remote sensing

Review
Google Earth Engine: A Global Analysis and Future Trends
Andrés Velastegui-Montoya 1,2, * , Néstor Montalván-Burbano 2,3 , Paúl Carrión-Mero 1,2 ,
Hugo Rivera-Torres 1 , Luís Sadeck 4 and Marcos Adami 5

1 Facultad de Ingeniería en Ciencias de la Tierra, ESPOL Polytechnic University,

Guayaquil P.O. Box 09-01-5863, Ecuador; [email protected] (P.C.-M.); [email protected] (H.R.-T.)
2 Centro de Investigación y Proyectos Aplicados a las Ciencias de la Tierra (CIPAT), ESPOL Polytechnic
University, Guayaquil P.O. Box 09-01-5863, Ecuador; [email protected]
3 Department of Business and Economics, University of Almería, 04120 Almería, Spain
4 Geoscience Institute, Federal University of Pará, Belém 66075-110, Brazil; [email protected]
5 Earth Observation and Geoinformatics Division, National Institute for Space Research (INPE),
Sao Jose dos Campos 12227-010, Brazil; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The continuous increase in the volume of geospatial data has led to the creation of storage
tools and the cloud to process data. Google Earth Engine (GEE) is a cloud-based platform that
facilitates geoprocessing, making it a tool of great interest to the academic and research world. This
article proposes a bibliometric analysis of the GEE platform to analyze its scientific production. The
methodology consists of four phases. The first phase corresponds to selecting “search” criteria,
followed by the second phase focused on collecting data during the 2011 and 2022 periods using
Elsevier’s Scopus database. Software and bibliometrics allowed to review the published articles
during the third phase. Finally, the results were analyzed and interpreted in the last phase. The
research found 2800 documents that received contributions from 125 countries, with China and the
USA leading as the countries with higher contributions supporting an increment in the use of GEE for
the visualization and processing of geospatial data. The intellectual structure study and knowledge
mapping showed that topics of interest included satellites, sensors, remote sensing, machine learning,
Citation: Velastegui-Montoya, A.; land use and land cover. The co-citations analysis revealed the connection between the researchers
Montalván-Burbano, N.; who used the GEE platform in their research papers. GEE has proven to be an emergent web
Carrión-Mero, P.; Rivera-Torres, H.; platform with the potential to manage big satellite data easily. Furthermore, GEE is considered
Sadeck, L.; Adami, M. Google Earth a multidisciplinary tool with multiple applications in various areas of knowledge. This research
Engine: A Global Analysis and adds to the current knowledge about the Google Earth Engine platform, analyzing its cognitive
Future Trends. Remote Sens. 2023, 15, structure related to the research in the Scopus database. In addition, this study presents inferences
3675. https://doi.org/10.3390/
and suggestions to develop future works with this methodology.
rs15143675

Academic Editor: Dominique Keywords: earth engine; geoprocessing; bibliometric analysis; co-citation analysis; knowledge mapping
Arrouays

Received: 31 May 2023

Revised: 5 July 2023
1. Introduction
Accepted: 12 July 2023
Published: 23 July 2023 Google Earth Engine (GEE) is a cloud-based computing platform that uses Google’s
infrastructure to facilitate access to geospatial data and its processing [1]. This platform
requires an account to access, and it is free for educational and research purposes. GEE’s
goals are: (i) to have a dynamic platform that facilitates the development of algorithms on
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. a large scale; (ii) to promote high-impact research by providing free and open access; and
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. (iii) to be part of the progress and solutions to the global demand and management of big
This article is an open access article data [2,3].
distributed under the terms and GEE has a vast catalog on a petabyte scale. It gathers information from Landsat,
conditions of the Creative Commons
Sentinel, and MODIS satellites and data on climate models, temperature, and geophysical
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
characteristics [1,4]. Its intuitive interface has a code editor (https://code.earthengine.
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).

Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 3675. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15143675 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing

Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 3675 2 of 30

google.com/, accessed on 30 January 2023), which is an integrated development en-

vironment (IDE) for the elaboration of algorithms using JavaScript programming lan-
guage [5,6]. It also has a graphic window for the user to see the processes conducted. In
addition, it can also work in Phyton, and others through the Earth Engine library [7,8],
and R [9,10]. Finally, it also has a version with a simple interface known as “Explorer”
(https://explorer.earthengine.google.com/#workspace, accessed on 30 January 2023) for
users with little experience in programming languages. Both options allow the entry of
local data and the export of information for subsequent processing or visualization within
geographic information systems (GIS) software, such as QGIS (Version 3.28), and ArcGIS
Pro (Version 3.1.2), among others [11,12].
Research methodologies are constantly changing and innovated to construct knowl-
edge [13]. In the area of geoscience and remote sensing, GEE has become a powerful tool
for remote sensing, given its multiple applications in fields such as agricultural productiv-
ity [14], vegetation monitoring [15], grassland monitoring [16], mangrove mapping [17],
land use and cover [18,19], risk and disaster management [20], islands of heat [21], surface
temperature [22], forest fires [23], bathymetry [24], surface water [25], built-up area [26],
mining [27], among others. Its multiple applications show the GEE platform’s potential to
manage large data sets and contribute to the development of scientific research [28].
Many researchers have analyzed GEE’s potential multiple applications in recent years.
Kumar and Mutanga [2] studied the literature published between 2011 and 2017 to present
the platform’s uses, trends, and potential since its inception. On the other hand, Tamiminia
et al. [29] conducted a systematic review of GEE in geographic big data applications.
Likewise, Zhao et al. [30] used articles from the Web of Science (WoS) Science Citation
Index Expanded (SCIE) and Social Citation Index (SSCI) to study the development of the
scientific production of the Google Earth (GE) and GEE platforms through a scientometric
analysis. The studies above provide relevant information while focusing on systematic and
scientometric literature reviews of the different GEE applications.
Bibliometric analysis helps identify gaps and directions of research in a particular
area [31]. Moreover, it offers objective results, which help understand the knowledge area’s
impact and influence while identifying the publications’ evolution [32]. The methodology
used the processing of bibliographic information, elaborating structure maps of the fields,
and the quantitative analysis of the existing academic literature [31,33].
In recent years, the number of publications that implement the use of GEE has in-
creased. Given this background and its relevance, this research focuses on producing
knowledge using the GEE platform from a bibliometric approach to obtain a quantitative
and general estimate of the topic regarding citation, co-citation, and co-occurrence analysis.
Furthermore, it seeks to help researchers understand the advances in this field, identify
proposed works and innovate in future applications.
In this context, the following research questions were raised: What is the impact and
evolution of scientific production related to the Google Earth Engine platform? What
applications and studies have been developed using the Google Earth Engine platform?
The present study aims to evaluate the intellectual structure of the GEE platform
through a bibliometric analysis using the Scopus (launched by Elsevier, Amsterdam,
Netherlands) database to determine its evolution, performance, and patterns. The ar-
ticle’s organization is as follows: Section 1 introduces the research field. Section 2 indicates
obtaining data sets, methodologies, and software. Section 3 presents the results obtained.
Section 4 analyzes and discusses the results. Finally, the most important conclusions are in
Section 5. Moreover, limitations and future research directions are in Section 6.

2. Materials and Methods

A rigorous and transparent methodological process is used during the systematic
literature reviews to reduce bias in the treatment of information and provide critical
contributions to the field of study [32,34]. Similarly, bibliometric studies give a broad
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 30

Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 3675 understanding of the field of study by analyzing scientific production through3quantita- of 30
tive applications, thus increasing the knowledge of its characteristics, evolution, and
trends [35].
Bibliometricofmapping,
understanding the field ofa study
two-dimensional graphic representation
by analyzing scientific production through of the field of study
quantitative
made of networks
applications, thusthat examine
increasing its intellectual
the knowledge of itsstructure, elements,
characteristics, andand
evolution, connections,
trends [35].com-
Bibliometric
plemented mapping,
the analysis a two-dimensional
[36,37]. Bibliometrics hasgraphic representation
become of the
an essential field
tool forofresearchers
study
and is widely accepted in academia [38]. The bibliometric allowed these studiescom-
made of networks that examine its intellectual structure, elements, and connections, in differ-
entplemented
academicthe analysis [36,37].
disciplines, such as Bibliometrics has become
medicine [39], an essential
management [40],tool for sciences
earth researchers[41,42],
and is widely accepted in academia [38]. The bibliometric allowed these studies in differ-
disasters [43], groundwater [44], sustainability and environment [45,46], and computer
ent academic disciplines, such as medicine [39], management [40], earth sciences [41,42],
science [47], among others.
disasters [43], groundwater [44], sustainability and environment [45,46], and computer
A methodological
science process of four phases allowed (see Figure 1) for obtaining the pro-
[47], among others.
posed bibliometric analysis:
A methodological process (i) search criteria,
of four phases(ii) search(see
allowed procedure,
Figure 1)(iii)
for software
obtaining selection
the
andproposed
data acquisition, andanalysis:
bibliometric (iv) data(i)analysis and trends.
search criteria, (ii) search procedure, (iii) software
selection and data acquisition, and (iv) data analysis and trends.

Figure 1. Scheme of the methodology applied in this research.

Figure 1. Scheme of the methodology applied in this research.
2.1. Search Criteria
2.1. Search
ThisCriteria
paper analyzes the structure and conceptual evolution of the field of study of
Google
This Earth
paperEngine through
analyzes bibliometric
the structure analysis.
and We based
conceptual our selection
evolution onfield
of the considering
of study of
GEE as an online digital processing platform for satellite images on a large scale [1,2,29].
Google Earth Engine through bibliometric analysis. We based our selection on considering
Therefore, the search term used was “Google Earth Engine”, as this is the platform’s name.
GEE as an online digital processing platform for satellite images on a large scale [1,2,29].
Therefore, the
2.2. Search search term used was “Google Earth Engine”, as this is the platform’s name.
Procedure
Bibliometric studies require a database that provides quality information and is reliable
2.2.for
Search Procedure[48]. The selected database was Scopus for the following reasons: (i) it is
the researcher
one of the largeststudies
Bibliometric databases for abstracts
require and citations
a database of peer-reviewed
that provides literature [49,50];
quality information and is reli-
able for the researcher [48]. The selected database was Scopus for the following and
(ii) it has broad coverage in terms of quantity and time [51]; (iii) it has quality indicators reasons:
(i) it is one of the largest databases for abstracts and citations of peer-reviewed literature
[49,50]; (ii) it has broad coverage in terms of quantity and time [51]; (iii) it has quality
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 3675 4 of 30

standards [52]; (iv) it facilitates the download of information in different formats [53,54] y
(v) it is considered by other bibliometric studies [55,56].
The search was conducted on 15 February 2023, using the descriptor “Google Earth
Engine” and a combination of widely accepted variables “titles, abstract and keywords” for
the search. The initial search obtained 2971 documents. Additionally, eliminating the years
before the launch of GEE (2010) and the year 2023, as it is the current year—setting the
search equation TITLE-ABS-KEY (“Google Earth Engine”) AND (EXCLUDE (PUBYEAR,
2023) OR EXCLUDE (PUBYEAR, 2010) OR EXCLUDE (PUBYEAR, 2009)). Finally, the final
search obtained 2822 documents.

2.3. Software Selection and Data Acquisition

The bibliographic information was exported from the Scopus database as a comma-
separated value (CSV) file, with information related to documents by year, sources, authors,
types, study area, sponsor, affiliation, journals, and other parameters. This bibliometric
study used three software:
• Microsoft Excel (Version 2304): Pre-processing to organize and review the information,
eliminating records without an author, duplicate files, and incomplete data [57]. The
result obtained 2800 records. This software also analyzed large data sets, made
calculations, and created tables and graphs to estimate the performance of scientific
production [58,59].
• ArcGIS Pro Software (Version 3.1.2): It is an outstanding computer program in GIS that
organizes, analyzes, visualizes, and shares geographic information [60]. The software
facilitates the elaboration of a map that displays the countries’ contributions to this
subject of study. Other bibliometric studies include the same software [61,62].
• VOSviewer Software (Version 1.6.19): Developed by the University of Leiden (Leiden,
Netherlands) researchers Nes Van Eck and Ludo Waltman. The software builds
and makes it possible to visualize two-dimensional bibliographic networks, called
bibliometric maps or science maps [63,64]. Furthermore, the program facilitates the
handling of large amounts of data, thus revealing the structure of the field of study
and analyzing its central (co-occurrence of keywords), middle (co-citation of cited
authors), and peripheral parts (co-citation of cited journals) [65]. Various academic
disciplines used the software [66,67].

2.4. Data Analysis and Trends

This study applied two approaches during data analysis; the first consists of the
performance analysis and the second of the study of intellectual structure through science
mapping [37,68].
The first relates to scientific production analysis, which considers the growth patterns
of publications and bibliometric indicators, highlighting the contribution of countries,
universities, and authors [34,69]. The second approach deals with bibliometric maps,
which focus on visualizing the existing relationships within the study area using keywords,
authors, and journals [41,70].

3. Results
3.1. Performance Analysis
3.1.1. Document Type and Language
Most of the research on GEE comes from journal articles (77.25%). Journals are
preferred as they are considered higher-quality publications that go through blind peer
review [71]. In second place is the research presented at conferences (18.57%), considered
equally important as journal articles, particularly in computer science, more than other
academic disciplines [72]. Other documents (4.18%) correspond to data papers, reviews,
letters, book chapters, notes, erratums, letters, short surveys, editorials, and books (see
Table 1).
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 3675 5 of 30

Table 1. Types of documents on GEE.

Rank Language of Original Document Document

1 Article 2163
2 Conference paper 520
3 Data paper 30
4 Review 30
5 Book chapter 27
6 Note 11
7 Erratum 7
8 Letter 7
9 Short survey 2
10 Editorial 2
11 Book 1

In the academic world, the English language is predominant in its various academic
disciplines [73]. The field of study of GEE is not an exception. Despite containing research
in ten languages, 93.57% of the research available is in English (see Table 2). This majority
choice of English as an academic language is because English is essential for establishing
scientific communication and international collaboration. In addition, many journals are
published in this language [74,75].

Table 2. Language of published documents.

Rank Language of Original Document Document Citations

1 English 2620 38,790
2 Chinese 119 384
3 Portuguese 20 13
4 Spanish 20 19
5 Russian 13 12
6 Korean 2 4
7 French 2 2
8 Japanese 2 2
9 German 1 2
10 Italian 1 0

3.1.2. Scientific Production

According to the database obtained, Figure 2 shows the growth trend of publications
(2011–2022). This field of study shows a growing trend for 12 years, of 2800 publications
that have received 39,228 citations. The first document mentioning GEE was an article
on the historical modeling of a city in 4D through the automation of GEE [76]. In this
same year, the findings of the first results of investigations in GEE were at conferences.
The first, published in “Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing”, addresses the
success stories of GIS applications [77]. The second was presented at “Proceedings—2011
4th International Conference on Information Management, Innovation Management and
Industrial Engineering, ICIII 2011”, exhibiting GEE as a graphical interface for surface
mining mapping and system-assisted truck driving [78].
 use/cover [90], classification [91], forest fires [92], predictions [93], and climatic changes
[94], among others.
In Figure 2, we can also observe a decrease in citations between 2020 and 2022. The
lower number of citations in recent years may be related to the “sleeping beauty” effect,
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 3675
where these recent documents have not reached their potential impact, lacked visibility, 6 of 30
or have little current relevance [95]. Therefore, they are in a period of latency before re-
ceiving wider recognition.

Figure 2. Evolution of scientific production on GEE, considering (i) annual publications: number of
Figure 2. Evolution of scientific production on GEE, considering (i) annual publications: number of
publications per year, and (ii) cited documents: number of citations registered per year.
publications per year, and (ii) cited documents: number of citations registered per year.
3.1.3. Contributions by Country
This field of study divides into two periods for analysis: Introduction (2011–2016)
According
and Growth to the data
(2017–2022). collected,
Period the publications
I corresponds to a stagecorrespond
with fewertopublications
125 countries peracross
year,
five continents (see Figure 3). Asia has the majority of publications (46.80%),
which refers to the learning curve of the use and applications of GEE. On the other hand,with China,
India, Indonesia,
period II presents aIran, and
higher Japan of
number standing out.and
documents Next, we find
citations perthe
year,American
which is continent
related to
(25.12%), with a majority contribution from the United
the development of the various applications of this platform. States, Brazil, and Canada. Finally,
otherPeriod
continents such as Europe,
I—Introduction Africa,The
(2011–2016): and37Oceania participatedininthis
initial publications 19.20%, 5.14%,
field of studyand
are
3.74%, respectively.
equivalent to 1.32% of the total. In 2012, no publications on GEE were registered, revealing
the natural curve of learning and adaptation to the new GEE platform. The most cited
document was published by Dong et al. [79] in the journal Remote Sensing of Environment
with 462 citations. This paper uses GEE algorithms and Landsat 8 imagery to map paddy
rice. This mapping provides details of a product that has become widespread over the past
decades in Northwest Asia and thus contributes to food security assessment. Other studies
addressed vegetation clearing [80], crop mapping [81], seawater level monitoring [82], risk
analysis [83], urban planning [84], multi-temporal analyses [84], and other applications.
Period II—Growth (2017–2022): The largest amount of scientific literature in the field
of study has developed in these last six years, with 2763 publications (98.68%). They
were showing significant and constant growth in scientific production. During this pe-
riod, studies published are on land use and land cover [18,85], agriculture [86], climate
change [87], land cover change [88], and hydrology [89]. As well as theoretical literature
review studies [1,2]. In the last year (2022), a considerable number of publications focused
on land use/cover [90], classification [91], forest fires [92], predictions [93], and climatic
changes [94], among others.
In Figure 2, we can also observe a decrease in citations between 2020 and 2022. The
lower number of citations in recent years may be related to the “sleeping beauty” effect,
where these recent documents have not reached their potential impact, lacked visibility, or
have little current relevance [95]. Therefore, they are in a period of latency before receiving
wider recognition.
 (FAPAR), fraction vegetation cover (FVC), and leaf area index (LAI) [107]. Additionally,
Australia has carried out 15 studies with the USA. We find the application of algorithms
for crop mapping [108], and the analysis of the severity of fires in North American forests
[109].
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 3675 Other countries, such as India, have also presented important publications on Google 7 of 30
Earth Engine. India occupies third place as the country with the most publications, with
231 papers. The most notable publications include: conducting research in cropland map-
ping [110,111], wet and dry snow mapping [112], and analysis of river avulsions [113].
3.1.3. Contributions by Country
Brazil ranks fourth on the list of countries with the highest publication contribution, with
According toand
138 publications the data
1582 collected,
citations. the publications
Brazil correspond
has also published to 125on
papers countries across
topics such as
five continents (see Figure 3). Asia has the majority of publications (46.80%), with
monitoring of livestock activity and pastures [114], analysis of spatio-temporal patterns of China,
India, Indonesia,
road mortality Iran,
with and Japan
roadkill data ofstanding out. Next,
seven mammals weand
[115], findmonitoring
the Americanof thecontinent
Amazon
(25.12%), with a majority contribution from The United States, Brazil, and Canada.
[18]. Finally, Italy ranks fifth globally with 133 publications, reaching 1916 citations. Finally,
Some
other continents such as Europe, Africa, and Oceania participated in 19.20%, 5.14%,
of the topics of said publications relate to human population settlement analysis [84], land and
3.74%, respectively.
use and cover evaluation [116], and other applications.

Figure 3. Map of countries that have conducted studies using the GEE platform, according to the
Figure Map
number3.of of countries that have conducted studies using the GEE platform, according to the
publications.
number of publications.
The VOSviewer software allows the construction of a bibliometric map of biblio-
China leads the scientific production in the area with 994 publications, followed by
graphic coupling, where each node represents a country linked to those countries it has
The United States with 623. These countries have collaborated on 145 publications. Some
of their collaborative work includes mapping rice crops using Landsat 8 satellite data [79].
In addition, analyzing land cover changes due to different human activities [85], and
creating global maps of an artificial impervious area to identify human settlements and
their possible environmental impact [96]. In addition, China maintains a strong relationship
with Canada, collaborating in research related to wetland inventory [97], flood monitoring
using algorithms based on multi-temporal SAR statistics [98], and monitoring fallow fields
as a product of agricultural activities [99]. The UK also has a strong relationship with China,
where they have worked together on monitoring and mapping the Himalayas [100], land
use change [101], and other applications.
Being the second most prominent country in GEE publications, The United States
has collaborated with Canada on 40 papers. Collaboration has focused on monitoring
and inventorying wetlands [102,103], GEE review articles [29,104], and mapping irrigated
areas [105]. Germany also collaborated with The United States in 23 studies. In some of
these collaborations, they mapped plantations [106], estimated biophysical variables such
as canopy water content (CWC), fraction of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation
(FAPAR), fraction vegetation cover (FVC), and leaf area index (LAI) [107]. Additionally,
Australia has carried out 15 studies with the USA. We find the application of algorithms for
crop mapping [108], and the analysis of the severity of fires in North American forests [109].
Other countries, such as India, have also presented important publications on Google
Earth Engine. India occupies third place as the country with the most publications, with
231 papers. The most notable publications include: conducting research in cropland
mapping [110,111], wet and dry snow mapping [112], and analysis of river avulsions [113].
Brazil ranks fourth on the list of countries with the highest publication contribution, with
138 publications and 1582 citations. Brazil has also published papers on topics such as
monitoring of livestock activity and pastures [114], analysis of spatio-temporal patterns
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 3675 8 of 30

of road mortality with roadkill data of seven mammals [115], and monitoring of the
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 30
Amazon [18]. Finally, Italy ranks fifth globally with 133 publications, reaching 1916 citations.
Some of the topics of said publications relate to human population settlement analysis [84],
land use and cover evaluation [116], and other applications.
The VOSviewer
collaborated. Figure software allows
4 shows the the construction
collaboration of abetween
network bibliometric map ofwith
countries, bibliographic
71 nodes,
coupling, where each node represents a country linked to those countries it has
11 clusters, and 2485 links, with a link strength of 3,621,427. China has strong ties with the collaborated.
Figure
United4 States
shows(link
the collaboration network
strength 369,292), between
Canada countries,
(link strengthwith 71 nodes,
75,189), 11 clusters,
the United and
Kingdom
2485
(linklinks, with60,221),
strength a link strength of 3,621,427.
Brazil (link China has
strength 57,690), strong ties
Germany (linkwith The United
strength 62,637),States
Aus-
(link
traliastrength 369,292),
(link strength Canada
57,139), (link(link
India strength 75,189),
strength The Italy
72,829), United Kingdom
(link strength(link strength
60,461), and
60,221), Brazil (link
the Netherlands strength
(link 57,690),
strength Germany
37,644), (link strength
indicating 62,637),
significant Australiabetween
collaboration (link strength
these
57,139),
countries.India (link strength 72,829), Italy (link strength 60,461), and The Netherlands (link
strength 37,644), indicating significant collaboration between these countries.

Figure 4. Countries network.

Figure 4. Countries network.
3.1.4. Journals Performance
3.1.4. Journals Performance
Analyzing journals provided a general overview of the use and application of GEE and
Analyzing
its various journals
disciplines provided aingeneral
as presented overview structure.
their intellectual of the use The
and analysis
application of GEE
concluded
and are
that its various disciplines
404 journals linked as
to presented
this field ofinstudy.
their intellectual
Table 3 showsstructure. The analysis
the 15 journals withcon-
the
cluded that
highest are 404 journals
contribution linked
of articles to this
(1108), field of study.
representing TableIn
39.57%. 3 shows the the
addition, 15 journals with
table shows
the highest contribution
performance of articles
indicators, such (1108),
as CiteScore, representing
Scimago Journal39.57%. In addition,
Rank (SJR), the table
and H-Index.
shows performance indicators, such as CiteScore, Scimago Journal Rank (SJR), and H-In-
dex.

Table 3. Scientific production for the top 15 journals.

Rank Journals Country Articles Citations Citescore SJR H-Index

1 Remote Sensing Switzerland 535 9276 7.4 1.283 144
2 Remote Sensing of Environment United States 106 10,864 20.7 3.862 303
International Journal of Applied Earth
3 Netherlands 60 1183 10.5 1.844 108
Observation and Geoinformation
4 Sustainability (Switzerland) Switzerland 44 208 5.0 0.664 109
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 3675 9 of 30

Table 3. Scientific production for the top 15 journals.

Rank Journals Country Articles Citations Citescore SJR H-Index

1 Remote Sensing Switzerland 535 9276 7.4 1.283 144
2 Remote Sensing of Environment United States 106 10,864 20.7 3.862 303
International Journal of Applied Earth
3 Netherlands 60 1183 10.5 1.844 108
Observation and Geoinformation
4 Sustainability (Switzerland) Switzerland 44 208 5.0 0.664 109
5 Land Switzerland 43 174 3.2 0.685 32
ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and
6 Netherlands 43 1951 17.6 3.481 155
Remote Sensing
Remote Sensing Applications: Society and
7 Netherlands 42 427 5.0 0.840 27
Environment
IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied
8 United States 41 664 6.4 1.335 101
Earth Observations and Remote Sensing
9 Science of the Total Environment Netherlands 38 509 14.1 1.806 275
ISPRS International Journal of
10 Switzerland 30 283 5.0 0.721 52
Geo-Information
11 Ecological Indicators Netherlands 29 318 8.4 1.284 145
12 Water (Switzerland) Switzerland 26 288 4.8 0.716 69
13 Forests Switzerland 25 134 4.0 0.623 52
United
14 International Journal of Remote Sensing 24 146 6.5 0.873 185
Kingdom
United
15 Geocarto International 22 62 7.2 0.644 47
Kingdom

Based on the number of published articles, the journal remote sensing ranked first
with 535 papers (24.73%) and 9276 citations, making it the second most cited journal in this
category. Remote Sensing of Environment ranked second, with 106 articles (4.90%), and stands
out as the most-cited journal, with 10,864 citations. International Journal of Applied Earth
Observation and Geoinformation ranked third, with 60 articles (2.77%). Finally, Sustainability
(Switzerland), Land, and ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing ranked fourth,
fifth, and sixth, accounting for 2.03%, 1.99%, and 1.99%, respectively.
According to the Citescore and SJR performance indicators for the top 15, Remote
Sensing of Environment, ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry, and Science of the Total Environment
are first. Based on the H-index indicator, Remote Sensing of Environment, ISPRS Journal of
Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, and Science of the Total Environment ranked first, second,
and third, respectively.
In Table 3, the first, second, sixth, seventh, eighth, and fourteenth journals have
the theme of remote sensing in common. The journals in the third, eighth, tenth, and
fifteenth places present the theme of geosciences. The rest of the journals correspond to
multidisciplinary categories, such as Science of the Total Environment, and specific areas, such
as sustainability, land, ecological indicator, water, and forest. They revealed the importance
of the GEE in these areas of knowledge and encompassing the earth sciences.

3.1.5. Areas of Knowledge

The scientific production of this subject of study covers 25 areas of knowledge.
Figure 5 shows these main areas. According to the nature of the study, a publication
can address more than one area of knowledge. The results indicate that earth and planetary
sciences are the most outstanding area of knowledge, with publications that represent
30.23%, followed by environmental science with 16.81% share, computer science (11.53%),
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 3675 10 of 30

agricultural and biological sciences (9.39%), social sciences (8.47%), engineering (7.30%)
and physics and astronomy (4.22%). The diversity in areas of knowledge demonstrates the
multidisciplinary applications of GEE. In addition, the remaining 12.05% are from other
areas of knowledge, such as mathematics, energy, decision sciences, biochemistry, genetics,
molecular biology, materials science, multidisciplinary, medicine, business, management
and accounting, chemistry, chemical engineering, economics, econometrics, and finance,
arts and humanities, neuroscience, veterinary, dentistry, immunology and microbiology,
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 30
health professions, pharmacology, toxicology, and pharmaceutics.

Figure 5. Main subject areas of GEE research in Scopus.

Figure 5. Main subject areas of GEE research in Scopus.
3.1.6. Frequently
3.1.6. Frequently Cited
Cited Documents
Documents
Table 4 shows the top
Table 4 shows the top 15 15 most
most cited
cited documents.
documents. FiveFive studies
studies perform
perform algorithms
algorithms andand
analysis for
analysis forcropland
croplandmonitoring
monitoring [79,108,110,117,118],
[79,108,110,117,118], four
four articles
articles dealdeal
withwith multitem-
multitemporal
poral mapping
mapping and analysis
and analysis of landofuseland
and use andcover
land land[18,85,119,120],
cover [18,85,119,120], three are
three papers papers are
review
review articles
articles of the
of the GEE GEE platform
platform [1,2,29],[1,2,29],
one studyonemaps
studyimpervious
maps impervious areasone
areas [96], [96], one
paper
paper analyzes
analyzes mangroves
mangroves [121], [121], and another
and another articlearticle
focusesfocuses on estimation
on the the estimation of terres-
of terrestrial
trial evapotranspiration [122]. However, these documents represent only
evapotranspiration [122]. However, these documents represent only 0.54% of the scientific 0.54% of the sci-
entific production,
production, with
with 8964 8964 citations
citations (22.85%). (22.85%).
The article by Gorelick et al. [1], published in the journal Remote Sensing of Environ-
ment, 4.ranked
Table Top 15first,
most with
cited 4792 citations, representing 53.46% of the top 15. This publication
documents.
studies the GEE platform’s characteristics, structure, applications, and advantages. The
Rank Authors second place Yearcorresponds to the Document Title
article by Dong et al. [79],Citations Document
published in the journalType
Remote
Sensing of Environment, Googlewhich
Earthhas 462 citations.
Engine: This study mapped the paddy rice plant-
planetary-scale
1 Gorelick et al. [1] 2017 4792 Article
ing area in Northeastgeospatial analysis the
Asia to analyze for everyone
characteristics of its geographical distribution
using Landsat 8 images, Mappingthe paddy
phenology-based algorithm,
rice planting area in and the GEE platform. In third
2 Dong et al. [79]
place is the study
2016
by Liu et al. [119],
Northeastern published
Asia in
with Landsat the8 journal Remote Sensing of Environment,
462 Article
images, the
with 377 citations. Finally, phenology-based
study by Gong algorithm,
et al. [96] ranked fourth, with 362 citations,
published in the journal Remoteand Google EarthofEngine
Sensing Environment. The other articles presented vari-
ous applications and content variations related to remote sensing; the same is in Table 4
with their respective authors and citation numbers.

Table 4. Top 15 most cited documents.

Document
Rank Authors Year Document Title Citations
Type
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 3675 11 of 30

Table 4. Cont.

Rank Authors Year Document Title Citations Document Type

High-resolution multi-temporal
mapping of global urban land using
3 Liu et al. [119] 2018 377 Article
Landsat images based on the Google
Earth Engine Platform
Annual maps of global artificial
4 Gong et al. [96] 2020 impervious area (GAIA) between 362 Article
1985 and 2018
Reconstructing three decades of land
use and land cover changes in
5 Souza et al. [18] 2020 324 Article
Brazilian biomes with Landsat
archive and earth engine
Google Earth Engine for geo-big data
6 Tamiminia et al. [29] 2020 applications: a meta-analysis and 313 Short Survey
systematic review
A scalable satellite-based crop yield
7 Lobell et al. [117] 2015 305 Article
mapper
Automated cropland mapping of
8 Xiong et al. [110] 2017 continental Africa using Google Earth 298 Article
Engine cloud computing
Google Earth Engine applications
9 Kumar et al. [2] 2018 since inception: usage, trends, and 280 Article
potential
Mapping major land cover dynamics
10 Huang et al. [85] 2017 in Beijing using all Landsat images in 258 Article
Google Earth Engine
40-Year (1978–2017) human
settlement changes in China reflected
11 Gong et al. [120] 2019 247 Article
by impervious surfaces from satellite
remote sensing
A mangrove forest map of China in
2015: analysis of time series Landsat
12 Chen et al. [121] 2017 7/8 and Sentinel-1A imagery in 240 Article
Google Earth Engine cloud
computing platform
Exploring Google Earth Engine
platform for big data processing:
13 Shelestov et al. [118] 2017 237 Article
classification of multi-temporal
satellite imagery for crop mapping
Coupled estimation of 500 m and
8-day resolution global
14 Zhang et al. [122] 2019 236 Article
evapotranspiration and gross
primary production in 2002–2017
A 30 m Landsat-derived cropland
extent product of Australia and
15 Teluguntla et al. [108] 2018 China using random forest machine 233 Article
learning algorithm on Google Earth
Engine cloud computing platform
SUM OF TOP 15 CITATIONS 8964
TOTAL CITATIONS (2800 DOCUMENTS) 39,228

The article by Gorelick et al. [1], published in the journal Remote Sensing of Environment,
ranked first, with 4792 citations, representing 53.46% of the top 15. This publication studies
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 3675 12 of 30

the GEE platform’s characteristics, structure, applications, and advantages. The second
place corresponds to the article by Dong et al. [79], published in the journal Remote Sensing
of Environment, which has 462 citations. This study mapped the paddy rice planting area in
Northeast Asia to analyze the characteristics of its geographical distribution using Landsat
8 images, the phenology-based algorithm, and the GEE platform. In third place is the study
by Liu et al. [119], published in the journal Remote Sensing of Environment, with 377 citations.
Finally, the study by Gong et al. [96] ranked fourth, with 362 citations, published in the
journal Remote Sensing of Environment. The other articles presented various applications
and content variations related to remote sensing; the same is in Table 4 with their respective
authors and citation numbers.

3.1.7. Satellites and Sensors Used Frequently

GEE contains a catalog of large-scale satellite images. Figure 6 shows the most used
satellites and sensors in the analyzed publications. The Landsat satellite was the most used,
appearing in 1283 studies, followed by the Sentinel satellite, with 933 documents. ASTER,
MODIS, and SAR sensors rank third, fourth, and fifth, respectively. Some studies have
combined different satellite data sets, such as Landsat and Sentinel [111,118]; Landsat and
MODIS [123]; Landsat, Sentinel, and MODIS [124]; Landsat, MODIS, and ASTER [125];
Landsat, Sentinel, ASTER, and MODIS [126]; among other combinations of data.
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW
In
12 of 30
addition, few studies included other satellites and sensors such as LiDAR, AVHRR, ALOS
PALSAR, WorldView, NOAA, and PROBA-V.

Figure 6.
Figure 6. Satellites
Satellites and
and sensors
sensors most
most mentioned
mentioned in
in publications
publicationsabout
aboutGEE
GEEfrom
from2011
2011to
to2022.
2022.

3.1.8.
3.1.8. Remote
Remote Sensing
Sensing Applications
Applications over
over Time
Time
Figure
Figure 77 shows
shows the
the main
main remote
remote sensing
sensing applications
applications developed
developed in
in GEE
GEE during
during thethe
years analyzed. This analysis allows identifying cropland and vegetation topics, land
years analyzed. This analysis allows identifying cropland and vegetation topics, land use use
and
and land
land cover,
cover, climate
climate change,
change, cartography
cartography and
and GIS,
GIS, and
and flood
flood mapping,
mapping, which
which are
are the
the
five main uses of GEE. Furthermore, these show a continuous growth of
five main uses of GEE. Furthermore, these show a continuous growth of studies.studies.
 Figure 6. Satellites and sensors most mentioned in publications about GEE from 2011 to 2022.

3.1.8. Remote Sensing Applications over Time

Figure 7 shows the main remote sensing applications developed in GEE during the
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 3675 years analyzed. This analysis allows identifying cropland and vegetation topics, land use
13 of 30
and land cover, climate change, cartography and GIS, and flood mapping, which are the
five main uses of GEE. Furthermore, these show a continuous growth of studies.

Figure 7. Main remote sensing applications studied in GEE and their evolution over time.
Figure 7. Main remote sensing applications studied in GEE and their evolution over time.

3.2. Science Mapping

3.2.1. Author Keywords Co-Occurrence Network
This analysis characterized the study area by visualization in two dimensions, using a
semantic map to observe its intellectual structure, topics, and relevant themes [70]. Figure 8
shows the co-occurrence network of author keywords, where 301 out of 5815 were analyzed,
the same ones repeated at least five times. The network structure is 10 clusters, 301 nodes,
3610 links, and a total link strength of 10,816. Each node represents a research topic
(keyword), and the set of nodes (cluster of the same color) represents a research area. The
size of each node is related to the number of times it appears in the documents.
Cluster 1, called “land use and land cover” (red), has 47 nodes and 2245 occurrences.
This cluster’s topics focus on applying GEE in land use and land cover mapping of different
areas [127]. Likewise, the use of this platform to identify land use and land cover changes
(LULCC) in a reservoir catchment allows for observing if there is any climate impact [101].
LULCC has also been used to identify subsurface drainage [128]. Furthermore, there are
applications in urban areas using population mapping [84].
Cluster 2, labeled “cloud computing” (green), has 38 nodes and 513 occurrences. This
group research includes using the Google Earth Engine Cloud Computing Platform [79,103] and
developing GEE algorithms for flood monitoring and mapping locally and globally [98,129].
Other topics include land cover changes [130], and identifying possible affected mangrove
areas to prevent their loss [17,131]. In addition, other studies have integrated in situ data,
satellite data, and linear regression and machine learning models to estimate the volume of
forest areas [132].
 a semantic map to observe its intellectual structure, topics, and relevant themes [70]. Fig-
ure 8 shows the co-occurrence network of author keywords, where 301 out of 5815 were
analyzed, the same ones repeated at least five times. The network structure is 10 clusters,
301 nodes, 3610 links, and a total link strength of 10,816. Each node represents a research
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 3675 topic (keyword), and the set of nodes (cluster of the same color) represents a research
14 of 30 area.
The size of each node is related to the number of times it appears in the documents.

Co-occurrence author
Figure8.8.Co-occurrence
Figure authorkeyword
keywordnetwork.
network.

Cluster 3, called “machine learning” (blue), has 37 nodes and 997 occurrences. Studies
Cluster 1, called “land use and land cover” (red), has 47 nodes and 2245 occurrences.
in this cluster focus on processed and curated datasets for deep learning [133,134] and
This cluster’s
spatial topics focus
and temporal on mapping
pattern applying[135].
GEE in landincludes
It also use andwetland
land cover
changemapping
detectionof differ-
ent areas
using GEE [127]. Likewise,
algorithms [136],the
theuse of this platform
presentation to identify
of automatic land use and
dataset generators land cover
for Earth
changes
observation [137], and soil surface moisture mapping focusing on machine learning inclimate
(LULCC) in a reservoir catchment allows for observing if there is any
impact [101].Also,
GEE [138]. LULCC has unsupervised
applied also been used to learning
deep identify was
subsurface
also used drainage
to identify[128]. Further-
flood-
affected
more, areas
there are[139].
applications in urban areas using population mapping [84].
Cluster2,4,labeled
Cluster called “sustainability”
“cloud computing” (yellow), has has
(green), 45 nodes and and
38 nodes 854 513
occurrences.
occurrences.It This
contains studies on data from physical geography and Earth observation
group research includes using the Google Earth Engine Cloud Computing Platform to address sustain-
ability challenges [140]. Furthermore, these studies include research on land use and land
[79,103] and developing GEE algorithms for flood monitoring and mapping locally and
cover [141], land degradation [142], croplands [143], and others. In addition, this cluster
globally
includes[98,129]. Other
an analysis topics include
of wildfires landthrough
in Australia cover changes [130], and
machine learning identifying possible
[144].
affected mangrove
Cluster areas
5, labeled to prevent
“spectral index” their losshas
(purple), [17,131].
31 nodes Inand
addition, other studies
776 occurrences. This have
group’s research focused on constructing high-resolution maps using satellite data and
spectral indices. The studies in this cluster made estimates of global land surface temper-
ature [125], identified areas affected by climate change and possible reasons for climate
change [145,146], and reconstructed NDVI time series data with information from sensors
such as MODIS [147]. Other research combined spectral indices such as NDVI, EVI, NDWI,
and algorithms for crop identification [148], and analysis of temporal patterns and effects
on vegetation indices [149].
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 3675 15 of 30

Cluster 6, called “classification” (turquoise), has 29 nodes and 845 occurrences. This
cluster includes studies on procedures used in image classification for crop mapping [150]
and land cover [151]. In addition, there is a study on land use change assessment using
Sentinel 2 products [152]. It also included the analysis of the GEE classifier’s performance,
among which are the minimum distance (MD), support vector machine (SVM), classification
and regression trees (CART), random forest (RF), and Naive Bayes (NB) [153].
Cluster 7, called “remote sensing applications” (orange), has 26 nodes and 794 occur-
rences. Publications in this cluster focused on the use of big data in land cover delineation
and quantification using computer platforms [154], as well as forest fire mapping [155], land
cover changes, and air quality [156]. Publications in this cluster also analyzed ecosystem
services using population data, meteorological data, terrain characteristics, and data from
the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) [86]. This cluster includes a study on data
processing in the cloud for remote sensing of seas and oceans [157].
Cluster 8, labeled “multi-temporal analysis” (brown), has 23 nodes and 255 occur-
rences. This group includes multitemporal analysis of satellite images [158] and multitem-
poral mapping of population distribution in China [159]. Other studies focus on identifying
LULC changes [160], coastline monitoring [161], and others.
Cluster 9, called “satellite imagery” (pink), has 21 nodes and 264 occurrences. The
studies included in this group focus on using satellite images and employing GEE for their
respective geoprocessing [162]. Also, a study that estimates sub-hydro flattened water
surfaces [163] uses spectral unmixing techniques for habitat remote sensing for migratory
shorebird conservation [164], among others.
Cluster 10, labeled “vegetation index” (very light red), has 14 nodes and 226 occur-
rences on the use of vegetation indices in cropland mapping [124]. Other topics include
flood influence assessment [165] and the development of phenological and GEE-based
algorithms [166]. It also provides automation methods for mapping paddy rice produc-
tion [167]. Other studies focused on evaluating the annual dynamics of vegetation cover
and its climatic impact [168].

3.2.2. Co-Authorship Network Analysis

The country/author co-authorship network (Figure 9) indicates the relationship and
degree of collaboration between countries/authors in the field of GEE research [169]. The
lines linking the nodes indicate the co-authorship between countries/authors; the distance
between clusters shows their strength and how much the countries and authors publish in
co-authorship [170]. Figure 9a shows the co-authorship by the country network, comprised
of 71 countries (nodes) distributed in eight clusters. Furthermore, Figure 9b shows the
co-authorship by the authors’ network, with a structure is 16 clusters and 397 nodes.
USA and China are the countries with the highest productivity and present a strong co-
authorship relationship (link strength 146); Gong, P. and Liu, X., with affiliations from China
and USA, respectively, present different collaborations; two of them are the most cited
articles and refer to the creation of global maps of an artificial impervious zone to identify
human settlements and their possible environmental impact (362 citations) [96] and satellite
remote sensing of changes in human settlements in China as reflected by impervious
surfaces (247 citations) [120]. Iran and Canada have a strong co-authorship relationship
(link strength 34); Moghimi, A. (Iran) y Amani, M. (Canada) developed a method for
assessing flood damage in different types of land use and land cover [171]. Likewise, USA
and India present co-authorship (link strength 27), where Kumar, V. (India) and Ellenburg,
W.L. (USA) used Sentinel-1 data and the Otsu method to map flooded areas [172]. China
and Australia also have a close relationship (link strength 20), where Zhang, Y (China)
and Kong, D. (Australia) have developed analyses on global evapotranspiration and gross
primary production [122].
 lines linking the nodes indicate the co-authorship between countries/authors; the distance
between clusters shows their strength and how much the countries and authors publish
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 3675
in co-authorship [170]. Figure 9a shows the co-authorship by the country network, com-
16 of 30
prised of 71 countries (nodes) distributed in eight clusters. Furthermore, Figure 9b shows
the co-authorship by the authors’ network, with a structure is 16 clusters and 397 nodes.

Figure
Figure 9. 9. Co-authorship
Co-authorship network.(a)(a)
network. Co-authorship
Co-authorship byby country.
country. (b)(b) Co-authorship
Co-authorship byby author.
author.

3.2.3. Co-Citation Network of Cited Authors

This analysis highlights which authors have been considered in scientific publications to
form the knowledge base (reference documents) of the intellectual structure studied [173–175].
Figure 10 shows this co-citation network of cited authors, where a structure of 5 clusters
 3.2.3. Co-Citation Network of Cited Authors
This analysis highlights which authors have been considered in scientific publica-
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 3675
tions to form the knowledge base (reference documents) of the intellectual structure
17 of 30
stud-
ied [173–175]. Figure 10 shows this co-citation network of cited authors, where a structure
of 5 clusters and 1000 authors, considering a minimum of 20 citations. The network has
465,623 links
and 1000 and aconsidering
authors, link strength of 11,147,647.
a minimum of 20 citations. The network has 465,623 links
and a link strength of 11,147,647.

Figure 10. Co-citation network of cited authors.

Figure 10. Co-citation network of cited authors.
Cluster 1 (red) is called “Spatio-temporal analysis and time series” and has 397 authors.
ThisCluster
cluster contains topics
1 (red) is related
called to space–time analysis
“Spatio-temporal analysisapplied in various
and time contexts
series” and hasand397 au-
time series to measure the development of a specific factor. The group is led by Li X., with
thors. This cluster contains topics related to space–time analysis applied in various
1631 citations, presenting papers on mapping coasts, plains, and phenological elements
using the time series of Landsat images and observing space–time dynamics [176–178].
Wang J. (with 1533 citations) has also been prominent with studies on vegetation indices’
annual mapping and temporal responses [96,179]. Another notable author is Zhang Y., who
analyzes satellite images to measure spatial and temporal variations [180].
Cluster 2 (green) is called “GEE capacities” and has 230 authors and 48,353 citations.
These studies are related to showing the potential of the GEE platform and its different
applications. This group includes Thau D. (1964), Hancher M. (1714), Moore R. (1709),
Dixon M. (1384), and Ilyuschenko S. (1326), who have worked together on feature-related
studies and GEE research [1]. Also, they worked on papers using the GEE methodology on
topics such as forest cover change [181], remote sensing [182], and more.
Cluster 3 (blue), called “Cropland”, comprises 171 authors and has 29,109 citations.
The studies are related to the mapping and monitoring of crop fields, agriculture, and the
expansion or reduction of vegetation. In this group, we find Xiao X.M. (1363), Dong J.
(1120), and Qin Y. (808) with research mapping rice, deciduous rubber plantations, and
forests [79,183]. Gong P. (1034) has also excelled in the geospatial estimation of ecosystem
services at the global level [86].
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 3675 18 of 30

Cluster 4 (yellow), called “Cloud computing and big data”, has 155 authors and 23,089
citations. This cluster’s studies cover geoprocessing in the cloud and big data management.
The most prominent author is Gorelick N. (2194), who has worked on a review of GEE, a
platform for large-scale geoprocessing of data [1]. Huang C.Q. (657) used GEE applications
in flood studies using large datasets on this platform [98]. Breiman L. (593) has worked on
papers in machine learning and random forest [184]. Also, there is Brisco B. (574) with the
automation of surface water mapping [185].
Cluster 5 (purple), called “Land use/cover and temperature”, has 77 authors and
6106 citations. The studies of this cluster are related to the classification of land use and
land cover and the monitoring of the Earth’s surface temperature. Huang H.B. (464) and
Clinton N. (401) have carried out a mapping of land occupation and identified its major
dynamics [85]. Also, Clinton N. has presented papers on urban heat islands [186]. Weng
Q.H. (345) has presented papers where they analyze the surface temperature through
satellite images [187].

3.2.4. Journal’s Co-Citation Network

This analysis determines the research accumulated over time in this field of study
based on various disciplines reflected in the journals found in the references [188,189].
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 30
Figure 11 shows the journal co-citation network, comprised of 398 journals (nodes) with at
least 20 citations, distributed in 6 clusters.

Figure
Figure 11.
11. Journal
Journal co-citation
co-citation network.
network.

Cluster 1 (red), “Hydrology

“Hydrology andand geophysical”,
geophysical”, has
has 99
99 nodes
nodes and
and aa total
total of
of 14,972
14,972 ci-
ci-
tations, including
includingJournal
JournalofofHydrology
Hydrology(the
(TheNetherlands,
Netherlands,with 1016
with citations),
1016 Journal
citations), of Ge-
Journal of
ophysical Research
Geophysical (the
Research United
(The United States,
States,974),
974),Geophysical
GeophysicalResearch
ResearchLetters
Letters (the
(TheUnited
United States,
States,
798), Scientific Reports (the United Kingdom, 758), Water Resources Research (the United
States, 627), among others.
Cluster 2 (green), “Science and Nature”, contains 94 nodes with 14,120 citations. In
this group, the following stand out; Science (the United States, 1341), Nature (the United
Kingdom, 1335), Environmental Research Letters (the United Kingdom, 789), PLoS ONE (the
United States, 779), Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 3675 19 of 30

798), Scientific Reports (The United Kingdom, 758), Water Resources Research (The United
States, 627), among others.
Cluster 2 (green), “Science and Nature”, contains 94 nodes with 14,120 citations. In
this group, the following stand out; Science (The United States, 1341), Nature (The United
Kingdom, 1335), Environmental Research Letters (The United Kingdom, 789), PLoS ONE (The
United States, 779), Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of The United States of
America (The United States, 773), among others.
Cluster 3 (blue), “Environment and sustainability”, has 72 nodes and a total of 11,205 ci-
tations, including Science of the Total Environment (The Netherlands, 1849 citations), Sustain-
ability (Switzerland, 680), Environmental Monitoring and Assessment (The Netherlands, 506),
Journal of Environmental Management (The United States, 458), Land Use Policy (The United
Kingdom, 428), among others.
Cluster 4 (yellow), “Remote sensing”, presents 49 nodes with 46,212 citations. In this
cluster, the following stand out: Remote Sensing of Environment (The United States, 16,188),
Remote Sensing (Switzerland, 11,122), International Journal of Remote Sensing (The United
Kingdom, 4389), ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (The Netherlands,
3143), International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation (The Netherlands,
2184), IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing (The United States, 1501), IEEE
Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing (The United States,
941), Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing (The United States, 712), among others.
Cluster 5 (purple), “agriculture”, has 45 nodes and 4620 citations. In this group, there
are journals such as Agricultural and Forest Meteorology (The Netherlands, 619), Scientific
Data (The United Kingdom, 453), Geoderma (The Netherlands, 367), Environmental Modeling
and Software (The Netherlands, 339), Catena (The Netherlands, 319), among others.
Cluster 6 (turquoise), “Ecological”, has 39 nodes and 4134 citations. In this group, we
find Ecological Indicators (The Netherlands, 1092), Acta Ecologica Sinica (China, 234), Science
Bulletin (The Netherlands, 217), Journal of Geographical Sciences (China, 216), Journal of Remote
Sensing (China, 216), among others.

4. Discussion
Research and applications in GEE began 12 years ago, with a relevant increase in
scientific production (see Figure 2), highlighting articles (77.25%) and conference papers
(18.57%). Most of the scientific output is in papers. Remote Sensing of Environment and
Remote Sensing are the journals with more publications. On the other hand, among the
conference papers with more publications in the area are the International Archives of
the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences—ISPRS Archives;
and the International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS). Furthermore,
these journals and conference papers receive and publish articles mainly in English. The
first contribution is modeling a 4D city with GEE [76]. As of 2017, a growing publication
trend demonstrates researchers’ interest in this field of study.
This scientific production has received the collaboration of 125 countries. China (1st)
and The United States (2nd) correspond to the countries with the most contributions of
documents on the subject, with 994 and 623 publications, respectively. Likewise, these
countries have the highest number of collaborative works in which at least one of the
authors belongs to a different country, and their main topics of study have been cropland
mapping [79], land use and land cover [85]. These countries also collaborate with Canada,
The United Kingdom, and Brazil (see Figures 3 and 4). Highlighting the impact of devel-
oped countries in knowledge production using the GEE platform [2]. These studies were
published in nine languages, with English being the most predominant (93.57%).
The results showed that most of the projects have focused on earth and planetary
sciences (with 1639 publications), which indicates the potential of GEE in applying solutions
for earth sciences, as corroborated by Mutanga and Kumar [28]. The main use of GEE is to
obtain and process images. Other subject areas are environmental science (911), computer
science (625), agricultural and biological sciences (509), social sciences (459), engineering
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 3675 20 of 30

(396), physics and astronomy (229), among others. This variety in subject areas shows that
GEE is a multi-disciplinary tool for solving environmental problems and is essential to
achieving the millennium’s development goals [21,28].
The importance of Landsat and Sentinel data is highlighted in the analysis of satellites
and sensors used in the GEE research. Landsat is the most used because it is the satellite
mission with the most significant historical and continuous data, facilitating multi-temporal
studies since 1972 [190,191]. At the same time, Sentinel made satellite images available in
2015 with higher spatial (10 m) and temporal (every five days) resolution [192].
The study’s intellectual structure analysis used three bibliometric maps as relevant
graphic representations of the topic. The author’s keywords co-occurrence was analyzed
in the first place (see Figure 9), where the presence of overlapping clusters is observed,
with a central element called “Google Earth Engine”. The co-occurrence demonstrates that
the research focused on the elaboration of machine learning algorithms (blue cluster) and
remote sensing applications (orange cluster) based on cloud computing (green cluster).
The co-occurrence shows a focus on the use of satellite imagery (pink cluster), which
through classification algorithms, can perform multi-temporal analysis (turquoise and
brown clusters), employ spectral and vegetation indices (purple and very light red clusters),
as is commonly conducted in land use and land cover (red cluster).
Second, the bibliometric map presents the co-citation analysis of the authors, which
evidences the relationship between researchers who have spoken or have implemented
the GEE platform in their papers (see Figure 11). Gorelick, N., Thau, D., Moore, R.,
and Hancher, M. (yellow and green clusters) were the authors with the most relevant
papers on research and applications of GEE [1,116,193], standing out with the substantial
number of citations they have acquired in their publications. In addition, there were
important contributions by Li, X., Wang, J, and Zhang, Y. in the spatio-temporal analysis and
elaboration of time series [177–180]. Xiao, X.M. and Dong, J. have contributed publications
related to vegetation [194,195], while Gong, P., Clinton, N., and Weng, Q.H. presented
LULC and temperature monitoring [196,197].
Third, according to the analysis of the co-citation network. The red cluster contains
the most significant number of journals with themes related to hydrology and geophysical.
The yellow cluster stood out by its number of relevant citations and the journals with the
highest number of publications on GEE (Remote Sensing, Remote Sensing of Environment) and
citations in papers related to remote sensing. The other clusters (green, blue, and purple)
deal with multidisciplinary issues.

5. Conclusions
This study analyzed and evaluated the intellectual structure of 2800 documents related
to the Google Earth Engine platform, the same ones indexed in the Scopus database,
between 2011 and 2022. The results showed that scientific evolution is a growing trend, as
evident by the contribution of 125 countries and 398 journals.
The most significant publications and citations came from two journals, (i) Remote
Sensing and (ii) Remote Sensing of Environment. Scientific production mainly focused on
developed countries like China and The United States. In addition, the co-occurrence
analysis of author keywords revealed GEE research topics related to land use, land cover,
cloud computing, machine learning, sustainability, spectral index, classification, remote
sensing, multi-temporal, satellite imagery, and vegetation index, among others.
GEE has proven to be an emergent web platform with the potential to manage big
satellite data easily. Furthermore, GEE is considered a multidisciplinary tool with multiple
applications in various areas of knowledge, such as earth and planetary science, environ-
mental sciences, computing, agriculture, biology, and engineering, among others. These
qualities made it easier for researchers worldwide to create, replicate, analyze, and share
algorithms in the cloud using remote sensing applications.
The research identified the relatively new platform application in different geographi-
cal scales and areas of knowledge. Furthermore, the present study seeks to facilitate access
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 3675 21 of 30

to relevant information about a given study area, identify emerging topics, and facilitate
collaboration among countries and authors. Finally, this study can serve as a guide for
researchers and their future research projects.

6. Limitations and Future Research Directions

The study has some limitations related to (i) bias in the analysis, given that the number
of citations or documents is not the only quality criteria; (ii) some important documents
may be excluded when only considering the Scopus database since there are also other
databases such as Web of Science, Dimensions, Scielo, among others; (iii) it is not possible to
combined database in the VOSviewer software; (iv) the information collected only includes
documents up to February 2023, so the current year presents incomplete information in
this study.
Research using the Google Earth Engine platform has shown rapid growth in recent
years, promoting the emergence of new research topics and the need to expand knowledge.
As a result, the following topics are recommended for future research:
1. Literature review studies. GEE is a recent platform; as a result, studies were con-
ducted [2,28–30,104]. It is necessary to address the analysis in other databases, search
engines, and types of documents.
2. Studies in developing countries. The most significant contribution of publications
on GEE corresponds to developed countries. Advantageously, GEE is free, and the
GEE algorithms facilitate replicating these studies in different regions by changing
variables and parameters. In this way, developing countries can have the opportunity
to collaborate with the generation of knowledge.
3. Remote sensing applications. GEE has shown its potential in disaster mapping.
However, it can delve into: droughts [198,199], earthquakes [200], floods [201,202],
fires [203,204], and landslides [205,206]. Likewise, environmental monitoring [207]
and mangrove mapping [208] have become very important in recent years.
4. Global maps. Land cover and land use maps have been studied and elaborated in
specific areas [85]. However, only some studies approach the application of GEE
from a global perspective [96,119]. With the constant increase in satellite images and
geoprocessing in the cloud, the production of high-precision global maps on land use
and cover, vegetation indices, and geophysical and climatic data, among others, is
expected.
5. Monitoring of migration of animal species. With high-resolution images, knowledge
of animal species, and the use of GEE, it is possible to identify the ecosystems where
animal species live.
6. Studies showing innovative methodologies and algorithms. Cloud processing facil-
itates research in terms of time and resources. An example is the inclusion of new
algorithms that can combine indexes and classify images.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.V.-M., N.M.-B. and P.C.-M.; methodology, A.V.-M.,

N.M.-B. and H.R.-T.; software, N.M.-B. and H.R.-T.; validation, A.V.-M., N.M.-B., P.C.-M. and H.R.-T.;
formal analysis, A.V.-M., N.M.-B., P.C.-M., H.R.-T., L.S. and M.A.; investigation, A.V.-M., N.M.-B.,
P.C.-M., H.R.-T., L.S. and M.A.; resources, A.V.-M. and P.C.-M.; data curation, N.M.-B. and H.R.-T.;
writing—original draft preparation, A.V.-M., N.M.-B., P.C.-M., H.R.-T., L.S. and M.A.; writing—review
and editing, A.V.-M., N.M.-B., P.C.-M., H.R.-T., L.S. and M.A.; visualization, N.M.-B. and H.R.-T.;
supervision, A.V.-M.; project administration, A.V.-M. and P.C.-M. All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external institutional funding.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 3675 22 of 30

Acknowledgments: This study was supported by the research projects of the ESPOL University
(Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral): (a) ILCA: Impact of Land Cover change in the Amazon with
code no. FICT-7-2023; (b) “Proyecto de Gestión y Evaluación de la Investigación Científica en Ciencias
de la Tierra, Economía, Administración y sus vínculos con la Sociedad” (Project on Management
and Evaluation of Scientific Research in Earth Sciences, Economics, Administration and their links
with Society) with the code no. CIPAT-7-2022. Marcos Adami acknowledges the Brazilian National
Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) for the fellowship [306334/2020-8]. We
also would like to thank four anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and the editorial
office for the editorial handling. The authors would like to thank the Brazilian Space Agency for the
paper’s support.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Gorelick, N.; Hancher, M.; Dixon, M.; Ilyushchenko, S.; Thau, D.; Moore, R. Google Earth Engine: Planetary-scale geospatial
analysis for everyone. Remote Sens. Environ. 2017, 202, 18–27. [CrossRef]
2. Kumar, L.; Mutanga, O. Google Earth Engine applications since inception: Usage, trends, and potential. Remote Sens. 2018, 10,
1509. [CrossRef]
3. Parente, L.; Taquary, E.; Silva, A.P.; Souza, C.; Ferreira, L. Next Generation Mapping: Combining Deep Learning, Cloud
Computing, and Big Remote Sensing Data. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 2881. [CrossRef]
4. Padarian, J.; Minasny, B.; McBratney, A.B. Using Google’s cloud-based platform for digital soil mapping. Comput. Geosci. 2015, 83,
80–88. [CrossRef]
5. Xulu, S.; Peerbhay, K.; Gebreslasie, M.; Ismail, R. Drought Influence on Forest Plantations in Zululand, South Africa, Using
MODIS Time Series and Climate Data. Forests 2018, 9, 528. [CrossRef]
6. Mbatha, N.; Xulu, S. Time Series Analysis of MODIS-Derived NDVI for the Hluhluwe-Imfolozi Park, South Africa: Impact of
Recent Intense Drought. Climate 2018, 6, 95. [CrossRef]
7. Vos, K.; Splinter, K.D.; Harley, M.D.; Simmons, J.A.; Turner, I.L. CoastSat: A Google Earth Engine-enabled Python toolkit to
extract shorelines from publicly available satellite imagery. Environ. Model. Softw. 2019, 122, 104528. [CrossRef]
8. Stromann, O.; Nascetti, A.; Yousif, O.; Ban, Y. Dimensionality Reduction and Feature Selection for Object-Based Land Cover
Classification based on Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 Time Series Using Google Earth Engine. Remote Sens. 2019, 12, 76. [CrossRef]
9. Aybar, C.; Wu, Q.; Bautista, L.; Yali, R.; Barja, A. rgee: An R package for interacting with Google Earth Engine. J. Open Source
Softw. 2020, 5, 2272. [CrossRef]
10. Crego, R.; Masolele, M.; Connette, G.; Stabach, J. Enhancing Animal Movement Analyses: Spatiotemporal Matching of Animal
Positions with Remotely Sensed Data Using Google Earth Engine and R. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 4154. [CrossRef]
11. Li, H.; Wan, W.; Fang, Y.; Zhu, S.; Chen, X.; Liu, B.; Hong, Y. A Google Earth Engine-enabled software for efficiently generating
high-quality user-ready Landsat mosaic images. Environ. Model. Softw. 2019, 112, 16–22. [CrossRef]
12. Panidi, E.; Rykin, I.; Kikin, P.; Kolesnikov, A. Cloud-Desktop remote sensing data management to ensure time series analysis,
integration of QGIS and Google Earth Engine. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2020, XLIII-B4-2020, 553–558.
[CrossRef]
13. Fischer, G. Seeding, Evolutionary Growth and Reseeding: Constructing, Capturing and Evolving Knowledge in Domain-Oriented
Design Environments. Autom. Softw. Eng. 1998, 5, 447–464. [CrossRef]
14. He, M.; Kimball, J.; Maneta, M.; Maxwell, B.; Moreno, A.; Beguería, S.; Wu, X. Regional Crop Gross Primary Productivity and
Yield Estimation Using Fused Landsat-MODIS Data. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 372. [CrossRef]
15. Tsai, Y.; Stow, D.; Chen, H.; Lewison, R.; An, L.; Shi, L. Mapping Vegetation and Land Use Types in Fanjingshan National Nature
Reserve Using Google Earth Engine. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 927. [CrossRef]
16. Parente, L.; Ferreira, L. Assessing the Spatial and Occupation Dynamics of the Brazilian Pasturelands Based on the Automated
Classification of MODIS Images from 2000 to 2016. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 606. [CrossRef]
17. Diniz, C.; Cortinhas, L.; Nerino, G.; Rodrigues, J.; Sadeck, L.; Adami, M.; Souza-Filho, P. Brazilian Mangrove Status: Three
Decades of Satellite Data Analysis. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 808. [CrossRef]
18. Souza, C.M.; Z. Shimbo, J.; Rosa, M.R.; Parente, L.L.; A. Alencar, A.; Rudorff, B.F.T.; Hasenack, H.; Matsumoto, M.; G. Ferreira, L.;
Souza-Filho, P.W.M.; et al. Reconstructing Three Decades of Land Use and Land Cover Changes in Brazilian Biomes with Landsat
Archive and Earth Engine. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 2735. [CrossRef]
19. Velastegui-Montoya, A.; Rivera-Torres, H.; Herrera-Matamoros, V.; Sadeck, L.; Quevedo, R.P. Application of Google Earth Engine
for land Cover Classification in Yasuni National Park, Ecuador. In Proceedings of the IGARSS 2022—2022 IEEE International
Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 17–22 July 2022; pp. 6376–6379.
20. Liu, C.-C.; Shieh, M.-C.; Ke, M.-S.; Wang, K.-H. Flood Prevention and Emergency Response System Powered by Google Earth
Engine. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 1283. [CrossRef]
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 3675 23 of 30

21. Ravanelli, R.; Nascetti, A.; Cirigliano, R.; Di Rico, C.; Leuzzi, G.; Monti, P.; Crespi, M. Monitoring the Impact of Land Cover
Change on Surface Urban Heat Island through Google Earth Engine: Proposal of a Global Methodology, First Applications and
Problems. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 1488. [CrossRef]
22. Ermida, S.L.; Soares, P.; Mantas, V.; Göttsche, F.M.; Trigo, I.F. Google earth engine open-source code for land surface temperature
estimation from the landsat series. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1471. [CrossRef]
23. Parks, S.A.; Holsinger, L.M.; Voss, M.A.; Loehman, R.A.; Robinson, N.P. Mean composite fire severity metrics computed with
google earth engine offer improved accuracy and expanded mapping potential. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 879. [CrossRef]
24. Traganos, D.; Poursanidis, D.; Aggarwal, B.; Chrysoulakis, N.; Reinartz, P. Estimating satellite-derived bathymetry (SDB) with the
Google Earth Engine and sentinel-2. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 859. [CrossRef]
25. Souza, C.; Kirchhoff, F.; Oliveira, B.; Ribeiro, J.; Sales, M. Long-Term Annual Surface Water Change in the Brazilian Amazon
Biome: Potential Links with Deforestation, Infrastructure Development and Climate Change. Water 2019, 11, 566. [CrossRef]
26. Xu, J.; Xiao, W.; He, T.; Deng, X.; Chen, W. Extraction of built-up area using multi-sensor data—A case study based on Google
earth engine in Zhejiang Province, China. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2021, 42, 389–404. [CrossRef]
27. Xiao, W.; Deng, X.; He, T.; Chen, W. Mapping Annual Land Disturbance and Reclamation in a Surface Coal Mining Region Using
Google Earth Engine and the LandTrendr Algorithm: A Case Study of the Shengli Coalfield in Inner Mongolia, China. Remote
Sens. 2020, 12, 1612. [CrossRef]
28. Mutanga, O.; Kumar, L. Google earth engine applications. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 591. [CrossRef]
29. Tamiminia, H.; Salehi, B.; Mahdianpari, M.; Quackenbush, L.; Adeli, S.; Brisco, B. Google Earth Engine for geo-big data
applications: A meta-analysis and systematic review. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2020, 164, 152–170. [CrossRef]
30. Zhao, Q.; Yu, L.; Li, X.; Peng, D.; Zhang, Y.; Gong, P. Progress and Trends in the Application of Google Earth and Google Earth
Engine. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 3778. [CrossRef]
31. Wang, Y.; Lu, Z.; Sheng, Y.; Zhou, Y. Remote Sensing Applications in Monitoring of Protected Areas. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1370.
[CrossRef]
32. Fahimnia, B.; Sarkis, J.; Davarzani, H. Green supply chain management: A review and bibliometric analysis. Int. J. Prod. Econ.
2015, 162, 101–114. [CrossRef]
33. Md Khudzari, J.; Kurian, J.; Tartakovsky, B.; Vijaya Raghavan, G.S. Bibliometric analysis of global research trends on microbial
fuel cells using Scopus database. Biochem. Eng. J. 2018, 136, 51–60. [CrossRef]
34. Montalván-Burbano, N.; Velastegui-Montoya, A.; Gurumendi-Noriega, M.; Morante-Carballo, F.; Adami, M. Worldwide Research
on Land Use and Land Cover in the Amazon Region. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6039. [CrossRef]
35. Ma, R.; Ho, Y.S. Comparison of environmental laws publications in Science Citation Index Expanded and Social Science Index: A
bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics 2016, 109, 227–239. [CrossRef]
36. Herrera-Franco, G.; Montalván-Burbano, N.; Mora-Frank, C.; Bravo-Montero, L. Scientific Research in Ecuador: A Bibliometric
Analysis. Publications 2021, 9, 55. [CrossRef]
37. Cobo, M.J.; López-Herrera, A.G.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Herrera, F. An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the
evolution of a research field: A practical application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory field. J. Informetr. 2011, 5, 146–166. [CrossRef]
38. Donthu, N.; Kumar, S.; Mukherjee, D.; Pandey, N.; Lim, W.M. How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and
guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 133, 285–296. [CrossRef]
39. Faust, O.; Hagiwara, Y.; Hong, T.J.; Lih, O.S.; Acharya, U.R. Deep learning for healthcare applications based on physiological
signals: A review. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 2018, 161, 1–13. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Rey-Martí, A.; Ribeiro-Soriano, D.; Palacios-Marqués, D. A bibliometric analysis of social entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69,
1651–1655. [CrossRef]
41. Duan, P.; Wang, Y.; Yin, P. Remote Sensing Applications in Monitoring of Protected Areas: A Bibliometric Analysis. Remote Sens.
2020, 12, 772. [CrossRef]
42. Herrera-Franco, G.; Carrión-Mero, P.; Montalván-Burbano, N.; Caicedo-Potosí, J.; Berrezueta, E. Geoheritage and Geosites: A
Bibliometric Analysis and Literature Review. Geosciences 2022, 12, 169. [CrossRef]
43. Solórzano, J.; Morante-Carballo, F.; Montalván-Burbano, N.; Briones-Bitar, J.; Carrión-Mero, P. A Systematic Review of the
Relationship between Geotechnics and Disasters. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12835. [CrossRef]
44. Herrera-Franco, G.; Carrión-Mero, P.; Montalván-Burbano, N.; Mora-Frank, C.; Berrezueta, E. Bibliometric Analysis of Groundwa-
ter’s Life Cycle Assessment Research. Water 2022, 14, 1082. [CrossRef]
45. Della Corte, V.; Del Gaudio, G.; Sepe, F.; Luongo, S. Destination Resilience and Innovation for Advanced Sustainable Tourism
Management: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12632. [CrossRef]
46. de Sousa, F.D.B. Management of plastic waste: A bibliometric mapping and analysis. Waste Manag. Res. J. Sustain. Circ. Econ.
2021, 39, 664–678. [CrossRef]
47. Aldás-Onofre, J.; Cordero, B. Bibliometric Analysis of Web of Science Database STEM Fields in Engineering and Mathematics.
Ecuador’s Case Study. In Applied Technologies; Botto-Tobar, M., Zambrano Vizuete, M., Montes León, S., Torres-Carrión, P.,
Durakovic, B., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 255–270, ISBN 978-3-031-24985-3.
48. Andrés, A. Measuring Academic Research: How to Undertake a Bibliometric Study; Chandos Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2009; ISBN
9781843345282.
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 3675 24 of 30

49. Baas, J.; Schotten, M.; Plume, A.; Côté, G.; Karimi, R. Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic
research in quantitative science studies. Quant. Sci. Stud. 2020, 1, 377–386. [CrossRef]
50. Martín-Martín, A.; Thelwall, M.; Orduna-Malea, E.; Delgado López-Cózar, E. Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus,
Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: A multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics
2021, 126, 871–906. [CrossRef]
51. Singh, V.K.; Singh, P.; Karmakar, M.; Leta, J.; Mayr, P. The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A
comparative analysis. Scientometrics 2021, 126, 5113–5142. [CrossRef]
52. del Río-Rama, M.; Maldonado-Erazo, C.; Álvarez-García, J.; Durán-Sánchez, A. Cultural and Natural Resources in Tourism Island:
Bibliometric Mapping. Sustainability 2020, 12, 724. [CrossRef]
53. Meseguer-Sánchez, V.; Abad-Segura, E.; Belmonte-Ureña, L.J.; Molina-Moreno, V. Examining the Research Evolution on the
Socio-Economic and Environmental Dimensions on University Social Responsibility. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17,
4729. [CrossRef]
54. Morante-Carballo, F.; Montalván-Burbano, N.; Carrión-Mero, P.; Jácome-Francis, K. Worldwide Research Analysis on Natural
Zeolites as Environmental Remediation Materials. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6378. [CrossRef]
55. Faruk, M.; Rahman, M.; Hasan, S. How digital marketing evolved over time: A bibliometric analysis on scopus database. Heliyon
2021, 7, e08603. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
56. Chàfer, M.; Cabeza, L.F.; Pisello, A.L.; Tan, C.L.; Wong, N.H. Trends and gaps in global research of greenery systems through a
bibliometric analysis. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 65, 102608. [CrossRef]
57. Taşkın, Z.; Aydinoglu, A.U. Collaborative interdisciplinary astrobiology research: A bibliometric study of the NASA Astrobiology
Institute. Scientometrics 2015, 103, 1003–1022. [CrossRef]
58. Aqlan, F.; Nwokeji, J.C.; Shamsan, A. Teaching an Introductory Data Analytics Course Using Microsoft Access® and Excel® . In
Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Uppsala, Sweden, 21–24 October 2020; pp. 1–10.
59. Kalantari, A.; Kamsin, A.; Kamaruddin, H.S.; Ale Ebrahim, N.; Gani, A.; Ebrahimi, A.; Shamshirband, S. A bibliometric approach
to tracking big data research trends. J. Big Data 2017, 4, 30. [CrossRef]
60. Environmental Systems Research Institute ArcGIS Pro. Available online: https://www.esri.com/en-us/arcgis/products/arcgis-
pro/overview (accessed on 5 December 2021).
61. Demiroglu, O.; Hall, C. Geobibliography and Bibliometric Networks of Polar Tourism and Climate Change Research. Atmosphere
2020, 11, 498. [CrossRef]
62. Souza, L.; Bueno, C. City Information Modelling as a support decision tool for planning and management of cities: A systematic
literature review and bibliometric analysis. Build. Environ. 2022, 207, 108403. [CrossRef]
63. van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 2010, 84,
523–538. [CrossRef]
64. van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer. Scientometrics 2017,
111, 1053–1070. [CrossRef]
65. Chandra, Y. Mapping the evolution of entrepreneurship as a field of research (1990–2013): A scientometric analysis. PLoS ONE
2018, 13, e0190228. [CrossRef]
66. Payán-Sánchez, B.; Belmonte-Ureña, L.J.; Plaza-Úbeda, J.A.; Vazquez-Brust, D.; Yakovleva, N.; Pérez-Valls, M. Open Innovation
for Sustainability or Not: Literature Reviews of Global Research Trends. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1136. [CrossRef]
67. Abad-Segura, E.; Cortés-García, F.J.; Belmonte-Ureña, L.J. The Sustainable Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility: A Global
Analysis and Future Trends. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5382. [CrossRef]
68. Noyons, E.C.M.; Moed, H.F.; Van Raan, A.F.J. Integrating research performance analysis and science mapping. Scientometrics
1999, 46, 591–604. [CrossRef]
69. Baier-Fuentes, H.; Merigó, J.M.; Amorós, J.E.; Gaviria-Marín, M. International entrepreneurship: A bibliometric overview. Int.
Entrep. Manag. J. 2019, 15, 385–429. [CrossRef]
70. Zupic, I.; Čater, T. Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization. Organ. Res. Methods 2015, 18, 429–472. [CrossRef]
71. Mesdaghinia, A.; Younesian, M.; Nasseri, S.; Nodehi, R.N.; Hadi, M. Analysis of the microbial risk assessment studies from 1973
to 2015: A bibliometric case study. Scientometrics 2015, 105, 691–707. [CrossRef]
72. Thelwall, M. Mendeley reader counts for US computer science conference papers and journal articles. Quant. Sci. Stud. 2020, 1,
347–359. [CrossRef]
73. Martín-Martín, A.; Orduna-Malea, E.; Thelwall, M.; Delgado López-Cózar, E. Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A
systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. J. Informetr. 2018, 12, 1160–1177. [CrossRef]
74. Vera-Baceta, M.-A.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K. Web of Science and Scopus language coverage. Scientometrics 2019, 121, 1803–1813.
[CrossRef]
75. Moed, H.F.; de Moya-Anegon, F.; Guerrero-Bote, V.; Lopez-Illescas, C. Are nationally oriented journals indexed in Scopus
becoming more international? The effect of publication language and access modality. J. Informetr. 2020, 14, 1803–1813. [CrossRef]
76. Keller, F.; Sänger, J.; Kersten, T.; Schiewe, J. Historisches 4D-Stadtmodell der Freien und Hansestadt Hamburg—Automatisierte
Generierung und Darstellung innerhalb der Google Earth Engine. Photogramm.-Fernerkund.-Geoinf. 2011, 2011, 155–169. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 3675 25 of 30

77. Kisilevich, S.; Keim, D.; Lasry, A.; Bam, L.; Rokach, L. Developing Analytical GIS Applications with GEO-SPADE: Three Success
Case Studies. In Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing; Filipe, J., Cordeiro, J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany,
2011; pp. 495–511.
78. Sun, E.; Zhang, X.; Li, Z. Internet of Things Based 3D Assisted Driving System for Trucks in Mines. In Proceedings of the 2011
International Conference on Information Management, Innovation Management and Industrial Engineering, Shenzhen, China,
26–27 November 2011; pp. 510–513.
79. Dong, J.; Xiao, X.; Menarguez, M.A.; Zhang, G.; Qin, Y.; Thau, D.; Biradar, C.; Moore, B. Mapping paddy rice planting area in
northeastern Asia with Landsat 8 images, phenology-based algorithm and Google Earth Engine. Remote Sens. Environ. 2016, 185,
142–154. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
80. Johansen, K.; Phinn, S.; Taylor, M. Mapping woody vegetation clearing in Queensland, Australia from Landsat imagery using the
Google Earth Engine. Remote Sens. Appl. Soc. Environ. 2015, 1, 36–49. [CrossRef]
81. Lemoine, G.; Leo, O. Crop Mapping Applications at Scale: Using Google Earth Engine to Enable Global Crop Area and Status
Monitoring Using Free and Open Data Sources. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing
Symposium (IGARSS), Milan, Italy, 26–31 July 2015; pp. 1496–1499.
82. Ghatasheh, N.A.; Abu-Faraj, M.M.; Faris, H. Dead sea water level and surface area monitoring using spatial data extraction from
remote sensing images. Int. Rev. Comput. Softw. 2013, 8, 2892–2897.
83. Ndidi, N.F.; Nduka, O.V. Flood Risks Analysis in a Littoral African City: Using Geographic Information System. In Geographic
Information Systems (GIS): Techniques, Applications and Technologies; Nielson, D., Ed.; Nova Science Publishers, Inc.: New York, NY,
USA, 2014; pp. 279–316, ISBN 978-163321294-7/978-163321293-0.
84. Patel, N.N.; Angiuli, E.; Gamba, P.; Gaughan, A.; Lisini, G.; Stevens, F.R.; Tatem, A.J.; Trianni, G. Multitemporal settlement and
population mapping from Landsat using Google Earth Engine. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2015, 35, 199–208. [CrossRef]
85. Huang, H.; Chen, Y.; Clinton, N.; Wang, J.; Wang, X.; Liu, C.; Gong, P.; Yang, J.; Bai, Y.; Zheng, Y.; et al. Mapping major land cover
dynamics in Beijing using all Landsat images in Google Earth Engine. Remote Sens. Environ. 2017, 202, 166–176. [CrossRef]
86. Clinton, N.; Stuhlmacher, M.; Miles, A.; Uludere Aragon, N.; Wagner, M.; Georgescu, M.; Herwig, C.; Gong, P. A Global Geospatial
Ecosystem Services Estimate of Urban Agriculture. Earth’s Futur. 2018, 6, 40–60. [CrossRef]
87. Workie, T.G.; Debella, H.J. Climate change and its effects on vegetation phenology across ecoregions of Ethiopia. Glob. Ecol.
Conserv. 2018, 13, e00366. [CrossRef]
88. Sidhu, N.; Pebesma, E.; Câmara, G. Using Google Earth Engine to detect land cover change: Singapore as a use case. Eur. J.
Remote Sens. 2018, 51, 486–500. [CrossRef]
89. Shao, Z.; Fu, H.; Li, D.; Altan, O.; Cheng, T. Remote sensing monitoring of multi-scale watersheds impermeability for urban
hydrological evaluation. Remote Sens. Environ. 2019, 232, 111338. [CrossRef]
90. Long, X.; Lin, H.; An, X.; Chen, S.; Qi, S.; Zhang, M. Evaluation and analysis of ecosystem service value based on land use/cover
change in Dongting Lake wetland. Ecol. Indic. 2022, 136, 108619. [CrossRef]
91. Zhao, Y.; Zhu, W.; Wei, P.; Fang, P.; Zhang, X.; Yan, N.; Liu, W.; Zhao, H.; Wu, Q. Classification of Zambian grasslands using
random forest feature importance selection during the optimal phenological period. Ecol. Indic. 2022, 135, 108529. [CrossRef]
92. Talucci, A.C.; Loranty, M.M.; Alexander, H.D. Siberian taiga and tundra fire regimes from 2001–2020. Environ. Res. Lett. 2022, 17,
025001. [CrossRef]
93. Zarinmehr, H.; Tizro, A.T.; Fryar, A.E.; Pour, M.K.; Fasihi, R. Prediction of groundwater level variations based on gravity recovery
and climate experiment (GRACE) satellite data and a time-series analysis: A case study in the Lake Urmia basin, Iran. Environ.
Earth Sci. 2022, 81, 180. [CrossRef]
94. Yang, Z.; Dai, X.; Wang, Z.; Gao, X.; Qu, G.; Li, W.; Li, J.; Lu, H.; Wang, Y. The dynamics of Paiku Co lake area in response to
climate change. J. Water Clim. Chang. 2022, 13, 2725–2746. [CrossRef]
95. Thor, A.; Bornmann, L.; Marx, W.; Mutz, R. Identifying single influential publications in a research field: New analysis
opportunities of the CRExplorer. Scientometrics 2018, 116, 591–608. [CrossRef]
96. Gong, P.; Li, X.; Wang, J.; Bai, Y.; Chen, B.; Hu, T.; Liu, X.; Xu, B.; Yang, J.; Zhang, W.; et al. Annual maps of global artificial
impervious area (GAIA) between 1985 and 2018. Remote Sens. Environ. 2020, 236, 111510. [CrossRef]
97. Amani, M.; Mahdavi, S.; Afshar, M.; Brisco, B.; Huang, W.; Mohammad Javad Mirzadeh, S.; White, L.; Banks, S.; Montgomery, J.;
Hopkinson, C. Canadian Wetland Inventory using Google Earth Engine: The First Map and Preliminary Results. Remote Sens.
2019, 11, 842. [CrossRef]
98. DeVries, B.; Huang, C.; Armston, J.; Huang, W.; Jones, J.W.; Lang, M.W. Rapid and robust monitoring of flood events using
Sentinel-1 and Landsat data on the Google Earth Engine. Remote Sens. Environ. 2020, 240, 111664. [CrossRef]
99. Tong, X.; Brandt, M.; Hiernaux, P.; Herrmann, S.; Rasmussen, L.V.; Rasmussen, K.; Tian, F.; Tagesson, T.; Zhang, W.; Fensholt, R.
The forgotten land use class: Mapping of fallow fields across the Sahel using Sentinel-2. Remote Sens. Environ. 2020, 239, 111598.
[CrossRef]
100. Anderson, K.; Fawcett, D.; Cugulliere, A.; Benford, S.; Jones, D.; Leng, R. Vegetation expansion in the subnival Hindu Kush
Himalaya. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2020, 26, 1608–1625. [CrossRef]
101. Hao, B.; Ma, M.; Li, S.; Li, Q.; Hao, D.; Huang, J.; Ge, Z.; Yang, H.; Han, X. Land Use Change and Climate Variation in the Three
Gorges Reservoir Catchment from 2000 to 2015 Based on the Google Earth Engine. Sensors 2019, 19, 2118. [CrossRef]
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 3675 26 of 30

102. Mahdianpari, M.; Salehi, B.; Mohammadimanesh, F.; Homayouni, S.; Gill, E. The First Wetland Inventory Map of Newfoundland
at a Spatial Resolution of 10 m Using Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 Data on the Google Earth Engine Cloud Computing Platform.
Remote Sens. 2018, 11, 43. [CrossRef]
103. Mahdianpari, M.; Salehi, B.; Mohammadimanesh, F.; Brisco, B.; Homayouni, S.; Gill, E.; DeLancey, E.R.; Bourgeau-Chavez, L. Big
Data for a Big Country: The First Generation of Canadian Wetland Inventory Map at a Spatial Resolution of 10-m Using Sentinel-1
and Sentinel-2 Data on the Google Earth Engine Cloud Computing Platform. Can. J. Remote Sens. 2020, 46, 15–33. [CrossRef]
104. Amani, M.; Ghorbanian, A.; Ahmadi, S.A.; Kakooei, M.; Moghimi, A.; Mirmazloumi, S.M.; Moghaddam, S.H.A.; Mahdavi, S.;
Ghahremanloo, M.; Parsian, S.; et al. Google Earth Engine Cloud Computing Platform for Remote Sensing Big Data Applications:
A Comprehensive Review. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2020, 13, 5326–5350. [CrossRef]
105. Deines, J.M.; Kendall, A.D.; Crowley, M.A.; Rapp, J.; Cardille, J.A.; Hyndman, D.W. Mapping three decades of annual irrigation
across the US High Plains Aquifer using Landsat and Google Earth Engine. Remote Sens. Environ. 2019, 233, 111400. [CrossRef]
106. Poortinga, A.; Tenneson, K.; Shapiro, A.; Nquyen, Q.; San Aung, K.; Chishtie, F.; Saah, D. Mapping Plantations in Myanmar
by Fusing Landsat-8, Sentinel-2 and Sentinel-1 Data along with Systematic Error Quantification. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 831.
[CrossRef]
107. Campos-Taberner, M.; Moreno-Martínez, Á.; García-Haro, F.; Camps-Valls, G.; Robinson, N.; Kattge, J.; Running, S. Global
Estimation of Biophysical Variables from Google Earth Engine Platform. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 1167. [CrossRef]
108. Teluguntla, P.; Thenkabail, P.S.; Oliphant, A.; Xiong, J.; Gumma, M.K.; Congalton, R.G.; Yadav, K.; Huete, A. A 30-m landsat-
derived cropland extent product of Australia and China using random forest machine learning algorithm on Google Earth Engine
cloud computing platform. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2018, 144, 325–340. [CrossRef]
109. Parks; Holsinger; Koontz; Collins; Whitman; Parisien; Loehman; Barnes; Bourdon; Boucher; et al. Giving Ecological Meaning to
Satellite-Derived Fire Severity Metrics across North American Forests. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1735. [CrossRef]
110. Xiong, J.; Thenkabail, P.S.; Gumma, M.K.; Teluguntla, P.; Poehnelt, J.; Congalton, R.G.; Yadav, K.; Thau, D. Automated cropland
mapping of continental Africa using Google Earth Engine cloud computing. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2017, 126, 225–244.
[CrossRef]
111. Xiong, J.; Thenkabail, P.; Tilton, J.; Gumma, M.; Teluguntla, P.; Oliphant, A.; Congalton, R.; Yadav, K.; Gorelick, N. Nominal
30-m Cropland Extent Map of Continental Africa by Integrating Pixel-Based and Object-Based Algorithms Using Sentinel-2 and
Landsat-8 Data on Google Earth Engine. Remote Sens. 2017, 9, 1065. [CrossRef]
112. Snapir, B.; Momblanch, A.; Jain, S.K.; Waine, T.W.; Holman, I.P. A method for monthly mapping of wet and dry snow using
Sentinel-1 and MODIS: Application to a Himalayan river basin. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2019, 74, 222–230. [CrossRef]
113. Edmonds, D.A.; Hajek, E.A.; Downton, N.; Bryk, A.B. Avulsion flow-path selection on rivers in foreland basins. Geology 2016, 44,
695–698. [CrossRef]
114. Parente, L.; Mesquita, V.; Miziara, F.; Baumann, L.; Ferreira, L. Assessing the pasturelands and livestock dynamics in Brazil, from
1985 to 2017: A novel approach based on high spatial resolution imagery and Google Earth Engine cloud computing. Remote Sens.
Environ. 2019, 232, 111301. [CrossRef]
115. Ascensão, F.; Yogui, D.; Alves, M.; Medici, E.P.; Desbiez, A. Predicting spatiotemporal patterns of road mortality for medium-large
mammals. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 248, 109320. [CrossRef]
116. Bey, A.; Sánchez-Paus Díaz, A.; Maniatis, D.; Marchi, G.; Mollicone, D.; Ricci, S.; Bastin, J.-F.; Moore, R.; Federici, S.; Rezende, M.;
et al. Collect Earth: Land Use and Land Cover Assessment through Augmented Visual Interpretation. Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 807.
[CrossRef]
117. Lobell, D.B.; Thau, D.; Seifert, C.; Engle, E.; Little, B. A scalable satellite-based crop yield mapper. Remote Sens. Environ. 2015, 164,
324–333. [CrossRef]
118. Shelestov, A.; Lavreniuk, M.; Kussul, N.; Novikov, A.; Skakun, S. Exploring Google Earth Engine Platform for Big Data Processing:
Classification of Multi-Temporal Satellite Imagery for Crop Mapping. Front. Earth Sci. 2017, 5, 17. [CrossRef]
119. Liu, X.; Hu, G.; Chen, Y.; Li, X.; Xu, X.; Li, S.; Pei, F.; Wang, S. High-resolution multi-temporal mapping of global urban land using
Landsat images based on the Google Earth Engine Platform. Remote Sens. Environ. 2018, 209, 227–239. [CrossRef]
120. Gong, P.; Li, X.; Zhang, W. 40-Year (1978–2017) human settlement changes in China reflected by impervious surfaces from satellite
remote sensing. Sci. Bull. 2019, 64, 756–763. [CrossRef]
121. Chen, B.; Xiao, X.; Li, X.; Pan, L.; Doughty, R.; Ma, J.; Dong, J.; Qin, Y.; Zhao, B.; Wu, Z.; et al. A mangrove forest map of China in
2015: Analysis of time series Landsat 7/8 and Sentinel-1A imagery in Google Earth Engine cloud computing platform. ISPRS J.
Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2017, 131, 104–120. [CrossRef]
122. Zhang, Y.; Kong, D.; Gan, R.; Chiew, F.H.S.; McVicar, T.R.; Zhang, Q.; Yang, Y. Coupled estimation of 500 m and 8-day resolution
global evapotranspiration and gross primary production in 2002–2017. Remote Sens. Environ. 2019, 222, 165–182. [CrossRef]
123. Azzari, G.; Jain, M.; Lobell, D.B. Towards fine resolution global maps of crop yields: Testing multiple methods and satellites in
three countries. Remote Sens. Environ. 2017, 202, 129–141. [CrossRef]
124. Liu, L.; Xiao, X.; Qin, Y.; Wang, J.; Xu, X.; Hu, Y.; Qiao, Z. Mapping cropping intensity in China using time series Landsat and
Sentinel-2 images and Google Earth Engine. Remote Sens. Environ. 2020, 239, 111624. [CrossRef]
125. Parastatidis, D.; Mitraka, Z.; Chrysoulakis, N.; Abrams, M. Online Global Land Surface Temperature Estimation from Landsat.
Remote Sens. 2017, 9, 1208. [CrossRef]
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 3675 27 of 30

126. Shrestha, S.; Miranda, I.; Kumar, A.; Pardo, M.L.E.; Dahal, S.; Rashid, T.; Remillard, C.; Mishra, D.R. Identifying and forecasting
potential biophysical risk areas within a tropical mangrove ecosystem using multi-sensor data. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf.
2019, 74, 281–294. [CrossRef]
127. Yu, Z.; Di, L.; Tang, J.; Zhang, C.; Lin, L.; Yu, E.G.; Rahman, M.S.; Gaigalas, J.; Sun, Z. Land Use and Land Cover Classification
for Bangladesh 2005 on Google Earth Engine. In Proceedings of the 2018 7th International Conference on Agro-Geoinformatics
(Agro-Geoinformatics), Hangzhou, China, 6–9 August 2018; pp. 1–5.
128. Cho, E.; Jacobs, J.M.; Jia, X.; Kraatz, S. Identifying Subsurface Drainage using Satellite Big Data and Machine Learning via Google
Earth Engine. Water Resour. Res. 2019, 55, 8028–8045. [CrossRef]
129. Uddin, K.; Matin, M.A.; Meyer, F.J. Operational Flood Mapping Using Multi-Temporal Sentinel-1 SAR Images: A Case Study
from Bangladesh. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1581. [CrossRef]
130. Mugiraneza, T.; Nascetti, A.; Ban, Y. Continuous Monitoring of Urban Land Cover Change Trajectories with Landsat Time Series
and LandTrendr-Google Earth Engine Cloud Computing. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 2883. [CrossRef]
131. Yancho, J.; Jones, T.; Gandhi, S.; Ferster, C.; Lin, A.; Glass, L. The Google Earth Engine Mangrove Mapping Methodology
(GEEMMM). Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3758. [CrossRef]
132. Hu, Y.; Xu, X.; Wu, F.; Sun, Z.; Xia, H.; Meng, Q.; Huang, W.; Zhou, H.; Gao, J.; Li, W.; et al. Estimating Forest Stock Volume
in Hunan Province, China, by Integrating In Situ Plot Data, Sentinel-2 Images, and Linear and Machine Learning Regression
Models. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 186. [CrossRef]
133. Cao, J.; Zhang, Z.; Tao, F.; Zhang, L.; Luo, Y.; Zhang, J.; Han, J.; Xie, J. Integrating Multi-Source Data for Rice Yield Prediction
across China using Machine Learning and Deep Learning Approaches. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2021, 297, 108275. [CrossRef]
134. Schmitt, M.; Hughes, L.H.; Qiu, C.; Zhu, X.X. SEN12MS—A curated dataset of georeferenced multi-spectral Sentinel-1/2 imagery
for deep learning and data fusion. ISPRS Ann. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2019, IV-2/W7, 153–160. [CrossRef]
135. Collins, L.; Griffioen, P.; Newell, G.; Mellor, A. The utility of Random Forests for wildfire severity mapping. Remote Sens. Environ.
2018, 216, 374–384. [CrossRef]
136. Amani, M.; Mahdavi, S.; Kakooei, M.; Ghorbanian, A.; Brisco, B.; DeLancey, E.; Toure, S.; Reyes, E.L. Wetland Change Analysis in
Alberta, Canada Using Four Decades of Landsat Imagery. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2021, 14, 10314–10335.
[CrossRef]
137. Sebastianelli, A.; Del Rosso, M.P.; Ullo, S.L. Automatic dataset builder for Machine Learning applications to satellite imagery.
SoftwareX 2021, 15, 100739. [CrossRef]
138. Greifeneder, F.; Notarnicola, C.; Wagner, W. A Machine Learning-Based Approach for Surface Soil Moisture Estimations with
Google Earth Engine. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 2099. [CrossRef]
139. Jiang, X.; Liang, S.; He, X.; Ziegler, A.D.; Lin, P.; Pan, M.; Wang, D.; Zou, J.; Hao, D.; Mao, G.; et al. Rapid and large-scale mapping
of flood inundation via integrating spaceborne synthetic aperture radar imagery with unsupervised deep learning. ISPRS J.
Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2021, 178, 36–50. [CrossRef]
140. Lehmann, A.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Lacayo, M.; Giuliani, G.; Thau, D.; Koy, K.; Goldberg, G.; Sharp, R., Jr. Lifting the Information
Barriers to Address Sustainability Challenges with Data from Physical Geography and Earth Observation. Sustainability 2017, 9,
858. [CrossRef]
141. Liang, J.; Xie, Y.; Sha, Z.; Zhou, A. Modeling urban growth sustainability in the cloud by augmenting Google Earth Engine (GEE).
Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2020, 84, 101542. [CrossRef]
142. Akinyemi, F.O.; Ghazaryan, G.; Dubovyk, O. Assessing UN indicators of land degradation neutrality and proportion of degraded
land for Botswana using remote sensing based national level metrics. Land Degrad. Dev. 2021, 32, 158–172. [CrossRef]
143. Mananze, S.; Pôças, I.; Cunha, M. Mapping and Assessing the Dynamics of Shifting Agricultural Landscapes Using Google Earth
Engine Cloud Computing, a Case Study in Mozambique. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1279. [CrossRef]
144. Sulova, A.; Jokar Arsanjani, J. Exploratory Analysis of Driving Force of Wildfires in Australia: An Application of Machine
Learning within Google Earth Engine. Remote Sens. 2020, 13, 10. [CrossRef]
145. Berner, L.T.; Jantz, P.; Tape, K.D.; Goetz, S.J. Tundra plant above-ground biomass and shrub dominance mapped across the North
Slope of Alaska. Environ. Res. Lett. 2018, 13, 035002. [CrossRef]
146. Orusa, T.; Borgogno Mondino, E. Exploring Short-Term Climate Change Effects on Rangelands and Broad-Leaved Forests by Free
Satellite Data in Aosta Valley (Northwest Italy). Climate 2021, 9, 47. [CrossRef]
147. Chen, Y.; Cao, R.; Chen, J.; Liu, L.; Matsushita, B. A practical approach to reconstruct high-quality Landsat NDVI time-series data
by gap filling and the Savitzky–Golay filter. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2021, 180, 174–190. [CrossRef]
148. Kumari, N.; Srivastava, A.; Dumka, U.C. A Long-Term Spatiotemporal Analysis of Vegetation Greenness over the Himalayan
Region Using Google Earth Engine. Climate 2021, 9, 109. [CrossRef]
149. Martín-Ortega, P.; García-Montero, L.G.; Sibelet, N. Temporal Patterns in Illumination Conditions and Its Effect on Vegetation
Indices Using Landsat on Google Earth Engine. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 211. [CrossRef]
150. Felegari, S.; Sharifi, A.; Moravej, K.; Amin, M.; Golchin, A.; Muzirafuti, A.; Tariq, A.; Zhao, N. Integration of Sentinel 1 and
Sentinel 2 Satellite Images for Crop Mapping. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10104. [CrossRef]
151. Zurqani, H.A.; Post, C.J.; Mikhailova, E.A.; Schlautman, M.A.; Sharp, J.L. Geospatial analysis of land use change in the Savannah
River Basin using Google Earth Engine. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2018, 69, 175–185. [CrossRef]
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 3675 28 of 30

152. Anokye, M.; Twumasi, Y.A.; Ning, Z.H.; Apraku, C.Y.; Armah, R.N.D.; Frimpong, D.B.; Asare-Ansah, A.B.; Loh, P.M.; Owusu, F.
Assessing land cover change around bayou perot-little lake, new orleans using sentinel 2 satellite imagery. Int. Arch. Photogramm.
Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2022, XLVI-M-2–2, 15–20. [CrossRef]
153. Clemente, J.P.; Fontanelli, G.; Ovando, G.G.; Roa, Y.L.B.; Lapini, A.; Santi, E. Google Earth Engine: Application of algorithms
for remote sensing of crops in Tuscany (Italy). Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2020, XLII-3/W12, 291–296.
[CrossRef]
154. Wang, S.; Azzari, G.; Lobell, D.B. Crop type mapping without field-level labels: Random forest transfer and unsupervised
clustering techniques. Remote Sens. Environ. 2019, 222, 303–317. [CrossRef]
155. Arruda, V.L.S.; Piontekowski, V.J.; Alencar, A.; Pereira, R.S.; Matricardi, E.A.T. An alternative approach for mapping burn scars
using Landsat imagery, Google Earth Engine, and Deep Learning in the Brazilian Savanna. Remote Sens. Appl. Soc. Environ. 2021,
22, 100472. [CrossRef]
156. Matci, D.K.; Kaplan, G.; Avdan, U. Changes in air quality over different land covers associated with COVID-19 in Turkey aided
by GEE. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2022, 194, 762. [CrossRef]
157. Zamshin, V.; Matrosova, E.; Chvertkova, O. Satellite Remote Sensing of Seas and Oceans: The Cloud Paradigm. In Proceedings of
the 20th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2020, Albena, Bulgaria, 18–24 August 2020; STEF92
Technology: Sofia, Bulgaria, 2020; pp. 259–266.
158. Sagawa, T.; Yamashita, Y.; Okumura, T.; Yamanokuchi, T. Satellite Derived Bathymetry Using Machine Learning and Multi-
Temporal Satellite Images. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1155. [CrossRef]
159. Zhuang, H.; Liu, X.; Yan, Y.; Ou, J.; He, J.; Wu, C. Mapping Multi-Temporal Population Distribution in China from 1985 to 2010
Using Landsat Images via Deep Learning. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 3533. [CrossRef]
160. Shafizadeh-Moghadam, H.; Khazaei, M.; Alavipanah, S.K.; Weng, Q. Google Earth Engine for large-scale land use and land cover
mapping: An object-based classification approach using spectral, textural and topographical factors. GISci. Remote Sens. 2021, 58,
914–928. [CrossRef]
161. Pham Van, C.; Nguyen-Van, G. Long-Term Coastline Monitoring in the Tra Vinh Province Using Landsat Images. In APAC 2019:
Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Asian and Pacific Coasts; Trung Viet, N., Xiping, D., Thanh Tung, T., Eds.; Springer:
Singapore, 2020; pp. 509–515.
162. Dersseh, M.G.; Tilahun, S.A.; Worqlul, A.W.; Moges, M.A.; Abebe, W.B.; Mhiret, D.A.; Melesse, A.M. Spatial and Temporal
Dynamics of Water Hyacinth and Its Linkage with Lake-Level Fluctuation: Lake Tana, a Sub-Humid Region of the Ethiopian
Highlands. Water 2020, 12, 1435. [CrossRef]
163. Weekley, D.; Li, X. Tracking lake surface elevations with proportional hypsometric relationships, Landsat imagery, and multiple
DEMs. Water Resour. Res. 2021, 57, e2020WR027666. [CrossRef]
164. Lathrop, R.G.; Merchant, D.; Niles, L.; Paludo, D.; Santos, C.D.; Larrain, C.E.; Feigin, S.; Smith, J.; Dey, A. Multi-Sensor Remote
Sensing of Intertidal Flat Habitats for Migratory Shorebird Conservation. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 5016. [CrossRef]
165. Ghosh, S.; Kumar, D.; Kumari, R. Assessing the influence of floods over selected states of Eastern India with cloud-based
geo-computing platforms. Geocarto Int. 2022, 37, 11190–11208. [CrossRef]
166. Pan, L.; Xia, H.; Zhao, X.; Guo, Y.; Qin, Y. Mapping Winter Crops Using a Phenology Algorithm, Time-Series Sentinel-2 and
Landsat-7/8 Images, and Google Earth Engine. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 2510. [CrossRef]
167. Thorp, K.R.; Drajat, D. Deep machine learning with Sentinel satellite data to map paddy rice production stages across West Java,
Indonesia. Remote Sens. Environ. 2021, 265, 112679. [CrossRef]
168. Sharma, V.; Ghosh, S.K. Impact of Climate Parameters on Vegetation Using Different Indices in Hardiwar District, India. In
Proceedings of the 21st International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2021, Albena, Bulgaria, 16–22 August
2021; Trofymchuk, O., Rivza, B., Eds.; STEF92 Technology: Sofia, Bulgaria, 2021; pp. 133–142.
169. Peng, C.; He, M.; Cutrona, S.L.; Kiefe, C.I.; Liu, F.; Wang, Z. Theme Trends and Knowledge Structure on Mobile Health Apps:
Bibliometric Analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2020, 8, e18212. [CrossRef]
170. Cavalcante, W.Q.d.F.; Coelho, A.; Bairrada, C.M. Sustainability and Tourism Marketing: A Bibliometric Analysis of Publications
between 1997 and 2020 Using VOSviewer Software. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4987. [CrossRef]
171. Sharifipour, M.; Amani, M.; Moghimi, A. Flood Damage Assessment Using Satellite Observations within the Google Earth Engine
Cloud Platform. J. Ocean Technol. 2022, 27, 64–75.
172. Tiwari, V.; Kumar, V.; Matin, M.A.; Thapa, A.; Ellenburg, W.L.; Gupta, N.; Thapa, S. Flood inundation mapping- Kerala 2018;
Harnessing the power of SAR, automatic threshold detection method and Google Earth Engine. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0237324.
[CrossRef]
173. White, H.D.; Griffith, B.C. Author cocitation: A literature measure of intellectual structure. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 1981, 32, 163–171.
[CrossRef]
174. Small, H. Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.
1973, 24, 265–269. [CrossRef]
175. Herrera-Franco, G.; Montalván-Burbano, N.; Mora-Frank, C.; Moreno-Alcívar, L. Research in Petroleum and Environment: A
Bibliometric Analysis in South America. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2021, 16, 1109–1116. [CrossRef]
176. Cao, W.; Zhou, Y.; Li, R.; Li, X. Mapping changes in coastlines and tidal flats in developing islands using the full time series of
Landsat images. Remote Sens. Environ. 2020, 239, 111665. [CrossRef]
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 3675 29 of 30

177. Li, X.; Gong, P.; Liang, L. A 30-year (1984–2013) record of annual urban dynamics of Beijing City derived from Landsat data.
Remote Sens. Environ. 2015, 166, 78–90. [CrossRef]
178. Li, X.; Zhou, Y.; Asrar, G.R.; Meng, L. Characterizing spatiotemporal dynamics in phenology of urban ecosystems based on
Landsat data. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 605–606, 721–734. [CrossRef]
179. Wang, J.; Rich, P.M.; Price, K.P. Temporal responses of NDVI to precipitation and temperature in the central Great Plains, USA.
Int. J. Remote Sens. 2003, 24, 2345–2364. [CrossRef]
180. Zhou, C.; Li, F.; Zhang, J.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, J. Analysis of Spatial and Temporal Variations of Vegetation Index in
Liaodong Bay in the last 30 years based on the GEE Platform. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 502, 012037. [CrossRef]
181. Hansen, M.C.; Potapov, P.V.; Moore, R.; Hancher, M.; Turubanova, S.A.; Tyukavina, A.; Thau, D.; Stehman, S.V.; Goetz, S.J.;
Loveland, T.R.; et al. High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change. Science 2013, 342, 850–853. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
182. Zhang, Q.; Li, B.; Thau, D.; Moore, R. Building a Better Urban Picture: Combining Day and Night Remote Sensing Imagery.
Remote Sens. 2015, 7, 11887–11913. [CrossRef]
183. Dong, J.; Xiao, X.; Chen, B.; Torbick, N.; Jin, C.; Zhang, G.; Biradar, C. Mapping deciduous rubber plantations through integration
of PALSAR and multi-temporal Landsat imagery. Remote Sens. Environ. 2013, 134, 392–402. [CrossRef]
184. Breiman, L. Random Forests. Mach. Learn. 2001, 45, 5–32. [CrossRef]
185. Brisco, B.; Short, N.; Sanden, J.v.d.; Landry, R.; Raymond, D. A semi-automated tool for surface water mapping with RADARSAT-1.
Can. J. Remote Sens. 2009, 35, 336–344. [CrossRef]
186. Clinton, N.; Gong, P. MODIS detected surface urban heat islands and sinks: Global locations and controls. Remote Sens. Environ.
2013, 134, 294–304. [CrossRef]
187. Weng, Q.; Fu, P. Modeling annual parameters of clear-sky land surface temperature variations and evaluating the impact of cloud
cover using time series of Landsat TIR data. Remote Sens. Environ. 2014, 140, 267–278. [CrossRef]
188. Wong, A.K.F.; Köseoglu, M.A.; Kim, S. The intellectual structure of corporate social responsibility research in tourism and
hospitality: A citation/co-citation analysis. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2021, 49, 270–284. [CrossRef]
189. Peng, X.; Dai, J. A bibliometric analysis of neutrosophic set: Two decades review from 1998 to 2017. Artif. Intell. Rev. 2020, 53,
199–255. [CrossRef]
190. USGS Landsat Missions Timeline|U.S. Geological Survey. Available online: https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/landsat-
missions-timeline (accessed on 5 March 2022).
191. Velastegui-Montoya, A.; De Lima, A.; Adami, M.; de Lima, A.; Adami, M. Multitemporal Analysis of Deforestation in Response
to the Construction of the Tucuruí Dam. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2020, 9, 583. [CrossRef]
192. Copernicus Copernicus Open Access Hub. Available online: https://scihub.copernicus.eu/ (accessed on 5 March 2022).
193. Hancher, M. Planetary-Scale Geospatial Data Analysis Techniques in Google’s Earth Engine Platform. AGU Fall Meet. Abstr. 2013,
2013, IN52A-07.
194. Dong, J.; Xiao, X.; Sheldon, S.; Biradar, C.; Duong, N.D.; Hazarika, M. A comparison of forest cover maps in Mainland Southeast
Asia from multiple sources: PALSAR, MERIS, MODIS and FRA. Remote Sens. Environ. 2012, 127, 60–73. [CrossRef]
195. Dong, J.; Xiao, X. Evolution of regional to global paddy rice mapping methods: A review. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2016,
119, 214–227. [CrossRef]
196. Gong, P.; Liu, H.; Zhang, M.; Li, C.; Wang, J.; Huang, H.; Clinton, N.; Ji, L.; Li, W.; Bai, Y.; et al. Stable classification with limited
sample: Transferring a 30-m resolution sample set collected in 2015 to mapping 10-m resolution global land cover in 2017. Sci.
Bull. 2019, 64, 370–373. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
197. Fu, P.; Weng, Q. Consistent land surface temperature data generation from irregularly spaced Landsat imagery. Remote Sens.
Environ. 2016, 184, 175–187. [CrossRef]
198. Bell, W.D.; Hoffman, M.T.; Visser, V. Regional land degradation assessment for dryland environments: The Namaqualand
Hardeveld bioregion of the Succulent Karoo biome as a case-study. Land Degrad. Dev. 2021, 32, 2287–2302. [CrossRef]
199. Pham, T.T.M.; Nguyen, T.-D.; Tham, H.T.N.; Truong, T.N.K.; Lam-Dao, N.; Nguyen-Huy, T. Specifying the relationship between
land use/land cover change and dryness in central Vietnam from 2000 to 2019 using Google Earth Engine. J. Appl. Remote Sens.
2021, 15, 024503. [CrossRef]
200. Martinez, S.N.; Schaefer, L.N.; Allstadt, K.E.; Thompson, E.M. Evaluation of Remote Mapping Techniques for Earthquake-
Triggered Landslide Inventories in an Urban Subarctic Environment: A Case Study of the 2018 Anchorage, Alaska Earthquake.
Front. Earth Sci. 2021, 9, 673137. [CrossRef]
201. Singha, M.; Dong, J.; Sarmah, S.; You, N.; Zhou, Y.; Zhang, G.; Doughty, R.; Xiao, X. Identifying floods and flood-affected paddy
rice fields in Bangladesh based on Sentinel-1 imagery and Google Earth Engine. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2020, 166,
278–293. [CrossRef]
202. Venkatappa, M.; Sasaki, N.; Han, P.; Abe, I. Impacts of droughts and floods on croplands and crop production in Southeast
Asia—An application of Google Earth Engine. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 795, 148829. [CrossRef]
203. Tariq, A.; Shu, H.; Gagnon, A.S.; Li, Q.; Mumtaz, F.; Hysa, A.; Siddique, M.A.; Munir, I. Assessing Burned Areas in Wildfires and
Prescribed Fires with Spectral Indices and SAR Images in the Margalla Hills of Pakistan. Forests 2021, 12, 1371. [CrossRef]
204. da Silva, R.M.; Lopes, A.G.; Santos, C.A.G. Deforestation and fires in the Brazilian Amazon from 2001 to 2020: Impacts on rainfall
variability and land surface temperature. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 326, 116664. [CrossRef]
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 3675 30 of 30

205. Singh, P.; Maurya, V.; Dwivedi, R. Pixel based landslide identification using Landsat 8 and GEE. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote
Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2021, XLIII-B3-2, 721–726. [CrossRef]
206. Morales, B.; Lizama, E.; Somos-Valenzuela, M.A.; Lillo-Saavedra, M.; Chen, N.; Fustos, I. A comparative machine learning
approach to identify landslide triggering factors in northern Chilean Patagonia. Landslides 2021, 18, 2767–2784. [CrossRef]
207. Abijith, D.; Saravanan, S. Assessment of land use and land cover change detection and prediction using remote sensing and
CA Markov in the northern coastal districts of Tamil Nadu, India. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 86055–86067. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
208. Baloloy, A.B.; Blanco, A.C.; Sta. Ana, R.R.C.; Nadaoka, K. Development and application of a new mangrove vegetation index
(MVI) for rapid and accurate mangrove mapping. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2020, 166, 95–117. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.