## 1 Introduction
### Background on Previous Literature Assessments, including Findings, Recommendations, and Limits
A necessity to expand and share the available datasets to widen the types of analyses that can be undertaken. Over the years, these recommendations helped to reframe this field of study in several ways, including  
1. A slow increase (albeit still underdeveloped) in the level of engagement of non-experts in remote sensing [11]
2. The development of international capacity building and training projects, as confirmed by numerous international initiatives run on a global level, such as Space2 place [15] or EO4 GEO [16]; or in Europe, such as JPI-CH Protehego [17; 18]; in the Mediterranean \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Publication** & **Main Topic** & **Time Range** & **Geographic Area** & **Outcomes** \\ \hline \hline
[7] & Remote sensing in archaeology & 1999–2015 & Europe &
\begin{tabular}{c} 1. Substantial increase \\ in RS for archaeology. \\ 2. Need for common repository \\ to share knowledge. \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
[12] & SAR for cultural heritage & 1985–2016 & World &
\begin{tabular}{c} 1. SAR as an increasingly \\ accessible and practical technique \\ for monitoring multiple threats. \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
[13] & InSAR data for hazard assessment on UNESCO WHS & 2000–2017 & Europe &
\begin{tabular}{c} 1. InSAR increasingly used in Europe \\ with a large number of data for \\ heritage stakeholders. \\ 2. Necessity for more public \\ consultation exercises and workshops \\ and user engagement at early stages \\ of InSAR implementation. \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
[4] & \begin{tabular}{c} \begin{tabular}{c} \
\begin{tabular}{c} 1. Substantial body of \\ different satellite image-based \\ processing methods. \\ 2. Lack of common practices, \\ the need for more \\ dissemination and user uptake. \\ \end{tabular} \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} 1. Substantial body of \\ different satellite image-based \\ processing methods. \\ 2. Lack of common practices, \\ the need for more \\ dissemination and user uptake. \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
[6] & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Air/spaceborne \\ imagery for cultural heritage \\ \end{tabular} & 1907–2017 & World &
\begin{tabular}{c} 1. Different RS image techniques \\ for different applications. \\ 2. Increase in access to \\ archive and novel data \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
[5] & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Google Earth \\ application for cultural heritage \\ \end{tabular} & 2005–2016 & World &
\begin{tabular}{c} 1. Google Earth as a basic, efficient, \\ and open-access tool for cultural \\ heritage monitoring. \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
[14] & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Machine intelligence \\ approaches to \\ archaeological \\ remote sensing \\ \end{tabular} & 1995–2017 & World &
\begin{tabular}{c} 1. Data sharing and collaboration \\ between different disciplines. \\ 2. Need for machine intelligence \\ applications for processing datasets \\ and replicating complex calculations. \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
[11] & \
\begin{tabular}{c} SAR and InSAR for \\ cultural heritage \\ \end{tabular} & 1992–2020 & World &
\begin{tabular}{c} 1. Combining all radar technologies. \\ 2. Multidisciplinary \\ collaboration is crucial. \\ 3. Including frontier information \\ technologies to better manage data \\ that radar technologies can provide. \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
[10] & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Most endangered types \\ of cultural heritage \\ \end{tabular} & 1969–2021 & World &
\begin{tabular}{c} 1. Substantial discrepancy \\ between damage documented \\ and damage studied. \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: List of literature assessments regarding the use of remote sensing for cultural heritage for hazard and monitoring. Notation: RS—remote sensing; SAR—Synthetic Aperture Radar; InSAR—Interferometric SAR; WHS—World Heritage Sites. and Near East, such as EAMENA [19; 20] and EDUU [21]; and in Central Asia, with the CAAL project [22];
3.