Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,363

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Google Earth Engine for geo-big data applications: A meta-analysis and systematic review

Tamiminia, Haifa, Salehi, Bahram, Mahdianpari, Masoud, Quackenbush, Lindi, Adeli, Sarina, Brisco, Brian·2020·ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing

Abstract

Abstract Google Earth Engine (GEE) is a cloud-based geospatial processing platform for large-scale environmental monitoring and analysis. The free-to-use GEE platform provides access to (1) petabytes of publicly available remote sensing imagery and other ready-to-use products with an explorer web app; (2) high-speed parallel processing and machine learning algorithms using Google’s computational infrastructure; and (3) a library of Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) with development environments that support popular coding languages, such as JavaScript and Python. Together these core features enable users to discover, analyze and visualize geospatial big data in powerful ways without needing access to supercomputers or specialized coding expertise. The development of GEE has created much enthusiasm and engagement in the remote sensing and geospatial data science fields. Yet after a decade since GEE was launched, its impact on remote sensing and geospatial science has not been carefully explored. Thus, a systematic review of GEE that can provide readers with the “big picture” of the current status and general trends in GEE is needed. To this end, the decision was taken to perform a meta-analysis investigation of recent peer-reviewed GEE articles focusing on several features, including data, sensor type, study area, spatial resolution, application, strategy, and analytical methods. A total of 349 peer-reviewed articles published in 146 different journals between 2010 and October 2019 were reviewed. Publications and geographical distribution trends showed a broad spectrum of applications in environmental analyses at both regional and global scales. Remote sensing datasets were used in 90% of studies while 10% of the articles utilized ready-to-use products for analyses. Optical satellite imagery with medium spatial resolution, particularly Landsat data with an archive exceeding 40 years, has been used extensively. Linear regression and random forest were the most frequently used algorithms for satellite imagery processing. Among ready-to-use products, the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) was used in 27% of studies for vegetation, crop, land cover mapping and drought monitoring. The results of this study confirm that GEE has and continues to make substantive progress on global challenges involving process of geo-big data.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2020.04.001

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 1,363

Metadata

Authors
Tamiminia, H., Salehi, B., Mahdianpari, M., Quackenbush, L., Adeli, S., & Brisco, B.
Venue
ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-06
Volume
164
Pages
152-170
ISSN
0924-2716 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3023058341
Cited by
1,363
References
7
FWCI
13.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.