AHourly Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band) 2 Daily N/ADaily Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band) 3 Weekly N/AWeekly Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band) 3 Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band) 3 Hourly N/AHourly Daily N/ADaily Weekly N/AWeekly Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more Hourly 3,7%Hourly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  2 Daily 18,5%Daily Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Weekly 25,9%Weekly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Monthly and more 51,9%Monthly and more Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Frequency of monitoring Contributiong Mission(s) temporal resolution Match analysis of Contributing Mission(s) spatial resolution Match analysis of Contributing Mission(s) temporal resolution 25,8%32,3%41,9%N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AUser requirements Spatial resolution expressed by userMission group 2 WorldView 2, 3 & 4PleiadesGeoEye 1 Up to 1,24m in RGB from Worldview 3 & 4Up to 1,5 m in NIR from GeoEye 1 In case the user actually needs a 0.3 m Multi-Spectral (MS) (e.g. RGB and NIR) image, that is not currently provided by any satellite mission, pan-sharpening techniques could be apply to multi spectral bands to increase their spatial resolution to the one offered by the panchromatic band (0.3 m) (WorldView 3 & 4) 3 Multispectral RGB, NIR 0.30 m up to 2 m There is currently no high resolution L-band available, but the technical specification could be fully cover in X-band and C-bandSAR X-band, C-band, L-band 1 m up to 50 m Mission group 1 COSMO-SkyMed (X-band)TerraSAR-X (X-band)Kompsat-5 (X-band)Radarsat-2 (C-band)SMOS (L-band) Up to 0,25m in X-band from TerraSAR-XUp to 1m in C-band from Radarsat-215 km in L-band from SMOS  3 16N/AN/AGround motion monitoring Mapping of frequentation patterns Identification of previously searched sites in the area Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Name of contributing missions matching technical specifications Contributing Missions capabilities Wavelength Sensors Spatial resolution specification Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs xxxx27,3%27,3%4,5%22,7%18,2% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

5.  High level user need 5 – Monitoring of the evolution of the natural environment of the CH site 

a.  Matching user requirements with Copernicus core services products 

181 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Mission Group Contributing Mission(s) of interest Contributing Mission(s) spatial resolution Grade Additional comments (complementing matching analysis)Grade Hourly N/AHourly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  2 Daily N/ADaily Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Weekly N/AWeekly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Hourly 12,1%Hourly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)  2 Daily 15,2%Daily Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)  3 Weekly 21,2%Weekly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)  3 Monthly and more 51,5%Monthly and more Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)  3 Hourly 15,0%Hourly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB)  2 Daily 12,5%Daily Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB)  3 Weekly 20,0%Weekly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB)  3 Monthly and more 52,5%Monthly and more Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB)  3 Hourly 0,0%Hourly Daily 0,0%Daily Weekly 50,0%Weekly Monthly and more 50,0%Monthly and more Hourly 11,4%Hourly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  2 Daily 14,3%Daily Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Weekly 20,0%Weekly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Monthly and more 54,3%Monthly and more Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Frequency of monitoring Contributiong Mission(s) temporal resolution Match analysis of Contributing Mission(s) spatial resolution Match analysis of Contributing Mission(s) temporal resolution N/AN/AN/A20,0%37,5%42,5%40,5%35,7%23,8%25,0%50,0%25,0%23,8%33,3%42,9%User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by user 3 In case the user actually needs a 0.3 m Multi-Spectral (MS) (e.g. RGB and NIR) image, that is not currently provided by any satellite mission, pan-sharpening techniques could be apply to multi spectral bands to increase their spatial resolution to the one offered by the panchromatic band (0.3 m) (WorldView 3 & 4)Multispectral RGB, NIR 0.30 m up to 5 m  3 Multispectral RGB 0.30 m up to 10 m Mission group 2 WorldView 2, 3 & 4PleiadesDeimos 2Ikonos-2GeoEye 1DubaiSAT-2 Up to 1,24m in RGB from Worldview 3 & 4  3 Multispectral RGB 0.30 m up to 2 m Mission group 2 WorldView 2, 3 & 4PleiadesDeimos 2Ikonos-2GeoEye 1DubaiSAT-2 Up to 1,24m in RGB from Worldview 3 & 4Up to 1,5 m in NIR from GeoEye 1 Multispectral RGB, NIR 0.30 m up to 10 m Up to 1,24m in RGB from Worldview 3 & 4Up to 1,5 m in NIR from GeoEye 1 In case the user actually needs a 0.3 m Multi-Spectral (MS) (e.g. RGB and NIR) image, that is not currently provided by any satellite mission, pan-sharpening techniques could be apply to multi spectral bands to increase their spatial resolution to the one offered by the panchromatic band (0.3 m) (WorldView 3 & 4)  3 WorldView 2, 3 & 4PleiadesDeimos 2Ikonos-2GeoEye 1DubaiSAT-2 Mission group 2 Mission group 2 WorldView 2, 3 & 4PleiadesGeoEye 1 Up to 1,24m in RGB from Worldview 3 & 4 N/A2223223Mapping of surrounding infrastructure (roads, pipelines, waterconducts etc.) Photogrammetric mapping Topographic mapping Tectonic petrography Visual identification via imagery Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Name of contributing missions matching technical specifications Contributing Missions capabilities Wavelength Sensors Spatial resolution specification Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs In case the user actually needs a 0.3 m Multi-Spectral (MS) (e.g. RGB and NIR) image, that is not currently provided by any satellite mission, pan-sharpening techniques could be apply to multi spectral bands to increase their spatial resolution to the one offered by the panchromatic band (0.3 m) (WorldView 3 & 4)In case the user actually needs a 0.3 m Multi-Spectral (MS) (e.g. RGB and NIR) image, that is not currently provided by any satellite mission, pan-sharpening techniques could be apply to multi spectral bands to increase their spatial resolution to the one offered by the panchromatic band (0.3 m) (WorldView 3 & 4)xx22,2%25,9%27,8%7,4%21,7%25,0%28,3%8,3%33,3%33,3%0,0%0,0%16,7%16,7%33,3%18,6%25,4%28,8%8,5%18,6% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

182 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Current product spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly Every 3 years #Daily Every 3 years #Weekly Every 3 years #Monthly and more Every 3 years #Hourly Every 3 years #Daily Every 3 years #Weekly Every 3 years #Monthly and more Every 3 years #Hourly 18,5%Hourly daily  #Daily 22,2%Daily daily  #Weekly 25,9%Weekly daily  #Monthly and more 33,3%Monthly and more daily  #Hourly 18,5%Hourly N/A #Daily 22,2%Daily N/A #Weekly 25,9%Weekly N/A #Monthly and more 33,3%Monthly and more N/A #Hourly #Daily #Weekly #Monthly and more #Hourly #Daily #Weekly #Monthly and more ###12,5%18,8%18,8%31,3%18,8%23,1%28,2%20,5%10,3%22,9%25,7%20,0%11,4%17,9%20,0%20,0%25,7%25,7%20,0%8,6%Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs Spatial resolution specification Name of products matching user requirement Match analysis of Copernicus product spatial resolution Copernicus core services products Wavelength Sensors Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Map regression Air pollution monitoring to prevent damages & blackening of buildings Atmospheric moisture measurement Coastal erosion monitoring 6151311Multispectral RGB-NIR 0.30 up to 10 m CLMS, Imagerey & Refence Data,  European Images Mosaic, Very High Resolution Up to 2,5m #SAR X-band, C-band 0.30 up to 10 m Multispectral from 270 nm up to 2385 nm up to 1 km CAMS, Global forecast of aerosolCAMS, European-Scale air quality analysis 80 km/ 10-20 km ##Multispectral RGB, NIR0,5m up to 10m No product Multispectral from 270 nm up to 2385 nm up to 1 km SAR X-band, C-band, L-band 1 m up to 50 m User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by user#26,9%34,6%38,5%30,4%30,4%39,1%25,0%30,0%45,0%Weekly 31,3%18,8%Daily Hourly 18,8%Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Copernicus product temporal resolution Current product timeliness 25,0%41,7%33,3%Hourly Daily Monthly and more Weekly 16,7%20,8%33,3%29,2%31,3%Monthly and more  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

183 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Current product spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly N/AHourly Natura2000: once every 4 yearsMosaic, Forest, Grassland: once every 3 years #Daily N/ADaily Natura2000: once every 4 yearsMosaic, Forest, Grassland: once every 3 years #Weekly N/AWeekly Natura2000: once every 4 yearsMosaic, Forest, Grassland: once every 3 years #Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more Natura2000: once every 4 yearsMosaic, Forest, Grassland: once every 3 years #Hourly 12,0%Hourly Natura2000, : once every 4 yearsMosaic, Forest, Grassland: once every 3 years  NDVI: 3 times per month #Daily 24,0%Daily Natura2000, : once every 4 yearsMosaic, Forest, Grassland: once every 3 years  NDVI: 3 times per month #Weekly 24,0%Weekly Natura2000, : once every 4 yearsMosaic, Forest, Grassland: once every 3 years  NDVI: 3 times per month #Monthly and more 40,0%Monthly and more Natura2000, : once every 4 yearsMosaic, Forest, Grassland: once every 3 years  NDVI: 3 times per month #Hourly Hourly #Daily daily  #Weekly Weekly #Monthly and more monthly  #Hourly Hourly #Daily daily  #Weekly Weekly #Monthly and more monthly  #Hourly 21,4%Hourly Hourly #Daily 21,4%Daily Dayly #Weekly 28,6%Weekly Weekly #Monthly and more 28,6%Monthly and more monthly  #Hourly 13,6%Hourly #Daily 22,7%Daily #Weekly 22,7%Weekly #Monthly and more 40,9%Monthly and more ##15,6%25,0%28,1%9,4%24,0%28,0%20,0%16,0%12,0%22,6%29,0%22,6%19,4%6,5%21,9%xxxxMapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs Spatial resolution specification Name of products matching user requirement Match analysis of Copernicus product spatial resolution Copernicus core services products Wavelength Sensors Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Evolution of vegetation typology monitoring Ice cover monitoring (sea) Vegetation levels monitoring Insolation monitoring Rainfall erosivity monitoring N/A711N/A11Natura2000: 10 mMosaic: Up to 2,5mForest: 20mGrassland: 20m CMEMS, Regional & Global Sea analysis, Sea IceC3S, Sea Ice (thickness, edge, concentration, type) CMEMS Sea Ice: Up to 1kmC3S Sea Ice:Thickness: 1-10kmConcentration: 40 -50 kmEdge: 15kmType: 40 - 70 km ##SAR CLMS, Local, Natura 2000CLMS, Imagerey & Refence Data,  European Images Mosaic, Very High ResolutionCLMS, Pan-European, High Resolution Layers, ForestCLMS, Pan-European, High Resolution Layers, Grassland #Multispectral RGB, NIR, SWIR 0.30 m up to 2 m Multispectral RGB, NIR 0.30 m up to 2 m CLMS, Local, Natura 2000CLMS, Imagerey & Refence Data,  European Images Mosaic, Very High ResolutionCLMS, Pan-European, High Resolution Layers, ForestCLMS, Pan-European, High Resolution Layers, GrasslandCLMS, Global, NDVI Natura2000: 10 mMosaic: up to 2,5 mForest: 20mGrassland: 20mNDVI: 300m Multispectral VIS (0.5-0.9 µm)Water Vapour (WV) (5.7-7.1 µm)Thermal InfraRed (TIR) (10.5-12.5 µm) 5km up to 10km CAMS, Clear‐Sky Radiation, McClear & Heliosat‐4 50 - 150 km #Multispectral RGB, NIR, SWIR up to 10 m CMEMS, Regional & Global Sea analysis, Sea IceC3S, Sea Ice (thickness, edge, concentration, type) CMEMS Sea Ice: Up to 1kmC3S Sea Ice:Thickness: 1-10kmConcentration: 40 -50 kmEdge: 15kmType: 40 - 70 km #X-band, C-band, L-band up to 10 m No product User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by userN/AN/AN/A36,8%26,3%36,8%N/AN/AN/A23,1%30,8%46,2%27,3%31,8%40,9%Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Copernicus product temporal resolution Current product timeliness N/AMonthly and more Weekly N/AN/ADaily Hourly N/A 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

184 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Current product spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly 18,2%Hourly Hourly #Daily 22,7%Daily daily  #Weekly 18,2%Weekly Weekly #Monthly and more 40,9%Monthly and more monthly  #Hourly 17,4%Hourly Daily  #Daily 17,4%Daily Daily  #Weekly 21,7%Weekly Weekly #Monthly and more 43,5%Monthly and more monthly  #Hourly 12,0%Hourly #Daily 20,0%Daily #Weekly 24,0%Weekly #Monthly and more 44,0%Monthly and more #Hourly 16,7%Hourly Hourly #Daily 16,7%Daily daily  #Weekly 22,2%Weekly Weekly #Monthly and more 44,4%Monthly and more monthly  #Hourly 17,4%Hourly #Daily 26,1%Daily daily  #Weekly 26,1%Weekly Weekly #Monthly and more 30,4%Monthly and more monthly  #Hourly N/AHourly #Daily N/ADaily 3 days (Lake Water) and daily (Water Quality indicators) #Weekly N/AWeekly 3 days (Lake Water) #Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more 3 days (Lake Water) and monthly (Water Quality indicators) #xx20,8%25,0%20,8%20,8%12,5%16,7%23,3%23,3%26,7%1O%25,0%25,0%25,0%20,0%5,0%25,9%18,5%22,2%11,1%22,2%23,3%26,7%20,0%20,0%10,0%Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs Spatial resolution specification Name of products matching user requirement Match analysis of Copernicus product spatial resolution Copernicus core services products Wavelength Sensors Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Sea salinity levels measurement Sediment levels measurement Analysis of soil distribution and composition Water current monitoring Water pollution monitoring Water quality monitoring 9810611N/ASAR --> Microwave Radiometer L-band 1 km up to 10 km CMEMS, Ocean Colour Thematic Center (OC TAC), CHL & OPTICS 1km Multispectral RGB, NIR, SWIR 10 m up to 1 km #CMEMS, Regional & Global Sea analysis, Salinity 2-28 km #Hyperspectral ~350 nm up to ~ 2580 0.30 m up to 5 m No product #SAR C-band up to 50 km CMEMS, Regional & Global Sea analysis, Current Velocity 2 - 28 km #Multispectral RGB, NIR, SWIR 0.30 m up to 10 m CLMS, Lake Water Quality productsC3S, Water quality indicators (nitrogen concentration, nitrogen loads, phosphorous concentrations, phosphorous loads, water temperature.) Lake Water Quality products: 300mWater quality indicators: models are using different type of data & resolutions #Multispectral RGB, NIR, SWIR 0.30 m up to 10 m C3S, Water quality indicators (nitrogen concentration, nitrogen loads, phosphorous concentrations, phosphorous loads, water temperature.) Models are using different type of data & resolutions #User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by user30,0%30,0%40,0%30,0%35,0%35,0%25,0%30,0%45,0%31,3%31,3%37,5%30,0%35,0%35,0%N/AN/AN/AFrequency of monitoring Match analysis of Copernicus product temporal resolution Current product timeliness  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

b.  Matching user requirements with Sentinels capabilities 

185 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Current product spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly 20,0%Hourly Hourly #Daily 16,0%Daily daily  #Weekly 24,0%Weekly monthly  #Monthly and more 40,0%Monthly and more monthly  #Hourly N/AHourly daily  #Daily N/ADaily daily  #Weekly N/AWeekly daily  #Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more daily  #22,2%27,8%22,2%16,7%11,1%xMapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs Spatial resolution specification Name of products matching user requirement Match analysis of Copernicus product spatial resolution Copernicus core services products Wavelength Sensors Geographical coverageHydrological changes monitoring Technical specifications Wind direction & speed monitoring 12N/ASAR  C-band, Ku-band 1 km up to 25 km  CMEMS, Regional & Global Sea analysis, WindC3S, EAR5 Climate Reanalysis Sea analysis, Wind: 1 kmERA5: 31km #SAR X-band, C-band 1 m to 25 m EMS,  Global Flood Awareness system CLMS, Pan-European, High Resolution Layers, Water & WetnessC3S, Water quantity indicators (water runnoff, wetness, river flow, snow water equivalent, soil water content, etc.) Global Flood Awareness Systel: 32 kmCLMS, Pan-European, High Resolution Layers, Water & Wetness : 20 - 100mWater quantity indicators: models are using different type of data & resolutions #User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by user29,2%37,5%33,3%N/AN/AN/AFrequency of monitoring Match analysis of Copernicus product temporal resolution Current product timeliness Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Sentinel spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly 18,8%Hourly 5 days  1 Daily 18,8%Daily 5 days  1 Weekly 31,3%Weekly 5 days  3 Monthly and more 31,3%Monthly and more 5 days  3 Hourly 18,8%Hourly 6 days  1 Daily 18,8%Daily 6 days  1 Weekly 31,3%Weekly 6 days  3 Monthly and more 31,3%Monthly and more 6 days  3 Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Sentinel temporal resolution Sentinel temporal resolution 25,0%41,7%33,3%User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by userSAR X-band, C-band 0.30 up to 10 m  2 Minimum 5m resolution for C-band, but X-band is not available Sentinel 1 Multispectral RGB-NIR 0.30 up to 10 m Sentinel 2 Minimum 10 m resolution for RGB & NIR  2 6Map regression Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Name of Sentinel matching technical specifications Match analysis of Sentinel spatial resolution Sentinels capabilities Wavelength Sensors Spatial resolution specification Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs 12,5%18,8%18,8%31,3%18,8% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

186 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Sentinel spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly 18,5%Hourly Daily  1 Daily 22,2%Daily Daily  3 Weekly 25,9%Weekly Daily  3 Monthly and more 33,3%Monthly and more Daily  3 Hourly 18,5%Hourly 2 days  1 Daily 22,2%Daily 2 days  1 Weekly 25,9%Weekly 2 days  3 Monthly and more 33,3%Monthly and more 2 days  3 Hourly 16,7%Hourly 6 days  1 Daily 20,8%Daily 6 days  1 Weekly 29,2%Weekly 6 days  3 Monthly and more 33,3%Monthly and more 6 days  3 Hourly 16,7%Hourly 5 days  1 Daily 20,8%Daily 5 days  1 Weekly 29,2%Weekly 5 days  3 Monthly and more 33,3%Monthly and more 5 days  3 Hourly N/AHourly 5 days  1 Daily N/ADaily 5 days  1 Weekly N/AWeekly 5 days  3 Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more 5 days  3 Hourly 12,0%Hourly 5 days  1 Daily 24,0%Daily 5 days  1 Weekly 24,0%Weekly 5 days  3 Monthly and more 40,0%Monthly and more 5 days  3 Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Sentinel temporal resolution Sentinel temporal resolution 26,9%34,6%38,5%30,4%30,4%39,1%25,0%30,0%45,0%N/AN/AN/A36,8%26,3%36,8%User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by userSentinel 2 Minimum 10 m resolution for RGB & NIR   1 Multispectral RGB, NIR, SWIR 0.30 m up to 2 m Multispectral RGB, NIR 0.30 m up to 2 m   1 Minimum 10 m resolution for RGB & NIRMinimum 20m resolution for SWIR Sentinel 2  2 Sentinel 2 Minimum 10 m resolution for RGB & NIR  2 Multispectral RGB, NIR0,5m up to 10m Sentinel 1 Minimum 5m resolution for C-band, but X-band and L-band are not available Multispectral from 270 nm up to 2385 nm up to 1 km SAR X-band, C-band, L-band 1 m up to 50 m Sentinel 5P Spatial resolution 7km  2   1 Sentinel 3 (OLCI): 300m to 1,2km Sentinel 3 Multispectral from 270 nm up to 2385 nm up to 1 km 1513N/A1111Air pollution monitoring to prevent damages & blackening of buildings Atmospheric moisture measurement Coastal erosion monitoring Evolution of vegetation typology monitoring Vegetation levels monitoring Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Name of Sentinel matching technical specifications Match analysis of Sentinel spatial resolution Sentinels capabilities Wavelength Sensors Spatial resolution specification Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs 23,1%28,2%20,5%10,3%22,9%25,7%20,0%11,4%17,9%20,0%xx15,6%25,0%28,1%9,4%21,9%20,0%25,7%25,7%20,0%8,6% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

187 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Sentinel spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly N/AHourly 6 days  1 Daily N/ADaily 6 days  1 Weekly N/AWeekly 6 days  3 Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more 6 days  3 Hourly N/AHourly 5 days  1 Daily N/ADaily 5 days  1 Weekly N/AWeekly 5 days  3 Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more 5 days  3 Hourly 21,4%Hourly 2 days  1 Daily 21,4%Daily 2 days  1 Weekly 28,6%Weekly 2 days  3 Monthly and more 28,6%Monthly and more 2 days  3 Hourly 13,6%Hourly Daily 22,7%Daily Weekly 22,7%Weekly Monthly and more 40,9%Monthly and more Hourly 18,2%Hourly 2 days  1 Daily 22,7%Daily 2 days  1 Weekly 18,2%Weekly 2 days  3 Monthly and more 40,9%Monthly and more 2 days  3 Hourly 17,4%Hourly 2 days  1 Daily 17,4%Daily 2 days  1 Weekly 21,7%Weekly 2 days  3 Monthly and more 43,5%Monthly and more 2 days  3 Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Sentinel temporal resolution Sentinel temporal resolution N/AN/AN/A23,1%30,8%46,2%27,3%31,8%40,9%30,0%30,0%40,0%30,0%35,0%35,0%User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by user  1 Multispectral RGB, NIR, SWIR 10 m up to 1 km Sentinel 3 Microwave Radiomater (20 km) Multispectral VIS (0.5-0.9 µm)Water Vapour (WV) (5.7-7.1 µm)Thermal InfraRed (TIR) (10.5-12.5 µm) 5km up to 10km Sentinel 3 Sentinel 3 (OLCI): 300m to 1,2km  3 Sentinel 2 Sentinel 1 Minimum 5m resolution for C-band, but X-band and L-band are available  2 Minimum 10 m resolution for RGB & NIRMinimum 20m resolution for SWIR  3 Multispectral RGB, NIR, SWIR up to 10 m X-band, C-band, L-band up to 10 m SAR SAR --> Microwave Radiometer L-band 1 km up to 10 km N/A71198Ice cover monitoring (sea) Insolation monitoring Rainfall erosivity monitoring Sea salinity levels measurement Sediment levels measurement Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Name of Sentinel matching technical specifications Match analysis of Sentinel spatial resolution Sentinels capabilities Wavelength Sensors Spatial resolution specification Sentinel-3 300m up to 1,2km (OLCI) Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs  2 24,0%28,0%20,0%16,0%12,0%22,6%29,0%22,6%19,4%6,5%23,3%26,7%20,0%20,0%10,0%20,8%25,0%20,8%20,8%12,5%xx 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

188 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Sentinel spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly 12,0%Hourly Daily 20,0%Daily Weekly 24,0%Weekly Monthly and more 44,0%Monthly and more Hourly 16,7%Hourly 6 days  1 Daily 16,7%Daily 6 days  1 Weekly 22,2%Weekly 6 days  3 Monthly and more 44,4%Monthly and more 6 days  3 Hourly 17,4%Hourly 2 days  1 Daily 26,1%Daily 2 days  1 Weekly 26,1%Weekly 2 days  3 Monthly and more 30,4%Monthly and more 2 days  3 Hourly N/AHourly 2 days  1 Daily N/ADaily 2 days  1 Weekly N/AWeekly 2 days  3 Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more 2 days  3 Hourly 20,0%Hourly 2 days  1 Daily 16,0%Daily 2 days  1 Weekly 24,0%Weekly 2 days  3 Monthly and more 40,0%Monthly and more 2 days  3 Hourly N/AHourly 6 days  1 Daily N/ADaily 6 days  1 Weekly N/AWeekly 6 days  3 Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more 6 days  3 Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Sentinel temporal resolution Sentinel temporal resolution 31,3%31,3%37,5%30,0%35,0%35,0%N/AN/AN/A29,2%37,5%33,3%N/AN/AN/A25,0%30,0%45,0%User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by userSentinel 3 Minimum 300m resolution for C-bandMinimum 300m for Ku-band (after SAR processing)  3 SAR X-band, C-band 1 m to 25 m Sentinel 1 Minimum 5m resolution for C-band, but X-band is not available  2 Multispectral RGB, NIR, SWIR 0.30 m up to 10 m SAR  C-band, Ku-band 1 km up to 25 km Sentinel-3 300m up to 1,2km (OLCI) Multispectral RGB, NIR, SWIR 0.30 m up to 10 m Sentinel-3 300m up to 1,2km (OLCI)   1 Hyperspectral ~350 nm up to ~ 2580 0.30 m up to 5 m Potential evolution of Copernicus SAR C-band up to 50 km Sentinel 1 Minimum 5m resolution for C-band  3 10611N/A12N/AAnalysis of soil distribution and composition Water current monitoring Water pollution monitoring Water quality monitoring Wind direction & speed monitoring Geographical coverageHydrological changes monitoring Technical specifications Name of Sentinel matching technical specifications Match analysis of Sentinel spatial resolution Sentinels capabilities Wavelength Sensors Spatial resolution specification Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs   1 16,7%23,3%23,3%26,7%1O%25,0%25,0%25,0%20,0%5,0%25,9%18,5%22,2%11,1%xx22,2%27,8%22,2%16,7%11,1%x22,2% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

c.  Matching user requirements with Copernicus contributing missions 

189 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Mission Group Contributing Mission(s) of interest Contributing Mission(s) spatial resolution Grade Additional comments (complementing matching analysis)Grade Hourly 18,8%Hourly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  2 Daily 18,8%Daily Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Weekly 31,3%Weekly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Monthly and more 31,3%Monthly and more Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Hourly 18,8%Hourly Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  2 Daily 18,8%Daily Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Weekly 31,3%Weekly Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Monthly and more 31,3%Monthly and more Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Hourly 18,5%Hourly Archives  1 Daily 22,2%Daily Archives  1 Weekly 25,9%Weekly Archives  1 Monthly and more 33,3%Monthly and more Archives  1 Hourly 18,5%Hourly Archives  1 Daily 22,2%Daily Archives  1 Weekly 25,9%Weekly Archives  1 Monthly and more 33,3%Monthly and more Archives  1 Hourly 16,7%Hourly Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)No L-band available  2 Daily 20,8%Daily Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)No L-band available  3 Weekly 29,2%Weekly Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)No L-band available  3 Monthly and more 33,3%Monthly and more Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)No L-band available  3 Hourly 16,7%Hourly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  2 Daily 20,8%Daily Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Weekly 29,2%Weekly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Monthly and more 33,3%Monthly and more Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Frequency of monitoring Contributiong Mission(s) temporal resolution Match analysis of Contributing Mission(s) spatial resolution Match analysis of Contributing Mission(s) temporal resolution 25,0%41,7%33,3%26,9%34,6%38,5%30,4%30,4%39,1%25,0%30,0%45,0%User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by user  3 ENVISAT Up to 1km (open ocean)Up to 260m (coastal zones) Mission group 1 COSMO-SkyMed (X-band)TerraSAR-X (X-band)Kompsat-5 (X-band)Radarsat-2 (C-band)SMOS (L-band) Up to 0,25m in X-band from TerraSAR-XUp to 1m in C-band from Radarsat-215 km in L-band from SMOS  3 There is currently no high resolution L-band available, but the technical specification could be fully cover in X-band and C-bandMission group 2 WorldView 2, 3 & 4PleiadesDeimos 2Ikonos-2GeoEye 1DubaiSAT-2TH constellation Up to 1,24m in RGB from Worldview 3 & 4Up to 1,5 m in NIR from GeoEye 1  3 In case the user actually needs a 0.3 m Multi-Spectral (MS) (e.g. RGB and NIR) image, that is not currently provided by any satellite mission, pan-sharpening techniques could be apply to multi spectral bands to increase their spatial resolution to the one offered by the panchromatic band (0.3 m) (WorldView 3 & 4)Multispectral RGB, NIR0,5m up to 10m Multispectral from 270 nm up to 2385 nm up to 1 km SAR X-band, C-band, L-band 1 m up to 50 m Others ENVISAT Up to 1km (open ocean)Up to 260m (coastal zones)  3  3 Others SAR X-band, C-band 0.30 up to 10 m Multispectral from 270 nm up to 2385 nm up to 1 km Up to 0,25m in X-band from TerraSAR-XUp to 1m in C-band from Radarsat-2 COSMO-SkyMed (X-band)TerraSAR-X (X-band)Kompsat-5 (X-band)Radarsat-2 (C-band) Mission group 1 Multispectral RGB-NIR 0.30 up to 10 m Mission group 2 WorldView 2, 3 & 4PleiadesDeimos 2Ikonos-2GeoEye 1DubaiSAT-2 Up to 1,24m in RGB from Worldview 3 & 4Up to 1,5 m in NIR from GeoEye 1  3 In case the user actually needs a 0.3 m Multi-Spectral (MS) (e.g. RGB and NIR) image, that is not currently provided by any satellite mission, pan-sharpening techniques could be apply to multi spectral bands to increase their spatial resolution to the one offered by the panchromatic band (0.3 m) (WorldView 3 & 4)6151311Map regression Air pollution monitoring to prevent damages & blackening of buildings Atmospheric moisture measurement Coastal erosion monitoring Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Name of contributing missions matching technical specifications Contributing Missions capabilities Wavelength Sensors Spatial resolution specification Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs 12,5%18,8%18,8%31,3%18,8%23,1%28,2%20,5%10,3%22,9%25,7%20,0%11,4%17,9%20,0%20,0%25,7%25,7%20,0%8,6% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

190 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Mission Group Contributing Mission(s) of interest Contributing Mission(s) spatial resolution Grade Additional comments (complementing matching analysis)Grade Hourly N/AHourly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  2 Daily N/ADaily Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Weekly N/AWeekly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Hourly 12,0%Hourly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  2 Daily 24,0%Daily Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Weekly 24,0%Weekly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Monthly and more 40,0%Monthly and more Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Hourly N/AHourly Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  2 Daily N/ADaily Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Weekly N/AWeekly Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Hourly N/AHourly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  2 Daily N/ADaily Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Weekly N/AWeekly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Hourly 21,4%Hourly Archives  1 Daily 21,4%Daily Archives  1 Weekly 28,6%Weekly Archives  1 Monthly and more 28,6%Monthly and more Archives  1 Hourly 13,6%Hourly Daily 22,7%Daily Weekly 22,7%Weekly Monthly and more 40,9%Monthly and more Frequency of monitoring Contributiong Mission(s) temporal resolution Match analysis of Contributing Mission(s) spatial resolution Match analysis of Contributing Mission(s) temporal resolution N/AN/AN/A23,1%30,8%46,2%27,3%31,8%40,9%N/AN/AN/A36,8%26,3%36,8%User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by userUp to 1,24m in RGB from Worldview 3 & 4Up to 1,5 m in NIR from GeoEye 1Up to 3,7m in SWIR from WorldView3  3 In case the user actually needs a 0.3 m Multi-Spectral (MS) (e.g. RGB and NIR) image, that is not currently provided by any satellite mission, pan-sharpening techniques could be apply to multi spectral bands to increase their spatial resolution to the one offered by the panchromatic band (0.3 m) (WorldView 3 & 4)Multispectral VIS (0.5-0.9 µm)Water Vapour (WV) (5.7-7.1 µm)Thermal InfraRed (TIR) (10.5-12.5 µm) 5km up to 10km Mission group 1 Mission group 2 WorldView 2, 3 & 4PleiadesDeimos 2Ikonos-2GeoEye 1DubaiSAT-2TH constellation COSMO-SkyMed (X-band)TerraSAR-X (X-band)Kompsat-5 (X-band)Radarsat-2 (C-band)SMOS (L-band) Multispectral RGB, NIR, SWIR up to 10 m X-band, C-band, L-band up to 10 m Mission group 2 WorldView 2, 3 & 4PleiadesGeoEye 1 Up to 1,24m in RGB from Worldview 3 & 4Up to 1,5 m in NIR from GeoEye 1  3 SAR Up to 0,25m in X-band from TerraSAR-XUp to 1m in C-band from Radarsat-215 km in L-band from SMOS  3 Multispectral RGB, NIR, SWIR 0.30 m up to 2 m Multispectral RGB, NIR 0.30 m up to 2 m In case the user actually needs a 0.3 m Multi-Spectral (MS) (e.g. RGB and NIR) image, that is not currently provided by any satellite mission, pan-sharpening techniques could be apply to multi spectral bands to increase their spatial resolution to the one offered by the panchromatic band (0.3 m) (WorldView 3 & 4)Up to 1,24m in RGB from Worldview 3 & 4Up to 1,5 m in NIR from GeoEye 1Up to 3,7m in SWIR from WorldView3  3 Mission group 2 WorldView 2, 3 & 4PleiadesGeoEye 1 N/A711N/A11Evolution of vegetation typology monitoring Ice cover monitoring (sea) Vegetation levels monitoring Insolation monitoring Rainfall erosivity monitoring Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Name of contributing missions matching technical specifications Contributing Missions capabilities Wavelength Sensors Spatial resolution specification Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs Others ENVISAT Up to 1km (open ocean)Up to 260m (coastal zones)  3 xx15,6%25,0%28,1%9,4%24,0%28,0%20,0%16,0%12,0%22,6%29,0%22,6%19,4%6,5%21,9%xx 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

191 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Mission Group Contributing Mission(s) of interest Contributing Mission(s) spatial resolution Grade Additional comments (complementing matching analysis)Grade Hourly 18,2%Hourly 26 days for SMOS  1 Daily 22,7%Daily 26 days for SMOS  1 Weekly 18,2%Weekly 26 days for SMOS  1 Monthly and more 40,9%Monthly and more 26 days for SMOS  3 Hourly 17,4%Hourly Archives  1 Daily 17,4%Daily Archives  1 Weekly 21,7%Weekly Archives  1 Monthly and more 43,5%Monthly and more Archives  1 Hourly 12,0%Hourly Daily 20,0%Daily Weekly 24,0%Weekly Monthly and more 44,0%Monthly and more Hourly 16,7%Hourly 1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  1 Daily 16,7%Daily 1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Weekly 22,2%Weekly 1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Monthly and more 44,4%Monthly and more 1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Hourly 17,4%Hourly Archives  1 Daily 26,1%Daily Archives  1 Weekly 26,1%Weekly Archives  1 Monthly and more 30,4%Monthly and more Archives  1 Hourly N/AHourly Archives  1 Daily N/ADaily Archives  1 Weekly N/AWeekly Archives  1 Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more Archives  1 Frequency of monitoring Contributiong Mission(s) temporal resolution Match analysis of Contributing Mission(s) spatial resolution Match analysis of Contributing Mission(s) temporal resolution 31,3%31,3%37,5%30,0%35,0%35,0%N/AN/AN/A30,0%30,0%40,0%30,0%35,0%35,0%25,0%30,0%45,0%User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by user  1 ENVISAT Up to 1km (open ocean)Up to 260m (coastal zones) Multispectral RGB, NIR, SWIR 0.30 m up to 10 m There is currently no high resolution satellite data to respond to this user needThere is currently no high resolution satellite data to respond to this user needOthers Radarsat-2 (C-band) Up to 1m in C-band from Radarsat-2  3 Multispectral RGB, NIR, SWIR 0.30 m up to 10 m Others ENVISAT Up to 1km (open ocean)Up to 260m (coastal zones)   1 Hyperspectral ~350 nm up to ~ 2580 0.30 m up to 5 m No hyperspectral capacity available SAR C-band up to 50 km Mission group 1 Mission group 1 SMOS 15Km   1 Multispectral RGB, NIR, SWIR 10 m up to 1 km SAR --> Microwave Radiometer L-band 1 km up to 10 km 9810611N/ASea salinity levels measurement Sediment levels measurement Analysis of soil distribution and composition Water current monitoring Water pollution monitoring Water quality monitoring Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Name of contributing missions matching technical specifications Contributing Missions capabilities Wavelength Sensors Spatial resolution specification Others ENVISAT Up to 1km (open ocean)Up to 260m (coastal zones) Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs  2 There is currently no high resolution satellite data to respond to this user need23,3%26,7%20,0%20,0%10,0%20,8%25,0%20,8%20,8%12,5%16,7%23,3%23,3%26,7%1O%25,0%25,0%25,0%20,0%5,0%25,9%18,5%22,2%11,1%xx22,2% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

6.  High level user need 6 - Monitoring of the evolution of the natural environment of the NH site 

a.  Matching user requirements with Copernicus core services products 

192 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Mission Group Contributing Mission(s) of interest Contributing Mission(s) spatial resolution Grade Additional comments (complementing matching analysis)Grade Hourly 20,0%Hourly 1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  1 Daily 16,0%Daily 1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Weekly 24,0%Weekly 1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Monthly and more 40,0%Monthly and more 1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Hourly N/AHourly Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  2 Daily N/ADaily Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Weekly N/AWeekly Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Frequency of monitoring Contributiong Mission(s) temporal resolution Match analysis of Contributing Mission(s) spatial resolution Match analysis of Contributing Mission(s) temporal resolution 29,2%37,5%33,3%N/AN/AN/AUser requirements Spatial resolution expressed by userMission group 1 Radarsat-2 (C-band)ERS (Ku-Band) Up to 1m in C-band from Radarsat-2Up to 25m in Ku-Band for ERS  3 SAR X-band, C-band 1 m to 25 m Mission group 1 COSMO-SkyMed (X-band)TerraSAR-X (X-band)Kompsat-5 (X-band)Radarsat-2 (C-band) Up to 0,25m in X-band from TerraSAR-XUp to 1m in C-band from Radarsat-2  3 SAR  C-band, Ku-band 1 km up to 25 km 12N/AWind direction & speed monitoring Geographical coverageHydrological changes monitoring Technical specifications Name of contributing missions matching technical specifications Contributing Missions capabilities Wavelength Sensors Spatial resolution specification Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs 22,2%27,8%22,2%16,7%11,1%x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

193 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Current product spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly Every 3 years #Daily Every 3 years #Weekly Every 3 years #Monthly and more Every 3 years #Hourly Every 3 years #Daily Every 3 years #Weekly Every 3 years #Monthly and more Every 3 years #Hourly 23,8%Hourly daily  #Daily 19,0%Daily daily  #Weekly 23,8%Weekly daily  #Monthly and more 33,3%Monthly and more daily  #Hourly 19,0%Hourly #Daily 23,8%Daily #Weekly 23,8%Weekly #Monthly and more 33,3%Monthly and more #Hourly #Daily #Weekly #Monthly and more #Hourly #Daily #Weekly #Monthly and more #20,0%23,3%20,0%23,3%13,3%20,0%24,0%20,0%20,0%16,0%21,9%25,0%18,8%21,9%12,5%12,5%21,9%21,9%28,1%15,6%SAR X-band, C-band, L-band 1 m up to 50 m Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs Spatial resolution specification #Name of products matching user requirement Match analysis of Copernicus product spatial resolution Copernicus core services products Wavelength Sensors Geographical coverage7Technical specifications Map regression Air pollution monitoring to prevent damages on NH sites Atmospheric moisture measurement Coastal erosion monitoring 101111CLMS, Imagerey & Refence Data,  European Images Mosaic, Very High Resolution 0.30 up to 10 m 0.30 up to 10 m ##RGB-NIR  Mulispectral SAR X-band, C-band Up to 2,5m Multispectral #No product from 270 nm up to 2385 nm up to 1 km Multispectral from 270 nm up to 2385 nm up to 1 km CAMS, Global forecast of aerosolCAMS, European-Scale air quality analysis 80 km/ 10-20 km #Multispectral RGB, NIR1 m up to 50 m #User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by user22,2%33,3%44,4%27,8%33,3%38,9%20,0%26,7%53,3%28,6%35,7%35,7%Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Copernicus product temporal resolution Current product timeliness 11,1%Hourly Daily 11,1%33,3%Weekly Monthly and more 44,4%Hourly 23,5%17,6%Daily Weekly 17,6%41,2%Monthly and more  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

194 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Current product spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly 10,5%Hourly Natura2000, : once every 6 yearsMosaic, Forest, Grassland: once every 3 years  #Daily 15,8%Daily Natura2000, : once every 6 yearsMosaic, Forest, Grassland: once every 3 years  #Weekly 26,3%Weekly Natura2000, : once every 6 yearsMosaic, Forest, Grassland: once every 3 years  #Monthly and more 47,4%Monthly and more Natura2000, : once every 6 yearsMosaic, Forest, Grassland: once every 3 years  #Hourly 17,6%Hourly Natura2000: every 6 yearsMosaic, Forest: every 3 years  #Daily 17,6%Daily Natura2000: every 6 yearsMosaic, Forest: every 3 years  #Weekly 23,5%Weekly Natura2000: every 6 yearsMosaic, Forest: every 3 years  #Monthly and more 41,2%Monthly and more Natura2000: every 6 yearsMosaic, Forest: every 3 years  #Hourly 9,5%Hourly Natura2000, : once every 6 yearsMosaic, Forest, Grassland: once every 3 years  NDVI: 3 times per month #Daily 19,0%Daily Natura2000, : once every 6 yearsMosaic, Forest, Grassland: once every 3 years  NDVI: 3 times per month #Weekly 28,6%Weekly Natura2000, : once every 6 yearsMosaic, Forest, Grassland: once every 3 years  NDVI: 3 times per month #Monthly and more 42,9%Monthly and more Natura2000, : once every 6 yearsMosaic, Forest, Grassland: once every 3 years  NDVI: 3 times per month #Hourly Hourly #Daily daily  #Weekly Weekly #Monthly and more monthly  #Hourly Hourly #Daily daily  #Weekly Weekly #Monthly and more monthly  #15,4%26,9%23,1%26,9%7,7%15,4%23,1%30,8%23,1%7,7%16,7%29,2%25,0%20,8%8,3%11,1%27,8%22,2%22,2%16,7%Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs Spatial resolution specification Name of products matching user requirement Match analysis of Copernicus product spatial resolution Copernicus core services products Wavelength Sensors Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Evolution of vegetation typology monitoring Forest coverage monitoring Vegetation levels monitoring Ice cover monitoring (sea) 61048Multispectral  RGB, NIR, SWIR 0.30 m up to 2 m CLMS, Local, Natura 2000CLMS, Imagerey & Refence Data,  European Images Mosaic, Very High ResolutionCLMS, Pan-European, High Resolution Layers, ForestCLMS, Pan-European, High Resolution Layers, Grassland Natura2000: 10 mMosaic: Up to 2,5mForest: 20mGrassland: 20m ##Natura2000: 10 mForest: 20mMosaic: Up to 2,5m CLMS, Local, Natura 2000CLMS, Pan-European, High Resolution Layers, ForestCLMS, Imagerey & Refence Data,  European Images Mosaic, Very High Resolution Multispectral RGB, NIR, SWIR up to 20 m Multispectral RGB, NIR, SWIR 0.30 m up to 2 m CLMS, Local, Natura 2000CLMS, Imagerey & Refence Data,  European Images Mosaic, Very High ResolutionCLMS, Pan-European, High Resolution Layers, ForestCLMS, Pan-European, High Resolution Layers, GrasslandCLMS, Global, NDVI Natura2000: 10 mMosaic: up to 2,5 mForest: 20mGrassland: 20mNDVI: 300m ##CMEMS Sea Ice: Up to 1kmC3S Sea Ice:Thickness: 1-10kmConcentration: 40 -50 kmEdge: 15kmType: 40 - 70 km CMEMS, Regional & Global Sea analysis, Sea IceC3S, Sea Ice (thickness, edge, concentration, type) Multispectral RGB, NIR, SWIR up to 10 m SAR X-band, C-band, L-band up to 10 m CMEMS, Regional & Global Sea analysis, Sea IceC3S, Sea Ice (thickness, edge, concentration, type) CMEMS Sea Ice: Up to 1kmC3S Sea Ice:Thickness: 1-10kmConcentration: 40 -50 kmEdge: 15kmType: 40 - 70 km #User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by user26,7%26,6%46,7%25,0%33,3%41,7%47,1%29,4%23,5%40,0%30,0%30,0%Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Copernicus product temporal resolution Current product timeliness 35,7%Monthly and more Weekly 21,4%28,6%Daily Hourly 14,3% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

195 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Current product spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly #Daily #Weekly #Monthly and more #Hourly #Daily #Weekly #Monthly and more #Hourly 0,0%Hourly Daily 20,0%Daily #Weekly 0,0%Weekly Monthly and more 80,0%Monthly and more #Hourly 5,6%Hourly 3 times a month #Daily 16,7%Daily 3 times a month #Weekly 27,8%Weekly 3 times a month #Monthly and more 50,0%Monthly and more 3 times a month #Hourly 15,0%Hourly #Daily 20,0%Daily #Weekly 15,0%Weekly #Monthly and more 50,0%Monthly and more #Hourly 17,6%Hourly Hourly #Daily 23,5%Daily daily  #Weekly 17,6%Weekly Weekly #Monthly and more 41,2%Monthly and more monthly  #Hourly 12,5%Hourly Daily  #Daily 18,8%Daily Daily  #Weekly 25,0%Weekly Weekly #Monthly and more 43,8%Monthly and more monthly  ###16,1%25,8%22,6%25,8%9,7%23,3%26,7%20,0%20,0%10,0%23,8%28,6%23,8%19,0%4,8%14,3%28,6%21,4%28,6%7,1%27,3%36,4%18,2%9,1%9,1%19,0%23,8%23,8%23,8%9,5%1km #Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs 75Spatial resolution specification Name of products matching user requirement Match analysis of Copernicus product spatial resolution Copernicus core services products Wavelength Sensors Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Lithology Rock assay analysis Normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) Rainfall erosivity monitoring Sea salinity levels measurement Sediment levels measurement 65129No product No product In-situ data #Hyperspectral No product #No product 0.30 m up to 5 m Hyperspectral ~350 nm up to ~ 2580 Multispectral RED, NIR up to 20 m CLMS, Global, NDVI 300m #CMEMS, Ocean Colour Thematic Center (OC TAC), CHL & OPTICS Multispectral RGB, NIR, SWIR 10 m up to 1 km SAR --> Microwave Radiometer L-band 1 km up to 10 km CMEMS, Regional & Global Sea analysis, Salinity 2 - 28 km #User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by user30,8%30,8%38,5%28,6%28,6%42,8%16,7%27,8%55,6%26,3%31,6%42,1%28,5%28,6%42,9%27,3%27,3%45,4%Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Copernicus product temporal resolution Current product timeliness 12,5%Hourly Daily 18,8%25,0%Weekly Monthly and more 43,8% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

196 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Current product spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly 11,8%Hourly #Daily 17,6%Daily #Weekly 17,6%Weekly #Monthly and more 52,9%Monthly and more #Hourly 16,7%Hourly Hourly #Daily 16,7%Daily daily  #Weekly 25,0%Weekly Weekly #Monthly and more 41,7%Monthly and more monthly  #Hourly 20,0%Hourly #Daily 20,0%Daily daily  #Weekly 25,0%Weekly Weekly #Monthly and more 35,0%Monthly and more monthly  #Hourly 15,4%Hourly 3 days #Daily 23,1%Daily 3 days (Lake Water) and daily (Water Quality indicators) #Weekly 23,1%Weekly 3 days (Lake Water #Monthly and more 38,5%Monthly and more 3 days (Lake Water) and monthly (Water Quality indicators) #Hourly 16,7%Hourly Hourly #Daily 25,0%Daily daily  #Weekly 16,7%Weekly Weekly #Monthly and more 41,7%Monthly and more monthly  #Hourly N/AHourly daily  #Daily N/ADaily daily  #Weekly N/AWeekly Weekly #Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more daily  ##25,0%27,8%22,2%16,7%8,3%x22,2%33,3%22,2%16,7%5,6%11,8%17,6%29,4%23,5%17,6%20,7%24,1%17,2%24,1%13,8%16,7%25,0%25,0%25,0%8,3%Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs Spatial resolution specification Name of products matching user requirement Match analysis of Copernicus product spatial resolution Copernicus core services products Wavelength Sensors Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Water current monitoring Water pollution monitoring Water quality monitoring Water level monitoring Hydrological changes monitoring Analysis of soil distribution and composition 6610316N/AHyperspectral ~350 nm up to ~ 2580 0.30 m up to 5 m No product #4-20 km CMEMS, Regional & Global Sea analysis, Current Velocity SAR C-band up to 50 km #Lake Water Quality products: 300mWater quality indicators: models are using different type of data & resolutions CLMS, Lake Water Quality productsC3S, Water quality indicators (nitrogen concentration, nitrogen loads, phosphorous concentrations, phosphorous loads, water temperature.) 0.30 m up to 10 m Multispectral RGB, NIR, SWIR Multispectral RGB, NIR, SWIR 0.30 m up to 10 m C3S, Water quality indicators (nitrogen concentration, nitrogen loads, phosphorous concentrations, phosphorous loads, water temperature.) Water quality indicators: models are using different type of data & resolutions #SAR Ka band, Ku band, C band up to 25 km CMEMS, Regional & Global Sea analysis, Sea Surface HeightC3S, Sea level CMEMS, Sea surface height: 2 - 28 kmC3S, Sea level: 10 km ##EMS, Global Flood Awareness System: 32 kmCLMS, Pan-European, High Resolution Layers, Water & Wetness : 20 - 100mWater quantity indicators: models are using different type of data & resolutions EMS,  Global Flood Awareness systemCLMS, Pan-European, High Resolution Layers, Water & Wetness C3S, Water quantity indicators (water runnoff, wetness, river flow, snow water equivalent, soil water content, etc.) 1 m to 25 m X-band, C-band SAR User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by user40,0%33,3%26,7%30,0%30,0%40,0%23,5%35,3%41,2%33,3%33,3%3330,0%40,0%32,0%28,0%N/AN/AN/AFrequency of monitoring Match analysis of Copernicus product temporal resolution Current product timeliness  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

b.  Matching user requirements with Sentinels capabilities 

197 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Current product spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly 19,0%Hourly Hourly #Daily 23,8%Daily daily  #Weekly 23,8%Weekly Weekly #Monthly and more 33,3%Monthly and more monthly  #Hourly 11,1%Hourly #Daily 22,2%Daily #Weekly 22,2%Weekly #Monthly and more 44,4%Monthly and more ##19,4%22,6%22,6%22,6%12,9%11,1%33,3%22,2%22,2%11,1%Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs Spatial resolution specification Name of products matching user requirement Match analysis of Copernicus product spatial resolution Copernicus core services products Wavelength Sensors Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Sea surface temperature monitoring Wildlife tracking 123No product Thermal  TIR up to 30 m CMEMS, Regional & Global Sea analysis, TemperatureC3S, Sea Surface Temperature CMEMS, Sea analysis Temperature: 1 kmC3S, Sea Surface Temperature:  4km #User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by user27,8%33,3%38,9%28,6%28,5%42,9%Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Copernicus product temporal resolution Current product timeliness Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Sentinel spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly 11,1%Hourly 5 days  1 Daily 11,1%Daily 5 days  1 Weekly 33,3%Weekly 5 days  3 Monthly and more 44,4%Monthly and more 5 days  3 Hourly 11,1%Hourly 6 days  1 Daily 11,1%Daily 6 days  1 Weekly 33,3%Weekly 6 days  3 Monthly and more 44,4%Monthly and more 6 days  3 Hourly 23,8%Hourly Daily  1 Daily 19,0%Daily Daily  3 Weekly 23,8%Weekly Daily  3 Monthly and more 33,3%Monthly and more Daily  3 Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Sentinel temporal resolution Sentinel temporal resolution 22,2%33,3%44,4%20,0%26,7%53,3%User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by userMultispectral from 270 nm up to 2385 nm up to 1 km Sentinel 5P Spatial resolution 7km  2 0.30 up to 10 m  2 RGB-NIR  Mulispectral SAR X-band, C-band  2 Minimum 10 m resolution for RGB & NIR Minimum 5m resolution for C-band, but X-band is not available Sentinel 1 Sentinel 2 0.30 up to 10 m 1011Map regression Air pollution monitoring to prevent damages on NH sites Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Name of Sentinel matching technical specifications Match analysis of Sentinel spatial resolution Sentinels capabilities Wavelength Sensors Spatial resolution specification Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs 21,9%25,0%18,8%21,9%12,5%12,5%21,9%21,9%28,1%15,6% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

198 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Sentinel spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly 19,0%Hourly 2 days  1 Daily 23,8%Daily 2 days  1 Weekly 23,8%Weekly 2 days  3 Monthly and more 33,3%Monthly and more 2 days  3 Hourly 23,5%Hourly 6 days  1 Daily 17,6%Daily 6 days  1 Weekly 17,6%Weekly 6 days  3 Monthly and more 41,2%Monthly and more 6 days  3 Hourly 23,5%Hourly 5 days  1 Daily 17,6%Daily 5 days  1 Weekly 17,6%Weekly 5 days  3 Monthly and more 41,2%Monthly and more 5 days  3 Hourly 10,5%Hourly 5 days  1 Daily 15,8%Daily 5 days  1 Weekly 26,3%Weekly 5 days  3 Monthly and more 47,4%Monthly and more 5 days  3 Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Sentinel temporal resolution Sentinel temporal resolution 28,6%35,7%35,7%27,8%33,3%38,9%26,7%26,6%46,7%User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by userMultispectral RGB, NIR1 m up to 50 m Multispectral  RGB, NIR, SWIR 0.30 m up to 2 m Sentinel 2 Minimum 10 m resolution for RGB & NIR  2 Multispectral Sentinel 2 Minimum 10 m resolution for RGB & NIRMinimum 20m resolution for SWIR   1 Sentinel 3 Sentinel 3 (OLCI): 300m to 1,2km  2 from 270 nm up to 2385 nm up to 1 km 118Sentinel 1 Atmospheric moisture measurement Evolution of vegetation typology monitoring Coastal erosion monitoring Geographical coverage7Technical specifications Name of Sentinel matching technical specifications Match analysis of Sentinel spatial resolution Sentinels capabilities Wavelength Sensors Spatial resolution specification Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs Minimum 5m resolution for C-band, but X-band and L-band are not available  2 SAR X-band, C-band, L-band 1 m up to 50 m 20,0%23,3%20,0%23,3%13,3%16,7%29,2%25,0%20,8%8,3%20,0%24,0%20,0%20,0%16,0% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

199 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Sentinel spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly 17,6%Hourly 5 days  1 Daily 17,6%Daily 5 days  1 Weekly 23,5%Weekly 5 days  3 Monthly and more 41,2%Monthly and more 5 days  3 Hourly 9,5%Hourly 5 days  1 Daily 19,0%Daily 5 days  1 Weekly 28,6%Weekly 5 days  3 Monthly and more 42,9%Monthly and more 5 days  3 Hourly 14,3%Hourly 5 days  1 Daily 28,6%Daily 5 days  1 Weekly 21,4%Weekly 5 days  3 Monthly and more 35,7%Monthly and more 5 days  3 Hourly 14,3%Hourly 6 days  1 Daily 28,6%Daily 6 days  1 Weekly 21,4%Weekly 6 days  3 Monthly and more 35,7%Monthly and more 6 days  3 Hourly 12,5%Hourly Daily 18,8%Daily Weekly 25,0%Weekly Monthly and more 43,8%Monthly and more Hourly 12,5%Hourly Daily 18,8%Daily Weekly 25,0%Weekly Monthly and more 43,8%Monthly and more Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Sentinel temporal resolution Sentinel temporal resolution 47,1%29,4%23,5%40,0%30,0%30,0%30,8%30,8%38,5%25,0%33,3%41,7%User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by userPotential evolution of Copernicus N/A In-situ data Hyperspectral Sentinel 1 Minimum 5m resolution for C-band, but X-band and L-band are not available  2 Multispectral RGB, NIR, SWIR up to 10 m SAR X-band, C-band, L-band up to 10 m  3 Minimum 10 m resolution for RGB & NIRMinimum 20m resolution for SWIR Sentinel 2 Multispectral RGB, NIR, SWIR up to 20 m Multispectral RGB, NIR, SWIR 0.30 m up to 2 m Minimum 10 m resolution for RGB & NIRMinimum 20m resolution for SWIR  3 Sentinel 2 Sentinel 2 Minimum 10 m resolution for RGB & NIRMinimum 20m resolution for SWIR   1 61046Forest coverage monitoring Vegetation levels monitoring Ice cover monitoring (sea) Lithology Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Name of Sentinel matching technical specifications Match analysis of Sentinel spatial resolution Sentinels capabilities Wavelength Sensors Spatial resolution specification Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs 11,1%27,8%22,2%22,2%16,7%15,4%26,9%23,1%26,9%7,7%19,0%23,8%23,8%23,8%9,5%15,4%23,1%30,8%23,1%7,7% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

200 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Sentinel spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly 0,0%Hourly  1 Daily 20,0%Daily N/A  1 Weekly 0,0%Weekly  1 Monthly and more 80,0%Monthly and more N/A  1 Hourly 5,6%Hourly 5 days  1 Daily 16,7%Daily 5 days  1 Weekly 27,8%Weekly 5 days  3 Monthly and more 50,0%Monthly and more 5 days  3 Hourly 15,0%Hourly Daily 20,0%Daily Weekly 15,0%Weekly Monthly and more 50,0%Monthly and more Hourly 17,6%Hourly Daily 23,5%Daily Weekly 17,6%Weekly Monthly and more 41,2%Monthly and more Hourly 12,5%Hourly 2 days  1 Daily 18,8%Daily 2 days  1 Weekly 25,0%Weekly 2 days  3 Monthly and more 43,8%Monthly and more 2 days  3 Hourly 11,8%Hourly Daily 17,6%Daily Weekly 17,6%Weekly Monthly and more 52,9%Monthly and more Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Sentinel temporal resolution Sentinel temporal resolution 28,5%28,6%42,9%27,3%27,3%45,4%40,0%33,3%26,7%28,6%28,6%42,8%16,7%27,8%55,6%26,3%31,6%42,1%User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by userHyperspectral ~350 nm up to ~ 2580 0.30 m up to 5 m Potential evolution of Copernicus Sentinel 3 Microwave Radiomater (20 km)   1 Multispectral RGB, NIR, SWIR 10 m up to 1 km SAR --> Microwave Radiometer L-band 1 km up to 10 km Sentinel 2 Minimum 10 m resolution for RGB & NIR  3 0.30 m up to 5 m Hyperspectral ~350 nm up to ~ 2580 Multispectral RED, NIR up to 20 m   1 N/A Potential evolution of Copernicus 9756512Rock assay analysis Normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) Rainfall erosivity monitoring Sea salinity levels measurement Sediment levels measurement Analysis of soil distribution and composition Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Name of Sentinel matching technical specifications Match analysis of Sentinel spatial resolution Sentinels capabilities Wavelength Sensors Spatial resolution specification Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs Sentinel-3 300m up to 1,2km (OLCI)  2 27,3%36,4%18,2%9,1%9,1%16,1%25,8%22,6%25,8%9,7%23,3%26,7%20,0%20,0%10,0%23,8%28,6%23,8%19,0%4,8%14,3%28,6%21,4%28,6%7,1%22,2%33,3%22,2%16,7%5,6% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

201 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Sentinel spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly 16,7%Hourly 6 days  1 Daily 16,7%Daily 6 days  1 Weekly 25,0%Weekly 6 days  3 Monthly and more 41,7%Monthly and more 6 days  3 Hourly 20,0%Hourly 5 days  1 Daily 20,0%Daily 5 days  1 Weekly 25,0%Weekly 5 days  3 Monthly and more 35,0%Monthly and more 5 days  3 Hourly 15,4%Hourly 5 days  1 Daily 23,1%Daily 5 days  1 Weekly 23,1%Weekly 5 days  3 Monthly and more 38,5%Monthly and more 5 days  3 Hourly 16,7%Hourly 2 days  1 Daily 25,0%Daily 2 days  2 Weekly 16,7%Weekly 2 days  3 Monthly and more 41,7%Monthly and more 2 days  3 Hourly N/AHourly 6 days  1 Daily N/ADaily 6 days  1 Weekly N/AWeekly 6 days  3 Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more 6 days  3 Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Sentinel temporal resolution Sentinel temporal resolution 40,0%32,0%28,0%N/AN/AN/A30,0%30,0%40,0%23,5%35,3%41,2%33,3%33,3%3330,0%User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by user1 m to 25 m X-band, C-band SAR Sentinel 1 Minimum 5m resolution for C-band, but X-band is not available  2 SAR Ka band, Ku band, C band up to 25 km Sentinel 3 Minimum 300m resolution for C-bandMinimum 300m for Ku-band (after SAR processing)No Ka-band available  3 Minimum 10 m resolution for RGB & NIRMinimum 20m resolution for SWIR  2 Sentinel 2 0.30 m up to 10 m Multispectral RGB, NIR, SWIR Multispectral RGB, NIR, SWIR 0.30 m up to 10 m Sentinel 2 Minimum 10 m resolution for RGB & NIRMinimum 20m resolution for SWIR  2  3 Minimum 5m resolution for C-band Sentinel 1 SAR C-band up to 50 km 610316N/AWater current monitoring Water pollution monitoring Water quality monitoring Water level monitoring Hydrological changes monitoring Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Name of Sentinel matching technical specifications Match analysis of Sentinel spatial resolution Sentinels capabilities Wavelength Sensors Spatial resolution specification Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs 11,8%17,6%29,4%23,5%17,6%20,7%24,1%17,2%24,1%13,8%16,7%25,0%25,0%25,0%8,3%25,0%27,8%22,2%16,7%8,3%x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

c.  Matching user requirements with Copernicus contributing missions  

202 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Sentinel spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly 19,0%Hourly 2 days  1 Daily 23,8%Daily 2 days  2 Weekly 23,8%Weekly 2 days  3 Monthly and more 33,3%Monthly and more 2 days  3 Hourly 11,1%Hourly Daily 22,2%Daily Weekly 22,2%Weekly Monthly and more 44,4%Monthly and more Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Sentinel temporal resolution Sentinel temporal resolution 27,8%33,3%38,9%28,6%28,5%42,9%User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by userSentinel 3 Minimum 1km (SLSTR)  2 Thermal  TIR up to 30 m 123Sea surface temperature monitoring Wildlife tracking Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Name of Sentinel matching technical specifications Match analysis of Sentinel spatial resolution Sentinels capabilities Wavelength Sensors Spatial resolution specification Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs 19,4%22,6%22,6%22,6%12,9%11,1%33,3%22,2%22,2%11,1%Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Mission Group Contributing Mission(s) of interest Contributing Mission(s) spatial resolution Grade Additional comments (complementing matching analysis)Grade Hourly 11,1%Hourly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  2 Daily 11,1%Daily Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Weekly 33,3%Weekly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Monthly and more 44,4%Monthly and more Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Hourly 11,1%Hourly Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  2 Daily 11,1%Daily Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Weekly 33,3%Weekly Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Monthly and more 44,4%Monthly and more Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Hourly 23,8%Hourly Archives  1 Daily 19,0%Daily Archives  1 Weekly 23,8%Weekly Archives  1 Monthly and more 33,3%Monthly and more Archives  1 Frequency of monitoring Contributiong Mission(s) temporal resolution Match analysis of Contributing Mission(s) spatial resolution Match analysis of Contributing Mission(s) temporal resolution 22,2%33,3%44,4%20,0%26,7%53,3%User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by userENVISAT Others Multispectral from 270 nm up to 2385 nm up to 1 km 0.30 up to 10 m RGB-NIR  Mulispectral SAR X-band, C-band Mission group 2 WorldView 2, 3 & 4PleiadesDeimos 2Ikonos-2GeoEye 1DubaiSAT-2TH constellation Mission group 1 In case the user actually needs a 0.3 m Multi-Spectral (MS) (e.g. RGB and NIR) image, that is not currently provided by any satellite mission, pan-sharpening techniques could be apply to multi spectral bands to increase their spatial resolution to the one offered by the panchromatic band (0.3 m) (WorldView 3 & 4)Up to 0,25m in X-band from TerraSAR-XUp to 1m in C-band from Radarsat-2  3 COSMO-SkyMed (X-band)TerraSAR-X (X-band)Kompsat-5 (X-band)Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Up to 1,24m in RGB from Worldview 3 & 4Up to 1,5 m in NIR from GeoEye 1 0.30 up to 10 m 1011Map regression Air pollution monitoring to prevent damages on NH sites Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Name of contributing missions matching technical specifications Contributing Missions capabilities Wavelength Sensors Spatial resolution specification Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs 21,9%25,0%18,8%21,9%12,5%12,5%21,9%21,9%28,1%15,6% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

203 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Mission Group Contributing Mission(s) of interest Contributing Mission(s) spatial resolution Grade Additional comments (complementing matching analysis)Grade Hourly 19,0%Hourly Archives  1 Daily 23,8%Daily Archives  1 Weekly 23,8%Weekly Archives  1 Monthly and more 33,3%Monthly and more Archives  1 Hourly 23,5%Hourly Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)No L-band available  2 Daily 17,6%Daily Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)No L-band available  3 Weekly 17,6%Weekly Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)No L-band available  3 Monthly and more 41,2%Monthly and more Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)No L-band available  3 Hourly 23,5%Hourly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  2 Daily 17,6%Daily Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Weekly 17,6%Weekly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Monthly and more 41,2%Monthly and more Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Hourly 10,5%Hourly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  2 Daily 15,8%Daily Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Weekly 26,3%Weekly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Monthly and more 47,4%Monthly and more Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Hourly 17,6%Hourly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  2 Daily 17,6%Daily Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Weekly 23,5%Weekly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Monthly and more 41,2%Monthly and more Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Frequency of monitoring Contributiong Mission(s) temporal resolution Match analysis of Contributing Mission(s) spatial resolution Match analysis of Contributing Mission(s) temporal resolution 28,6%35,7%35,7%27,8%33,3%38,9%26,7%26,6%46,7%25,0%33,3%41,7%User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by userWorldView 2, 3 & 4PleiadesDeimos 2Ikonos-2GeoEye 1DubaiSAT-2TH constellation Up to 1,24m in RGB from Worldview 3 & 4Up to 1,5 m in NIR from GeoEye 1Up to 3,7m in SWIR from WorldView3  3 Multispectral RGB, NIR, SWIR up to 20 m Mission group 2 Multispectral RGB, NIR1 m up to 50 m Multispectral  RGB, NIR, SWIR 0.30 m up to 2 m Up to 1,24m in RGB from Worldview 3 & 4Up to 1,5 m in NIR from GeoEye 1  3 WorldView 2, 3 & 4PleiadesDeimos 2Ikonos-2GeoEye 1DubaiSAT-2TH constellation Mission group 2 In case the user actually needs a 0.3 m Multi-Spectral (MS) (e.g. RGB and NIR) image, that is not currently provided by any satellite mission, pan-sharpening techniques could be apply to multi spectral bands to increase their spatial resolution to the one offered by the panchromatic band (0.3 m) (WorldView 3 & 4)Up to 1,24m in RGB from Worldview 3 & 4Up to 1,5 m in NIR from GeoEye 1Up to 3,7m in SWIR from WorldView3  3 Multispectral ENVISAT Up to 1km (open ocean)Up to 260m (coastal zones) Mission group 2 WorldView 2, 3 & 4PleiadesDeimos 2Ikonos-2GeoEye 1DubaiSAT-2TH constellation  3 There is currently no high resolution satellite data to respond to this user needOthers from 270 nm up to 2385 nm up to 1 km 1186Atmospheric moisture measurement Evolution of vegetation typology monitoring Forest coverage monitoring Coastal erosion monitoring Geographical coverage7Technical specifications Name of contributing missions matching technical specifications Contributing Missions capabilities Wavelength Sensors Spatial resolution specification Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs Mission group 1 COSMO-SkyMed (X-band)TerraSAR-X (X-band)Kompsat-5 (X-band)Radarsat-2 (C-band)SMOS (L-band) Up to 0,25m in X-band from TerraSAR-XUp to 1m in C-band from Radarsat-2Up to 15 km for L-band  3 SAR X-band, C-band, L-band 1 m up to 50 m There is currently no high resolution L-band available, but the technical specification could be fully cover in X-band and C-band20,0%23,3%20,0%23,3%13,3%16,7%29,2%25,0%20,8%8,3%11,1%27,8%22,2%22,2%16,7%20,0%24,0%20,0%20,0%16,0% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

204 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Mission Group Contributing Mission(s) of interest Contributing Mission(s) spatial resolution Grade Additional comments (complementing matching analysis)Grade Hourly 9,5%Hourly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  2 Daily 19,0%Daily Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Weekly 28,6%Weekly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Monthly and more 42,9%Monthly and more Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Hourly 14,3%Hourly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  2 Daily 28,6%Daily Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Weekly 21,4%Weekly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Monthly and more 35,7%Monthly and more Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Hourly 14,3%Hourly Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)No L-band available  2 Daily 28,6%Daily Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)No L-band available  3 Weekly 21,4%Weekly Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)No L-band available  3 Monthly and more 35,7%Monthly and more Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)No L-band available  3 Hourly 12,5%Hourly Daily 18,8%Daily Weekly 25,0%Weekly Monthly and more 43,8%Monthly and more Hourly 12,5%Hourly Daily 18,8%Daily Weekly 25,0%Weekly Monthly and more 43,8%Monthly and more Hourly 0,0%Hourly Daily 20,0%Daily N/A Weekly 0,0%Weekly Monthly and more 80,0%Monthly and more N/A Hourly 5,6%Hourly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  2 Daily 16,7%Daily Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Weekly 27,8%Weekly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Monthly and more 50,0%Monthly and more Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Frequency of monitoring Contributiong Mission(s) temporal resolution Match analysis of Contributing Mission(s) spatial resolution Match analysis of Contributing Mission(s) temporal resolution 47,1%29,4%23,5%40,0%30,0%30,0%30,8%30,8%38,5%28,6%28,6%42,8%16,7%27,8%55,6%User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by userMission group 2 WorldView 2, 3 & 4PleiadesDeimos 2Ikonos-2GeoEye 1DubaiSAT-2TH constellation Up to 1,24m in RGB from Worldview 3 & 4Up to 1,5 m in NIR from GeoEye 1  3 0.30 m up to 5 m Hyperspectral ~350 nm up to ~ 2580 Multispectral RED, NIR up to 20 m No hyperspectral capacity(possible future contributing missions) N/A No hyperspectral capacity(possible future contributing missions) In-situ data Hyperspectral Mission group 1Others COSMO-SkyMed (X-band)TerraSAR-X (X-band)Kompsat-5 (X-band)Radarsat-2 (C-band)SMOS (L-band) Up to 0,25m in X-band from TerraSAR-XUp to 1m in C-band from Radarsat-2Up to 15 km for L-band  3 There is currently no high resolution L-band available, but the technical specification could be fully cover in X-band and C-bandMultispectral RGB, NIR, SWIR up to 10 m SAR X-band, C-band, L-band up to 10 m Mission group 2 WorldView 2, 3 & 4PleiadesDeimos 2Ikonos-2GeoEye 1DubaiSAT-2TH constellation Up to 1,24m in RGB from Worldview 3 & 4Up to 1,5 m in NIR from GeoEye 1Up to 3,7m in SWIR from WorldView3  3 Multispectral RGB, NIR, SWIR 0.30 m up to 2 m Mission group 2 WorldView 2, 3 & 4PleiadesDeimos 2Ikonos-2GeoEye 1DubaiSAT-2TH constellation Up to 1,24m in RGB from Worldview 3 & 4Up to 1,5 m in NIR from GeoEye 1Up to 3,7m in SWIR from WorldView3  3 In case the user actually needs a 0.3 m Multi-Spectral (MS) (e.g. RGB and NIR) image, that is not currently provided by any satellite mission, pan-sharpening techniques could be apply to multi spectral bands to increase their spatial resolution to the one offered by the panchromatic band (0.3 m) (WorldView 3 & 4)1046512Vegetation levels monitoring Ice cover monitoring (sea) Lithology Rock assay analysis Normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) N/A N/A Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Name of contributing missions matching technical specifications Contributing Missions capabilities Wavelength Sensors Spatial resolution specification Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs 15,4%26,9%23,1%26,9%7,7%27,3%36,4%18,2%9,1%9,1%19,0%23,8%23,8%23,8%9,5%15,4%23,1%30,8%23,1%7,7%16,1%25,8%22,6%25,8%9,7% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

205 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Mission Group Contributing Mission(s) of interest Contributing Mission(s) spatial resolution Grade Additional comments (complementing matching analysis)Grade Hourly 15,0%Hourly Daily 20,0%Daily Weekly 15,0%Weekly Monthly and more 50,0%Monthly and more Hourly 17,6%Hourly 26 days for SMOS  1 Daily 23,5%Daily 26 days for SMOS  1 Weekly 17,6%Weekly 26 days for SMOS  1 Monthly and more 41,2%Monthly and more 26 days for SMOS  3 Hourly 12,5%Hourly Daily 18,8%Daily Archives Weekly 25,0%Weekly Archives Monthly and more 43,8%Monthly and more Archives Hourly 11,8%Hourly Daily 17,6%Daily Weekly 17,6%Weekly Monthly and more 52,9%Monthly and more Hourly 16,7%Hourly 1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  1 Daily 16,7%Daily 1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Weekly 25,0%Weekly 1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Monthly and more 41,7%Monthly and more 1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Hourly 20,0%Hourly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  2 Daily 20,0%Daily Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Weekly 25,0%Weekly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Monthly and more 35,0%Monthly and more Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Hourly 15,4%Hourly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  2 Daily 23,1%Daily Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Weekly 23,1%Weekly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Monthly and more 38,5%Monthly and more Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Frequency of monitoring Contributiong Mission(s) temporal resolution Match analysis of Contributing Mission(s) spatial resolution Match analysis of Contributing Mission(s) temporal resolution 28,5%28,6%42,9%27,3%27,3%45,4%40,0%33,3%26,7%30,0%30,0%40,0%23,5%35,3%41,2%33,3%33,3%3330,0%26,3%31,6%42,1%User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by user0.30 m up to 10 m Multispectral RGB, NIR, SWIR Mission group 2 WorldView 2, 3 & 4PleiadesDeimos 2Ikonos-2GeoEye 1DubaiSAT-2TH constellation Up to 1,24m in RGB from Worldview 3 & 4Up to 1,5 m in NIR from GeoEye 1Up to 3,7m in SWIR from WorldView3  3 In case the user actually needs a 0.3 m Multi-Spectral (MS) (e.g. RGB and NIR) image, that is not currently provided by any satellite mission, pan-sharpening techniques could be apply to multi spectral bands to increase their spatial resolution to the one offered by the panchromatic band (0.3 m) (WorldView 3 & 4)In case the user actually needs a 0.3 m Multi-Spectral (MS) (e.g. RGB and NIR) image, that is not currently provided by any satellite mission, pan-sharpening techniques could be apply to multi spectral bands to increase their spatial resolution to the one offered by the panchromatic band (0.3 m) (WorldView 3 & 4)Up to 1,24m in RGB from Worldview 3 & 4Up to 1,5 m in NIR from GeoEye 1Up to 3,7m in SWIR from WorldView3  3 WorldView 2, 3 & 4PleiadesDeimos 2Ikonos-2GeoEye 1DubaiSAT-2TH constellation Mission group 2 Multispectral RGB, NIR, SWIR 0.30 m up to 10 m Hyperspectral ~350 nm up to ~ 2580 0.30 m up to 5 m No hyperspectral capacity(possible future contributing missions) Up to 1m in C-band from Radarsat-2  3 Radarsat-2 (C-band) Mission group 1 SAR C-band up to 50 km Mission group 1   1 15Km SMOS Multispectral RGB, NIR, SWIR 10 m up to 1 km SAR --> Microwave Radiometer L-band 1 km up to 10 km 97566103Water current monitoring Water pollution monitoring Water quality monitoring Rainfall erosivity monitoring Sea salinity levels measurement Sediment levels measurement Analysis of soil distribution and composition Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Name of contributing missions matching technical specifications Contributing Missions capabilities Wavelength Sensors Spatial resolution specification Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs Others ENVISAT Up to 1km (open ocean)Up to 260m (coastal zones)  2 There is currently no high resolution satellite data to respond to this user need23,3%26,7%20,0%20,0%10,0%23,8%28,6%23,8%19,0%4,8%14,3%28,6%21,4%28,6%7,1%22,2%33,3%22,2%16,7%5,6%11,8%17,6%29,4%23,5%17,6%20,7%24,1%17,2%24,1%13,8%16,7%25,0%25,0%25,0%8,3% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

7.  High level user need 7 – Observation of damage on the built structure of a CH site 

206 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Mission Group Contributing Mission(s) of interest Contributing Mission(s) spatial resolution Grade Additional comments (complementing matching analysis)Grade Hourly 16,7%Hourly 1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  1 Daily 25,0%Daily 1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Weekly 16,7%Weekly 1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Monthly and more 41,7%Monthly and more 1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Hourly N/AHourly Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)No L-band available  2 Daily N/ADaily Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)No L-band available  3 Weekly N/AWeekly Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)No L-band available  3 Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)No L-band available  3 Hourly 19,0%Hourly 16 days for Landsat 7 & 8  1 Daily 23,8%Daily 16 days for Landsat 7 & 8  1 Weekly 23,8%Weekly 16 days for Landsat 7 & 8  1 Monthly and more 33,3%Monthly and more 16 days for Landsat 7 & 8  3 Hourly 11,1%Hourly Daily 22,2%Daily Weekly 22,2%Weekly Monthly and more 44,4%Monthly and more Frequency of monitoring Contributiong Mission(s) temporal resolution Match analysis of Contributing Mission(s) spatial resolution Match analysis of Contributing Mission(s) temporal resolution 40,0%32,0%28,0%N/AN/AN/A27,8%33,3%38,9%28,6%28,5%42,9%User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by userMission Group 2 Landsat 7 & 8 Up to 60m from Landsat 7   2 1 m to 25 m X-band, C-band SAR Thermal  TIR up to 30 m Radarsat-2 (C-band)ERS (Ku-band)No Ka available Up to 1m in C-band from Radarsat-2Up to 25m in Ku-Band for ERSNo Ka-band available  2 Up to 0,25m in X-band from TerraSAR-XUp to 1m in C-band from Radarsat-2 COSMO-SkyMed (X-band)TerraSAR-X (X-band)Kompsat-5 (X-band)Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Mission group 1 SAR Ka band, Ku band, C band up to 25 km Mission group 1Other missions 16N/A123Sea surface temperature monitoring Wildlife tracking Water level monitoring Hydrological changes monitoring Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Name of contributing missions matching technical specifications Contributing Missions capabilities Wavelength Sensors Spatial resolution specification Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs 25,0%27,8%22,2%16,7%8,3%x19,4%22,6%22,6%22,6%12,9%11,1%33,3%22,2%22,2%11,1% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

a.  Matching user requirements with Copernicus core services products  

b.  Matching user requirements with Sentinels capabilities  

207 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Current product spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly 16,7%Hourly #Daily 18,5%Daily #Weekly 29,6%Weekly #Monthly and more 35,2%Monthly and more #Hourly 16,1%Hourly #Daily 19,4%Daily #Weekly 25,8%Weekly #Monthly and more 38,7%Monthly and more #Hourly 17,6%Hourly #Daily 29,4%Daily #Weekly 17,6%Weekly #Monthly and more 35,3%Monthly and more #Hourly Every 3 years #Daily Every 3 years #Weekly Every 3 years #Monthly and more Every 3 years #Hourly Every 3 years #Daily Every 3 years #Weekly Every 3 years #Monthly and more Every 3 years ###21,0%24,7%22,2%23,5%8,6%22,9%25,0%22,9%18,8%10,4%23,5%23,5%17,6%29,4%5,9%12,5%20,8%20,8%29,2%16,7%616Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs Spatial resolution specification Monitoring of the movements of building structure parts   Identification of signs of mineralisation 18Name of products matching user requirement Match analysis of Copernicus product spatial resolution Copernicus core services products Wavelength Sensors Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Map regression Material composition analysis  31No product 0.30 m up to 5 m ~350 nm up to ~ 2577 Hyperspectral No product SAR X-band, C-band, L-band 1 m up to 50 m #No product Mulispectral RGB-NIR 0.30 up to 10 m CLMS, Imagerey & Refence Data,  European Images Mosaic, Very High Resolution Up to 2,5m #SAR X-band, C-band 0.30 up to 10 m #User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by user34,5%44,8%46,1%22,2%33,3%44,4%20,8%27,1%52,1%20,7%23,1%30,8%Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Copernicus product temporal resolution Current product timeliness 38,2%Monthly and more Weekly 32,4%14,7%Daily Hourly 14,7% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

c.  Matching user requirements with Copernicus contributing missions  

208 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Sentinel spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly 16,7%Hourly Daily 18,5%Daily Weekly 29,6%Weekly Monthly and more 35,2%Monthly and more Hourly 16,1%Hourly 6 days  1 Daily 19,4%Daily 6 days  1 Weekly 25,8%Weekly 6 days  3 Monthly and more 38,7%Monthly and more 6 days  3 Hourly 17,6%Hourly Daily 29,4%Daily Weekly 17,6%Weekly Monthly and more 35,3%Monthly and more Hourly 14,7%Hourly 5 days  1 Daily 14,7%Daily 5 days  1 Weekly 32,4%Weekly 5 days  3 Monthly and more 38,2%Monthly and more 5 days  3 Hourly 14,7%Hourly 6 days  1 Daily 14,7%Daily 6 days  1 Weekly 32,4%Weekly 6 days  3 Monthly and more 38,2%Monthly and more 6 days  3 Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Sentinel temporal resolution Sentinel temporal resolution 23,1%30,8%46,1%22,2%33,3%44,4%20,8%27,1%52,1%20,7%34,5%44,8%User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by userSAR X-band, C-band 0.30 up to 10 m Sentinel 1 Minimum 5m resolution for C-band, but X-band is not available  2 Mulispectral RGB-NIR 0.30 up to 10 m Sentinel 2 Minimum 10 m resolution for RGB & NIR  2 0.30 m up to 5 m ~350 nm up to ~ 2577 Hyperspectral Potential evolution of Copernicus Sentinel 1 Minimum 5m resolution for C-band, but X-band and L-band are not available  2 SAR X-band, C-band, L-band 1 m up to 50 m 31Map regression Material composition analysis  Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Name of Sentinel matching technical specifications Match analysis of Sentinel spatial resolution Sentinels capabilities Wavelength Sensors Spatial resolution specification Monitoring of the movements of building structure parts   Identification of signs of mineralisation 18Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs 61621,0%24,7%22,2%23,5%8,6%22,9%25,0%22,9%18,8%10,4%23,5%23,5%17,6%29,4%5,9%12,5%20,8%20,8%29,2%16,7% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

8.  High level user need 8 – Drawing of conclusions to facilitate an emergency intervention 

a.  Matching user requirements with Copernicus core services products  

209 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Mission Group Contributing Mission(s) of interest Contributing Mission(s) spatial resolution Grade Additional comments (complementing matching analysis)Grade Hourly 16,7%Hourly Daily 18,5%Daily Weekly 29,6%Weekly Monthly and more 35,2%Monthly and more Hourly 16,1%Hourly Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)No L-band available  2 Daily 19,4%Daily Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)No L-band available  3 Weekly 25,8%Weekly Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)No L-band available  3 Monthly and more 38,7%Monthly and more Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)No L-band available  3 Hourly 17,6%Hourly Daily 29,4%Daily Weekly 17,6%Weekly Monthly and more 35,3%Monthly and more Hourly 14,7%Hourly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  2 Daily 14,7%Daily Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Weekly 32,4%Weekly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Monthly and more 38,2%Monthly and more Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Hourly 14,7%Hourly Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  2 Daily 14,7%Daily Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Weekly 32,4%Weekly Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Monthly and more 38,2%Monthly and more Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Frequency of monitoring Contributiong Mission(s) temporal resolution Match analysis of Contributing Mission(s) spatial resolution Match analysis of Contributing Mission(s) temporal resolution 23,1%30,8%46,1%22,2%33,3%44,4%20,8%27,1%52,1%20,7%34,5%44,8%User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by userMission group 1 COSMO-SkyMed (X-band)TerraSAR-X (X-band)Kompsat-5 (X-band)Radarsat-2 (C-band) Up to 0,25m in X-band from TerraSAR-XUp to 1m in C-band from Radarsat-2  3 SAR X-band, C-band 0.30 up to 10 m COSMO-SkyMed (X-band)TerraSAR-X (X-band)Kompsat-5 (X-band)Radarsat-2 (C-band)SMOS (L-band) Up to 0,25m in X-band from TerraSAR-XUp to 1m in C-band from Radarsat-2Up to 15km in L-band from SMOS  3 There is currently no high resolution L-band available, but the technical specification could be fully cover in X-band and C-bandMulispectral RGB-NIR 0.30 up to 10 m Mission group 2 WorldView 2, 3 & 4PleiadesDeimos 2Ikonos-2GeoEye 1DubaiSAT-2TH constellation Up to 1,24m in RGB from Worldview 3 & 4Up to 1,5 m in NIR from GeoEye 1  3 In case the user actually needs a 0.3 m Multi-Spectral (MS) (e.g. RGB and NIR) image, that is not currently provided by any satellite mission, pan-sharpening techniques could be apply to multi spectral bands to increase their spatial resolution to the one offered by the panchromatic band (0.3 m) (WorldView 3 & 4)0.30 m up to 5 m ~350 nm up to ~ 2577 Hyperspectral No hyperspectral capacity(possible future contributing missions) SAR X-band, C-band, L-band 1 m up to 50 m Mission group 1 31Map regression Material composition analysis  Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Name of contributing missions matching technical specifications Contributing Missions capabilities Wavelength Sensors Spatial resolution specification Monitoring of the movements of building structure parts   Identification of signs of mineralisation 18Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs 61621,0%24,7%22,2%23,5%8,6%22,9%25,0%22,9%18,8%10,4%23,5%23,5%17,6%29,4%5,9%12,5%20,8%20,8%29,2%16,7% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

210 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Current product spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly 16,2%Hourly #Daily 18,9%Daily #Weekly 21,6%Weekly #Monthly and more 43,2%Monthly and more #Hourly 16,1%Hourly Near real time #Daily 16,1%Daily Near real time #Weekly 29,0%Weekly Near real time #Monthly and more 38,7%Monthly and more Near real time #Hourly N/AHourly Near real time #Daily N/ADaily Near real time #Weekly N/AWeekly Near real time #Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more Near real time #Hourly 14,3%Hourly #Daily 14,3%Daily #Weekly 42,9%Weekly #Monthly and more 28,6%Monthly and more #Hourly 12,2%Hourly #Daily 22,0%Daily #Weekly 22,0%Weekly #Monthly and more 43,9%Monthly and more #18,2%25,5%25,5%21,8%9,1%22,4%29,3%22,4%13,8%12,1%18,1%25,3%22,9%21,7%12,0%xx20,0%20,0%20,0%30,0%10,0%22Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs Real-time monitoring of emergency events (e.g. flash floods, forest fires) On-demand Mapping & Ealy Warning and Monitoring System #Spatial resolution specification Name of products matching user requirement Match analysis of Copernicus product spatial resolution Copernicus core services products Wavelength Sensors N/A430SAR X-band, C-band, L-band 0,3 m up to 50 m EMS activation  Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Geo-hazards monitoring/forecasting Human conflict risk monitoring Tectonic petrography Ground motion monitoring 19#No product SAR X-band, C-band, L-band 1 m up to 50 m No product SARMultispectral X-band, C-band, L-bandRGB, NIR 0,3 m up to 50 m (for both SAR & multispectral) Security Service activation Damage assessment (Very high resolution)Activity analysis (Very high resolution) ##SAR X-band, C-band, L-band 1 m up to 50 m No product #User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by user20,5%38,5%41,0%22,4%32,7%44,9%N/AN/AN/A16,7%50,0%33,3%22,2%36,1%41,7%Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Copernicus product temporal resolution Current product timeliness  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

b.  Matching user requirements with Sentinels capabilities  

211 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Current product spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly Every 3 years #Daily Every 3 years #Weekly Every 3 years #Monthly and more Every 3 years #Hourly Every 3 years #Daily Every 3 years #Weekly Every 3 years #Monthly and more Every 3 years #16,7%29,2%20,8%20,8%12,5%Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs Spatial resolution specification Name of products matching user requirement Match analysis of Copernicus product spatial resolution Copernicus core services products Wavelength Sensors Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Map regression 16#Up to 2,5m CLMS, Imagerey & Refence Data,  European Images Mosaic, Very High Resolution 0.30 up to 10 m Mulispectral RGB-NIR SAR X-band, C-band #0.30 up to 10 m User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by user22,2%33,3%44,4%Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Copernicus product temporal resolution Current product timeliness Hourly 14,7%14,7%Daily Weekly 32,4%38,2%Monthly and more Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Sentinel spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly 16,2%Hourly 6 days  1 Daily 18,9%Daily 6 days  1 Weekly 21,6%Weekly 6 days  3 Monthly and more 43,2%Monthly and more 6 days  3 Hourly 16,1%Hourly Daily 16,1%Daily Weekly 29,0%Weekly Monthly and more 38,7%Monthly and more Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Sentinel temporal resolution Sentinel temporal resolution 20,5%38,5%41,0%22,4%32,7%44,9%User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by user 2 Minimum 5m resolution for C-band, but X-band and L-band are not available Sentinel 1 SAR X-band, C-band, L-band 1 m up to 50 m Geo-hazards monitoring/forecasting Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Name of Sentinel matching technical specifications Match analysis of Sentinel spatial resolution Sentinels capabilities Wavelength Sensors Real-time monitoring of emergency events (e.g. flash floods, forest fires) 30SAR X-band, C-band, L-band 0,3 m up to 50 m N/A N/A Spatial resolution specification Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs 2222,4%29,3%22,4%13,8%12,1%18,1%25,3%22,9%21,7%12,0% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

c.  Matching user requirements with Copernicus contributing missions  

212 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Sentinel spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly N/AHourly Daily N/ADaily Weekly N/AWeekly Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more Hourly 14,3%Hourly Daily 14,3%Daily Weekly 42,9%Weekly Monthly and more 28,6%Monthly and more Hourly 12,2%Hourly 6 days  1 Daily 22,0%Daily 6 days  1 Weekly 22,0%Weekly 6 days  3 Monthly and more 43,9%Monthly and more 6 days  3 Hourly 5 days  1 Daily 5 days  1 Weekly 5 days  3 Monthly and more 5 days  3 Hourly 6 days  1 Daily 6 days  1 Weekly 6 days  3 Monthly and more 6 days  3 Hourly 14,7%14,7%Daily Weekly 32,4%38,2%Monthly and more Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Sentinel temporal resolution Sentinel temporal resolution 22,2%36,1%41,7%22,2%33,3%44,4%N/AN/AN/A16,7%50,0%33,3%User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by userSAR X-band, C-band Sentinel 1 Minimum 5m resolution for C-band, but X-band is not available  2 0.30 up to 10 m  2 Minimum 10 m resolution for RGB & NIR Sentinel 2 0.30 up to 10 m Mulispectral RGB-NIR SAR X-band, C-band, L-band 1 m up to 50 m Sentinel 1 Minimum 5m resolution for C-band, but X-band and L-band are not available ##SARMultispectral X-band, C-band, L-bandRGB, NIR 0,3 m up to 50 m (for both SAR & multispectral) N/A N/A 1619Human conflict risk monitoring Tectonic petrography Ground motion monitoring Map regression N/A4Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Name of Sentinel matching technical specifications Match analysis of Sentinel spatial resolution Sentinels capabilities Wavelength Sensors Spatial resolution specification Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs xx20,0%20,0%20,0%30,0%10,0%18,2%25,5%25,5%21,8%9,1%16,7%29,2%20,8%20,8%12,5% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

9.  High level user need 9 – Enable public access to the site 

a.  Matching user requirements with Copernicus core services products  

213 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Mission Group Contributing Mission(s) of interest Contributing Mission(s) spatial resolution Grade Additional comments (complementing matching analysis)Grade Hourly 16,2%Hourly Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  2 Daily 18,9%Daily Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Weekly 21,6%Weekly Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Monthly and more 43,2%Monthly and more Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Hourly 16,1%Hourly N/A  3 Daily 16,1%Daily N/A  3 Weekly 29,0%Weekly N/A  3 Monthly and more 38,7%Monthly and more N/A  3 Hourly N/AHourly N/A  3 Daily N/ADaily N/A  3 Weekly N/AWeekly N/A  3 Monthly and more N/AMonthly and more N/A  3 Hourly 14,3%Hourly Daily 14,3%Daily Weekly 42,9%Weekly Monthly and more 28,6%Monthly and more Hourly 12,2%Hourly Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  2 Daily 22,0%Daily Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Weekly 22,0%Weekly Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Monthly and more 43,9%Monthly and more Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Hourly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  2 Daily Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Weekly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Monthly and more Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Hourly Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  2 Daily Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Weekly Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Monthly and more Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Hourly 14,7%14,7%Daily Weekly 32,4%38,2%Monthly and more Frequency of monitoring Contributiong Mission(s) temporal resolution Match analysis of Contributing Mission(s) spatial resolution Match analysis of Contributing Mission(s) temporal resolution 22,2%36,1%41,7%22,2%33,3%44,4%20,5%38,5%41,0%22,4%32,7%44,9%N/AN/AN/A16,7%50,0%33,3%User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by userCOSMO-SkyMed (X-band)TerraSAR-X (X-band)Kompsat-5 (X-band)Radarsat-2 (C-band) Up to 0,25m in X-band from TerraSAR-XUp to 1m in C-band from Radarsat-2  3 SAR X-band, C-band Mission group 1 0.30 up to 10 m 0.30 up to 10 m Mulispectral RGB-NIR Mission group 1 COSMO-SkyMed (X-band)TerraSAR-X (X-band)Kompsat-5 (X-band)Radarsat-2 (C-band)SMOS (L-band) Up to 0,25m in X-band from TerraSAR-XUp to 1m in C-band from Radarsat-2Up to 15km in L-band from SMOS  3 There is currently no high resolution L-band available, but the technical specification could be fully cover in X-band and C-bandIn case the user actually needs a 0.3 m Multi-Spectral (MS) (e.g. RGB and NIR) image, that is not currently provided by any satellite mission, pan-sharpening techniques could be apply to multi spectral bands to increase their spatial resolution to the one offered by the panchromatic band (0.3 m) (WorldView 3 & 4) 3 Up to 1,24m in RGB from Worldview 3 & 4Up to 1,5 m in NIR from GeoEye 1 WorldView 2, 3 & 4PleiadesDeimos 2Ikonos-2GeoEye 1DubaiSAT-2TH constellation Mission group 2 SAR X-band, C-band, L-band 1 m up to 50 m N/A N/A N/A SARMultispectral X-band, C-band, L-bandRGB, NIR 0,3 m up to 50 m (for both SAR & multispectral) SAR X-band, C-band, L-band 1 m up to 50 m There is currently no high resolution L-band available, but the technical specification could be fully cover in X-band and C-band 3 Up to 0,25m in X-band from TerraSAR-XUp to 1m in C-band from Radarsat-2Up to 15km in L-band from SMOS COSMO-SkyMed (X-band)TerraSAR-X (X-band)Kompsat-5 (X-band)Radarsat-2 (C-band)SMOS (L-band) Mission group 1 1619Geo-hazards monitoring/forecasting Human conflict risk monitoring Tectonic petrography Ground motion monitoring Map regression N/A4Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Name of contributing missions matching technical specifications Contributing Missions capabilities Wavelength Sensors Real-time monitoring of emergency events (e.g. flash floods, forest fires) 30SAR X-band, C-band, L-band 0,3 m up to 50 m N/A N/A N/A Spatial resolution specification Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs 2222,4%29,3%22,4%13,8%12,1%18,1%25,3%22,9%21,7%12,0%xx20,0%20,0%20,0%30,0%10,0%18,2%25,5%25,5%21,8%9,1%16,7%29,2%20,8%20,8%12,5% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

214 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Current product spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly 11,1%Hourly Every 3 years #Daily 11,1%Daily Every 3 years #Weekly 33,3%Weekly Every 3 years #Monthly and more 44,4%Monthly and more Every 3 years #Hourly 0,0%Hourly Daily 20,0%Daily #Weekly 40,0%Weekly #Monthly and more 40,0%Monthly and more #Hourly 30,0%Hourly #Daily 20,0%Daily #Weekly 30,0%Weekly #Monthly and more 20,0%Monthly and more #Hourly 10,0%Hourly Every 6 years #Daily 20,0%Daily Every 6 years #Weekly 20,0%Weekly Every 6 years #Monthly and more 50,0%Monthly and more Every 6 years #28,6%28,6%19,0%19,0%4,8%20,0%25,0%25,0%20,0%10,0%6,3%25,0%25,0%31,3%12,5%21,1%26,3%15,8%26,3%10,5%Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs Spatial resolution specification Name of products matching user requirement Match analysis of Copernicus product spatial resolution Copernicus core services products Wavelength Sensors Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Identification of previously searched sites in the area Ground motion monitoring Mapping of frequentation patterns Mapping of surrounding infrastructure (roads, pipelines, waterconducts etc.) 10896#Up to 2,5m CLMS, Imagerey & Refence Data,  European Images Mosaic, Very High Resolution Multispectral RGB, NIR 0.30 m up to 2 m CLMS, Local, Urban atlas  10 m #SAR X-band, C-band, L-band 1 m up to 50 m No product #No product #up to 10 m RGB, NIR Multispectral User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by user20,0%40,0%40,0%8,3%41,7%50,0%0,0%40,0%60,0%28,6%57,1%14,3%Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Copernicus product temporal resolution Current product timeliness  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

b.  Matching user requirements with Sentinels capabilities  

215 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Current product spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly Every 4 years #Daily Every 4 years #Weekly Every 4 years #Monthly and more Every 4 years #Hourly Every 4 years #Daily Every 4 years #Weekly Every 4 years #Monthly and more Every 4 years #Hourly 11,1%Hourly Every 3 years #Daily 11,1%Daily Every 3 years #Weekly 33,3%Weekly Every 3 years #Monthly and more 44,4%Monthly and more Every 3 years #20,8%29,2%20,8%16,7%12,5%25,0%25,0%25,0%15,6%9,4%Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs Spatial resolution specification Name of products matching user requirement Match analysis of Copernicus product spatial resolution Copernicus core services products Wavelength Sensors Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Elevation modelling 3D reconstruction of CH or NH site 128up to 0,5 m Multispectral RGB SAR X-band up to 5 m CLMS, Imagery & Refence Data, EU-DEM 25m #25m #Optical  stereo pair  up to 5 m CLMS, Imagery & Refence Data, EU-DEM User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by user#Up to 2,5m CLMS, Imagerey & Refence Data,  European Images Mosaic, Very High Resolution 16,7%38,9%44,4%20,0%40,0%40,0%Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Copernicus product temporal resolution Current product timeliness 11,8%Hourly Daily 5,9%23,5%Weekly 58,8%Monthly and more Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Sentinel spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly 11,1%Hourly 5 days  1 Daily 11,1%Daily 5 days  1 Weekly 33,3%Weekly 5 days  3 Monthly and more 44,4%Monthly and more 5 days  3 Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Sentinel temporal resolution Sentinel temporal resolution 8,3%41,7%50,0%User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by user  1 Minimum 10 m resolution for RGB & NIR Sentinel 2 Multispectral RGB, NIR 0.30 m up to 2 m 9Identification of previously searched sites in the area Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Name of Sentinel matching technical specifications Match analysis of Sentinel spatial resolution Sentinels capabilities Wavelength Sensors Spatial resolution specification Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs 20,0%25,0%25,0%20,0%10,0% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

c.  Matching user requirements with Copernicus contributing missions  

216 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Sentinel spatial resolution  Grade Grade Hourly 0,0%Hourly Daily 20,0%Daily 6 days  1 Weekly 40,0%Weekly 6 days  3 Monthly and more 40,0%Monthly and more 6 days  3 Hourly 30,0%Hourly Daily 20,0%Daily Weekly 30,0%Weekly Monthly and more 20,0%Monthly and more Hourly 10,0%Hourly 5 days  1 Daily 20,0%Daily 5 days  1 Weekly 20,0%Weekly 5 days  3 Monthly and more 50,0%Monthly and more 5 days  3 Hourly 11,8%Hourly Daily 5,9%Daily Weekly 23,5%Weekly Monthly and more 58,8%Monthly and more Hourly 11,8%Hourly Daily 5,9%Daily Weekly 23,5%Weekly Monthly and more 58,8%Monthly and more Hourly 11,1%Hourly 5 days  1 Daily 11,1%Daily 5 days  1 Weekly 33,3%Weekly 5 days  3 Monthly and more 44,4%Monthly and more 5 days  3 Frequency of monitoring Match analysis of Sentinel temporal resolution Sentinel temporal resolution 20,0%40,0%40,0%16,7%38,9%44,4%20,0%40,0%40,0%0,0%40,0%60,0%28,6%57,1%14,3%RGB, NIR Multispectral Optical  stereo pair  up to 5 m User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by userMinimum 10 m resolution for RGB Sentinel 2 Sentinel 1 Minimum 5m resolution for C-band, but X-band and L-band are not available ##up to 0,5 m Multispectral RGB   1 SAR X-band up to 5 m No X-band available  3 Spatial resolution matching for both RGB & NIR Sentinel 2 SAR X-band, C-band, L-band 1 m up to 50 m up to 10 m 6128108Ground motion monitoring Mapping of frequentation patterns Mapping of surrounding infrastructure (roads, pipelines, waterconducts etc.) Elevation modelling 3D reconstruction of CH or NH site Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Name of Sentinel matching technical specifications Match analysis of Sentinel spatial resolution Sentinels capabilities Wavelength Sensors Spatial resolution specification Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs No stereo available 6,3%25,0%25,0%31,3%12,5%21,1%26,3%15,8%26,3%10,5%28,6%28,6%19,0%19,0%4,8%20,8%29,2%20,8%16,7%12,5%25,0%25,0%25,0%15,6%9,4% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

217 

Local detailedLocalRegionalNationalGlobalFrequency expressed by user % of users requiring this specific frequency for this user need Low and medium resolution(more than 5m)High resolution (between 1 and 5m)Very high resolution (less than 1m)Mission Group Contributing Mission(s) of interest Contributing Mission(s) spatial resolution Grade Additional comments (complementing matching analysis)Grade Hourly 11,1%Hourly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  2 Daily 11,1%Daily Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Weekly 33,3%Weekly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Monthly and more 44,4%Monthly and more Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Hourly 0,0%Hourly Daily 20,0%Daily Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Weekly 40,0%Weekly Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Monthly and more 40,0%Monthly and more Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)1 day for Radarsat-2 (C-band)  3 Hourly 30,0%Hourly Daily 20,0%Daily Weekly 30,0%Weekly Monthly and more 20,0%Monthly and more Hourly 10,0%Hourly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  2 Daily 20,0%Daily Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Weekly 20,0%Weekly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Monthly and more 50,0%Monthly and more Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Hourly 11,8%Hourly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4  2 Daily 5,9%Daily Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4  3 Weekly 23,5%Weekly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4  3 Monthly and more 58,8%Monthly and more Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4  3 Hourly 11,8%Hourly Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)  2 Daily 5,9%Daily Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)  3 Weekly 23,5%Weekly Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)  3 Monthly and more 58,8%Monthly and more Less than one day for COSMO SkyMed (X-band)  3 Hourly 11,1%Hourly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  2 Daily 11,1%Daily Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Weekly 33,3%Weekly Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Monthly and more 44,4%Monthly and more Less than one day for Worldview 3 & 4 (RGB)1 day for Pleiades (RGB & NIR)  3 Frequency of monitoring Contributiong Mission(s) temporal resolution Match analysis of Contributing Mission(s) spatial resolution Match analysis of Contributing Mission(s) temporal resolution 20,0%40,0%40,0%16,7%38,9%44,4%20,0%40,0%40,0%8,3%41,7%50,0%0,0%40,0%60,0%28,6%57,1%14,3%COSMO-SkyMed (X-band)TerraSAR-X (X-band)Kompsat-5 (X-band)Radarsat-2 (C-band)SMOS (L-band) Up to 0,25m in X-band from TerraSAR-XUp to 1m in C-band from Radarsat-2Up to 15km in L-band from SMOS  3 There is currently no high resolution L-band available, but the technical specification could be fully cover in X-band and C-bandRGB, NIR Multispectral Optical  stereo pair  up to 5 m User requirements Spatial resolution expressed by userIn case the user actually needs a 0.3 m Multi-Spectral (MS) (e.g. RGB and NIR) image, that is not currently provided by any satellite mission, pan-sharpening techniques could be apply to multi spectral bands to increase their spatial resolution to the one offered by the panchromatic band (0.3 m) (WorldView 3 & 4)Mission group 1 up to 0,5 m Multispectral RGB  3 Mission group 1 COSMO-SkyMed (X-band)TerraSAR-X (X-band)Kompsat-5 (X-band) Up to 0,25m in X-band from TerraSAR-X  3 Mission group 2 WorldView 2, 3 & 4PleiadesDeimos 2Ikonos-2GeoEye 1DubaiSAT-2TH constellation Up to 1,24m in RGB from Worldview 3 & 4 SAR X-band up to 5 m  3 Up to 1,24m in RGB from Worldview 3 & 4Up to 1,5 m in NIR from GeoEye 1 WorldView 2, 3 & 4PleiadesDeimos 2Ikonos-2GeoEye 1DubaiSAT-2TH constellation Mission group 2 SAR X-band, C-band, L-band 1 m up to 50 m up to 10 m Multispectral RGB, NIR 0.30 m up to 2 m In case the user actually needs a 0.3 m Multi-Spectral (MS) (e.g. RGB and NIR) image, that is not currently provided by any satellite mission, pan-sharpening techniques could be apply to multi spectral bands to increase their spatial resolution to the one offered by the panchromatic band (0.3 m) (WorldView 3 & 4) 3 Up to 1,24m in RGB from Worldview 3 & 4Up to 1,5 m in NIR from GeoEye 1 WorldView 2, 3 & 4PleiadesGeoEye 1 Mission group 2 96128108Identification of previously searched sites in the area Ground motion monitoring Mapping of frequentation patterns Mapping of surrounding infrastructure (roads, pipelines, waterconducts etc.) Elevation modelling 3D reconstruction of CH or NH site Geographical coverageTechnical specifications Name of contributing missions matching technical specifications Contributing Missions capabilities Wavelength Sensors Spatial resolution specification Mapping Copernicus Capabilities  User needs Mission group 2 WorldView 2,3 & 4GeoEye 1Ikonos-2SPOT 5, 6 & 7 Up to 1,24m  3 20,0%25,0%25,0%20,0%10,0%6,3%25,0%25,0%31,3%12,5%21,1%26,3%15,8%26,3%10,5%28,6%28,6%19,0%19,0%4,8%20,8%29,2%20,8%16,7%12,5%25,0%25,0%25,0%15,6%9,4% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Table of figures 

Figure 1: Study logic ........................................................................................................ vi 

Figure 2: Match analysis process ...................................................................................... viii 

Figure 3: Detailed description of Option 1 ............................................................................. x 

Figure 4: Summary of the impact evaluation results for option 1 ............................................ xi 

Figure 5: Detailed description of option 2 ........................................................................... xii 

Figure 6: Summary of the impact evaluation’ results for option 2 ......................................... xiii 

Figure 7: Detailed description of option 3 .......................................................................... xiv 

Figure 8: Summary of the impact evaluation’ results for option 3 .......................................... xv 

Figure 9: Comparison of the three different intervention options under scrutiny ..................... xvi 

Figure 10: “Cultural Heritage” since World War II, an evolving concept (1/2)  ........................... 6 

Figure 11: “Cultural Heritage” since World War II, an evolving concept (2/2) ............................ 7 

Figure 12: Considering Cultural Heritage: International and European legal evolution ................ 8 

Figure 13: EU actions in Cultural Heritage affected 12 strategic fields of action  ........................ 9 

Figure 14: High level structure of the Copernicus programme ............................................... 15 

Figure 15: Overall approach of the study .................................................................................... 17 

Figure 16: Overall approach of phase 1 .............................................................................. 18 

Figure 17: Geographic coverage of the consultation (Sources: PwC analysis) .......................... 22 

Figure 18: User communities’ representativeness in the online questionnaire (Source: PwC 
analysis) ........................................................................................................................ 23 

Figure 19: User communities’ representativeness in interviews (Source: PwC analysis) ............ 23 

Figure 20: Environment of intervention of the stakeholders (Source: PwC analysis) ................. 24 

Figure 21: Heritage fields of interest to the stakeholders (Source: PwC analysis) .................... 24 

Figure 22: Overall approach of phase 2 .............................................................................. 26 

Figure 23: List of options under scrutiny ............................................................................ 26 

Figure 24: Characterisation of assessable impacts ............................................................... 28 

Figure 25: Filters of the impact evaluation ............................................................................... 28 

Figure 26: Likert scale proposed to grade the different wider impacts (Sources: PwC) ........................... 30 

Figure 27: Value chain linked to Tangible Heritage and Natural Heritage ................................ 32 

Figure 28: User communities mapped on the value chain ..................................................... 33 

Figure 29: Main activities included in the segment "Creation" of the CH value-chain ................ 35 

Figure 30:  Main user needs required for prospection activities (Source: stakeholder consultation)
..................................................................................................................................... 38 

Figure 31:  Main user needs required for operation activities (Source: stakeholder consultation)
..................................................................................................................................... 42 

Figure 32: Summary of user needs for recognition activities (Source: stakeholder consultation) 46 

Figure 33: Summary of user needs for the Creation segment (Source: stakeholder consultation)
..................................................................................................................................... 47 

Figure 34: Main activities included in the segment "Production" of the Cultural Heritage value 
chain ............................................................................................................................. 48 

218 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Figure 35: Main monitoring activities implemented in conservation activities (Source: stakeholder 
consultation) .................................................................................................................. 51 

Figure 36: Main monitoring activities implemented in preservation activities (Source: stakeholder 
consultation) .................................................................................................................. 52 

Figure 37: Summary of user needs for conservation activities (Source: stakeholder consultation)
 .................................................................................................................................... 54 

Figure 38: Summary of user needs for preservation activities (Source: stakeholder consultation)
 .................................................................................................................................... 55 

Figure 39: Summary of user needs for the Production segment (Source: stakeholder 
consultation) .................................................................................................................. 57 

Figure 40: Main activities included in the segment "Transmission" of the Cultural Heritage value 
chain ............................................................................................................................. 58 

Figure 41: Overview of site management user needs (Source: stakeholder consultation) ......... 61 

Figure 42: Overview of “aggregation of data for research and producing commercial products” 
user needs (Source: stakeholder consultation) ................................................................... 62 

Figure 43: Summary of user needs for Transmission activities (Source: stakeholder consultation)
 .................................................................................................................................... 63 

Figure 44: High level approach, match analysis between Cultural heritage user requirements and 
Copernicus data and information capabilities ...................................................................... 67 

Figure 45: Graphical illustration of the match analysis ......................................................... 69 

Figure 46: Option 1 description – Cultural Heritage as a list of existing Copernicus products ..... 84 

Figure 47: Option 2 description – Cultural Heritage as a dedicated interface part of the 
Copernicus programme .................................................................................................... 86 

Figure 48: Option 3 description – Cultural Heritage as a new Copernicus service ..................... 88 

Figure 49:  Different steps included in the impact definition process ...................................... 91 

Figure 50: Option 1 description – Cultural Heritage as a list of existing Copernicus products ..... 93 

Figure 51: Summary of the impact evaluation of option 1 .................................................. 100 

Figure 52: Option 2 description – Cultural Heritage as a dedicated interface part of the 
Copernicus programme .................................................................................................. 101 

Figure 53: Summary of the impact evaluation of option 2 .................................................. 107 

Figure 54: Option 3 description – Cultural Heritage as a new Copernicus service ................... 108 

Figure 55: Summary of the impact evaluation of option 3 .................................................. 115 

Figure 56: Summary of the impact evaluation results ........................................................ 116 

Figure 57: Distribution of stakeholder along the value chain ............................................... 126 

Figure 58: Stakeholder direct consultation status .............................................................. 126 

Figure 59: Repartition of user communities within the stakeholder consultation (including both 
survey and direct interviews).......................................................................................... 127 

Figure 60: Identification of the stakeholders among the value chain .................................... 128 

Figure 61: Level of expertise of users .............................................................................. 128 

Figure 62: Environment of intervention of the stakeholders ................................................ 129 

Figure 63: Heritage fields of interest to the stakeholders.................................................... 129 

219 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

 Table of tables 

Table 1: High level user needs per segment of the Cultural Heritage value chain ..................... vii 

Table 2:  Taxonomy for the study ........................................................................................ 2 

Table 3: Distribution of user communities interest along types of heritage and environments 
(Source: PwC analysis) .................................................................................................... 25 

Table 4:  Option characterisation....................................................................................... 27 

Table 5:  Description of the Likert scale grades (Sources: PwC) ........................................................ 30 

Table 6: Summary of prospection tasks and their description ................................................ 37 

Table 7: Summary of the other user needs for the prospection activities mentioned during the 
interviews (Source: stakeholder consultation) ..................................................................... 39 

Table 8: Summary of operation tasks and their description................................................... 40 

Table 9: Summary of the other user needs for the operations activities mentioned during the 
interviews (Source: stakeholder consultation) ..................................................................... 42 

Table 10: Summary of recognition tasks and their description .............................................. 44 

Table 11: Summary of the other user needs for the recognition activities mentioned during the 
interviews (Source: stakeholder consultation) ..................................................................... 46 

Table 12: Summary of high level user needs for the Creation segment .................................. 47 

Table 13: Summary of the other user needs for the Creation segment mentioned during the 
interviews (Source: stakeholder consultation) ..................................................................... 48 

Table 14: Summary of Production activities and tasks .......................................................... 49 

Table 15: Summary of Production and Conservation tasks and their description ...................... 49 

Table 16: Summary of the other user needs for the conservation activities mentioned during the 
interviews (Source: stakeholder consultation) ..................................................................... 54 

Table 17: Summary of the other user needs for the preservation activities mentioned during the 
interviews (Source: stakeholder consultation) ..................................................................... 55 

Table 18: Summary of high level user needs for production activities .................................... 56 

Table 19: Summary of the other user needs for the Production segment mentioned during the 
interviews (Source: stakeholder consultation) ..................................................................... 57 

Table 20: Overview of the Transmission segment ................................................................ 59 

Table 21: Overview of the site management tasks and their description ................................. 59 

Table 22: Summary of the other user needs for the site management activities mentioned during 
the interviews (Source: stakeholder consultation) ............................................................... 61 

Table 23: Overview of data aggregation and commercial product design tasks and their 
description ..................................................................................................................... 62 

Table 24: Summary of the other user needs for aggregation of data for research and producing 
commercial products activities mentioned during the interviews (Source: stakeholder 
consultation) .................................................................................................................. 63 

Table 25: Summary of the high level user need for Transmission activities ............................. 63 

Table 26: Summary of the other user needs for the Transmission segment mentioned during the 
interviews (Source: stakeholder consultation) ..................................................................... 64 

Table 27: Summary of user needs organised by high level user needs (Source: stakeholder 
consultation) .................................................................................................................. 64 

Table 28: List of CLMS products of interest for CH user communities (Sources: PwC analysis) .. 71 

220 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Table 29: List of CMEMS products of interest for CH user communities (Sources: PwC analysis) 73 

Table 30: List of C3S products of interest for CH user communities (Sources: PwC analysis) .... 74 

Table 31: List of CAMS products of interest for CH user communities (Sources: PwC analysis) .. 74 

Table 32: List of Copernicus EMS products of interest for CH user communities (Sources: PwC 
analysis) ........................................................................................................................ 75 

Table 33: List of Copernicus for EU External Actions products of interest for CH user communities 
(Sources: PwC analysis) .................................................................................................. 75 

Table 34: List of all Copernicus core services’ products of interest for CH user communities 
(Sources: PwC analysis) .................................................................................................. 78 

Table 35: Summary of the protection of cultural heritage needs from man-made destruction ... 81 

Table 36:  Summary of the protection of Cultural Heritage needs from geo-hazard events ....... 83 

Table 37: Summary of differences between intervention options ........................................... 89 

Table 38:  Categorisation of impacts and KPIs .................................................................... 92 

Table 39: Option 1 expected monetary benefits over the period 2019 - 2025 ......................... 96 

Table 40: Option 1 expected jobs supported over the period 2019 - 2025 .............................. 97 

Table 41: Option 2 expected monetary benefits over the period 2019 - 2025 ....................... 103 

Table 42:  Option 2 expected jobs supported over the period 2019 - 2025 ........................... 105 

Table 43: Option 3 expected monetary benefits over the period 2019 - 2025 ....................... 111 

Table 44: Option 3 expected jobs supported over the period 2019 - 2025 ............................ 112 

Table 45: Reach of stakeholder consultation ..................................................................... 125 

Table 46: Quantity of stakeholder distributed and reached ................................................. 125 

Table 47: Repartition of the nature of organisations that the stakeholders identify themselves 
with ............................................................................................................................ 127 

Table 48: Repartition of the type of organisations that the stakeholders identify themselves with*
 .................................................................................................................................. 127 

Table 49: Land covers of interest to the stakeholders* (multiple answers possible) ............... 130 

221 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus services in support to Cultural Heritage 

Final Report 

Acronyms 

API 

CH 

Application Programme Interface 

Cultural Heritage 

Copernicus EE 

Copernicus Entrusted Entities 

D&I 

EC 

EO 

EU 

GIS 

MS 

NAIS 

NH 

PwC 

ToR 

API 

CH 

Data and Information 

European Commission 

Earth Observation 

European Union 

Geographic Information System 

Member States 

Nextant Applications and Innovative Solutions 

Natural Heritage 

Pricewaterhouse Coopers 

Terms of Reference 

Application Programme Interface 

Cultural Heritage 

Copernicus EE 

Copernicus Entrusted Entities 

Data and Information 

European Commission 

Earth Observation 

European Union 

Geographic Information System 

Member States 

Nextant Applications and Innovative Solutions 

Natural Heritage 

Pricewaterhouse Coopers 

Terms of Reference 

D&I 

EC 

EO 

EU 

GIS 

MS 

NAIS 

NH 

PwC 

ToR 

222 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. 
You can find the address of the centre nearest you at: 

https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

On the phone or by email 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You 
can contact this service: 

– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 

– at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or 

– by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Free publications: 

Online 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available 
on the Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 

You can download or order free and priced EU publications from: 
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications may 
be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see 
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en). 

EU law and related documents 

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the 
official language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu 

Open data from the EU 

The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets 
from the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-
commercial purposes. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
l

C
a
t
a
o
g
u
e

n
u
m
b
e
r
:

-
E
T
-
0
3
-
1
9
-
1
7
9
-
E
N
-
N

COPERNICUS EU 

WWW.COPERNICUS.EU 

ISBN: 978-92-76-01370-9 

doi: 10.2873/795267