Systematic use of quantitative approaches and/or measuring devices to observe changes which may occur over time in the state of a system.
Observation is the mainstay of the Galilean method (Fisher 1993). To determine the range of variability of a specific phenomenon under investigation, the observation has to be repeated over time, in a systematic fashion, and by considering straightforward quantitative approaches. This process is usually referred to as monitoring.
In the past the unique sources of observation were human eyes; however, monitoring today is mostly undertaken using devices able to record quantitative measurements of one or more physical parameters. In general, when measurements are aimed at performing provisional analyses, the data acquired with monitoring instruments are jointly investigated and/or properly combined with significant information of the same target area. Regarding engineering geology applications, this approach is achieved by...
- Bell S (2001) Measurement good practice guide no. 11 (issue 2), A beginner’s Guide to Uncertainty of Measurement. Natl. Phys. Lab, TeddingtonGoogle Scholar
- Bell FG (2004) Engineering geology and construction. Spon Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Capra L, Macías JL, Cortés A, Dávila N, Saucedo R, Osorio-Ocampo S, Arce JL, Gavilanes-Ruiz JC, Corona-Chávez P, García-Sánchez L, Sosa-Ceballos G, Vázquez R (2016) Preliminary report on the July 10–11, 2015 eruption at Volcán de Colima: pyroclastic density currents with exceptional runouts and volume. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 310:39–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2015.11.022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dunnicliff J (1988) Geotechnical instrumentation for monitoring field performance. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Fisher W (1993) Galileo and scientific method. Rasch Meas Trans 6(4):256–257Google Scholar
- Giordan D, Allasia P, Manconi A, Baldo M, Santangelo M, Cardinali M, Corazza A, Albanese V, Lollino G, Guzzetti F (2013) Morphological and kinematic evolution of a large earthflow: the Montaguto landslide, Southern Italy. Geomorphology 187:61–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.12.035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kajzar V, Doležalová H, Souček K, Staš L (2011) Aerial photogrammetry observation of the subsidence depression near Karviná. Acta Geodyn Geomater 8:309–317Google Scholar
- Lollino G, Manconi A, Giordan D, Allasia P, Baldo M (2015) Infrastructure in geohazard contexts: the importance of automatic and near-real-time monitoring. In: Culshaw MG, Osipov VI, Booth SJ, Victorov AS (eds) Environmental security of the European cross-border energy supply infrastructure. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 73–89Google Scholar
- Manconi A, Casu F, Ardizzone F, Bonano M, Cardinali M, De Luca C, Gueguen E, Marchesini I, Parise M, Vennari C et al (2014) Brief communication: rapid mapping of event landslides: the 3 December 2013 Montescaglioso landslide (Italy). Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci Discuss 2:1465–1479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Price DG, De Freitas MH (2009) Engineering geology: principles and practice. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- Wieczorek GF, Snyder JB (2009) Monitoring slope movements. Young R, Norby Geol. Monit. Boulder Colo. Geol Soc Am Bull, pp 245–271Google Scholar
- Yu H, Lu X, Cheng G, Ge X (2011) Detection and volume estimation of mining subsidence based on multi-temporal LiDAR data, in: 2011 19th International Conference on Geoinformatics. Presented at the 2011 19th International Conference on Geoinformatics, pp 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/GeoInformatics.2011.5980892