## 5 Conclusions
The reasons for this could be found in a three-times-higher spatial resolution of VIS and NIR bands achieved progressively from the older to the newer missions; a higher maturity of end users regarding the availability and use of geo-spatial information and technologies--following the requirements of the INSPIRE Directive [60]; and this type of data becoming systematically integrated in daily practice. Furthermore, the results suggest that, in the damage monitoring of cultural heritage, the Sentinel data predominate over Landsat because, with equal accessibility, they have better technical properties (in terms of both spatial and temporal resolution). In addition, in Europe (the geographical area of our interest), there is a greater awareness of this program and consequently a greater interest and more facilitated access through dedicated platforms that make it easy and appealing to access and use. In this respect, it is worth acknowledging the effort that, at the European level and across many countries, is currently being made to promote the integration of Earth Observation technologies in cultural heritage management and find a better match between what the satellite assets provide and the actual requirements and needs of the users of satellite data. With this goal, for example, the \"Copernicus Cultural Heritage Task Force\" was established in order to assess the current and future potential of Copernicus data, services, and products in support of the monitoring and protection of cultural heritage. While not focusing exclusively on monitoring hazards and damages to cultural heritage, the final report and the associated journal paper [61; 62] analyze how existing Copernicus data, services, and products could satisfy those requirements; identify possible enhancement and customization of Copernicus products within already-operational Core Services; and analyze possible synergies with national, European or international space-related solutions to fill the gaps. An interesting avenue of research could be on how this analysis of users' needs would impact future generations of satellite missions and services delivered based on their data and contribute to enhanced exploitation to monitor hazards and damage to cultural heritage and for condition assessment. Finally, the investigation of the heritage practice through the lens of the Grey literature highlights that the user uptake of any RS and geomatics technologies is a complex process. It usually takes time and is often not as fast as the mechanism by which researchers develop new methods and techniques and disseminate them within scientific publications. Even if researchers bring the technology to users (specifically, experts involved in heritage maintenance, monitoring, and promotion) and even if there is an attempt to make users aware of novel solutions, this does not necessarily mean that the innovative technologies will then be exploited by users (see for example the issues found in some of the Polish literature [51]). As demonstrated by previous studies [63], users need to see the technology as relevant to them, suitable for their working purposes, and accessible. Not surprisingly, RS technologies that became part of the working flow and decision-making process are those that have been demonstrated via the direct engagement of the users (e.g., InSAR deformation measurements). The Grey literature provides examples of the benefits achieved from multidisciplinary collaboration, especially in governmental and international initiatives (see for example the archaeological area of Rome [36; 37; 57; 58]) and proves the role of the \"facilitator\"/\"accelerator\" that scientific partners or specialist consultants can play to help heritage administrations take advantage of EO technologies.